Richard Epstein has a gift for making the outrageous seem plausible. In this book, he argues that the law should permit private corporations to fire people because they're black or refuse to serve them because they're Jewish. To be fair, he has no objection to "quotas" or "reverse discrimination" either, as long as these are instruments of private actors. In short, Epstein would repeal the Civil Rights Act, at least as it applies to the private sector.

If you accept the libertarian premises that state redistribution is theft and that private contracting should always be respected, Epstein's arguments do follow. I would say that that just shows how flawed libertarianism is. Society has an undoubted interest in combating private discrimination and the resulting inequalities.

Still, whatever you think of his conclusions, Epstein contributes to clarifying the debate.

Mr. Epstein makes several fantastic points in this analysis of the efficiency and usefulness of civil rights laws. Specifically, his historical account of the misinterpretation of Title VII and his differentiation between racist hiring practices versus mandatory quota systems were solid points. However, I disagreed with him due to his relative indifference to the poor income distribution which could be caused by overt, legal discrimination. The "contract at will" approach that he espouses does not adequately address these issues, and I think historically we have seen that in situations where one race, sex etc is blatantly discriminated against, they do not fare quite as equally as Epstein predicts.

While I disagree with the final premise, I am not saying that this is not an important book to read. Epstein is, as always, a fantastic writer and strong persuader. Worst comes to worst you will have a great time arguing with the pages.

Using impeccable logic, Epstein makes the convincing case that we should abolish discrimination laws that apply to private employers. Though this position might strike some as outrageous, it is worth considering Epstein's analysis of this important area of law.

Epstein cogently outlines the history leading up to the enactment of laws that limited the previous autonomy that existed in the realm of employment. Epstein is rare bird in the legal community: he believes that the common law rules governing voluntary contractual arrangements are correct in theory and practice. The unintended consequences of discrimination laws are perverse and prevalent. Minorities who feel they have been discriminated against in not receiving employment (whether or not they have been) are at an advantage in seeking redress as the standard of proof is very weak. Indeed, if it can be shown that as a result of some hiring policy there is a disparate impact on a racial group, the burden shifts to the employer to show that his policy his necessary for the performance of a job. Epstein's point throughout is that the well-intentioned goals behind discrimination statutes produces unintended consequences that result in harming those who the statute was meant to protect. An example of this (there are many detailed examples along with credible empirical data) is that instead of taking a chance that an employer will face discrimination litigation, the business will avoid places that would attract large numbers of minority applicants. The relevant point to understand is that all of these laws come with real costs and these costs must be balanced against the real benefits (not the idealized or imagined ones). As for the benefits, the data is surprisingly sparce that supports the notion that discrimination laws, by themselves, decrease discrimination. That is, absent discrimination laws, minorities would not face rampant discrimination or barriers to employment. Indeed, as Epstein rightly points out, the market burdens those that would pass up qualified job candidates in favor of engaging in racial discrimination and benefits those that disregard race as a relevant consideration in hiring practices. More importantly, as I see it, is Epstein's impassioned defense of the contract. Contracts require that individuals arrive voluntarily at mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial terms. Thus when one artificially inserts into this equation statutory dictates, one imbalances the essential tenets upon which voluntary contract rightly stand. The autonomy that contracting parties previously had is dismantled and in its place is left a system that gives no respect to freedom of association. More important is the perversion of private property that comes with discrimination laws. If one owns a business it is he who must bear the brunt of his losses if his business decisions are not in accordance with the whims of the consumer. Third parties (in this case government)that do not face the loss resulting from the limits placed on contract, must not be in the position to dictate the parameters of contract. Only those who are directly affected (the people contracting) should set up the constraints in a contract. This book is more comprehensive than those points outlined here. It contains useful legal analysis and interesting economic data. Another brilliant work by Epstein.

We must read literature regarding aging with a critical and cautious mind. While many people seek to reify stereotypes and wordfacts about the aging process, it is important to explore these assertions before absorbing them into our thinking about older adults and the aging experience. Posner makes some rather ageist remarks in this text, particularly as he justifies age discrimination in the workplace. Any reader of this book must realize the perspective of its author, and question his credentials that qualify him to write on such an issue. While gerontology is a multidisciplinary field, it cannot tolerate ageist contributors.

Broadly researched and well-referenced, this clearly-written book is a realistic take on the coming age wave. It openly challenges both the fear-mongerers and the brave new world types. The ideas are compelling and extremely well-presented. The scope and detail of his reseach is far beyond that of average writers.

The interdisciplinary breadth and depth of analysis provided by Judge Posner is an extremely rare insight into the evolution of human life and its role in the socioeconomic features of modern socities.This is a great book for anybody- young or old, or in between !

In my opinion, this book is just a collection of the four documents that have or do define the pillars that support the foundation of America. The author tries to convey his goal in interpreting these four documents but he does a poor job at making the goal clear. The consequence is that the reader is left to ponder exactly what points are being made throughout. And in the end, the conclusion is effectively meaningless since there was no possibility for the reader to achieve a focus on the gist of what Cox intended. I would not recommend this book unless all you want are these four founding documents under one cover.

The book consists of two parts: Mr. Cox's long introduction, and the texts of four historical documents. The intorduction is not neutral; Mr. Cox attempts to form an argument for modern use of these texts as important legal documents, not merely rhetoric or politics. One may or may not agree with Mr. Cox's propositions, but the fact that he attempts a meaningful study and arguments with these old texts should be applauded. Reading the actual texts contained here may not be exciting per se, but for those interested in law or philosophy, this book is highly valuable. This book provides authentic copies of important historical documents, and presents them in a way which makes them vital and important to modern times.

If the other reviewers are having trouble determining the value of the "Four Pillars" or perhaps Dr. Cox's thesis in general, perhaps they would have received more value out of spending a semester or two in Dr. Cox's classes on "Politics and Rhetoric" and "American Political Thought" while he taught at the University of Buffalo. In those courses he used the excellent book "The Constitution of 1787" to demonstrate the importance of the four most important documents in American political and social life. I found this book to be cogent and a refresher course from my years as a political science student at the University of Buffalo.

Pombo obviously has no respect for the environment since he wasted numerous trees on this 225 pages of extremist nonsense. He revels in environmental "scares stories", some of which have since been proven to be false and most of which are grossly exaggerated. He never considers the alternate view, such as in what state would our environment be in if not for laws that protect it. Still spraying DDT? Even more extinctions? Clearcutting of national forests? Yosemite and Grand Canyon dammed up reservoirs?

Only those readers who already agree with him would not see this as the ravings of an unbalanced anti-environmentalist lunatic. This is obviously written for the Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coultier crowd, who are not particularly interested in facts and balanced opinions, but only want confirmation of their extremist views.

This book was incredibly frightening to me. I had no idea of how far the government has gone to take away private land ownership in this country. Now I look at every move my local, state, and federal government does in a new light, and it scares me to death. I'm not an ultra-conservative "wacko" by any means, but I am very concerned about the rapidly disappearing right of private property in this country. Read this book and you'll be concerned too.

I am giving this book the best review, possible, as it it DOES serve as "A wake-up call for every American". The rights to Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY are the cornerstones of American, and indeed HUMAN rights around the globe. Read this book!

Thomas Aquinas knows his stuff. If you find discussions on the essence of goodness or talk of why all things act as agents to a good to be of any use then Aquinas is an absorbing read. If you find this kind of cavilling to be invigorating you are a dullard and are in Good company with Aquinas.

Admitedly a difficult work to read, Thomas Aquinus' Treatise on Law is well worth the effort. Its difficulty stems from the strictures of its genre-- the scholastic method of dispution, important in the devolpement of modern critical thinking. The treatise is a rich work that seeks to probe the limits of human ethical knowledge. He asks us to consider the questions "what are my rights, how can I know and guarantee them, what are the limits of the state in relation to the individual." If you've ever pondered the meaning of the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence, start with this book. Aquinus has few peers in his understanding of what it means to be a human-being. Agree or disagree with him, Aquinus' vision of a universe whose very fabric both constitutes and guarantees a moral order is deeply moving and ennobling. No less a person than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King acknowledged in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail his debt to the Treatise on Law. If you love freedom, read this book!

The treatise on law provides a concise definition of law, a fabulous discussion of natural law, and a view into the inner working of our own human law. A must for lawyers and legislators.

I am a woman and read this book for the benefit of my fiance and his daughter. While there were some excellent tips for figuring out a good strategy for winning custody battles, the examples of men's situations and numerous defeats was depressing! I was especially surprised by the number of men implying that their former spouses just suddenly went nuts and started acting crazy. If men can't get a CLUE, then they shouldn't get custody. If you're a man and you like the idea that women for the most part are stupid, bi-polar, and downright vindictive then you'll love this book. I do have to say that the advice given on looking for a good lawyer, and how to "act" in the courtroom were fairly good. If your ex is so awful that you feel propelled to read this book, I recommend "Joint Custody with a Jerk" instead.

This book was very well written and a valuable resource for fathers who have had their child kidnapped by an uncaring mother. The book exposes the judicial system for what it is-CORRUPT. Judges, lawyers, and their supporting cast are like the lions eating the Christians. Unfortunately, these despicable people have zero regard for children or other people, but only for the money that they can extract at the expense of other people's pain and conflict. It is ironic that those in charge of the judicial system should be the ones locked up behind bars for what they do is far more criminal than a typical crook. This book is good ammunition against these judical despots.

I just read the book and as a product of divorced parents I found it to be quite informative. I was comforted to learn that there are many, many people in my shoes. I would recommend this book to both people going through divorces, lawyers, and adult children of divorced parents.

Goldstone is a skillful lawyer and a dedicated human rights activist. He played a central role in South Africa's transition to democracy and in the purusit of justice in the former Yugoslavia. He has a sharp eye for bureaucratic absurdity (especially in the UN). He knows world leaders and could have written a fascinating "inside" history. Instead, he produced this short, lightweight book comprised of little more than anecdotes and name-dropping. It's incredible that Yale University Press saw fit to publish it. We can only hope that Goldstone will turn to writing a serious autobiography after he steps down from the South African Constitutional Court.

I was looking for the specifics of the South African problem and reconciliation. Goldstone focuses on the logistics of his position as judge/prosecutor, rather than on specific crimes and prosecutions. O'Connor's introduction is the most interesting part of the book.

Makes you appreciate the success of the Nuremberg trila and how it was put togather in the days witout modern cominications and it uniting of the world in the quest for international justice against perpetrators of war crimes

There's quite a bit of info here, but it's a very very general overview. Some of the good info includes handcuff tactics, forms, and OC spray use, but unfortuately sections on skip tracing are disappointingly vague ("rely on your instincts and get experience") and repetitive (as some materials are borrowed from other authors or some attribute lists come straight from a Thesaurus)... the Law sections provide dangerously little to no interpretation of the case law.

This is the first book on Bail Enforcement I've ever read, however, so it might compare favorably to others... but alone it seems lacking. It doesn't quite seem worth the textbook price, but is definitely worth checking out of your local library if they have it. A good starting point.

this book may help me find a career in the insurance industries and maybe someday, I maybe want to go into business myself

I found this book to be very uneven. Yes I know not a very original beginning. Anyway I was rather disappointed in this work. The author was a former British Army officer and throughout his work there is a heavy condescending air towards the Irish and their grievances. I felt like he was saying that if the silly little Micks had simply been patient their good and benevolent masters would have taken care of everything.Very unpleasent. I am not in anyway connected to the Irish Problem, but I found myself with a growing dislike of the author's point-of-view. And I also found the author to be very biased-which is intriuging since this book was written in 1958 and the new outbreak of secterian violence in Northern Ireland was over ten years away. He gives scant attention to the Irish point of view and simply states that the majority of Irish simply wanted peace. I found that to be simplistic. I give it two stars because he dosen't gloss over the criminal acts of the police and British military though he does try to rationalize them while ridiculing the IRA. I was hoping for better things from this book. It's very difficult to find good pieces on the Irish Rebellion and unfortunely this book is not a great addition to my collection. I picked it up for a dollar in the bargain bin at a local book store and now it will be going to my local library. But if you know absolutely nothing about this period it is better then nothing. At least it is a starting point for bigger and better things.

I purchased this book in a university shop more or less because I was interested in the photographs of the last days of British rule in the South of Ireland. I was particularly taken by the devastation of the City of Cork and also the striking photo of three Black and Tans guarding a sports day at a hospital.

The latter prompted me to recall the beach scene in "Apocalypse Now" when the American soldiers are recreating a beach leisure activity and the more they tried the more perverse it seemed. No doubt it was also a scene replicated in Kenya and Malaya and in a hundred other places prior to the British leaving.

The actual account while obviously partisan to the British is I think a very honest attempt at covering this period and the author is honest enough to admit that the British police carried out activities that were in effect not much different to those carried out by the Germans in occupied territories. He doesn't mention the effects the large scale reprisals had on the merchant class but does mention that a plethora of pro-unionist bodies such as chambers of commerce were induced by the havoc to change sides in favour of the IRA.

He mentions at least two IRA atrocities of note which are often glossed over in pro-republican accounts and the least convincing of his accounts is probably the massacre of civilians in Dublin by the British at Croke Park an event covered in the "Michael Collins" motion picture by Neil Jordan.

As objective an account as one might hope for from a former British Officer, it is a pity the modern war in the North did not have similar accounts by later variants of the same.

Having read the orginal version of Helldorado 20 years ago, anticipation of again reading this first hand account of Tombstone days quickly lead to disappoint due to the blatant revisions in this book. For example, the chapter about John Ringo has been completely omitted and substitutions based on author Jack Burrows's derogatory comments from the Gunfighter Who Never Was have been substituted. Orignal photographs have also been omitted. Since William Breakenridge was actually acquainted with the people and times he wrote about, why should a modern revisionist feel compelled to correct his original observations and opinions and thus distort history? If an author has a different viewpoint, then let him/her write their own version, not use the title of another's work.

If you would like to read about how the non Wyatt Earp supporters felt about "Tombstone" back then read this book.

The only truly first hand account of the vendetta between Earp and the Cowboys. Breakenridge is obviously sympathetic to the Cowboys therefore his work has constantly been belittled by the Earp worshippers. Of course what does he know? He was only there. The Earp Idolators can't stand that he has left a first hand account of what really happened. They'd rather see the events through the filter of Burns and Lake. But this book is the real deal. Read it and understand.