I first read this book 5 years ago. Since then I've purchased and given away over a dozen copies. When I give the book away, I challenge the reader to "don't get mad, do something about it". The examples that Howard uses illustrates how bureaucratic our society has become and with that how scarce "common sense" has become. It's a great illustration that the balance between "free will of the people" and unchecked bureaucracy continues to tip in the bureaucrats favor.

This book says the things we all have thought when we have heard of nonsensical law suits and the lack of common sense in our society. An easy read, this book intends to put a fire under people.

The anecdotes are indeed maddening; of course the law and bureaucratic process can be described as "inefficient". However, over and again, Howard says, "Anyone can accuse anyone of anything," which is true, but he acts like the ability to accuse someone is the same as rendering judgment, and therefore our right to call someone to task in a court of law should be abridged. He neglects the fact that, once in the court of law, it is up to the lawyers and judges, and juries when appropriate, to dismiss cases that have no merit. If that is not being done, it is not the problem of us American citizens "having too many rights" but that his slimy profession is without any moral compass. And his book, while thought-provoking and entertaining, is at heart a call for less oversight of those in power, because those without power are slowing them down. I expect he's very happy with Bush and Cheney and their dismantling of so many of our inconvenient "rights". Read it, but with a pile of salt.

Well-written and well-researched book that presents the frightening picture of the beast that law in America has become. The author provides good historical background for the reader to appreciate the insidious development of what has become our current laws, how these laws have actually become impediments for progress and justice, and good discussions regarding the challenges facing any rational correction of this quagmire.

Very worthwhile and insightful reading.

Not bad, but just too obvious. I suppose as an introduction to someone recovering from a desire for Government regulation it mayh be helpful.

Not bad, but just too obvious. I suppose as an introduction to someone recovering from a desire for Government regulation it mayh be helpful.

Rarely do books become more important years after they have been published.
That is the fate of Philip K. Howard's "The Death of Common Sense".
This short book details how America has deviated from being a bastion of freedom to being a nation subjugated by laws.
Mr. Howard presents a wonderful case against government-induced regulation---laws so far removed from reality, so unworkable in practice and so disastrous for productivity.
It would not be difficult countering some of his arguments, however I would deem it unlikely to rebut his central thesis which is that until Americans retain responsibility for their decisions instead of looking to arcane rulebooks, we should not expect the buck to stop anywhere.
Hence the reason this book is more important now. As we look at the Sarbanes-Oakley act, a reaction to the Enron scandal, and the McCain-Feingold bill for campaign finance reform, we have to ask ourselves if the pill is not worse than the pain. Inherent in finely written law is the ability to subvert them, as was seen during the 2004 elections. Why should we citizens take the risk?
The chapter "A Nation of Enemies" was illuminating. Quoting Isaiah Berlin, "Liberty for the wolves is death for the lambs," he advances the claim, which some deem legimitate, that enumerated rights can be antithetical to each other. Others definitely would argue to the contrary.
Therein lies its beauty: the ability to teach without hectoring, to dispute without hurling invectives.
Read this highly educative book and discover why "Relying on ourselves is...commonsense."

Rarely do books become more important years after they have been published.
That is the fate of Philip K. Howard's "The Death of Common Sense".
This short book details how America has deviated from being a bastion of freedom to being a nation subjugated by laws.
Mr. Howard presents a wonderful case against government-induced regulation---laws so far removed from reality, so unworkable in practice and so disastrous for productivity.
It would not be difficult countering some of his arguments, however I would deem it unlikely to rebut his central thesis which is that until Americans retain responsibility for their decisions instead of looking to arcane rulebooks, we should not expect the buck to stop anywhere.
Hence the reason this book is more important now. As we look at the Sarbanes-Oakley act, a reaction to the Enron scandal, and the McCain-Feingold bill for campaign finance reform, we have to ask ourselves if the pill is not worse than the pain. Inherent in finely written law is the ability to subvert them, as was seen during the 2004 elections. Why should we citizens take the risk?
The chapter "A Nation of Enemies" was illuminating. Quoting Isaiah Berlin, "Liberty for the wolves is death for the lambs," he advances the claim, which some deem legimitate, that enumerated rights can be antithetical to each other. Others definitely would argue to the contrary.
Therein lies its beauty: the ability to teach without hectoring, to dispute without hurling invectives.
Read this highly educative book and discover why "Relying on ourselves is...commonsense."

Justice William Brennan, "Government acts like some extra terrestrial power, not an institution that exists to serve. Government can't do anything except as the law allows."

Kenneth Davis, "administrative rule-making is one of the greatest inventions of modern government."

Herbert Kaufman, "Legal rules should be self-executing with the aim toward solutions that can be carried into effect without discretionary administration"

"In the decades since World War II, we have constructed a system of regulatory law that basically outlaws common sense." The EPA has 10,000 pages of regulation. Federal statutes and formal rules now total 100 million words.

The author errors in the following statement, "The constitution is the model of flexible law that can evolve with changing times and unforeseen circumstances." Red flags immediately. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Alternation of the constitution will only delude its incredible power to preserve liberty. How can one improve on the fundamental rights enumerated in the constitution? Any change to the constitution will result in a pandemic flood of regulation and a reduction in the fundamental rights protected by the constitution.

Historically, common law was governed by circumstance. An important test emerging from common law was the "reasonable person" test. Justice Benjamin Cardozo said, "common law is at bottom the philosophy of pragmatism. Its truth is relative, not absolute".

The rise of objective utilitarism has morally bankrupted the law. Cardozo is saying, law should be model to best serve the uniform group. I happen to disagree with him. The uncertainty within the context of the law caused a panic to codify law into statutes. The law was to handle all possible events and in its terms provide absolute certainty. So rather than general propositions, statute law provided absolute guidance for concrete cases. Institutional legal certainty had become the institutions prize achievement.

Government in both cases "blinded by its own predetermined rules, entranced by the rationals and promise that all can be set out before we get there." The lawyers focus on the legal language as if it were the oracle, and refuse to act without its clear permission.

Statutory law causes a financial burden similar to a tax. Central planning builds infrastructure to achieve an economic objective. Several billions of dollars are spent by industry to comply with regulations. Human error are the cause of most accidents. After spending a trillion dollars in the last 20 years there has bound to be some things cleaned up.

Justice William Brennan, "Government acts like some extra terrestrial power, not an institution that exists to serve. Government can't do anything except as the law allows."

Kenneth Davis, "administrative rule-making is one of the greatest inventions of modern government."

Herbert Kaufman, "Legal rules should be self-executing with the aim toward solutions that can be carried into effect without discretionary administration"

"In the decades since World War II, we have constructed a system of regulatory law that basically outlaws common sense." The EPA has 10,000 pages of regulation. Federal statutes and formal rules now total 100 million words.

The author errors in the following statement, "The constitution is the model of flexible law that can evolve with changing times and unforeseen circumstances." Red flags immediately. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Alternation of the constitution will only delude its incredible power to preserve liberty. How can one improve on the fundamental rights enumerated in the constitution? Any change to the constitution will result in a pandemic flood of regulation and a reduction in the fundamental rights protected by the constitution.

Historically, common law was governed by circumstance. An important test emerging from common law was the "reasonable person" test. Justice Benjamin Cardozo said, "common law is at bottom the philosophy of pragmatism. Its truth is relative, not absolute".

The rise of objective utilitarism has morally bankrupted the law. Cardozo is saying, law should be model to best serve the uniform group. I happen to disagree with him. The uncertainty within the context of the law caused a panic to codify law into statutes. The law was to handle all possible events and in its terms provide absolute certainty. So rather than general propositions, statute law provided absolute guidance for concrete cases. Institutional legal certainty had become the institutions prize achievement.

Government in both cases "blinded by its own predetermined rules, entranced by the rationals and promise that all can be set out before we get there." The lawyers focus on the legal language as if it were the oracle, and refuse to act without its clear permission.

Statutory law causes a financial burden similar to a tax. Central planning builds infrastructure to achieve an economic objective. Several billions of dollars are spent by industry to comply with regulations. Human error are the cause of most accidents. After spending a trillion dollars in the last 20 years there has bound to be some things cleaned up.

This book largely recycles stories popular among insurance executives, politicians pandering for campaign contributions, tort reformers, and other malefactors. Mr. Howard too often uses "common sense" to disguise a status quo that lets individuals or collectivities pollute or poison with impunity and with profit. He hopes to get away with the rhetoric of "common sense" by telling tall tales, often whoppers gleaned from the press, politicians, pundits, or, even worse, FORBES. Given Mr. Howard's credulity -- real or pretended -- no savvy, informed reader should grant the tall tales or Mr. Howard any credibility. But then, national newsmagazines did not lavish attention on this book because it appealed to the sophisticated or aware reader!

That is too bad, because the United States could use thoroughgoing legal reforms IF such reforms are informed by actualities rather than anecdotes. Skip this grim brother. Read ACCIDENTAL JUSTICE by Bell and O'Connell or other balanced discussions written for thoughtful readers.

If you're the sort who enjoys fuming at absurd lawsuits and incomprehensible government action, Howard's "The Death of Common Sense" may well be right up your alley. A brisk read, the 200 or so pages here are filled with examples of government gone awry, absurd legal maneuvers, and public policies that defy common sense.

Silly lawsuits and wholly unnecessary laws are central to Howard's rants on over-aggressive government. The book is filled with specific examples, usually followed by pretty sound reasoning as to WHY we, too, should be irritated. All that is missing are solutions. The author offers some, but they are few and far between.

One thing is certainly welcome: Politics rarely intrude here. Well-written and to the point, Howard doesn't appear to be walking far to the right or the left. The political neutrality is welcome. There is probably a libertarian bent present, but it's hardly intrusive; this is not a political book. And in these times of overly political books, that is a classic Good Thing.

A quick read, paced well with plenty of examples, this is a good pick for those who enjoy peering at the foibles of misguided government.

This is a quick, easy read and I can relate to this book. My parents run a small, family business and we waste so much time and money to try and sort our way through all of this nonsense when we should be coming up with ideas to be more productive. After you read this book, you realize how much of a strain this puts on everyone.

I got this book based on the recommendation found in Jaques Barzun's, From Dawn to Decadence. Barzun referred to it in the context of the stifling and dehumanizing effect of bureacractic society on people.

While I enjoyed the book I felt the author too often relied upon annecdotes that roused the readers indignation. I was hoping for a more developed exploration of the psychology and philosophy behind the bureaucratic impulse and of the effect it has on culture. Both concepts were addressed upon but never fully developed to my satisfaction.

Still, if there is no such exploration available in print this book could start you on your own thoughtful journey...

The book is made up of four parts:

Legalism -- The idea that we can create a perfect society through perfect laws. This reminded me of the Pharisees of the bible and their desire to achieve righteousness through laws. It didn't work. In fact it annoyed the God they were trying to impress.

Process -- The idea that a correct set of procedures and unswerving adherance to them can eliminate human error (or corrupt behavior). This reminds me of the Priest of the bible who thought they were O.K. as long as they stuck with the ritual forms of worship regardless of their internal motivations.

Rights -- The idea that personal wants and needs should be elevated to the level of rights. We accept the desire not to made fun of because we are fat as a right which when violated is discrimination. In doing so we undermine the importance of essential human rights -- the right to self determination, freedom etc.

Personal Responsibility -- Offered as the antidote (along with a necessary willingness to accept error, risk etc.)

I have found the concepts in the book also apply to the corporate workplace. However, that could be simply the reacton of American business to the legal environment. The line is somewhat blurred to me.

Sorry folks, after reading this book, I must say, "common sense" is over rated, since in appealing to "common sense" we have already formed a general concept of what it means to think.

You must read this book especially in this post 9/11 time. The Patriot Act and other laws like are dangerous in the hands of those power hungery madmen in the Federal Government, and if you don't believe me then you need to read this book.

The Death of Common Sense, by Philip Howard is a good rant about the short-comings in our present system of government, two large components of which are an enormous bureaucracy and a built-in tendency for litigiousness. Howard does achieve his goal of describing how law is suffocating America, the subtitle of the book. But, as I have already said, this is a rant: one-sided, with few suggestions about how to change government for the better (other than to quit the big bureaucracy and endless litigation).

Mr. Howard continually (and rightly) raises the point that our government, while striving to be fair in its actions to everyone, achieves this by accomplishing very little. A fine example provided by the author is the case of a group of nuns that wanted to buy and restore an unoccupied building in New York to serve as a shelter for the homeless. However, a city ordinance requiring that new, multi-story buildings be equipped with elevators pushed the charitable project beyond the practical budget of the nuns. On the one had, it makes sense to plan new buildings with those people that can not easily climb stairs in mind. On the other hand, inflexibly requiring such expensive accommodations puts affordable housing out of the reach of many Americans. It is impossible to please everyone, but the law should allow us to try and please someone!

Philip K. Howard makes a strong case, but he does not suggest much in the way of a fix. I found, also, that his views were quite one-sided. If you are someone in favor of big, meddle-some, liberal government, then you probably won't find Howard's arguments that convincing-he'll just sound like some guy with a beef against how his government spends so much time and money to make sure that everyone has the same opportunities. If you are more of a libertarian, then you will probably agree with Mr. Howard and feel more outrage than you already do after reading his numerous anti-overregulation anecdotes. I would have found the book to be much stronger if Howard had tried to build an argument rather than list his complaints from a soap-box.

As someone who has struggled to comply with reams of intractable federal regulations, I've often paused at this thought: there's something massively wrong with laws in the US. Howard captures the essence of the problem admirably. It's reassuring to know you're not alone in being bewildered by a system that has gone so awry.

The atmosphere in America has changed. "Americans feel on a daily basis that their society is falling apart, that things aren't working right." Mr. Howard is exactly right.

Although Mr. Trafficant who was...expelled from Congress may actually be guilty of the charges alleged of him. His comments about how the American people view and fear their government, the judicial system and the various organizations that solidify the awesome and terrifying power of the political machines in American, are in large part true.

This is not because all those entities could not work if filled with virtuous men and women as the Federalist Papers charge. But because they have been bogged down in 200 plus years of misdirection, partisanship and political corruption, the kind of corruption that seeps into any long running program, party, powerful entity or political machine.

We could fix this degradation in our national political process by moving back onto a better path. But influential people today have, as Mr. Richard Maybury says in his excellent "Uncle Eric" series of books, on government and finances, lost their mental, emotional and political view of the true and best "American model" for our nation politically, socially, morally and judiciously.

All it would take to fix this would be the will of the people united in a common cause to once again "create that more perfect union," or MODEL spoken of in the Preamble to our Constitution. It could be done, it should be done, but the question is do we have the will to make it come to pass? One draw back to excessive diversity is a lack of cohesiveness on the important issues that face our nation and the world.

It is astounding that the summation of all the laws ever written since it's creation are already contained in the precepts, principles, and guidance given and envisioned within the Preamble to the Constitution, and the Articles and the Amendments that go with it. It is such a shame that nations tend to legislate and opinionate themselves into nonexistence. Even when they have it right, they seem to need to interfere and make things worse.

Mr. Howard has done all of us a great service by producing this book and it is unfortunate that it has not received the prominence and accolades it is due, a great read...

I wouldn't agree with the categorization of this book as an "explosive manifesto" (back cover), nor would I call this "incendiary ... stimulating" (front cover). As an American who too often cringes when our country's regulatory red tape strangles expediency and constructive decision making, I'd say "The Death of Common Sense" offers some poignant anecdotes in describing today's bureaucratic morass. Beyond this, author Philip K. Howard documents well the mentality which has spawned our dependency and passivity, and how we can refocus on how democracy is supposed to function.

Mr. Howard's messages, evident throughout, are very obvious: we have substituted innovation with process, created enemies instead of cooperative societies, and squashed case-by-case reasoning under mountains of procedural law. There are so many "rights" covering every interest group that very little gets done for the benefit of the majority. "Trusting in the law" now means being wary of nearly everyone. Although sounding a bit rant-stricken at times, Mr. Howard offers up lots of food for thought ... some amazing stories. It's all pretty interesting and easy to read.

In my opinion, the last (and shortest) of the book's four parts, entitled "Releasing Ourselves," falls short of hitting on a way to get out from under suffocating law. I agree that initiative and responsibility are admirable attributes for executives in both the public and private arenas, and further, that universally applied policies that regulate the most minute procedural detail should instead have flexibility for more real-world applications. However, what happens when the most innovative of directives winds up injuring or killing someone? Will Joe Citizen give up his right (there's that word) to sue? I doubt it. And, as long as legal recourse remains the ultimate equalizer, the happy medium between "buried in the fine print" and "total judgment call" will be awfully hard to come by. Mr. Howard doesn't address this issue.

This is a very good read; however, a better balance between problem and solution would have made this book outstanding.

This is food for thought, not only for law students, lawyers and practitioners but also for the common citizen. In particular, for all those that get lost in the ill conceived red tape of mother bureaucracy, get stuck in fragmentary and nonsensical regulations. Not only the author provides enough examples of organizational lunacy, due to excess of formalism or elaborate distorsions of clear legal texts and principles, but also gives some insights about possible solutions to the problem of the excessive weight of rules and procedures so precise that no one has the chance to think for himself or find a solution to a problem applying common principles.
As Howard points out: "The sunlight of common sense shines high above us whenever principles control: What is right and reasonable, not the parsing of the legal language, dominates the discussion.With the goal shining always before us, the need for lawyers fades along with the receding legal shadows. People understand what is expected from them."
This is a provocative book written by somebody that has been a practicing lawyer as well as a teacher. These two hats permit the author to better size up the frustrations and limitations that paperwork and stupid regulations inflict upon the citizens.
It should be required reading for law students.

Like fingers on a chalkboard, is probably the best way to describe the feeling this book imparts, it is frustration, revulsion at the present state of government and not the skillful writer that evokes this feeling. There are literally dozens upon dozens of mind boggling examples of lunacy derived from blindly-written laws, but unfortunately no clear answers given. This is probably the best book I have ever read that explains in detail and with excellent citation the reason one should want a smaller, less active, and less powerful central federal government. It does not fall into the ranting trap of some conservative books, with much on vague generalism with scant unproved anecdotes, but rather is cool, calm, reasoned, and very well researched. However, the writer's keen intellect and sharp eye when turned from deconstructing the government of laws, and turned to the solution falls into a morass of generalisms and bad analogies. This book however is an excellent start and an excellent read for anyone that thinks to themselves, "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG, TODAY!" The Death of Common Sense, answers alot of questions.

Howard should have borrowed from Dennis Miller and started the book with "I don't mean to go on a rant here, but..." and then proceeded with his 187 pages of endless whining about how horrible the law is in America.

The examples given (about how law is suffocating America) are sometimes right on the mark and at other times not as well defined. Less would have been more. His ideas of how to fix this dilemma are also good...if we lived in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we don't. With no practical solutions and a message lost amongst a myriad of words, I woudn't recommend this book to anyone but Ted Kazinski.

law is bogged down in process, confined by bureaucracy and unable to rely on quick, instinctival decisions made by human beings. Howard accentuates law's faults in a thoughtful analysis of the current state of law and government.

Philip K. Howard, The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America (Random House, 1994)
by what little justice there is on this planet

I don't think there's a single person in America outside Capitol Hill who doesn't realize that the more laws you have, the more loopholes the laws contain, and the more subject to abuse those laws are. But just in case you need a quick refresher course on how Washington is helping the abusers do their thing and giving the rest of us the middle finger, Howard's book stands as a fine testimony to what doesn't work, why it doesn't work, and the bleedingly simple solution to the whole stupid mess.

In three long, painful chapters, Howard takes critical looks at the Congressional love of process and how that love has led us to the conclusion that process is more important than result. Looked at as a simple sentence, it's a pretty absurd belief, isn't it? Look around. Process rules. Howard points out, in multiple places, two of the recent high-profile projects that circumvented process (the rebuilding of the freeways after the California Earthquake of 1992, and the refurbshing of a major new York bridge in time for its centennial ceremony), and compares and contrasts them to numerous examples of process in action, highlighting the idiocy of process while taking a hard look at the overly liberal viewpoints that spawn it. There won't be too many people who like Howard's easy and obvious solution-- if too many laws are the problem, then get rid of as many of them as necessary to fix it. But logic leads us back to that conclusion time and again.

As important a book, and as deserving of a place on the shelf reserved for sacred writings, as Stanton Peele's The Diseasing of America. **** 1/2

Terrific. Government gridlock explained. How it all got started and how it all got out of hand. He gives many examples that will have you shaking your head in disgust. What got my goat was the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). What a bunch of ruthless selfish people involved in that. The idea is right but in practice it is abused. To think that gifted children (the future brains of our country/world), in comparison to disabled children (kids who don't even know they are alive etc.), receive virtually NO support or attention from America's school system. These disabled kids, who will never fully function in the world, now take precedence over the normal and gifted kids. And who's paying for all this costly extra attention, programs, teachers, classrooms for these autistic/severly retarded/catatonic kids? YOU with your taxes. What happened to Perspective. Priorities. Majority rules. Reason. Statistics. Compromise. Common sense is right! I had no idea this was going on. It's absurd. Wrong.

I live in a town of 7,500 out in the boonies and have seen only ONE (1) wheelchaired person, yet our town is wheelchair fitted thru out. Even on the steep hillside streets where no wheelchair could possible go. In fact that one wheelchaired person is forcing our little library to put in all new restroom facilities that are wheelchair friendly. The librarian told me it has taken most all of her budget. Which she says means no new computers or books till next year. As it is now they can only afford to open for 4 days (6hr. days) outta 7. I never thought too much about it until now after having read this book. But now, Mr. Howard, how do we change it? Your next project is to lay out a step by step guide we the voters can follow to correct this mess. I'd like to see Mr. Howard on TV. Maybe on The Point With Greta Van Susteren, CourtSide with Roger Cossack or Larry King ... This is an eye opener of a book and should be required reading for all.

This book takes a disturbing look into The Law as the suffocater of progress and the enemy of common sense. Not that we all need too much reminding of that nowadays, though.

The examples are many, but are juicier (if that word is appropriate) in the second half of the book.

After you read this you'll wonder how ANYTHING ever gets accomplished anymore, especially in NYC.

Watch the movie "...And Justice For All" to get your blood pumping, then read this book to get your blood vessels to actually burst. It'll make you want to emigrate to another country at times.

Philip Howard's book the The Death of Common Sense is both an enlightening and disturbing look at the inner workings of American government. Less than half of Americans vote because politicians never come through on their promises. Howard tells us why politicians seem impotent. The laws of the land are smuthering us all. Their is a "How to" guide for the right way of everything. Even though the "right way" may be flawed or lengthy, it must be followed.

For example, OSHA labeled sand as a hazardous material. The same sand as we see at the beach is hazardous. Not beacause it produces cancer or anything, but becuase sand contains trace amounts of silica. Silica is a dangerous element on its own. OSHA also found the very brick that built your house to be hazardous. If a brick is broken, it kicks up dust. We breathe this dust into our lungs. Long term damage could be caused. This is absurd! All because the government wants to head off lawsuits before they start.

How about construction on the highway. Bidding often takes foru years. Bidding has to be opened to everybody. And the bureaucrats have to take their time to make sure the process is fair. This "how to" maanual is in both houses of congress too. All the steps have to be followed to make everybody happy or the process will be blocked.

The bottom line is Howard has exposed bureaucrats to be a cancer in the American government. How do we start Americans in motion to reverse this tide?

Part I "The Death of Common Sense"
Using several cases (see other reviews) details the harm of rationalist philosophy applied to law -- the misguided notion that laws can be made "self-executing".
Part II "The Buck Never Stops"
The abstractly laudable desire to maintain absolute impartiality creates an absolute nightmare of red tape -- the focus in this section is on Process spawned by mistrust and the bureaucratic reflex to avoid responsibility for decisions.

Part III "A Nation of Enemies"
Vocal, assertive minorities are able to control government policy-making. Rights over responsibilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the prime example here (see other reviews for details).
Part IV "Releasing Ourselves"
We must have law that allows thinking. Modern law wants to legislate away uncertainty with ever-thicker rulebooks, but uncertainty, risk, is exactly what drives various parties to work together, in the real world. Don't fear gov't authority. Don't think in extremes. Bureaucracy is the enemy of real democracy. Legislation cannot save us from ourselves. In the end, we must rely, as always, on common sense.

Note: rating lost a star because author kept using one example (Glen-Gery Brick Company) again and again, when fresh examples would have been more compelling. Also, as other reviewers have noted, the last section, on what we as citizens can concretely do to help change the situation, was vague and thin.

If this book interests you, you might also be interested in the political writings of Noam Chomsky. He has written an enormous, readable, extremely well-researched corpus of work that concerned, open-minded citizens can use to consider for themselves where they stand on various issues. If we were to hazard a label, Chomsky would be a "libertarian socialist". Try "Manufacturing Consent"... you might not look at your morning paper quite the same way.

This book provides a devastating critique of the blizzard of rules & regulations that government has promulgated in the past century and the damage they have caused to our society & our economy.

Howard provides numerous examples of nonsensical regulations (New York City refusing to allow Mother Teresa to build a homeless shelter unless a $100,000 elevator is installed, the EPA ruling that bricks are poisonous because if they are sawn in pieces there may be some silicate particles, etc.), but these are easy targets.

The most graphic illustration of the insanity of government regulation comes in his discussion of the Americans with Disabilies Act & the mayhem it has caused: kneeling buses spend a half hour during people's work commute, loading & unloading a wheelchair rider; public transportation vehicles end up with far less seats than before in order to accomodate the chairs; street curbs are ramped for the wheelchairs, but now the blind have trouble telling where the curb ends, etc. It's time to ask whether all this is a worthwhile price to pay to benefit a minute proportion of the population.

Equally disturbing, is the discussion of Special Education. What is the sense of an educational system that devotes a huge proportion of it's resources to nearly ineducable students?

The most interesting part of the book may be his examination of the motivation behind the regulatory scheme we now face. He points out that the original motivation for regulation was fairness. Social policy planners believed that only be having an elaborate & inflexible pattern of regulation that covered every eventuality, could you guarantee that bureaucrats would be freed from outside influences. However, the result has been to require that everyone follow the same scheme of rules, regardless of whether they make any sense.

As Howard argues, this has brought us to a crisis point in American life. We are increasingly frustrated by the intrusion of these rules into our lives, increasingly distrustful of government & increasingly willing to find ways around these regulations.

However, and this is a significant weakness of the book, Howard does not offer a real prescription for these problems. His critique is powerful enough that it's hard to believe that we wouldn't be better off if we scrapped all government regulation & started over, but Howard understandably shies away from any such radical solution.

GRADE: B

Mr. Howard fills this book with many irritating, frightening, and maddening examples of how strict adherence to the letter of the law can lead to idiotic decisions. It's kind of like watching a "Real Cops" or "Amazing Videos" show on TV. If this is what you enjoy, buy this book and indulge yourself.

This book also appeals to government bashers. If you enjoy reading about how stupid laws can be, you don't mind ignoring all the good laws can do, and you like reading people slam the government, this is a good choice.

But, if you really care, you won't want to waste your time with this book. Howard offers no practical solutions. I can summarize his proposed remedies with two words: Benevolent Dictator. Howard calls for laws as general principles with justice metted out by wise "judges". This type of system, rife with corruption since man first walked the earth, concentrates power in the hands of a few and leaves the common man without recourse.

Sure, our legal system is too big. Yes, we have too many laws. But the solution should be reform, not a backward revolution.

Soviet style central planning didn't work because it couldn't think and judge. Strangely we have in the effort to become entirely fair to everyone all the time evoled a system of rules and regulations that defies common sense. No wonder we feel hemmed in and overburdened. Philip Howard, an attorney, explains how this is happening but doesn't seem to have a clearly focused solution. We need a restoration of American democracy and more power to the people. A good place to start is by understanding problems by reading this book.

New York City laws forbidding Mother Theresa from opening a two-story homeless shelter unless she installs an elevator. A 33 page manual describing the qualifications and uses of a hammer. Contract bidding procedures that unintentionally but blatantly encourage corruption.

These snippets sound like lines from a Letterman or Leno monologue, but discouragingly they are all actual government dictates documented in this chilling expose. Phillip Howard does an admirable job of identifying the consequences when good-hearted bureaucrats create well-intentioned regulations, and government services get caught in a stranglehold.

Perhaps even more bilious than these splenetic monuments to red tape, are the huge work forces of administrators who are imprisoned by this uncontrollable system. Howard employs some macabre humor in redacting the plight of one troublesome government employee who purchased a lawn mower with his own money rather than navigate the labyrinth of paperwork necessary to order a replacement. For this breech of procedure, he earned a formal demerit.

Although the subject matter is serious and in deed frequently depressing, Howard often utilizes jocular techniques to make his point. His step by step specifications of NYC's contract bidding ritual would be the envy of any stand-up comic. Unfortunately, the laughing stops upon the realization that this vapid inefficiency is pandemic throughout all levels of our government. It's scary to see just how big Big Brother has become.

I use Howard's book as a textbook in several of my introductory Law and Political science courses.Readers from all walks of life can easily relate to his writing style and his essential ideas.Government bureaucrats at all levels of our federal system should read and be questioned about this book as a condition of maintaining their employment.

The repetitive, silly prose near the end urging us to break free of the stranglehold of unjust and stupid laws (which we must) can easily be forgiven: this book exposes the arrogance and stupidity which have become "normal" legal proceedings. Like our friend Tacitus said: "The more corrupt the government, the greater number of laws." Message to God: "I will believe in You the instant every leeching lawyer that has contributed to America's current enslavement is struck by lighting!!!"

loved it it is tru

As the author notes in the book, these days it seems we're being ruled by law instead of the reverse. I found the book to be a fantastic and thought provoking read. I've experienced many similar instances of absurdity while threading my way through a frustrating gauntlet of regulatory hurdles in pursuit of the most mundane activities. What I never questioned until now was the basic philosophy of regulation. Human judgment has been removed from the equation. The rules are no longer a few well understood guidelines, they are an incomprehensible morass of instructions with which everyone must comply whether they apply or not. Solving the problem is no longer the goal, the process and its regulations are an end unto themselves. So we have EPA regulations that not only don't make the environment any cleaner, they needlessly make compliance hugely expensive. It's as if the government mandated a multi-billion program for holes to be dug then filled back in. I always knew I was frustrated, but at least I thought all the trouble and expense was necessary. Now I know better. Mr. Howard has neatly identified the problem. Perhaps in a hundred years we'll have implemented his solution.

I agree with the reviewer who concluded that this book is much too long; Howard would have more compelling if he had prepared this as a (long) magazine article. In terms of style, the book is uneven and distracting. Howard overloads the book with anecdote after anecdote of bureaucratic bungling; between the anecdotes are interspersed quotations and the author's somewhat ponderous narrative. Despite the style problems and the excessive length, Howard makes some highly compelling points. He has broken down his subject into to three discrete governmental problems, nicely separated into distinct chapters. The first main chapter is about the 'bureaucrat as bull in a china shop' and government employees' inability to use common sense. This is the weakest chapter- even if all of the author's anecdotes are true, he gives no indication whether bureacrats act like this all the time, half the time, or 1% of the time. One suspects that there are some dedicated government employees out there who occasionally (maybe frequently) display common sense, but Howard gives no inkling that such an employee exists. The second and third main chapters are more compelling, because these chapters deal with systemic problems with the USA government and the legal system. The second chapter concerns the mindless fascination the government has with process and procedure, a truely fascinating commentary on our sclerotic government. The root problem, as the author notes, is that, except at the highest levels of a government, no one is authorized to make a decision. Inevitably, government gets staffed with hacks and drones who are comfortable with that role. Clearly, government will not be 'reformed' until it can operate more like a business enterprise. The third main chapter concerns the proliferation of 'rights' in America. This chapter is likewise compelling; his discussion of the hundreds of billions that America has spent to accomodate the 'rights' of every perceived disadvantaged group in America is less shrill than other tracts on the topic, but still compelling. In general, a worthwhile and educational read.

The audacity of this character, attacking the United States of America. Everything is perfect here and if your life isn't perfect you should kill yourself. How dare Phillip K. Howard attack the well thoughtout and organized system of judicial law and bureaucratic harmony that myself and others have built up around us. Spend a little less time on your knees and maybe you'll end up like me. Monica Lewinsky spent some time on her knees but now she's going to be a rich and fabulous bore. 46x2

This is a much more concise book than Bovard's "Lost Rights" - and yet makes the point that Bovard fails to: we are lost in a misguided legalism that is not to any person's benefit, except for those bureaucrats whose profession it is navigate the web of laws and regulations we have today in the United States. To find our way again we need to return to simpler a implementation our legal system. Much of our legal system could be boiled down to the Golden Rule. The founding fathers understood this principle when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. The next time you or someone near you says, "There oughta be a law", read or re-read this book. Besides, there probably already are a multitude of laws covering the act you want outlawed - just try to make sense of them.

The United States has 5% of the worlds populaton, yet 50% of the worlds lawyers. We have a problem here, too much law, too many inflexiable rules, and too many bottom feeders (lawyers). The book describes very well everything from farmers being made criminals on their own land for working soil which is the home to some endangered and useless rodent; $1.5 billion spent some nonendangered spotted owl; nonequal equal rights; and the loss of property rights and other freedoms. The writer is to be commended for explaining how educated fools, lawyers and politicians with good educations and no common sense are strangling freedom and liberty with heavy handed and misguided law. This book is a "must read" for all citizens.

IN short, this book is a seminal work. It is a must read for those interested in law and public policy, and those bafled by the dizzying array of new laws and regulated promulgated each year. Howard does a masterful job of pointing out the mind numbing stupidity of certain laws and regulations, and how they adversely affect public policy. Using an array of anecdotes, stories, and examples, Howard drives home one simple point: We are a law happy society, and because of it, we are unable to use common sense or discretion to solve problems which are becoming increasingly unmanageable. From Mother Teresa to Superfund, Howard exposes the inherent contradictions of certain health and safety laws, and explains why this is the case. He also gets a bit more philisophical towards the end, explaining that the use of "offensive" rights has been the main culprit for some of these mind numbing laws, and that we need to use rights only as a defensive posture. Hats off to Mr. Howard.

Affirmative action legislation creates an atmosphere stifling the very goals it seeks to achieve. Environmental law pollutes our air and water. The cry for the rights of the few denies the same rights for the many. These are but a few of the outrageous abuses perpetrated on the American public by a well-meaning legal system run amok.

Phillip Howard details horrid abuses of the American lifestyle in this fast-read book perpetrated by a bureaucracy that is no longer able to get out of its own way and so ensnarls public servants that they are unable to fulfill the very roles with which they have been charged.

Howard talks of a charitable fund run by the organization with which Mother Theresa was involved. They bought from the city of New York a number of dilapidated structures and sought to renovate them for the homeless. However, when it came time to open them, the city decided that the three-story structures required the installation of elevators at $100,000 per building. The charity did not have the funds to install the elevators and so the homeless were denied clean, warm housing in the interests of not forcing them to endure the evils of walking up a flight of stairs.

OSHA promulgates thousands of pages of documents to protect American workers from the tyranny of unsafe working environments resulting in an atmosphere where the use of a hammer or stepladder is covered in hundreds of pages of unintelligible legalese. Howard talks at length of one firm which has now accepted the fines levied by OSHA as an expense of doing business since it is not humanly possible to comply with all of the requirements. In order to protect its workers, it instead implemented a "Safety First" campaign of its own imploring common sense while OSHA inspectors chose to concentrate on tape measures showing banisters to be installed at 44" from the floor rather than the 48" required by law.

And "Common Sense" is exactly the thrust of the book. We are "entertained" with tales of OSHA determining that bricks are a hazardous substance -- not because someone might hit you over the head with one, but because if one is sawed in half, the dust particles might be inhaled.

Affirmative action has created an atmosphere where a secretary in the government's employ who did not show up for work (and did not work when she showed up) could not be fired without years of legal battles while she was on "paid leave". The atmosphere leaves minority applicants in the position that they have to be not just qualified for a position but have to be far superior to the white, male competitor. Otherwise, employers feel they will face a lawsuit every time they need to discharge a minority employee for legitimate reason.

The abuses go on and on. My only complaint with this relatively short work is that it could have shorter. Mr. Howard belabors and repeats many points thus detracting from an otherwise excellent book, which should be read by every citizen of America.

One would think someone about to enter law school in the fallwould be disturbed by Howard's bashing of the very institution he willsoon become a part of. On the contrary, I was convinced it was a well-deserved bashing. Unlike the many self-proclaimed political critics who decry the era of big government without providing a single concrete example of what it is they're spouting off about, Howard illustrates just how ludicrous laws can be, and how those with power manage to hide behind them.

This book was exteremely well written. It is a very thought provoking book and a must read for all politicians as well as voters

This is a great book for anyone who has felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with the US justice system, but just wasn't sure what it was. Using both anecdotal and historical evidence, Philip Howard makes the strong case that during the last few decades we have tried to make everything so deterministic that common sense has been lost. I strongly recommend this book.