- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted July 8, 2007
John R. Lott, Jr's Freedomnomics was written, supposedly, as a response to the malicious slight written against Laissez-faire Capitalism otherwise known as Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. When I opened the book, I expected to see numerous examples of how much more effective the free market is in comparison to other economic systems and some discussion of the philosophic principles that made capitalism morally correct. I was, to say the least, disappointed. What I found, instead, was another book in the battle between the two ruling factions in America, conservatives vs. liberals (aka Democrats vs Republicans). Or, as I like to call them, the destroyers of our free society. The early chapters deal with real economic issues that seemed interesting, exploring questions such as why restaurants charge customers more for lunch than dinner, the damaging effect of job protectionist practices like licensing requirements, and why wealthy criminals often are punished more harshly when convicted of crimes than poor criminals despite the fact that they often get more lenient prison sentences. All are interesting topics concerning the free market and how it works. Unfortunately Lott then turns his book into another platform to talk about the evils of the Democrats and the virtues of the Republicans. The topics run the gamut from right-to-carry laws and capital punishment to the harmful effects of abortion on society and liberal media bias. He even states that convicted felons are almost exclusively democrats! Maybe the statistics prove that point but such an assertion begs the question 'What does this have to do with the free market?' As is often the case, instead of being a defender of capitalism from the moral, philosophic perspective as the only moral political-economic system for a free society, Lott was no more than an apologist for capitalism, attempting to defend capitalism with the old 'capitalism isn't nice but its better since it helps more people' argument. His defence of capitalism fails because he, like so many other apologists, assumes the moral basis of the statists and mystics altruism. This is borne out by the first sentence in his concluding chapter: 'Altruism is a noble quality-but in a large economy, it only goes so far.' If you're looking for a moral defence of capitalism, a clear argument for the moral principles behind capitalism, this is not the book to read.
2 out of 6 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted November 5, 2008
High standards of living are associated with higher taxes.
The countries with the highest standards of living have the highest tax rates. <BR/><BR/>Fact.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to burst your trickle down bubble, but you're wrong.
0 out of 6 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted June 28, 2009
No text was provided for this review.