In this book, Thomas Sowell describes the difficulty of seeking cosmic justice and the trade-offs and costs that are often ignored while doing so. ThoIn this book, Thomas Sowell describes the difficulty of seeking cosmic justice and the trade-offs and costs that are often ignored while doing so. Those who seek this sort of justice call it “social justice,” but Sowell thinks that a misnomer. After all, “All justice is inherently social. Can someone on a desert island be either just or unjust?” What they are really seeking, he argues, is cosmic justice, but the problem with seeking cosmic justice is that “unlike God at the dawn of Creation, we cannot simply say, ‘Let there be equality!’ or ‘Let there be justice!’ We must begin with the universe that we were born into and weigh the costs of making any specific change in it to achieve a specific end. We cannot simply ‘do something’ whenever we are morally indignant, while disdaining to consider the costs entailed.”
While well written and thoughtful, “The Quest for Cosmic Justice” seems to be somewhat of a rehashing of ideas and material that can already be found in Sowell’s other books. Because I’ve read Sowell widely, it therefore only held limited interest for me and was more of a refresher than a new exploration. If you’ve never read Sowell, though, it’s a fairly good condensation of his outlook and way of thinking and uses some classic examples of his. At under 190 pages, it will be easier to read than some of his weightier works. And this would be a particularly poignant time to read this book, just as the quest for cosmic justice is ramping up all around us....more
This book was part political commentary, part self-help, and part explication of logical fallacies to avoid. Some worthwhile points, but generally dumThis book was part political commentary, part self-help, and part explication of logical fallacies to avoid. Some worthwhile points, but generally dumbed-down and, like most nonfiction books of this nature, it takes a concept that could have filled 40 pages and lengthens it to 200+ through repetition and filler. There's also a lot of self-plugging going on throughout the book (mentions of other books and products and personal successes, etc.) ...more
This is a purely didactic novel, and as such it consists of lengthy passages of dialogue that expound on principles of economics - most particularly hThis is a purely didactic novel, and as such it consists of lengthy passages of dialogue that expound on principles of economics - most particularly how supply, demand, and prices work, why markets are important, and why it's a bad idea for the government to control prices. As such, it's not much of a story. It lacks tension, and because the characters are largely props, it's not possible to become attached to them. It has a forced feel to it.
The economic lessons are well explored and illustrated with examples, and this book might be a good introduction for anyone who lacks a basic understanding of economics. It's the sort of thing I'd hope anyone who thinks price controls are a good idea would read and consider. The author uses the dialogue between the characters to communicate some of his moral philosophy as well, and he attempts to instill in the reader a sense of awe for how things work out efficiently through the economic system.
However, if I were new to economics, I think I would much prefer to read a 20-page essay explaining these things than a 200-page novel. It dragged quite a bit....more
This is not your typical self-help book. It’s a dense volume in which Peterson ruminates on his “twelve rules of life” by making reference to psycholoThis is not your typical self-help book. It’s a dense volume in which Peterson ruminates on his “twelve rules of life” by making reference to psychology, theology, philosophy, poetry, history, evolutionary theory, sociology, and literature. (On the literature end, he draws heavily from the Bible, fairy tales, Faust, and Dostoevsky.) Because all of these topics intrigue me, I found the book an interesting read overall. However, Peterson has a tendency to circle round and round before landing on his conclusion, and this approach can grow tedious. Some of his ruminations seem more tangential than others, and they don’t always reconnect seamlessly with his point. He also has a tendency to repeat in one chapter a concept he has already outlined in a previous chapter. I think this would have been a much better book if he shaved off maybe 75 pages worth of material. I found some passages of the book motivating, some moving, and some just plain interesting, but there were also times when I became a little bogged down....more
I rate it only two stars because it was just more of the same sort of thing to be found in her other books; it's not a necessary addition to her worksI rate it only two stars because it was just more of the same sort of thing to be found in her other books; it's not a necessary addition to her works. ...more
"If I have joined the ranks of the reformers," writes Bastiat, "it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone." This 19th cent"If I have joined the ranks of the reformers," writes Bastiat, "it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone." This 19th century Frenchman has written a pamphlet that represents libertarianism in a nutshell. The purpose of the law, he argues, is to be a collective means of protecting the individual rights to life, liberty, and property and no more than that. As such, the law can never be used to infringe these rights (as, for instance, by plundering one group for the benefit of another, which occurs through taxation, protectionism, cronyism, etc.). The pamphlet is heavy with theory, and shows little concern for the practical - as I said, libertarianism in a nutshell. The emphasis is on the philosophical ideal, an ideal that even Bastiat knows is unobtainable. The law will be perverted beyond this limited purpose, whether because of "stupid greed" or "false philanthropy." This is what always hangs me up about libertarianism: given that the ideal cannot and will not be obtained, given that the law will always be perverted, what's the most practical thing to do? How can libertarianism last more than a week before someone seizes the reins and perverts the law, and if the system cannot last more than a week, what does it matter how good it is in theory? That said, there is much that is intellectually appealing in this treatise, and I highlighted many lines. The essay was much easier to read than I anticipated, though it was somewhat repetitive in parts. ...more
I've seldom come across a lecture that I would describe using the word "entertaining," but this one really was for me, as well as insightful. Don't coI've seldom come across a lecture that I would describe using the word "entertaining," but this one really was for me, as well as insightful. Don't come to this series expecting a great deal of literary analysis or to learn about these works in a factual way; rather, the lecturer takes a more philosophical approach. The series is really about why we need the great books, what they mean to us and can do for us as human beings and as societies, and why these particular selections are worth reading. At the same time, he gives something like a summary of each of the works, but it is no dry introduction; rather, he tells stories. The lecturer's obvious passion for his subject was catching....more
I’ve heard all of the economic arguments made in this book before, and I have in fact heard even better ones. The only thing new is the author’s sensaI’ve heard all of the economic arguments made in this book before, and I have in fact heard even better ones. The only thing new is the author’s sensationalist approach to the topics. I have often said that I “lean libertarian,” but this book reminded me of why I don’t fall over. It certainly didn’t lean me farther over into the libertarian camp, and, if anything, it straightened me up a little.
While I can buy many of the economic and political arguments made in this book, I cannot buy most of the moral ones. The author seems not to recognize that one can, with good reason and justification, find an act morally reprehensible and worthy of verbal condemnation without, at the same time, insisting it be illegal. Instead of merely defending the right to engage in certain behaviors, or showing how the benefits of allowing them outweigh the harms of prohibiting them, the author tries to argue that the harm doesn’t exist, or at least not to anyone but the individual, who has a right to harm himself. But this is absurd, this idea that any man is an island, and that what he does with regard to drugs or prostitution or gambling or the like affect no one in the world but him. Had the author kept his arguments in the political and economic realm, and not gone about calling drug dealers and pimps "heroes," or saying “the institution of child labor is an honorable one, with a long and glorious history of good works,” I might have been more inclined to be persuaded. You may tell me that it is better that the poor child in India be legally free to work for a few cents an hour in a factory than that she suffer the alternatives of starvation or prostitution that would likely result from a prohibition of child labor, but please do not feed me this nonsense. You may tell me that crime and societal costs, in the overall, will be reduced by the legalization of drugs, but please do not tell me the addict harms no one but himself or that addiction does no real damage.
The author’s arguments often leave many questions and objections unanswered and have holes one could step through. When arguing against the prohibition on child labor, for instance, he refers to Murray N. Rothbard’s homesteading theory to establish that child labor is in fact voluntary, but he completely fails to address the fact that this picture does not reflect the majority of cases of child labor, that child laborers are not in fact leaving home and becoming able to support themselves but are instead remaining at home and kicking back a share of their income to their parents. What of these (majority) cases? Part of his argument for child labor also inolves an argument against the existence of parental responsibility, and this argument in turn hinges on an obscure point involving rape and consent to conceive that is completely overturned by the current easy and legal availabilty of abortion, which makes any birth a choice. His arguments regarding slander, libel, and many other issues are equally thin in places. It's as if he builds his arguments with precariously stacked Jenga blocks - remove one and the whole structure will topple.
This book reminds me of how truly lost in the realm of pure ideology the libertarian is. This is what divides the pure libertarian and the libertarian-leaning conservative, I suppose: the libertarian thinks you can take a single idea, make it your standard, and everywhere apply it with merciless consistency and thereby achieve objectively good results. In the libertarian’s case, the standard is (and Walter Block encapsulates this in this book) that the ONLY wrong is the initiation of violence against person or property, and the initiation of violence against person or property is ALWAYS wrong. That’s it. Libertarianism in a nutshell. Now apply that one thought to every human, moral, political, and economic interaction. It’s a single mindedness and consistency that is at once impressive and a little frightening. Just do this one thing, ever and always, and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well. Yet this ideology, pure and consistent though it may be, does not comport with reality as conservatives (or liberals for that matter, but I talk of conservatives here) know it. Reality, as conservatives know it, involves constant trade-offs. And these trade-offs are not between that which is “good” (as all the “undefendable” actions in this book are defended as being) and that which is “bad,” but rather between that which is “bad” and that which is “worse.” You may perhaps convince the conservative that by prohibiting the “undefendable,” he is making matters worse, but do not try to convince him that the undefendable is, in and of itself, a good. I think the same thing may be said of the liberal, but I am not sure, because the liberal perspective does not so much involve this bad/worse trade-off view of the world. Still, I think you’d have a better chance convincing the liberal, for instance, that profiteering is “better” than the alternative than convincing him that profiteering is “good.”
When I read this (in college) I was not much of a non-fiction reader. Now, I read mostly nonfiction. So perhaps I would not find it as excruciatingly When I read this (in college) I was not much of a non-fiction reader. Now, I read mostly nonfiction. So perhaps I would not find it as excruciatingly boring now as I did then. On the other hand, I think I just much prefer the subject of politics and theology to that of philosophy. ...more
This lecture series takes a philosophical look at history: what moral lessons can we learn, as a nation and as individuals, from history? The professoThis lecture series takes a philosophical look at history: what moral lessons can we learn, as a nation and as individuals, from history? The professor interjects his political opinion from time to time (even if he claims “this is not a political statement; this is a historical statement), but it is not overbearing. He takes, for lack of a better descriptor, a classical view toward history, searching it for meaning and lessons. He is an excellent lecturer, but I felt his material and organization could have been improved; the primary flaw was that he seemed too often to repeat himself. Some of this was structurally/thematically necessary, but some of it was not, and he also occasionally repeats, sometimes word for word, things he said in his Great Books lecture series. Because I am more interested in literature than history, and because I listened to that series first (making this series intermittently redundant), I much preferred the great books lectures. Nonetheless, I enjoyed listening to this series and followed it to the end, and I would recommend it to other interested in moral philosophy and history. ...more
One moment I had my highlighter scrolling like crazy, and the next I felt bored out of my wits. Worth reading for the importance of Mill's classical lOne moment I had my highlighter scrolling like crazy, and the next I felt bored out of my wits. Worth reading for the importance of Mill's classical liberal / libertarian arguments. I was especially interested in what he had to say about education: the idea that the state, while it should require an education for every child, should not be the supplier of education, though it can be the funder for those who cannot afford an education for their children. This would spare us the political battles about what should be taught in school, increase competition and choice, and limit the power of the government to, not his words precisely, but – make clones. This seems like an early libertarian perspective on education, which could be carried out through a sort of universal voucher system scaled to income. But he makes a better argument for the idea than I think I've heard before - that parents are morally responsible for the education of their children. He does suggest annual testing, however, and we see the mess NCLB has left us in...so I'm not so sure about that. In his plan, however, the parents, and not the public schools (because there wouldn't be any), would be held accountable (fined) and be required to see that the children secured a decent enough education (privately, though possibly with public funding) to pass the next time. However, the state would still have to determine what was worthy of putting on the test, design the tests (or pay someone to do so), and approve the tests and enforce them...which returns us again to many of the problems of giving power over education to the state. Anyway, his thoughts on education most intrigued me, because that is a particular, current area of interest for me. There were many more points I highlighted, and I may return to ruminate on them. ...more
A highly entertaining and insightful compilation of musings on a wide variety of topics, All Things Considered sometimes seems time-bound (I am not alA highly entertaining and insightful compilation of musings on a wide variety of topics, All Things Considered sometimes seems time-bound (I am not always familiar with the people and events to which Chesterton is referring) but is often oddly a propos of the current moment. For example, Chesterton is not speaking of the “War on Terror” when he discusses why we should not fight our enemies “with their own weapons” of torture, but he could be. He is not speaking of modern American politics when he discusses the lack of truthfulness that undergirds the party system, but he might as well be. When he writes of “modern journalism” in England in the early 20th century, he could just as well be writing of “modern journalism” in America in the early 21st century.
The collection, which consists of just over thirty columns he wrote for the London Daily News, is of varying quality, but the parts that were good were so good that I must give the compilation five stars. Even when Chesterton is being a chauvinist, of either the male or Eurocentric variety, I cannot help but like him. There is something perpetually affable about his writing.
I laughed out loud at a rate of at least once per ten pages, and I am not a reader who often does so (out loud, at least). And I highlighted far more lines than I can reasonably add to my favorite quotes.
I was once asked in a scholarship interview whom I would wish to meet if I could meet any person, living or dead. I found myself stuttering for an answer. My first, and quite conventional, thought was Jesus, but I did not want to come off as a religious freak, so, after some stammering, I settled instead, quite spontaneously, for…drum roll please…John the Baptist. Yes, the wild-haired, locust-eating, prophet-hollering John the Baptist...Yeah…I didn’t get that scholarship. Unfortunately, I had not read Chesterton in high school. Today, I’m quite certain what my answer would be. And I really do wish I could sit down to a glass of port wine with the man… ...more
As with any collection of essays, the quality, insight, and applicability to modern life varies from snippet to snippet. The thing with Chesterton is As with any collection of essays, the quality, insight, and applicability to modern life varies from snippet to snippet. The thing with Chesterton is that you must wade through the duller parts, as well as the now too out of date to be relatable portions, lest you possibly miss a brilliant gem of a page, or a paragraph, or merely a line. And there are a few such bright lights in Alarms and Discursions that make it worth the reading. His metaphorical depiction of heaven as a place where little boys can fight constantly and roughly for fun and never get hurt was an interesting take. As always, he has some insightful pokes to make at modern art and literature. ...more
This is a powerful novelette that exposes the spiritual degradation of collectivism, a fascinating dystopian tale that left me appreciating liberty anThis is a powerful novelette that exposes the spiritual degradation of collectivism, a fascinating dystopian tale that left me appreciating liberty and the Western spirit of individualism and feeling even more wary than usual about the reach of the state into so many areas of human life. Although Rand’s writing can at times seem melodramatic, here it suits the fable fairly well; it is sparse and pointed and the use of only the second and third person pronouns throughout the work communicates the author’s criticism of collectivism forcefully. While the events and outcome of the book are predictable, this was not a deterrent to my pleasure in reading it because I expect this of a philosophical novel. I give it four stars instead of five because, while I think Ayn Rand does an excellent job of exposing the spiritual dangers of collectivism, she does so by falling into an opposite error: she does not offer a mere defense of the value of the individual and of his rights, but instead replaces worship of the collective with worship of the self and refuses to acknowledge any spiritual danger in this other idolatry.
Despite all the problems I, as a Christian, have with Ayn Rand’s atheistic strong-man-worshiping philosophy, I still believe she depicts the spiritual wrongs of collectivism more pointedly and powerfully than any other writer I have encountered. Anthem reminds me in some ways of Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm and even more so of Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s Harrison Bergeron, but none of these, despite being written by writers with a greater command of the craft of storytelling than Ayn Rand, were as raw and powerful to me as either Anthem or The Fountainhead. I think there is a great deal of truth mixed with the falsehoods in Ayn Rand’s philosophy; though her views are extreme, perhaps this hyperbole is necessary to make hauntingly clear the dangers of allowing one’s self to be sublimated to the collective, of conforming too easily, with too little thought and too little struggle. ...more
Considerably more organized than his later THE LANGUAGE GOD TALKS, but not as well structured as his earlier THIS IS MY GOD, Herman Wouk’s THE WILL TOConsiderably more organized than his later THE LANGUAGE GOD TALKS, but not as well structured as his earlier THIS IS MY GOD, Herman Wouk’s THE WILL TO LIVE ON is an interesting, if somewhat scattered, reflection on “the Third Destruction” (the Holocaust) and the problem (from an Orthodox Jewish perspective) of Jewish assimilation. At least it starts out that way. About the third of the way in Wouk notifies you that this is not actually the subject of the book but a mere precursor to the subject of the book, which is Jewish heritage (thus the subtitle).
That shook me up a little because I was really getting into the questions he raised about the “Third Destruction” and Jewish assimilation and had been hoping for further thoughts on the issue. He does go back to the issue by the end of the book, but then doesn’t really have a great deal to say about it, at least not nearly as much as I would like, and by then I had been distracted by other topics. There is some meandering.
Much of the book is a survey of the Jewish religious and cultural heritage, covering in broad literary strokes the Tanakh, the Talmud, and the history of the Jews until the fall of the second temple and then skipping far ahead to the Holocaust and modern day Israel. In general, he talks more about Jewish “heritage” than about Jewish “religion.” The intended audience seems considerably narrower than for THIS IS MY GOD.
I keep reading the nonfiction of Wouk hoping to be as deeply impressed as I was when I read THIS IS MY GOD, but it seems he really doesn’t have much of significance to add to that earlier work. ...more