5 thoughts on “Book review: Life Without Lawyers”

  1. Your highly analytical, skeptical mind was turned off for this book, as you seem to have bought it hook, line, and sinker. Let’s start with the first section. “Playgrounds aren’t fun anymore.” If that is indeed the case, then one would expect to see fewer kids playing on playgrounds, no? Is this backed up with a study? Because all the school playgrounds I see are… still full of kids (but they’re all bored, I guess). “Paranoid parents won’t let their kids roam.” Undoubtedly this is a huge, huge generational shift, one that has been documented in many places, and indeed this is something the author backs up with a statistic. Now, how exactly is parents’ paranoia due to lawyers? I thought it was due to media sensationalism if it can be pinpointed on any one thing. “Dodgeball is banned.” Except not at my kids’ school. So I guess this is one of those statements that’s true except when it is isn’t. I’ll stop here, but you get the drift. Your “review” is nothing but a summary that reflects no critical thinking on your part.

  2. Trollbiter: In my book reviews I try to give the most concise summary that I can of the author’s point of view. Summarizing the book’s content does not indicate that I agree with the author. Where I have personal experience that is relevant I will try to include that and clearly identify it as supplemental Since I am not a playground designer, parent of a child aged 3-10, or pedophile, I did not have any opinions of my own to add to the section summarizing Howard’s arguments about playgrounds.

    In terms of explicitly disagreeing with Howard, I saved that for the last two sections of the review.

  3. “Paranoid parents” behavior is driven more by the perception of risk. The risk appears greater due to several factors not the least of which is the increasing media exposure over time. Another example is the perceived risk of flying as compared to the actual risk of driving.

  4. Haven’t you made money as an expert witness in litigation?

    Aren’t you helping clog up our courts instead of using “common sense” to resolve disputes?

  5. Alex: It is true that I testified in Delaware Chancery Court last summer as an expert witness. CA was being sued for $250 million by Ingres, a relational database management system vendor that CA had divested. And I was paid by CA for my research in this contract dispute (CA prevailed in the litigation and Judge Strine cited my testimony in his opinion). I do not believe that Howard, a lawyer, has advocated anywhere the dissolution of the court system for resolving business contract disputes. Nor do I believe that I have anywhere stated that I am in complete agreement with Howard. So I don’t believe that my behavior is inconsistent with attempting to summarize accurately Howard’s point of view.

    Advocates of a smaller and less intrusive government do not advocate a reduction in the size or power of our court system. In fact, a central tenet of Libertarianism is that courts are essential to enforce contracts. The freedom to contract rather than to rely on the government isn’t worth anything unless there are court systems to enforce those contracts.

    Howard’s arguments do not include that the traditional functions of law and the courts be dismantled.

Comments are closed.