Elsa Lang Lively

The following essay is an unexpurgated analytical response to Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law, an assignment for Honors Introduction to Humanities: Things That Matter.

The concepts of the law and government are those that can easily go unquestioned by the citizens that abide by them.  Both the purpose of the law and the role of government, however, are very important concepts that should not be overlooked or ignored by society.  Understanding them allows for an enlightened society that is in-tune to their own natural rights and liberties that should be protected by the government.

Bastiat defines the law as being “the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.”  God endows all humans with natural rights, including the rights to defend their persons, liberties, and property.  Law is a necessary part of society, guaranteeing every man’s right to personal protection and safety.  Not only this, but the law is also justice.  The law, at its best state, is an obstacle to injustice, ensuring the protection of man’s natural rights.

If the law is abused or neglected, straying from its original goal and purpose, then society will eventually find itself in an unintelligent, rebellious, and unresolved state.  One of the main ideas that Bastiat discusses extensively is the popular idea of socialism.  He believes that socialism is the result of an abused legislative branch of government.  In a socialist society, the government attempts to lawfully enforce the collection of wages in order to provide for the “common good.”  Bastiat refers to this practice as plunder, despite the seemingly philanthropic nature behind the deed.  He states that, “the law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.”  Plunder is a result of a corrupt view on the nature of law in  government.  Legislators, being aware of this, have disguised this as legal plunder — that which is legally acceptable in a society.

One of the key ideas that the French government prides itself on is the concept of fraternity, or helping the needs of one’s fellow neighbor.  Although this seems like a noble idea to be upheld, the question can be asked: Is forced fraternity even authentic fraternity at all?  This refers back to one of Bastiat’s original reasons for the perversion of law — false philanthropy.

Socialists often argue that there needs to be some type of morality, outside of justice, that government should be imposing on the people, as mankind as a whole is driven be greed, vice, and the desire to follow evil.  Therefore, they believe that legislators should act as God, and prevent the people from harming themselves and each other.  The problem with this mindset, however, is that by forcing people to abide by the will of seemingly “wise” legislators, they will inevitably lose the desire to formulate their own opinions and attempt to acquire intelligence.  If a government controls more and more rights of the people than necessary, then people will undoubtedly begin to lose a desire to seek truth, use reasoning and logic, and think for themselves.  Although happiness, peace, and morality are abstract concepts, these traits are often observed in countries where the government interferes the least with private affairs.  Happiness and protection of rights are certainly noble goals for a government to abide by.

The other cause of the perversion of law is stupid greed, not just by the legislators and government officials, but also by the governed people themselves.  It is true that those who attempt to derive new laws usually put their own needs ahead of the needs of the people.  For instance, back in 1849, when The Law was written, the French legislative system was largely self-seeking, ignoring the desires of the citizens stricken by poverty and even those of women.  The response of the poor citizens would be to rebel against the laws that the legislators would make, and attempt to tweak them to suit their own needs and wants.  Mankind is by nature, imperfect and sinful, but if the law is confined to only protecting the natural rights of the people, and nothing more, then this prevents the greed and selfishness of men from twisting the purpose of government to suit their own sinful desires.

Law is not only the lawful protector of natural rights, but it is also the protector of liberty.  Bastiat writes that liberty is the union of all liberties, including the liberty of conscience, education, press, and trade.  Not only this, but liberty is also the destruction of all despotism, absolute power and authority, and the restricting of the law to only its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense of punishing injustice.  Since liberty seeks to keep the power of the government in check, the law cannot possibly attempt to widen the scope of government to obtain more power over the people’s personal rights.  This would be a contradiction of both the law and liberty, as the law is a result of liberty and liberty is a result of the law.

Bastiat claims that socialism limits the liberties of the people and socialists fear all liberties.  In an ideal socialist society, citizens would rely on each other and become unified by everyone working together to provide for his neighbor’s well-being.  By doing this, society begins to limit its scope of world-wide awareness.  Society becomes blind to the positive or negative examples of how other countries are run, and the people become so narrow-minded that they forsake the opportunity to grow from the observance of other societies.

If liberties such as education, labor, and trade were taken over by the government, then the quality of all these liberties would in turn decrease as well, since one government cannot possibly expect to effectively regulate personal liberties that could be much better maintained by the individual.  The quality of education, for example, would most assuredly become more focused on the indoctrinating of the government’s agenda than the studies that could allow a student to think for himself.  The problem of having government-run “liberties” is that these liberties become depreciated, and the sense of liberty is lost altogether.

Bastiat’s ideas on the subjects of law and liberty were not just appropriate for the society and time period that they were originally intended for, but they also can and should be considered in today’s society as well.  In modern American society, the majority of political problems arise from the debate over the extent of the government’s power.  Like in Bastiat’s day, socialism is a very popular form of government today.  Already in America, the education system is government-run, and socialized health care is a definite possibility as well.  Although on the surface, these examples of nationally-enforced systems seem like the best way to keep Americans educated and healthy, the problem is that these accumulating powers of the government can eventually lead to an abuse of power.

The socialists’ idea of government is one that would follow the same cycle of taxation and limitation of people’s personal rights, no matter the time period.  This does not take into account, however, that society cannot be suppressed in the same fashion for too long — society evolves with the changing times.  What may seem to suit the needs of Americans today may not suit them in twenty or fifty years.  Once a nation adopts a socialized form of government, it is very difficult to return to a capitalistic form of society.

Bastiat used America as the best example of a government that had its powers limited by the people and the use of government at a state level.  As these powers that were originally granted to the states are being given over to the national government, it is only logical to begin to question how much longer America can be seen as a model country for a society that protects the liberties of the people.

The best way to implement Bastiat’s ideas in today’s society would be to restore more national powers back to the states, allowing for a more efficient system of education and other liberties.  Granted, liberties concerning national defense should still be regulated by the national government, as the American constitution specifically references a national military.  For the most part, however, Americans would be wise to appeal to their respective statesmen and national representatives, making their desire for a national government with strictly limited powers known.

Once society begins to have a grasp on the roles of both law and government, society will have more of an opportunity to freely exercise liberties that are protected by the state.  This will allow Americans of all ages to feel more confident in their governing powers, knowing that their best interests are being kept in mind.  Eventually, this will lead to national unity, not by forcing the will of one on another, but by the understanding and knowledge that comes from being a well-informed citizen who is bold enough to question the role of the law.