Scan barcode
alba1's review against another edition
4.0
I really enjoyed reading this book. It felt authentic and relatable to my own experiences. I found it to be very informative and educational, especially regarding the proper way to approach the law. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the legal system and how to navigate it with respect.
alexeysidoruk's review against another edition
4.0
I agree with Bastiat in his logic, premises and conclusions. I like how he emphasises that the law is justice, brotherhood can only be voluntary, and, especially, the government is not equal to society, for my regret, he did not work through this theme.
Some strange things:
He associates all paternalistic ideas with socialism though many of them are conservative.
He did not address the problem that even minimal state need funding and distribution of this burden is not obvious.
Two types of question I drew from this book:
1. If the law should protect me from the harm to my health (in form of injury) caused by someone misbehaviour or neglecting, what should the law do with the harm in form of infectious disease caused by someone misbehaviour or neglecting? And there are many questions alike.
2. If the law must deal with the consequences of a problem, should it deal with the cause of the problem?
In short, where is the principle that can draw the border of what he called ‘law is justice’?
Some strange things:
He associates all paternalistic ideas with socialism though many of them are conservative.
He did not address the problem that even minimal state need funding and distribution of this burden is not obvious.
Two types of question I drew from this book:
1. If the law should protect me from the harm to my health (in form of injury) caused by someone misbehaviour or neglecting, what should the law do with the harm in form of infectious disease caused by someone misbehaviour or neglecting? And there are many questions alike.
2. If the law must deal with the consequences of a problem, should it deal with the cause of the problem?
In short, where is the principle that can draw the border of what he called ‘law is justice’?
drew2718's review against another edition
4.0
Bastiat has an extremely coherent framework for the law and its proper place. It's easy to object when he dogmatically defines socialism/tariffs/welfare as plunder, but if you follow his reasoning from first principles, it's easy to see how defensible his views are.
That said, Bastiat doesn't engage with the idea that legal plunder may be justified when it can increase societal stability. Welfare done correctly can increase buy-in in certain portions of the population, resulting in more stable and long-lasting institutions, an outcome desired near universally.
If you believe that socialism violates inviolable rights (as Bastiat seems to believe), then there's no room to debate these trade-offs. However, if you don't believe that socialism violates inviolable rights, then we can search for an optimal level of welfare that provides enough stability to offset the negative effects of legal plunder, resulting in a net benefit.
That said, Bastiat doesn't engage with the idea that legal plunder may be justified when it can increase societal stability. Welfare done correctly can increase buy-in in certain portions of the population, resulting in more stable and long-lasting institutions, an outcome desired near universally.
If you believe that socialism violates inviolable rights (as Bastiat seems to believe), then there's no room to debate these trade-offs. However, if you don't believe that socialism violates inviolable rights, then we can search for an optimal level of welfare that provides enough stability to offset the negative effects of legal plunder, resulting in a net benefit.
kurtiskozel's review against another edition
1.0
TL;DR:
Let's get this out of the way: his writing is trash. I would recommend this to anyone, if only for its perspective, if it wasn't perhaps the worst written essay I've ever read. I'm not talking about the ideas, I'm talking about the author's dire need of an editor.
His ideas themselves (again, terribly expressed) bring up valid concerns but no valid alternatives. Even if you agree with him, what are we to do?
I will draw a direct comparison. I could criticize the modern church up and down, day and night, and then in the last minute of it talk about what religion should be and simply say something like "Religion is love". Which might be true! But how would you know? As I wrote below, I just can't trust someone who is only anti-something, which based on this essay he is. I don't believe in mere removal of things. Another example, I love crackers, and yet I could still tirade all day and all night about their flaws! Any sophist could. But if I am not to eat crackers, what else should I eat? While I could starve, I desire life more than I hate crackers.
As well, I found his appeals to morality AT THE END completely gross. If you are to invoke the name of G-d, you darn well better show it in your work. He mentions God only 4 times before his own tirade about LAW IS JUSTICE. Three of them in direct connection to unalienable liberty, and once as a rhetorical question. And then, in the remaining 3 (of 55) pages mentions it 5 times. It's just impossible.
As a work of prose; 0/5
As a work of economics: 1/5
As a political treatise: 2/5
As a work of philosophy: 2/5
As a piece on the triumph of the human will: 5/5. I didn't mention it much here, but the guy is nothing but an ocean of sunlight when it comes to how much he believes in you. Like, if I ever had a bad day and felt bad, I'd go to this guy. He just really believes you can do everything and anything and I appreciate that. That might've sounded sarcastic, but I mean it genuinely and I agree with what he says on this, totally. (which is another reason I find his lack of scripture/biblical analysis here completely odd as once you break into the religion bucket - as he does from the start, kind of - you just have to go whole-hog. It's like talking about a painting and not bringing up the color of the thing. The bible is an excellent example of what his conclusions SHOULD be).
How much I agree (not factored into score): 4/5? It's hard, because I agree with 90% of the flaws he notes. But, it's like saying you don't want to build a house just because the roof might leak; or saying you don't want to live near the ocean because it might rain; or that you don't want to wear clothes because they might get dirty. So, honestly, I read this more as a cautionary tale about how we might write better laws, rather than his (likely) intended conclusion that we shouldn't have laws. To be clear, I agree that Laws are a scourge and that Liberty is the most important aspect of humanity curbed by society (and ourselves, at times), but, again, what are we to do? Even at the end, Laws come out a necessary evil of sorts.
Total: 1/5
/TL;DR
I'm making a list instead of a proper review or else I'd be writing all night:
1.) I am always skeptical of essays (and people) who are more anti-something than pro-something. Bastiat provides a solid criticism of Law (kind of, even having just read it I can't tell if there should be laws or not; granted, the only law up for debate is that of "justice", but here again he only says why the law should be based on justice and not something else. So essentially, his argument goes: Law bad (for 50 or so pages) > Law is (organized?) Justice. And for this there are two points: 1.) what, then, is Justice? and, 2.) WELL WHICH IS IT MR. BASTIAT? LAW IS GOOD OR LAW IS BAD? There are so many different takes he could have spent time on (instead of reviling against "law" while really just being mad at certain laws, never providing an example of good laws). He could have talked about: law as necessary evil; law as limitation > limitations as a pathway to liberty; God's law as framework; God's law as being unlegislatable; natural processes for correction; what would happen in a lawless country. Pretty much anything. But no. We got 50 pages of him saying "Law bad" and then 5 pages of "Law is Justice." which moves the question to: WHAT IS JUSTICE? If I were his editor, I would have mocked him and told him to at the very least evenly split his essay into sections with headers: "What is Liberty?", "What is Law?", "What is Bad Law?" (I say "bad" here, as even he clearly shows that some laws are necessary, if only social and not governmental), "What is Justice and what has it to do with Liberty?", "Utopia Realized; or what the world might look like if all operated according to my will".
2.) This work, really, is not a piece on economics or politics: it is an essay on the triumph of the human spirit. It excels in this beyond most works, but clearly is not, in any regard, flawless in this. I could see Bastiat being very convincing to the masses, but his arguments would not pass peer review.
3.) He does bring up interesting and good points about the flaws in socialism and law-making in general. I do think he misses the mark, but they are an interesting framework to view legislation through.
4.) His writing is just the freaking worst. THE WORST! I can't read it, it was such a slog. His problems: 1.) way too wordy (say what you mean, and say it once, my guy) 2.) His passion clearly gets the better of him and it makes him unreliable. Passion, in writing at least, makes reading impossible at times. This ties back to his being way to wordy. 3.) Petty as flip, he just really gets petty when listing examples. Not necessarily a writing flaw, but you cannot expect someone to take a work academically with such displays. 4.) His prose is trash. 5.) Even if he cut down the work, his proportions are way off. His negative thesis (law is bad) is completely outweighed by his positive thesis (law is justice) which remains undefined. If I ever read this again, I have more than half a mind to edit it down to maybe a quarter of the size. I can see no benefit to myself as a reader in having to read 50 pages of the same thing, and then reading 5 pages of under-explored concepts.
5.) I have nothing more to say.
Let's get this out of the way: his writing is trash. I would recommend this to anyone, if only for its perspective, if it wasn't perhaps the worst written essay I've ever read. I'm not talking about the ideas, I'm talking about the author's dire need of an editor.
His ideas themselves (again, terribly expressed) bring up valid concerns but no valid alternatives. Even if you agree with him, what are we to do?
I will draw a direct comparison. I could criticize the modern church up and down, day and night, and then in the last minute of it talk about what religion should be and simply say something like "Religion is love". Which might be true! But how would you know? As I wrote below, I just can't trust someone who is only anti-something, which based on this essay he is. I don't believe in mere removal of things. Another example, I love crackers, and yet I could still tirade all day and all night about their flaws! Any sophist could. But if I am not to eat crackers, what else should I eat? While I could starve, I desire life more than I hate crackers.
As well, I found his appeals to morality AT THE END completely gross. If you are to invoke the name of G-d, you darn well better show it in your work. He mentions God only 4 times before his own tirade about LAW IS JUSTICE. Three of them in direct connection to unalienable liberty, and once as a rhetorical question. And then, in the remaining 3 (of 55) pages mentions it 5 times. It's just impossible.
As a work of prose; 0/5
As a work of economics: 1/5
As a political treatise: 2/5
As a work of philosophy: 2/5
As a piece on the triumph of the human will: 5/5. I didn't mention it much here, but the guy is nothing but an ocean of sunlight when it comes to how much he believes in you. Like, if I ever had a bad day and felt bad, I'd go to this guy. He just really believes you can do everything and anything and I appreciate that. That might've sounded sarcastic, but I mean it genuinely and I agree with what he says on this, totally. (which is another reason I find his lack of scripture/biblical analysis here completely odd as once you break into the religion bucket - as he does from the start, kind of - you just have to go whole-hog. It's like talking about a painting and not bringing up the color of the thing. The bible is an excellent example of what his conclusions SHOULD be).
How much I agree (not factored into score): 4/5? It's hard, because I agree with 90% of the flaws he notes. But, it's like saying you don't want to build a house just because the roof might leak; or saying you don't want to live near the ocean because it might rain; or that you don't want to wear clothes because they might get dirty. So, honestly, I read this more as a cautionary tale about how we might write better laws, rather than his (likely) intended conclusion that we shouldn't have laws. To be clear, I agree that Laws are a scourge and that Liberty is the most important aspect of humanity curbed by society (and ourselves, at times), but, again, what are we to do? Even at the end, Laws come out a necessary evil of sorts.
Total: 1/5
/TL;DR
I'm making a list instead of a proper review or else I'd be writing all night:
1.) I am always skeptical of essays (and people) who are more anti-something than pro-something. Bastiat provides a solid criticism of Law (kind of, even having just read it I can't tell if there should be laws or not; granted, the only law up for debate is that of "justice", but here again he only says why the law should be based on justice and not something else. So essentially, his argument goes: Law bad (for 50 or so pages) > Law is (organized?) Justice. And for this there are two points: 1.) what, then, is Justice? and, 2.) WELL WHICH IS IT MR. BASTIAT? LAW IS GOOD OR LAW IS BAD? There are so many different takes he could have spent time on (instead of reviling against "law" while really just being mad at certain laws, never providing an example of good laws). He could have talked about: law as necessary evil; law as limitation > limitations as a pathway to liberty; God's law as framework; God's law as being unlegislatable; natural processes for correction; what would happen in a lawless country. Pretty much anything. But no. We got 50 pages of him saying "Law bad" and then 5 pages of "Law is Justice." which moves the question to: WHAT IS JUSTICE? If I were his editor, I would have mocked him and told him to at the very least evenly split his essay into sections with headers: "What is Liberty?", "What is Law?", "What is Bad Law?" (I say "bad" here, as even he clearly shows that some laws are necessary, if only social and not governmental), "What is Justice and what has it to do with Liberty?", "Utopia Realized; or what the world might look like if all operated according to my will".
2.) This work, really, is not a piece on economics or politics: it is an essay on the triumph of the human spirit. It excels in this beyond most works, but clearly is not, in any regard, flawless in this. I could see Bastiat being very convincing to the masses, but his arguments would not pass peer review.
3.) He does bring up interesting and good points about the flaws in socialism and law-making in general. I do think he misses the mark, but they are an interesting framework to view legislation through.
4.) His writing is just the freaking worst. THE WORST! I can't read it, it was such a slog. His problems: 1.) way too wordy (say what you mean, and say it once, my guy) 2.) His passion clearly gets the better of him and it makes him unreliable. Passion, in writing at least, makes reading impossible at times. This ties back to his being way to wordy. 3.) Petty as flip, he just really gets petty when listing examples. Not necessarily a writing flaw, but you cannot expect someone to take a work academically with such displays. 4.) His prose is trash. 5.) Even if he cut down the work, his proportions are way off. His negative thesis (law is bad) is completely outweighed by his positive thesis (law is justice) which remains undefined. If I ever read this again, I have more than half a mind to edit it down to maybe a quarter of the size. I can see no benefit to myself as a reader in having to read 50 pages of the same thing, and then reading 5 pages of under-explored concepts.
5.) I have nothing more to say.
classical_learner's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.5
Very compelling contemplation on the nature of law and property. Most significantly, he pleads his perspective by arguing what the proper telos of the law is (justice) and that the law cannot be behooved to provide positively what it is only meant to protect the possibility of passively.
fredcthulhu's review against another edition
5.0
This should be required reading. In my opinion one of the most important essays ever written.