Best jurisprudence law books according to redditors

We found 55 Reddit comments discussing the best jurisprudence law books. We ranked the 38 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Jurisprudence:

u/AncileBanish · 24 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

If you're willing to devote some serious time, Man, Economy and State is the most complete explanation that exists of the economics behind ancap ideas. It's also like 1100 pages or something so it might be more of a commitment than you're willing to make just for opposition research.

If you want to get into the philosophy behind the ideas, The Ethics of Liberty is probably the best thing you'll find. It attempts to give a step-by-step logical "proof" of libertarian philosophy.

The Problem of Political Authority is also an excellent book that takes nearly universally accepted moral premises and uses them to come to ancap conclusions in a thoroughly logical manner. I'd say if you're actually at all open to having your mind changed, it's the one most likely to do it.

If you just want a brief taste, The Law is extremely short (you can read it in an hour or two) and contains many of the important fundamental ideas. It was written like 200 years ago so doesn't really qualify as ancap, but it has the advantage of being easily digestible and also being (and I can't stress this enough) beautifully written. It's an absolute joy to read. You can also easily find it online with a simple Google search.

I know you asked for one book and I gave you four, but the four serve different purposes so pick one according to what it is you're specifically looking for.

u/John_Yossarain · 12 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I'd recommend reading many sides/perspectives so that you can formulate an independent mind and not just be a mouthpiece of some economist's ideology. For instance, I disagree with a lot of Marx, but I think his materialist critique of history and his critique of capitalism are very useful and a lot of it is correct. His solutions/recommendations are shit, but that doesn't discount his contributions. My recommendations:

Generally Considered Right-Leaning Economics:

Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson: https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274539&sr=8-1

F. A. Hayek, Road to Serfdom: https://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274634&sr=8-1

F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: https://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274634&sr=8-3

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations: https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Bantam-Classics/dp/0553585975/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275227&sr=1-3

Frederic Bastiat, The Law: https://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1612930123/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=31TE91RXV0Q2XPPWE81K

Also read: Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig Von Mises

Generally Considered Left-Leaning Economics:

J. M. Keynes, The General Theory: https://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Money/dp/0156347113/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510274943&sr=1-3

Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital: https://www.amazon.com/Accumulation-Capital-Rosa-Luxemburg/dp/1614277885/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275041&sr=1-2

Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution: https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Writings-History-Political-Science/dp/0486447766/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275041&sr=1-1

Also read: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Modern day Left/Keynesian economist is Paul Krugman.

Anarchism:

Emma Goldman: https://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Other-Essays-Emma-Goldman/dp/1484116577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510275717&sr=8-1

u/txmslm · 10 pointsr/IAmA

whole libraries have been written explicating interpretive metrics. It's an incredibly complicated and sophisticated subject.

Here's a good place to start for a serious student. (If you're dying to read it, I have it on pdf somewhere I think).

u/punkthesystem · 8 pointsr/MarketAnarchism

The best place to start is MnC or Free Markets & Capitalism?.

For additional reading, I would suggest Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory by Kevin Carson, Anarchy and Legal Order by Gary Chartier, Community Technology and Neighborhood Power: The New Localism by Karl Hess, and National Economic Planning: What Is Left? by Don Lavoie.

For some more classic texts, I would recommend What Is Property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews, Mutual Banking by William B. Greene, Poverty and Progress by Henry George (non-anarchist), and Instead of a Book, By a Man Too Busy to Write One by Benjamin R. Tucker.

u/gapil301 · 6 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

You both should read these awesome books:

Anatomy of the state

The Law

What government has done with our money

and finally:

The ethics of liberty

u/[deleted] · 5 pointsr/IrishHistory

That post is of no value and is not to be taken seriously.

A túath was simply a petty kingdom of the lowest rank, whose ruler, a rí túaithe, would have been subordinate to a more senior king (the word "Rí", king, was used promiscuously in Ireland). I don't even know where this idea of Ireland being politically divided into voluntary associations comes from, either. Irish kings frequently fought over territory and influence, and sought to expand both, formed military alliances, and demanded tribute from their vassals.

Kings were "elected"? Not really. The king's successor was elected by and from within a kinship group -- i.e. a certain subset of the previous king's relatives chose one of their number to be next in line, or Tánaiste.

The post's assertion that "Irish history records peaceful, voluntary cooperation until the barbarous English invaded in the 1640′s AD" is absurdly wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin and it's hard to see how anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Irish history could take it seriously.

The idea that Pre-Norman Irish society was some sort of anarchist idyll is a non-starter. It is correct that there was no centralized state -- the island was a patchwork of kingdoms and subkingdoms, but society was highly stratified, and the "freemen" of landowning/aristocratic or recognized professional status were a small proportion of the population. Most people had effectively no rights or freedoms, let alone to choose their leaders, and were subject to arbitrary demands for food, shelter, military support, etc. from their lords. Even under feudal system peasants had some recourse to the law.

For more serious treatment of these issues, try:

u/bames53 · 4 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism
  1. What are your views on taxes?

    A violation of the rights of the person being taken from.

  2. If you had a distilled list of the top ten Anarcho-Capitalism principles or beliefs what would they be?

    Put simply, Anarcho-Capitalism is based on the common understanding of private property and the rejection of the idea that anyone, particularly the government, can legitimately override these property rights for any reason. Ancaps may abbreviate this as "The non-aggression principle", understanding 'aggression' to be "violations of person or property."

  3. What are your thoughts on my position that the deregulating of the financial markets led to the great recession?

    For a complete treatment of the crash from an ancap perspective see the book Meltdown.

  4. Do you believe that mass resource stockpiling is not a problem?

    It's not a problem, or to the degree that it is, economics puts a check on it.

  5. Would an Anarcho-Capitalist society have laws? How would they be enforced?

    Yes. By institutions that society does not treat as having the legitimate authority to violate rights. E.g. The agents of the State murder innocent people and get away with it. Private security agents, in the rare circumstances where they do murder someone, are much more likely to be held accountable. The State collects taxes and people accept it, while the Mafia collects 'protection money' and everyone knows it's a racket.

  6. What are the foremost writings on this system and why?

u/sarevok9 · 3 pointsr/politics

I think that there's one thing that is misunderstood in this. I don't think that the systemic racism is against "poor black folks" as you mentioned, but simply "poor folks". There is no shortage of white people locked up for doing things that someone with a much better lawyer would have gotten them a slap on the wrist for. A great example of this was New York's "folding knife law" - which is a great example of a law that is absolutely insane and cannot be upheld in any way / shape / form, but put away hundreds of whites / blacks / latinos that could not afford adequate legal representation and were stuck with public defenders who are far more inclined to strike a deal, especially when they can't make bail. Why sit in jail for 2-3 years, awaiting trial trying to overthrow a law as unconstitutional when the sentence for breaking it is 6 months?

That being said -- if you look at impoverished communities, those are disproportionately black. So if you look at "Is there racism" in the judiciary -- I'm not entirely certain, but there is definitely inequality along socioeconomic lines which is disproportionally affecting black communities.

https://www.amazon.com/Problems-Roots-Law-Essays-Political-ebook/dp/B00VOLBVAM/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=root+of+law&qid=1556036842&rnid=2941120011&s=books&sr=1-5 . was a good book that I read while in jail...

u/SuburbanDinosaur · 3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

>Do you even polycentric law?

Polycentric law doesn't work in a hierarchical system like capitalism, which is why it's actually primarily an anarchist, leftist theory.

There's also a difference between general law and consistent enforcement of private property rights.

>This is unnecessary. e.g. bitcoin, gold backed currency.

It's not unnecessary. Bitcoin has proven to be a failure, and the state is the one who backs currency, gold included. Gold doesn't magically get rid of the need for a state guarantor.

>I'm pretty sure that doesn't actually exist.

Whose making unsubstantiated claims now?

>[Citation needed].

Ah yes, let's see. Highways, the internet, space exploration, mapping, GPS, the fact that every large breakthrough since World War 2 was predicated by public sector research.

The fact that every large pharmaceutical company spends more on marketing than they do in R&D.


>Guess it wasn't such simple logic after all huh.

It was, just because you made some faulty arguments doesn't mean it's not simple. In fact, the relative simplicity of your arguments actually supports the idea that my original logic is very simple.

u/GenTiradentes · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I just finished reading "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat. It's a very good read, and takes you right along the progression from property rights to the invalidity of the state. It does, however, require thought on the reader's part to arrive at the conclusion that the state is force, and consequently illegitimate.

The book explains that everybody has a natural right ("from God") to lawful self-defense, that the law exists as a collective organization of this individual right, and that the proper purpose of law should be to serve justice. Consequently, the law cannot be used in circumstances where the individual could not use lawful force, and for the state to do so would sacrifice justice.

The author explains how law becomes perverted for the purposes of "lawful plunder," which he defines as taking what rightfully belongs to one citizen to give to another to whom it does not belong. Plunder benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself could not do without committing a crime.

The author explains that this lawful plunder has two roots, stupid greed, and false philanthopy. He says that justice has precise limits, but philanthopy is infinite, and when this becomes the state's job, the state has no limits. When the law is used for anything but justice, it subverts its own objective.

Some people will never reach the conclusion that the state's use of force is illegitimate. No matter how many preceding ideas they like and agree with, no matter how many times you explain the consequences of agreeing with the ideas you've explained, they will fight, and kick, and scream, and deny the logical conclusion of those ideas.

EDIT: Amazon has the book in audio form, among others.

u/ravingraven · 3 pointsr/DebateaCommunist

Communist societies do not deal with crime because there are no communist societies. You made up a scenario about a crime than was never committed in a society that never existed. This is why you are getting opinions instead of answers (I am not claiming that your question is not good, I am just explaining why you are getting the answers you get.)

I will try to answer as broadly as possible.

>I think the people who advocate for communism focus too much on the economic principles and dont question this idea of a stateless society.

That is because not having a state has not much to do with how we deal with crime. I will explain in a bit...

>...how do we try the said rapist...

With whatever trial society has decided upon. Trials (and laws) do not need a state to exist. The Xeer system is an example of that.

>...what would be the repercussions...

Whatever repercussions society has decided upon. Either set by law or decided by popular opinion/jury/juror.

>...who would decide statute of limitations...

Society. Either by law, popular opinion etc. You get the gist. I am going to skip a few...

>...who gets to decide who can or cant be a judge.

Society. Is there any reason to believe that a society can not decide on those things, voluntarily and democratically without a state? The difference would be that judges can not hold political power in a stateless society like they do now.

>What about conflicts of interest. what about sentencing guidelines, what about bail?

What about them? Conflicts of interest exist today. Sentencing guidelines and bail will be decided by society.

>Is he held until trial or not held until convicted, what about speed of trial.

Society decides about those things.

>I dont think this society that you guys envision without a state can actually work and deal with all these intricacies.

Why not? You have provided zero arguments about that. I should remind you that this sub is called DebateACommunist and not AskACommunist. It is not a debate if you do not present any arguments.

Edit: For a more in-depth analysis I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.de/Anarchy-Legal-Order-Politics-Stateless/dp/1107032288

u/ThrewUpThrewAway · 3 pointsr/IrishHistory

This one is great:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Guide-Early-Irish-Law/dp/0901282952

Comes highly recommended by me, and the scholar who recommended it to me.

u/Qwill2 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

Any book that gives an overview of the different schools of thought should do. Bix or Harris, for example.

u/__SPIDERMAN___ · 2 pointsr/news

https://www.amazon.com/Summary-Islamic-Jurisprudence-VOL-Set/dp/B004E4AHWE

It would be so great if everything could be packaged up into a little sound bite for you eh? Well sharia is a bit more comprehensive than that.

u/maghfira · 2 pointsr/islam

Purchase Ascent to Felicity. It is a basic Hanafi primer text by Imam Shurunbuali translated by Shaykh Faraz Khan. He is a teacher on Seekers Guidance and a full time lecturer at Zaytuna College.

http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Felicity-Maraqi-l-Saadat-Jurisprudence/dp/1933764090

u/gloriatibidomine · 2 pointsr/Catholicism
u/Offish · 1 pointr/philosophy

I don't have time to give you a respectable response to your questions, but I'd like to recommend Jurisprudence: Theory and Context, by Brian Bix. It's a clear, precise, and fair introduction to the various theories of jurisprudence that are out there. Find a used copy and try to ignore the typos (possibly improved since the edition I have).

u/smokeuptheweed9 · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

This post makes no sense. Anyway there are a plethora of works which directly address your question:

http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Law-Philosophers-Francis-Mootz/dp/0754626202

http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Jurisprudence-Political-Philosophy-Justice/dp/184113452X

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691133778/ref=cm_sw_su_dp

and these are just the ones that directly invoke Nietzsche rather than Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, Heidegger, Agamben which together probably are the entirely of jurisprudence as a field. You seem to have a bunch of misundstandings about Nietzsche's thought and what jurisprudence is so I can't really answer your question.

u/guinness88 · 1 pointr/islam

Here is the book I have. This is only volume I but still has fiqh of all 4 Sunni schools of thought. As a side note it's about 1000 pages.

u/Caltex88 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Libertarianism is the end result of consistently applied deontological or virtue ethics. It is belief that individuals have inalienable rights that cannot be infringed by anyone.

If persons X owns himself, then person X owns his own labor. If person X owns his own labor, then persons X,Y,Z threatening him at gunpoint to hand over 10% of his labor-incomes are committing an illegitimate violent aggression and are in the moral wrong.

While libertarians could use economic arguments to argue for the political philosophy on utilitarian grounds, most would be disinterested in doing so, given that most don't even recognize utilitarian ethics as valid. The suppression and violation of the rights of the individual for a nebulous collective "greater good" is never recognized as legitimate action.

Really, there is way too much to it for a reddit post. I'd recommend reading the following and deciding for yourself:

u/MormonMoron · 1 pointr/latterdaysaints

I am somewhat abhorred (and a little impressed) that you made it through such a long treatise on natural law without once mentioning the writing of St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote a lot on the topic.

Here is a brief introduction to his writings

Here is the book my wife had for some of her pre-law classes on the topic that I picked up one daya nd enjoyed reading

u/jub-jub-bird · 1 pointr/Conservative

the Law - Frédéric Bastiat

The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana - Russell Kirk

The Federalist Papers - Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

Top poem, and one of the best short explanations of conservatism: The Gods of the Copybook Headings - Rudyard Kipling

u/ALFentine · 1 pointr/philosophy
u/I-Integrator · 1 pointr/Objectivism

Well, based on Objectivism Peikoff and Harriman have given an answer to the problem of induction (philosophy of science):
https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/dp/0451230051

And Tara Smith has been working on the philosophy of law: https://www.amazon.com/Judicial-Review-Objective-Legal-System/dp/1107114497

u/American-Negro · 0 pointsr/islam

Read some books. Many scholars have written extensively about it.

u/jzuspiece · 0 pointsr/islam

>My premise is more like if a Sunni and Shia Muslim lived together for 2 years in a college dorm, what differences would they notice day to day?

If you want to know basic differences in fiqh - you'll want to pick a comparative fiqh primer. I would suggest this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Jurisprudence-According-Sunni-Schools/dp/1887752978

And then for Imami fiqh, I would recommend man la yadhurul faqih (you'll need to understand Arabic). This is technically a hadith book (since Shi'ites consider the words of an Imam as a hadith) but it's designed as a fiqh book. If you read them comparatively, you'll notice that Imami Shi'ites often have contradictory authentic traditions (like in nikah al mut'a or saying ameen after fatiha) where one matches a popular Sunni opinion and another is aberrant. The general logic is that the aberrant opinion is the correct one for Shi'ites and the one that matches Sunnis was said by the Imam in taqiyyah.

If you speak Urdu - which I gather from your post, see if you can find a comparative fiqh book by Mufti Abdul Kareem Mushtaq. I haven't read it so I can't comment on the content, but my understanding is he compares the majority opinion in the four madhahib of Sunnis and the major opinions of Twelver Shi'ites.

There are tons of differences though you'll notice in the minutiae if you're both religious. The basis of Imami Shi'ism was to be anti-thetical to whatever the 'aam (majority) were doing. In the case of fiqh, this translated to doing the opposite of the major school of Sunni fiqh in your city - and that became the basis for the narrations that Imamis have in their books which aren't found in the books of traditional Islamic sects (Sunnis, Zaydi Shi'ites, Ibadis, etc.)

As an example, Hur Amili said:

من جملة نعماء الله على هذه الطائفة المحقة أنه خلى بين الشيطان وبين علماء العامة، فأضلهم في جميع المسائل النظرية حتى يكون الأخذ بخلافهم ضابطة لنا

Basically, Sunni scholars were so misguided by Shaitan that it became a rule in Twelver Shi'ism to simply do the opposite of what the Sunnis did.

Hopefully that helps in whatever you're trying to study.