Bastiat says that plunder is the unlawful seizing or consumption of other people's labors. And since this causes less pain than laboring, morality nor religion can halt this behavior. The solution Bastiat proposes to end plunder is to make it "more painful and dangerous than labor". Using a collective force of law to end plunder will then inevitably create legal plunder.
In my opinion, Bastiat proposes a bit of a paradox in this. He says that the purpose of the law is to "protect property and punish plunder". However, by punishing plunder, society will use the collective force of the law to create legal plunder. Legal plunder, in my opinion, is subjectively worse.
If the law exists to protect property, then the law will continually try to gain the power to fight plunder. This will eventually lead to a governing body that is too powerful itself to be checked for injustice, and will instead lead to those who are plundered against to join the law to legally plunder.
Bastiat's solution to prevent legal plunder would be to restrict the law and to do so by voting. He says by voting, those who vote can check the law, although he does reflect on the double-edged sword that is restricting voters. However, I say that there comes a point where the law is too big, and legal plunder has been taking place so widespread, that voting (no matter how fair) can no longer influence the law directly.
In the United States of America, the law was founded to protect people's property and prevent plunder, even legal plunder. There are certain Amendments to the Constitution that prevent the government from taking the citizens' weapons or the military from entering their homes. With this in mind, there are also laws in place that take money from all people to help poorer people get on their feet. This is a form of plunder recognized by Bastiat.
However bulletproof the Founding Fathers thought their law was, it has not held up to their standards. There are people joining the law to legally plunder. A vote can no longer easily amend the law to have the interests of the majority protected.
Bastiat mentions a few ways a government can engage in legal plunder: "tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit". These are the most prominent issues facing the United States today.
As someone who has learned to work or everything I have got, I prefer the third of Bastiat's choices, NO LEGAL PLUNDER. While I realize the irony of being a product of public schools and so forth, I say that even limited legal plunder creates a higher disparity between those in the law, and those the law affects.
The U.S. is currently in a state of limited legal plunder, which has, in turn, made those voting and creating the law reach for more and more legal plunder to benefit their lives. This is a slippery slope that can and has gone wild to the point of returning the law to its main purpose - protecting property and punishing plunder.