Book Review: The Law

Rarely do you get to say, “Hey, go read this 1850′s book on law. You will really enjoy it.”  However, I can say exactly that with Frederick Bastiat’s The Law.  The book is right at 59 pages long, so it is not a giant volume that will take you a month to read.  I covered it in two weeks.  What is interesting is the amount of ground covered in 59 pages, and how easy this book is to read.  Topics include (from the back cover):

• What is law?
• Why socialism constitutes legal plunder.
• The proper function of the law.
• The Law and morality.
• “the vicious circle of socialism”
• The basis for stable government.
• Liberty.

There were two points I really found interesting.  The first was Bastiat’s definition of what socialists believe.  When discussing the socialist view of the law, he writes:

Impartiality in law consists of two things:  the establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citizens…As the laws establish greater equality, they have become proportionately more precious to every citizen…When all men are equal in wealth and dignity — and when the laws leave no hope of disturbing this equality– how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy?

Are there any politicians you know who would subscribe to this view?  The problem with this view is that the government can only “make people equal” by taking from some people.  The government can never make everyone equal and rich.  The government can only force people to the same level of mediocrity.  As far as “equal in dignity”, I don’t derive my self worth, or dignity from the government.  I derive it from inside myself.  The government can never improve or take away from my own dignity, no matter how many laws they pass.

The second part I found really interesting also resonates in today’s world.  The government today spends a lot of its time trying to pass laws that are either “the right thing to do”, or are “fair”. Here is Bastiat’s take on this:

It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

I believe anytime the government tries to legislate for “philanthropic” reasons, the government is heading down a slippery slope.  Take “hate crime legislation” for example.  This type of law simply adds punishments to someone based on what they are thinking.  If an individual is convicted of assaulting someone, they go to jail.  If a jury or judge thinks they assaulted this person based on the criminal thinking gays are bad, or black people are evil, then they may get a stiffer sentence.  This causes a double whammy.  First, the court is now punishing what a person thinks.  Second, we have reached the end of Animal Farm: all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.  If you are found guilty of assaulting someone (assuming self defense isn’t involved) then you go to jail.  It doesn’t matter if you were thinking of the victims sexual identity, race, or just how to make a quick buck, you should go to jail for the same amount of time.

I found it interesting to see how much of this book is still relevant today.  Three times during the course of the two weeks I read it, I quoted it to make a point in a discussion.  The Law is a classic text that can be picked up fairly cheap (anywhere from $6 or $7 and up) and is very enjoyable.  I would encourage anyone of any political stripe to read it.  It is sure to make you reexamine how you look at the government’s role in society.