General-Order

I wasn't too enthusiastic to read yet another 'Christian Romance'--sometimes they get too unreal & too unrealistic in their situations, to boot! But I am a confirmed Lori Copeland fan now! These 3 sisters are very real people, who have very real situations, that all Christian men & women face even today. I devoured "Faith", eagerly grabbed "June" from our Church Library & am looking forward to BUYING all 3, so I can read "Hope" & then go back and read all 3 over again!

I have read all three books in this series but I really enjoyed Hope. I am recommending this book to all my firends as a wonderful book to read. Please continue to write these wonderful books!

I really loved this book and highly reccommend it. Great plot and characters. This book was full of twists and turns. I got this book yesterday and read it in one night. I couldn't put it down! This was my first book from Lori Copeland but it will not be my last! Read this book you'll love it!

the basis of this book is all to familiar. Check out "When Rabbit Howls" a true life acount of a woman with several personalities if not several dozens. After reading "When Rabbit Howls" I read "Set This House in Order" and enjoyed it a lot more.

I've read hundreds of books over the years, but I don't think I've ever read anything quite like this before: a novel whose main character is the dominant soul (to use Matt Ruff's own terminology) of a person with Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD).

That soul is Andrew Gage - who, in the chronology of Ruff's novel, was "born" just two years ago. Andrew was created by the former dominant soul, Aaron, to take over that role because he (Aaron) was exhausted from dealing with all the other souls in the body and from building the "house" that they all (but one) now reside in. It would take more space than is available in this review to explain about the "house", but Ruff explains this rather interesting concept extremely well.

The story deals with Andrew's getting his "house" in order, so to speak; his interaction with a fellow, "immature" victim of MPD, Penny Driver; and his discovery of several things in his body's past that could potentially cause Andrew to lose his place as the dominant personality.

I was extremely impressed with Ruff's ability to establish each soul with its own distinct personality. He must have done quite a lot of research on the subject to be able to do this. And to do it with two people (Andrew & Penny) is nothing short of amazing.

Penny and her souls are somewhat weaker characters than Andrew and his, but considering Penny's state when Andrew first encounters her that's hardly surprising. Julie Sivik, the woman who brings Andrew and Penny together, seems to me to be a bit of a caricature - she definitely has her own psychological hangups (as does everyone in this book, to one degree or another) - but she is definitely essential to the story, as you'll see.

As you read this book you'll encounter quite a few surprises along the way, including one that had me reeling for quite a while - suffice it to say that Andrew and Julie do not get together, despite all the indications Ruff throws at you up to that point. Towards the end he even throws in the elements of a mystery novel. That part of the book is somewhat weaker than the rest of the story, but it's still a vastly entertaining novel and one of the strangest stories I've ever read.

From other reviewers I get the impression that this is not at all similar to other fiction Ruff has written. I'm wondering if Ruff can be pigeonholed into any particular category of fiction. I'll pick up another one of his novels and find out.

I am only halfway through Set This House in Order, but I am so impressed and riveted by it that I had to write. This book is unique, a huge departure from Matt Ruff's previous novels Fool On the Hill and Sewer, Gas, & Electric. I loved those two books and certainly considered them to be written by a very gifted author. But Set This House in Order is blowing me away. To be honest, I wasn't sure I would like it. The subject matter was something of a turn-off for me. But as I mentioned, I loved his two previous books, and I feel it is imperative to support talented authors by buying their books in hardcover, so I bit the bullet. Good thing I did - this is one of the best books I have ever read.

It reads like a mystery, a psychological thriller, a comedy and a horror novel all at once. I will admit that the descriptions of Penny's experiences with her mother caused me to sleep with the lights on last night'and since I am only halfway through, I suspect that there is more to come that won't make sleep any easier. I won't re-cap the plot, as this has been done already in the Publishers Weekly and Booklist reviews above. I can't imagine that anyone reading this book for any reason would be disappointed. It is dense, richly imagined, well-plotted, intensely interesting, surprising, satisfying. I rarely want to ask an author the dreaded question of 'where do you get your ideas?' but in this case I am so impressed that nothing would satisfy me more than to sit down with Matt Ruff for a couple of days to talk about this amazing book. I really hope that this book turns into one of those runaway sleeper hits that the bookstores can't keep stocked, a la Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Matt Ruff deserves to be famous.

An interesting departure from the earlier Saga of Recluce stories, as Cerryl is the first White to be a protagonist in the series. It might have been more of a departure, however, had Modesitt chosen to write about, say, Jeslek (the ending of such a story would necessarily be abrupt). Cerryl is really little different from Modesitt's Black heroes of earlier books. If the point is to show that Order and Chaos are basically the same, I think it might be better to have a Black villain in one of the stories. The Blacks of Recluce may be harsh and unfair, shortsighted, and perhaps even corrupt, but never evil. Enough on my first point. There are a lost of loose ends in this story, but so far Modesitt has tied up every loose end or hint of a story in a future book (and since this book has a sequel, I don't imagine that will change). All in all, one of the better installments in the Saga of Recluce (considering The White Order, Fall of Angels, etc., perhaps the series needs to be renamed).

A nice change of direction. Instead of being from the Black Mage's point of view,(the 'good guys'), it is written from the perspective of an('evil') White Wizard. An apparently normal guy with powers that align with the White Wizards. A nice little twist that puts to rest the on-going trend that 'all' things White are evil, & all things Black are good. For those of you who have not read this series, the Whites(or Chaos Wizards) are aligned with destruction & short term answers to long term problems. The Black Mages are aligned with healing, adding order, & of course, long term solutions. A very enjoyable series. Don't let the fact that each book is about a different character put you off or confuse you(did me!). It comes together nicely as you read more books, & picks up where it leaves off in later books...BS

As I said in the title, it's a wonderful book. Modesitt has managed what seem to me to be some of the most developed characters I've encountered in Fanctasy literature (or in any other type, for that matter)...It's beautifully written...you should read this book and all the rest he's written. Or, at the very least, this one and the three after it (Colors of Chaos, Magi'i of Cyador, and Scion of Cyador). All are VERY (!!!) good books.

Duncan's Bride is sexy, sassy, a real page turner, it's all the things I've come to expect from Linda Howard.

Reese Duncan wants a wife but not for love or any of those sappy reasons. He has a strong sex drive, he wants children and a strong woman willing to help him rebuild his ranch. In the heroine's words he wants a brood mare. He's been burned by his ex-wife who wasn't willing to rough it out as a ranch wife and took half of everything he owned in the divorce settlement, leaving him nearly bankrupt. So he places an add and gets three measly responses. Madelyn Patterson is the only applicant who sets his blood boiling but she's all citified and completely wrong for the job - or so he thinks. His lack of choices, her determination and her sex appeal win her the job and they marry.

All of the above takes place right away and the remainder of the book is spent watching Maddie prove to Reese that all woman aren't like his ex-wife. He's got a lot of baggage to deal with but Maddie handles him with humor and tenderness, two things he isn't used to but over time learns he desperately can't live without. He is an extreme alpha man, one who wants his wife to give him babies, cook dinner, clean the house, and jump when he snaps his fingers, all without a complaint. He is overbearing and sometimes he annoyed me but as much as I wanted to give him a swift kick in his pretty rear, I understood why he was this way. He'd been hurt and destroyed and was only protecting himself and his future children. So, I could deal with all of his chest pounding and I liked the fact that Maddie handled him maturely and never lowered herself by giving into a fit of whimpiness or "poor me's". She didn't out and out tell him off which would not have worked with this guy anyway, but she did it in more subtle ways, getting under his skin and teaching him to love again. She was an admirable character and the only thing I couldn't figure out was why such a sweet, sensual, twenty-eight year old woman had no steady boyfriend or sexual history previous to meeting Reese. It wasn't really explained, unless I missed it. But I'm being nitpicky, I liked this book, the characters were three dimensional, the love scenes were steamy, and most importantly it made me feel.

This story proves that behind every good man there is a good woman. I will never forget Madelyn trying to catch the hen in the hen coop, I laughed so hard my own husband thought I was losing my mind. Armed with everything but the kitchen sink she sets out to prove that she will endure hen pecks and a bruised ego for the love of this man. And, to prove to him that "Love Does Conquer All". The values and morals instilled by Ms. Howard prove that physical interaction alone, in the modern sense, cannot survive without love. Ms. Howards uncanny ability to invoke the feelings of the reader make her stories believable. I laugh, I cry and I even get mad right along with the characters. I have read this book twice and plan to let my daughter read it when she comes of age.

I love a book like "Duncan's Bride"..it was fast paced, had well fleshed out characters, and a story that zeroed in on them alone. There was not one outside source or person that took away from what this book was really about...Reese and Maddie. I LOVE a good character driven romance. I would highly recommend reading this one.

I have very little time to read and this book I read in 2 days! The way Lori Copeland wrote this book, you feel like you are standing right there in Deliverence, Texas looking at the whole scene. I felt captivated by the all of the characters. When they experienced joy or sorrow, I also felt it. While reading this book you will cry alot. Mostly because you are laughing so hard! "Faith" is a perfect title to this book. The main character, who is Faith, has the most innocent faith in God. Almost a child's faith. We all need to experience that. I have already recommended this book to friends and want everyone to know, this book is well worth your time to read it! You will walk away feeling refreshed and joyful! God Bless!

I am a sucker for 'pioneer' stories, but it aggravates me when the vernacular used in the book doesn't match how the people of that era would've actually spoken. The rhythem of the phrases, just the way they put things. If you want to know how people back then spoke and conversed with each other, just read any and all books by Janette Oke. This book, though, was worth the purchase all in all, but am still somewhat disappointed. Probably won't be buying anymore "Brides of the West' books.

This book was excellant, had to read the other two book quickly. Faith was an inspriation of faith,to me. God does move inspite of us doesn't he?

In his introduction, Hoppe expresses the view that only deductive argument from a set of self-evident statements will enable us to evaluate democracy accurately. In reassessing democracies using axiomatic-deductive reasoning, Hoppe wants to show that the democratic form of government that is now assumed to be the only natural form of government is in fact flawed and fundamentally at odds with true order and ethics. The error of modern political theory lays in the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc; modern citizens appear wealthier and freer than at any other time in history, therefore, democracy must be the cause. In challenging this pervasive view, Hoppe traces his inspiration to a thread of philosophical thinking dating to the 16th century, the period of the late Scholastics. Like others in the "private law" school of thinking, Hoppe claims a pedigree dating to the twilight period of Scholastic philosophy. Like the others, Hoppe is avoids naming these Scholastics and avoids at all cost going to the fons et origo of Scholasticism: St. Thomas Aquinas. In Aquinas, we find views of the state not at all in keeping with the Rothbardian school of economics and political theory, but this cannot be addressed more fully here. The volume is simply a collection of essays which treat of different problems posed by democracy; in the later essays, we find an outline of the "natural order" or "stateless" society. There is no clear logic in the arrangement of the volume. What's particularly ironic is that while Hoppe claims to approach his subject as a philosopher bent on using clear deductive reasoning, the work comes out facile and scattershot. I say this as one who has only recently completed re-reading Aristotle's Politics. In that work, a real philosopher shows that in order to approach the study of the state, one must first define what a state is, then its ends and the means by which these are effected. In addition, a serious philosopher must give thought to the reasons for the variety of constitutions, whether some are better suited to attaining their ends as opposed to others, etc. This isn't to say that Aristotle is the alpha and the omega of political philosophy, but he at least defines his terms first and works intuitively from what is better known and more universal to the more particular. There is a logical progression of his inquiry that seems natural to the topic of his work. With Hoppe, he begins his treatment of democracy by comparing it with monarchy using the Austrian economic theory of time preference. Does the reader have a clear definition of what is meant by the state before this is brought in? No. Does Hoppe make an effort to discuss the essential difference between democracy and monarchy first before bringing in economics? Again, no. The different time preferences found in each regime is the essential difference. Time preference isn't just economic theory - it's universally applicable. The uppity economist attitude of Hoppe is similar to Karl Marx's. Like Marx, Hoppe wants economics to supplant politics as the architectonic art. The theory of time preference in Austrian economics now comprehends the political art, in contra distinction to classical and Thomistic philosophy.

Throughout the book, Hoppe reminds readers that illegal immigration is but one form of forced integration brought to us by the state. As any reader of VDARE knows, those with private property carry the brunt of the state's forced integration of illegal immigrants. Private wealth producers fund the costs for hospitalization and education of illegals. In addition, they lose all control in determining the culture and civilization that they are forced to finance through higher taxes and depressed wages. In the very same book though, Hoppe brings in his religious views, denouncing secular libertarians for their ostensible lack of the moral and spiritual qualities necessary for the maintenance of a private law society. Of course, Hoppe completely overlooks that organized religion is working hand-in-hand with the state to effect the forced integration that he laments. Call up any local church in your area - Catholic or Protestant -- and find out if they offer services to illegal immigrants. Here in Atlanta, they offer language classes, job training, welfare advocacy, state scholarships and a slew of other activities all intrinsically hostile to private property and individual liberty. In addition, Hoppe completely ignores the overwhelming evidence that religion has always and everywhere served as handmaid to the state. How can one be a Christian anarchist and accept Hoppe's view in light of Romans 13? All authority is given by God to the state, says St. Paul; therefore, if you kick against the state, you kick against God. In the same volume, he says that environmentalists, homosexuals and other undesirables must be expelled from civilization once they begin publicly agitating for their respective causes. I'm more worried about the Cardinal Egans of the world pushing for added welfare services for illegals than I am in the homosexuals. Religion is a very big business and it has a moral mandate to "save souls" and help the downtrodden, private property be damned. As a libertarian, I'm VERY skeptical about state employees like Hoppe arguing for libertarian principles. A professor at UN-LV, a public institution, Hoppe is a state gov't. worker and hardly a credible figure to advance the cause of libertarian statelessness.

Prof. Hoppe's brilliant book attacks the greatest sacred cow of our time: representative democracy. Hoppe's theory makes sense of the broad trends of the 20th century and identifies the root cause of our society's slow break-down: the democratic system which undermines civilization.
In response to "roGER" (who either didn't read the book or didn't understand it), Hoppe doesn't advocate monarchy, he just demonstrates that monarchy has a LESS de-civilizing effect than democracy. The ideal government is no government, and Hoppe clearly explains how private-property anarchy could work.
This is important work, a must-read for Libertarians and serious students of history, politics, and economics.

Hoppe's introduction alone is worth the price of the book. And it is crucial to read the introduction before starting the book. He explains a priori knowledge ("propositions which assert something about reality and can be validated independent of the outcome of any future experience") in a simple, straightforward manner providing many examples. I stress this because although the Austrian Economists, which includes Hoppe, regularly mention a priori knowledge/theory - some of which is more commonly known as human nature - this is the first time I've seen it explained in such a clear and concise manner.

Hoppe also defines what a monopoly is and stresses that all governments are monopolies and must result in declining product quality at steadily increasing prices for any activity they are engaged in. And, of course, the reason monopolies always behave this way is explained by a priori theory.

Another significant point the author makes in the introduction is the inability of most historians to logically interpret, or choose between competing interpretations, the facts they so meticulously gather. As Hoppe states, "The principle advantage that the political economist and philosopher has over the mere historian (and the benefits to be gained from the study of political economy and philosophy by the historian) is his knowledge of pure - a priori - social theory, which enables him to avoid otherwise unavoidable errors in the interpretation of sequences of complex historical data and present a theoretically corrected or "reconstructed," and a decidedly critical or "revisionist" account of history".

Needless to say, a priori theory threads it way through the remainder of the book, which, by the way, is useful and enlightening itself. My favorite chapters were one, seven, eight, and ten.

Chapter one deals with time preference and how that determines whether society is moving in the direction of increasing civilization through savings and investment (low time preference) or its opposite, decivilization (high time preference). Hoppe shows how government is the biggest contributor to high time preference.

In chapters seven and eight the author discusses the merits and demerits of free or restricted immigration. Hoppe's arguments have encouraged me to rethink my position on this issue, which had been to support free and open immigration for all. He also discusses forced integration and free trade. His arguments favoring free trade are, in my view, simply unchallengeable.

Chapter ten deals with conservatism and libertarianism. Hoppe and Rothbard's descriptions of "modal" libertarians are right on the money. As a former member of the Libertarian Party and county chairman for several years, I could have written these descriptions myself!

In its entirety, I thought the book was excellent. Frankly, as an amateur economist and libertarian, it has to rank as one of the best book I've ever read.

Over the top with rhetoric in some places, but jammed packed with incredible insights. Being 'moderate-left' this is not a book I would readily pick up, but was drawn to it by the memory of watching the 2000 presidential debates. Watching Gore describe how he would impliment a tax cut, lef tme thinking, "We're still living in the age of Reagan".

The 1st 224 pages are the strongest. Hayward does an excellent job of weaving the various threads of the Liberal collapse of the 60s. Having been on campus at that time (Northwestern `69), I can attest to how the student movement both toyed with and split with the Black Panthers, but only after we had trashed our ties with organized labor and the Democratic Party. We lost blue collar America and have never gotten it back.

Haywards liberal bashing gets overheated in some places, and the part on the `76 campaign drags. But overall, it's worth the price to add to your library.

Strongest parts of the book are how the fracturing of the New Deal Coalition came about and the collapse of the Carter presidency. Hayward is at his best when he's dispassionate and lets the events speak for themselves.

Weak points are the lack of extensive narrative on the Prop 13 tax revolt (the first true sign of the coming conservative wave) and the glossing over of how Watergate deeply damaged the liberal wing of the Republican Party (setting the stage for the ascendency of Reagan).

This is a very well written book. Lively. Doesn't bog down in trivial details. Always keeps events in perspective of the sweeping change that was taking place in America.

Well worth adding to your collection.

Steven F. Hayward has done a top notch job researching and reporting about the birth and gestation of the Reagan Revolution. Even though the book describes events that occurred during my adult life, I was amazed at how much about that now bygone era I had forgotten. Thus, Hayward's history became a fascinating journey into my own past half-forgotten past, as well as that of the country. (Having volunteered in the Jimmy Carter reelection campaign, much some of this trip down memory lane was as painful as a bruised shin.) Whether one likes or disdains Reagan, the book is a must for anyone who wishes to understand the unlikely rise of a handsome movie star into a powerful and popular president. The book is thick, but the writing most definitely isn't. Well worth the time for anyone interested in politics and modern American history.

This book could well be retitled, "How I Coped With My Father's Journey into Monastic Life." Matt Murray's account of his father's life, culminating in his entry into a monastery, moved me very deeply. His father's conversion story and his seeking of a new way of life are parallelled by the story of the author's consternation and his seeking to be fathered adequately after the death of his mother. At times Murray delivers brutal honesty without bitterness. He is respectful of his father's spiritual oddyssey, but not really empathetic. His efforts to reconcile his own emotional woundedness with his father's search for peace
are admirable.
This book is beautifully written and engaging. My only reservation would be that his vocabulary for churchly things is occasionally faulty. (For example, he refers to a monastery in Virginia as "Franciscan"; people in that loop will recognize the description as that of a Trappist abbey in Berryville.)

I could not put the book down. It was a great story, well written, and fascinating. Matt's writing is cameralike and I felt like I was there in many of the episodes he describes. I loved his honest portrayal of his bratty self as an adolescent, and his parlay back and forth of his take on things, and then the opinions of others. I liked it as a story alone, but it is a great study of family life, religious conversion, and the relationships of parent and child. I am a mother of four sons and I was especially moved by the journal entrys of Michele, and the person they evoked.

The Father and the Son easily guides the reader through a difficult journey: the restless parent. Aren't they supposed to stay themselves, the parent we knew, after age 30? Imagine figuring out your own religion or lack thereof, when your model keeps changing. Murray does a great job of making it clear just how strange it was to see his father's clarion call unfold, and remain a part of his new life. It ain't over 'til it's over, people.

Melendez's earlier review "The real Robert's...", in reference to the 10th edition (ISBN 0738203076 or 073820384X) of "Robert's Rules of Order" (RROO) by does well to clarify that not all books with RROO in the title are authorized continuations. By cross-referencing many reviews of different books having similar titles, it seems Amazon may be leaving customers like myself confused about which books are bona fide editions of RROO, versus those that are restatements of early (now uncopyrighted) editions.

In particular, "The Modern Edition" (ISBN 0840771843, 1557488843, 0425116905) by Dr. Patnode is a smallish yet well done, enhanced rewrite of early RROO. However, it is not the most recent edition or an authorized realization of RROO, and for this reason, may not be suitable for institutions requiring RROO as the official basis of its parliamentary proceedings. Since the official "newly revised" edition of 1970, authorized editions of RROO have maintained a "mirrored R" encircled by an "O": I now attempt to use this trademark to identify which editions are authoritative.

While there certainly are other options to understanding parliamentary procedure, "Robert's Rules of Order (Newly Revised, 10th Edition)" is a traditional key to knowing the ways things are done.

True, true... this isn't exactly the sort of book you bring to a coffeehouse on a Saturday. However, it is also true that if you are part of an organization that has organized meetings, 'Robert's Rules' is a great place to start. The liturgy of meeting procedure starts and finishes with the rules set forth in 'Robert's Rules.'

Get this book, but consider getting one of the plain English versions as well. If you are new to parliamentary procedure, you'll find both books in tandem quite helpful.

I fully recommend, "Robert's Rules of Order (Newly Revised, 10th Edition)" by Henry M. Robert III.

Anthony Trendl

As a lawyer, when I am asked about proper procedure at a meeting, my first question is: What rules do you use? Is there an applicable statute, or bylaws or rules that the organization has adopted? Nine times out of ten, the answer is: "Robert's Rules of Order." Robert's is the most widely used parliamentary manual in the United States.

General Henry M. Robert published the original "Robert's Rules" in 1875 and 1876 and, since the copyright on that edition (and the next few editions) has long since expired, there are numerous unofficial editions on the market. The third edition, published in 1893, is still marketed in paperback by more than one publisher as the "original" Robert's Rules. With the copyright expired, even the name "Robert's" has passed into the public domain, and many imitators have slapped the name "Robert's" on books of parliamentary procedure that bear minimal relation to General Robert's work (much as many dictionaries claim the name "Webster's" without any connection to Noah Webster or the Merriam-Webster brand that carries on his work). This book is the real Robert's, composed by an editorial board appointed by General Robert's heirs (including his descendants Sarah and Henry III, both eminent parliamentarians). Now in its tenth edition, published in 2000, this book "supersedes all previous editions and is intended automatically become the parliamentary authority in organizations whose bylaws prescribe 'Robert's Rules of Order' . . . or the like, without specifying a particular edition."

Robert's is not necessarily the best parliamentary manual on the market: "Modern Parliamentary Procedure" by Ray Keesey is far more logical and user-friendly, and "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" by Alice Sturgis (commissioned by the American Institute of Parliamentarians as a contemporary alternative to Robert's) is more readable and more rooted in modern practice. But no other book has gained as much as a toehold in Robert's dominance in the market. If you are interested in parliamentary procedure, or figuring out how most organizations work in the twenty-first-century United States, this Robert's is indispensable.

David Friedman is anarcho-capitalist who teaches economics to law students. This book, written mainly for laymen, shows both sides of him. He explains the relevant ideas from economics quite well and applies them to legal questions. He argues that even apart from moral arguments, many laws can be justified by economic efficiency.

The logic is something like this: Stealing is a process where someone takes something away from someone without the consent of that person. One loses, one gains. So what's the problem? The problem is that the thief spends energy on stealing, the potential victims on securing themselves and to some degree they produce less, since they may not keep everything. Therefore stealing is inefficient in a certain sense. Many laws can be justified on such grounds.

He also describes the legal system of ancient Iceland, a system that worked without government. Inspired by that, Friedman proposes some rather radical ideas like allowing murderes to buy themselves free. It also happens that the more radical ideas are the ones with the worst arguments in favor of them. He makes some rather strange assumptions (like that murderes are able to pay millions of dollars...).

The book is clearly biased, but it is well written and explains economic ideas quite nicely. It's also pobably the only book on law and economics that is written for laymen.

This book, as its title suggests, is on the ECONOMICS of law. And as Dr. Friedman skillfully illustrates in the text, economics has a great deal to say about both the theory and application of law. In particular anyone interested in understanding how modern systems of law arose will find fascinating information in this book that isn't often discussed in your run-of-the-mill law, history, or economics courses. This is just the sort of information that is important to achieving a better understanding of the structure of legal systems, yet is, perhaps necessarily, left out of most courses in law (or history or economics) because it doesn't neatly fit into any one category.

The use of economic tools and ideas to analyze and understand legal systems is a relatively new idea. Yet as you'll discover when reading this book, it is a very GOOD idea. One that yields immediate and satisfying results. The book places modern legal systems in their proper historical context. It compares private and public methods of handling a variety of legal issues and disputes.

What does economics have to do with law? Suppose legislators propose that armed robbers receive life imprisonment. Editorial pages applaud them for getting tough on crime. Constitutional lawyers raise the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Legal philosophers ponder questions of justness. An economist, on the other hand, observes that making the punishment for armed robbery the same as that for murder encourages the muggers to kill their victims (since they are less likely to be caught if there are no surviving witnesses). This is the cut-to-the-chase quality that makes economics not only applicable to the interpretation of law, but beneficial to its crafting.

Buy this book or steal your friend's copy. It, along with David Friedman's other works, are well worth reading.

As soon as I was finished with this book, I turned around and read it again. Friedman is picking up a theme that he introduced towards the end of the revised Machinery of Freedom, in which he states that in order to understand certain mechanisms, we must undertake the economic analysis of law. This discipline was generally considered to have been initiated by Ronald Coase and taken up and popularized by Richard Posner. Friedman's own work advances the study into areas of law that relate to the internet and computers.
This particular book, however, concentrates on advancing the work done by Posner to a wider audience. Posner's perspective is that of a very, very talented legal theorist attempting to apply economic tools to law; Friedman's is that of a very talented economist applying his own discipline to law.
The complete book is available online; in fact the book was intended to be an off-line anchor for a number of other links. Friedman does away with references to landmark cases, mathematics, and other references in the book, and moves them all to the online version. While it seemed like a good idea at thte time, I ultimately found it to be annoying.

I would say that this is the first book I've read that connects technical economic ideas - like efficiency, the Coase Theorem, externalities, and rent-seeking - to the real world with practical applications.

Like whether or not voodoo practice should be punishable as attempted murder (huh? Read the book - this and other stories are both entertaining and enlightening).