Quote from: Zinoviev on August 16, 2012, 01:42:34 AM

Bastiat's central thesis is indelible probably because it is so easy to grasp. Governments and states create parallel, schizophrenic bodies of law: Public Law and Private Law.

Actors who could never get away with theft as private individuals are able to elevate themselves through entry into government and take by the auspices of their "office." Government allows for the exercise of all kinds of anti-social schemes and insanities that through any other method of organization would be rightly labelled criminal. Give a private offense the sanction of legislation, and it is somehow acceptable. This clearly violated Enlightenment conceptions of "universal law," and the long common law traditions (for one) that are its fundaments, and so Bastiat was able to call the law "perverted."

Grounding his observations and rhetorical strategies in their immediate material and historical contexts does not rob his thesis of its impact and clarity. You've confused yourself with your blog post. You aren't thinking clearly. But the attempt is worthy, and you shouldn't stop writing.

Funny then how following Bastiat's suggestions and ideas actually lead to a completely 'hands off' approach from the population, and when they don't have power the people that are financing and promoting Bastiat's works will take hold of it. So by doing what FB says, you're getting exactly what he warns against. Rather odd, wouldn't you say?

Of course it's not odd to me because I have a modicum of understanding of how the world actually works.