"Frederic goes on to structure a petition which illustrates the absurdity of a national government blocking or taxing the importations of foreign goods in order to protect domestic industry from unfair foreign competition. “Remember that hitherto you have always repelled foreign products, because they approximate more nearly than home products the character of gratuitous gifts. To comply with the exactions of other monopolists, you have only half a motive… in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity” (Bastiat, 1850, p.230)."

I agree that this is a frivolous example of a government's overreach in restricting the importation of goods and services in a domestic economy. To increase costs to the consumer solely to allow a business to profit more with less competition clearly indicates a government's desire to protect the interests of an industry, rather than the interests of its citizens as a whole. I think Bastiat clearly showed the ridiculous nature of the government's ideology at the time through this petition.

"Why I agree is because the government will never be 100% for the people and the people will never be 100% for the government. In addition, the government are just people who put “laws” in place to keep their status above everyone else. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

I agree with your thoughts in this section: Bastiat, throughout his writings, expressed discontent with the government's predilection for supporting the upper class and corporations, rather than the working class that keeps any country functioning. This is not a sustainable model, because eventually, as you mentioned above, the working class will rise up and revolt against a government that does not have their interests in mind.

"Frederic defines law as a collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Now I am no genius, but it sounds like it is implying that we as humans have to defend ourselves due to a law, which was created by man. I do not know about you but sounds ironic to me."

I may have misunderstood Bastiat at this point, but I do disagree with your statement. I believe that Bastiat was saying that the law serves a purpose wherein it protects one's own properties and possessions from the plunder of another citizen, but that purpose disappears when the cost of protection is a 'legal plunder' committed by the government itself. When the law exists only to protect each individuals possessions, it is a 'good' law, but when the law continues to exact a tax, restriction, or other form of 'plunder' from the individual, it has extended too far.