Rothbard, Murray (1973): For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

What is it about?

In this true classic on libertarian economic and political philosophy, Rothbard outlines both in principle and to an admirable degree in practice a society based on the natural law tradition.

In essence, Rothbard starts from two basic principles, prohibition of aggression against person and property, and carefully explores and argues into existence the society which logically follows from these principles.

Moreover, the very beginning and end of the book are devoted to discussing the libertarian stance as a creed, and outlining a 'strategy' for spreading the ideology. In this sense, the book is a pamphlet, though a very, very extensive one, running for more than 300 pages.

Was it good?

The book, I believe, must be evaluated on two levels: (1) the subject matter and especially the conclusions and (2) argumentative rigor and style. With regard to the latter, the book is stellar - Rohbard's deep and broad knowledge of several scholarly traditions and disciplines is remarkable and his argumentation is in most cases compelling and air tight. The former aspect, the subject matter and conclusions is more - one might say eminently more - up to one's subjective world view, as often is case in economic and political philosophy. Suffice it to say that the society Rothbard paints has very few resemblances to the Scandinavian welfare society.

In any event, I believe that no matter what one's fundamental stance towards basic societal principles, the book is bound to raise forceful reactions and really compel one to consider his or her own convictions very, very carefully. No sloppy logic or vague feelings suffice for Rothbard.

If Rothbard still was alive, I would be extremely eager to read or hear his take on the Scandinavian welfare state, which has landed Finland, for example, in the first place in such rankings as the press freedom index, and Newsweek's the best countries in the World, with Scandinavian countries ranking usually in top positions in such rankings. How would he consider this empirical evidence?

The main take-away for me?

Well, one of the pragmatic take-aways from the book is the argumentative style: the book is a lengthy case example of "how one argues carefully, consistently and compellingly". Moreover, and more substantially, the book certainly provides a sounding board against the Scandinavian system - in order to put things into a broad perspective, the book provides one with excellent means to exercise "what Rothbard would say" kind of a critical stance, regardless of one's 'true' convictions.

Who should read the book?

I think that everyone should read the book - though perhaps the general audience would prefer an abridged version especially without the very beginning and end where libertarianism is discussed from a 'creed' and 'ideology' standpoints.

The book at Ludwig von Mises Institute (freely available): For a New Liberty

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2015): A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline

What is it about?

The book shortly describes the history of mankind from the days of the Neanderthals to the present day (or to the age of democratic states more generally) from a distinctly libertarian perspective.

The early part of the book is not too controversial (though some sociologists probably would sternly disagree with the climate-based explanations advanced with regard to differential technological and intellectual evolutionary trajectories in different parts of the world), but towards the end the libertarian agenda is front and center, including an attack against democratic order.

Was it good?

Yes, the book is quite interesting and thought-provoking, and rather enjoyable to read due to the characteristically forceful and unapologetic libertarian line of argumentation, with an individual (rather than 'us') in focus.

However, I think that there are some arguments that the author takes as self-evident, axiomatic, which may not be such. For example, democratic representatives appear to be taken as self-interested (interested in or inclined towards using their law-making powers to enrich themselves) instead of interested in making the society a better place for 'us'. Similarly, it is assumed that the rise of democracy was largely a process in which the general populus was fooled into believing that 'we' are the state, i.e. the law-makers.

In any case, if one accepts all the axiomatic assumptions on which the author makes his case, the argumentative structure is quite compelling.

The main take-away for me?

The main take-away from the book - as is the case with most Austrian economic treatises - is that first principles matter a lot. For example, if one fully subscribes to the principles of natural law, one is bound to find Murray Rothbard's (another great Austrian economist) works extremely agreeable and compelling. Thus, if two people have fundamental differences in terms of what is taken to be axiomatically true, argumentation is pretty much in vein unless it concerns those very principles.

Who should read the book?

Perhaps the best audience for the book are those who are interested in political philosophy or political economy (or politics in general), or Austrian economics in particular. If one has a strong aversion towards 'Crusoe economics', the book should be avoided.

The book on Amazon.com: A short history of man

Sacks, Oliver (2011): The Mind's Eye

What is it about?

The book, like Sacks' books in general, is about neurological deficiencies or abnormalities - often described with patient case histories - and how those effect how people with them experience the world.

As a particular feature of this book, it also includes Sacks' own case history which documents his own gradual loss of vision in one eye.

Was it good?

Well, the book is as good as Sacks' books generally are. The case histories and Sacks' commentaries about them certainly are fascinating, but there somehow is a lingering feeling that when one has read one or two of his books, reading more by and large adds more case descriptions and commentaries. Thus, the books is enjoyable, but does not really provide strikingly new insights or points of view if one is already accustomed to Sacks' way of looking at the world.

The main take-away for me?

As with other Sacks' books, the main take-away for me is that one can experience and perceive the world in very different ways especially if one lacks one of the senses, such as vision. Indeed, Sacks describes some blind people who have developed a sensitive 'facial sense' (sensing very slight alterations in air currents) and/or auditory sense resembling echo location (e.g. making clicks with the mouth and then hearing how the clicks reflect back from physical objects) such that they can navigate in their physical surroundings without a cane or other such aids.

Thus, not only can different people sense and experience the world in very different ways, but also it seems that an average person utilizes only a small fraction of the sensory potentialities that 'in principle' are available.

Who should read the book?

I think that the book is of quite general interest, and it is difficult to think a particular segment or demographic that would especially enjoy or dislike it. Well, perhaps if one is undergoing a sensory deterioration or has recently lost a sense, the book most probably would be of particular interest and a source of encouragement.

The book on Amazon.com: The mind's eye

Sacks, Oliver (2008): Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain

What is it about?

The book resembles quite much "The man who took his wife for a hat" by the same author, but focuses very much on the role that music plays in our lives and in particular of lives of the patients featured in the book.

Consequently, the book alternates between discussing music in non-impaired, or average, life and describing 'case histories' in which music has been a coping or recovery strategy, or a relief amidst neurological injury or disease. The case histories feature quite often a musician or a person for whom music has had or has special importance.

Was it good?

As I have played the piano since I was three years old, and as a person for whom music is quite important, I quite enjoyed the book and its focus on music and musicality. However, as a person who is not very much into classical music, the focus on predominantly classical music at times started to annoy me. Though it probably was not the intention by the author, I sensed a slight non-implicit assumption in the text suggesting that classical music would be the 'highest' form of music or otherwise being as of particular value. This, however, probably is a over-interpretation from my part.

The main take-away for me?

Actually, my main take-aways from the book probably are quite idiosyncratic. Namely, some of my own personal experiences and properties which I don't really think twice about (e.g. absolute pitch, feeling very distinct character in different chords, playing melodies or compositions in my head) are not at all, at least according to the author, shared by most of the people, and constitute a particular way of perceiving music and sounds.

Thus, perhaps the more general take-away is something similar to what I had with "The man who took his wife for a hat": the world can be experienced and appreciated in quite different views by different people, none of which (or many of which) are not better or worse than others, just different. Thus, impairments, elevated abilities, or other peculiarities quite often do not really feel any special 'from inside' and therefore are impairments, elevated abilities etc. only in comparison to what is average in the general population.

Who should read the book?

Like with "The man who took his wife for a hat", I think that most people can enjoy and appreciate the book, but this time around I feel that people with some kind of a special relationship with music derive more value from the book because of personal, subjective resonance - at least I perceive this being so in my case.

The book on Amazon.com: Musicophilia

Sacks, Oliver (1998): The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat: And Other Clinical Tales

What is it about?

The book consists of what the author calls 'case histories' or 'clinical tales'. In other words, the book is a collection of descriptions of patients with different neurological impairments; how the impairments have come about, how they manifest themselves (e.g. mistaking people as inanimate objects, as in the book title) and how the patients cope and even sometimes appreciate and enjoy their altered states.

The book, however, must not be taken only as a collection of curious cases (though it is also that), but in addition as advancing quite consistently a message according to which such impairments must not be seen as mere deficiencies but often as different, non-standard ways to perceive and appreciate the world - at least in cases in which the impairment is not debilitatingly severe.

Was it good?

The book is highly interesting and engaging in both of its modes or readings; as a collection of curiosities and as a celebration of the variability of human experiences. Furthermore, the case histories are written in such a way that the text elicits great sympathy and empathy in the reader (at least it did so in my case), making the reading experience quite resonant.

The main take-away for me?

The main take-away for me certainly was the appreciation of different ways to appreciate the world and life (e.g. with heightened sensitivity to sounds or smells, or experiencing life through music). Moreover, it fails to astonish me how resilient human beings can be when facing or undergoing quite drastic adversities; finding pleasure or comfort in quite small or mundane life's pleasures.

Who should read the book?

The book most probably appeals to most people, and - as suggested above - can be enjoyed in either or both of the two levels. I can't quickly think of a kind of a reader who would not enjoy or appreciate the book. If, however, one has already read one book by the author - Oliver Sacks - there may be 'diminishing rate of return', so to speak, in reading more books by him as the message and some of the cases are the same or similar from book to book.

The book on Amazon.com: The man who mistook his wife for a hat

Grim, Patrick (2008): Questions of Value

What is it about?

The lecture series is about life's values (both in general and in one's life in particular) and ethics. However, the course is not a standard (academic) course on ethics and/or morality, but rather is a more multi-disciplinary and reflective treatment of various things that one should take into account in aspiring for 'a good life'.

Was it good?

This is indeed a good lecture series, and one which I tend to listen to every couple of years or so. I think that it is quite healthy, every once in a while, to take stock of one's life and a lecture series like this one is a very good catalyst for doing so. Moreover, the lecturer, professor Patrick Grim, is an excellent speaker - both in terms of oral and argumentative delivery and broad mastery of the subject matter - which makes following the lectures a very enjoyable experience.

The main take-away for me?

There probably is no single main take-away for me, though there are fascinating questions to consider throughout the lectures, such as whether immortality would actually be desirable, or is there any meaningful way to assign a monetary value for a life. Instead, it is the whole package that constitutes the take-away in this case - i.e. a certain way of looking at the world and one's (and others') life. In other words, the lecture series suggests a reflective mindset.

Who should read the book?

Again, I think that everyone could appreciate and would benefit from the lecture series - especially those who are not entirely satisfied with their lives presently, or who (otherwise) feel bombarded by life's mundane everyday tasks and needs. I can recommend the lecture series to anyone - at least anyone with a reflective-philosophical tendencies.

The course on the Teaching Company website: Questions of value

Potter, Wendell (2011): Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans

What is it about?

The author tells his history first as an health and life insurance industry PR - or 'spin' - professional and executive, and later a whistleblower who is intent upon exposing the dubious 'spin' practices, tactics and strategies of the industry. The book contains numerous fascinating cases of PR professionals - often quite successfully - explaining black into white with politicians and the general public buying the intentionally misleading lines of argumentation. In this manner, according to the author, health care reform has been suppressed in the USA several times by the insurance industry.

Was it good?

Oh yeah, the book is quite good - and even somewhat frighteningly so. Both the case vignettes and the personal story of the author are quite appealing, and the book is written in a highly engaging personal style, bringing the author very close to the reader. Furthermore, the book is excellent in laying bare the most common tactics that 'spin' professionals employ (e.g. diverting attention to a greater danger, associating a negative thing with a universally acclaimed thing [see e.g. cigarettes as 'torches of freedom'] etc.)

The main take-away for me?

The main take-away for me without doubt was the heightened appreciation of the prevalence and intentionality of 'spin' and lobbying going on in Western democracies, including Finland. While the book explicitly covered only selected cases in the USA, by analogue one can see quite intentional professional 'spin' every day, such as in the recent debate about deregulation of taxi service in Finland. Thus, the book really sensitises a person to detect 'spin' in everyday (public) life.

Who should read the book?

I think that basically everyone would both enjoy and benefit from the book. Indeed, this book could even be required reading in a high school curriculum. Highly recommended.

The book on Amazon.com: Deadly spin

Venkatesh, Sudhir (2008): Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets

What is it about?

The book reports the experiences of a sociology student, the author, who forms a friendship of sorts with a low-level leader of a drug-dealing gang and thereby is able to engage in a multi-year anthropological study of how the gang and the surrounding community work in and around Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago.

Was it good?

The book is excellent, nearly beyond description.

The contents of the book are exceptionally interesting because of the long-term intimate access the author succeeded in gaining to the people in the gang and the greater community as well as the way the book is written - written in the first person and largely built around real-life events as experienced by the author.

The main take-away for me?

Perhaps the foremost take-away for me was the realization and appreciation of human resilience: even in objectively very harsh conditions people are able to find livelihood (not only drug trading by any means, but all kind of economic activity) and even be relatively happy about their lives. And secondly, I also appreciated the apparent universality of human kindness: even people carrying guns and trading illegal substances do have moral standards (though not precisely the same than upper middle class people) and commitments to friends and family and the greater community.

Who should read the book?

I can sincerely recommend the book for everyone; I think that it can be enjoyed and appreciated at multiple levels. Moreover, the book is written in such a manner that it is basically universally readable. Excellent reading for anyone.

The book on Amazon.com: Gang leader for a day

Weiss, Michael & Hassan, Hassan (2016): ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror

What is it about?

The book describes the origins and history of the movement (without a better word for it) as well as its current operating principles and broad aims. The book is structured loosely in this manner, with the first half covering the history and the second half its current setup.

Was it good?

Without a rich knowledge and understanding about Middle Eastern politics, I found the first half of the book somewhat difficult to follow. This is not to say that it would not have been excellently researched and written, rather, the it is evidence of my deficient knowledge of the matter. For this reason, I found the latter half more interesting and accessible. Especially the means of recruitment, communication and coordination based on utilization of social media tools and quite mindful management of public relations/image made quite fascinating reading.

The main take-away for me?

Well, the book - like the abundant media stories featuring the movement and its undertakings - is bound to raise all kinds of thoughts, but during the latter half of the book I kept constantly thinking about the role of ever more efficient means of communication in shaping public discourse and political action, both local and global. Namely, it seems to me that such means have in addition to their intended consequences (c.f. Facebook's Mission statement) a very broad repertoire of unintended consequences which may be - at least so it currently seems - even more consequential than the intended consequences. While this is not too striking an observation, a good question is, what societal actions if any should we individually or collectively take to address those.

Who should read the book?

I think that the topic of the book appeals to anyone, but this particular book perhaps finds its best audience in those who already know quite a bit about Middle Eastern and global politics as well as have an above-average interest in the subject matter.

The book on Amazon.com: ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror