Frederic Bastiat writes his paper discussing the role of the law and the ways that it has been used in opposition to its true purpose and the consequences of doing so. He begins by arguing that the law has one purpose: to protect a person’s personal rights (to liberty, fruits of labor, etc), while dismissing the idea that the law would need to extend to national morality or welfare. In fact, Bastiat argues that the law is overstepping and, therefore, going against itself by taking measures to address situations involving morality, welfare, or even education. He decides the two gross influences that cause the law to become unjust is greed and false philanthropy.
I found Bastiat’s takes on the Law to be old fashioned, naïve, and overall lacking any real depth. He presumes too much and acknowledges too little. For example, with the idea that law should only be used to enforce and not extend to education, labor, or religion, he is presuming that there is nothing to be enforced in any of those categories. He seems to think that every man (and he is specific in his inclusion of only men) are more complacent than they perhaps are. Talking about labor, would the law not be just (using his argument) in enforcing employers to properly compensate for their employees wages? Thus, having labor laws would help prevent the plundering of laborers rightfully earned compensation.
Bastiat’s “proof” is him exclaiming that where there is the most thriving of people is the country with the least amount of intervening laws. However, I must inquire on who he thinks is thriving? When discussing Universal Suffrage, he is dismissive of those he deems incapable, including women, children, criminals, and those who are deemed “mentally unable”. Now, as he rants about the ingenuity of God and the the law which only prevents men from invading the rights of other men, is he taking those that are actually oppressed into account? He throws the word oppression around a lot, but who is being oppressed and who is doing the oppressing? He brings up the United States (circa 1850) as a case study, and does decide that slavery (as well as taxation) are the only two issues with the whole country. A large oversimplification of the United States and dismissive of the issues faced by other inhabitants within the country (specifically the indigenous peoples already there), and it really highlights that he is focused on one group of people: Christian men. His use of God in his arguments are in opposition to the secular characteristics of the law (especially in the U.S.) and highlights these gaps in his argument.
Overall, I found this paper boring and frustrating. I think that Bastiat can talk theory all he wants, but his ideas are unreasonable and are built on far too many assumptions and too little evidence. There are a lot of people left out of his narrative and by ignoring the reality (that people are cruel and the law is necessary to protect those abused and oppressed by those who seek to superiority that, some, feel is their “God given” right) and it’s unfortunate that he does not address these issues. His repetition that “Law is Justice” does no good when he fails to properly define what justice means and how it is not equal to everyone.