Hello, I'll be starting with law school in around 6 months. I'd really like to have a reading list of any books that'd might come in handy when I do eventually start with it. I've an interest in philosophy so I've already read some jurisprudence books which are tangentially related (Rawls, Dworkin, some Derrida, and Sowell's quest for cosmic justice, which was extremely disappointing) but I doubt these might be relevant. I was planning on downloading a few books that were recommended to me by a friend (Learning the law by Williams and John Langbein's history of the common law) but I'd really appreciate more books in the same vein as the textbooks or the philosophy books. Also, would appreciate more recommendations about books related to political philosophy.
1. Friedman is an economist, and as someone who does enjoy reading economic texts, he is also complete bullshit, i'd take friedman's work on monetary theory seriously and abandon all else as neoliberal dogma of the dissatisfied neoliberal.
2. I've mentioned i read sowell, incredibly disappointing book, Sowell's views of state as an entity are hilarious because he doesn't want the state to intervene in the endeavours of the individual except when he does, his views are plainly hypocritical and recommending this to someone is bad faith as fuck
3. Idk why you mentioned bhagwati though he stands in conflict to both friedman and sowell
It is actually a good idea to read people's work even if they are in conflict with each other. It makes for a good intellectual and evaluative exercise IMHO.
Oh I definitely agree, I've read most of these authors and a lot of them are ideologues that were directly funded by oil corporations to promote a hyper-capitalist view of the economy, so recommending plain ideologues feels a lot like bad faith.
Wow. Friedman is considered the most influential economist of the 20th century and you call him bullshit? Sums up the mentality of woke Gen Z TikTokiyas.
Friedman is very much not the most influential economist of the 20th century. Keynes is, by a long shot, besides. Staying relevant to the topic though, Friedman's not an expert on legal theory, I've read capitalism and freedom and his work on monetary theory and his critique of fiscal policy. Friedman's political economy is an absolute joke and there is a case to be made that his association with people like Reagan caused the policy effects that led to 2008. His take on jurisprudence is archaic, and he is single-handedly responsible for the unhinged capitalist attitudes perpetuating climate change. Economists like stiglitz and piketty have critiqued his policies a lot and I'd suggest you read them
Flourished, perhaps by some metrics, but arguably at the expense of several other metrics such as causing significant pollution and permanent damage to the planet, eroding the middle class and widening the wealth gap and creating more billionaires, demoting entire economies to become globalised vassals providing cheap and inhumane / child labour in sweat shops / natural resource extraction, as well as the US ruining / neo-colonialising South and Central America and starting innumerable wars for resources to feed the domestic machine and influence. The question that should be asked is: was this worth it, and is it a model that can be / should be emulated / continued by everyone else, and what will happen to this planet if everyone does the same?
There are a bunch of books based on Indian jurists I'd suggest you start with so you get an idea of the legal system during independence and thereafter.
bro take it from a fellow law student u will have enough reading to do in LS i know u r excited for law school but take what 6 months u have and just enjoy this freedom of being just a kid trust me it might seem frivolous rn and i know by the way i have written this comment i might seem like an unambitious idiot but trust me u have plenty of time to be ambitious just be a kid now while u can
Thank you for writing this out, I understand where you're coming from, but reading for me is just a form of familiarising myself with topics in a way I'm comfortable with, I'm not doing this out of hoping to be better than everyone I just like reading books a lot lol
Ugh, you love your white men and your commentators love upper caste men. Read Patricia Williams, Catherine MacKinnon, Prabha Kotiswaran, Judith Butler, Leila Seth,Ambedkar, Charles Mills and Kimberle Crenshaw. It'll help you understand the world we live in now. Also Amia Srinivasan who is not a law person but has plenty to say to make us think.
Nice suggestions! Other than Srinivasan, whom I haven't read before but will look up now, I concur that all the others named have really produced some stellar work.
Thank you for the recommendations! I have read Judith Butler, Crenshaw, and Catherine McKinnon, absolutely adore their work, ofc Dr Ambedkar too, do you mind recommending some more feminist authors because i think i'd enjoy reading a few more
Please see the courses in the first trimester / year - download the bare acts and commentaries.
As trite as this sounds - first get a grip on first principle - then look at perspectives / views.
Understand the history behind the first principle (though hopefully your college will teach you this) - if not - read the commentary.
Your first port of call would be positive law - then the interpretation on natural law / deconstructive justice / left-right-centre-liberal perspectives.
Hey, I too will be starting lawschool in around 6 months and have been trying to start reading some books before lawschool starts. Do you want to connect? If yes then mail me at chatwithoggy@pm.me
Sad to see so an overrated author like Judith Butler named. She is the Ayn Rand of the left: lots of hot air, zero substance, terrible writing style. I hope people also know that she is a person with zero ethics and defended a left-wing professor (Avital Ronell) who sexually harassed a male student and forced him to to sleep with her (don't know what you guys call that, but I call that rape).
Thanks for sharing, that's interesting. The Al Jaz article explicitly concludes with: "To be clear, I am not calling for Foucault to be “cancelled” or the reports of his child sexual abuse to be used to attack his scholarly work and academia in general."
Since you're suggesting neither Butler or Foucault should be 'named' in such lists, are you suggesting both be cancelled then and particularly Foucault's scholarly work should be disregarded? Or can Foucault still be named, but with an asterisk and footnote next to his name?
I'll start with "pedophile god" of the woke left because such a comically stupid statement deserves to be addressed first, the guy that accused foucault, Guy Sorman is a conservative thinker that had a direct incentive to discredit foucault, and besides even that, he has also withdrawn most of his allegations
And even if Foucault was "the pedophile god of the woke left" that doesn't detract from what he added, this is one of the most influential academics of our generation whose work spans multiple disciplines. His personal character has nothing to do with this.
And the same goes in relation to Judith Butler, she's a horrible person, and even regrets writing that letter, doesn't excuse her actions, but how does this detract from her ideas?
It just seems like you're grasping at straws to debunk otherwise accepted ideas just becuase the authors are le woke moralists
Butler is comparable to Ayn Rand the same way that Mill is comparable to Adichie. They all have issues but what they have to give is hardly analogous. There's nothing brave or unique about finding flaws in these very human people and their work - even your low opinion is based on someone else's articulation of the problem. The question is do you understand their argument and what specifically do you dislike about it. And it's also fine to say your background doesn't give you the ability to access their work. There's no need to attack their writing style. She's not writing op-eds. Everyone doesn't have to understand.
Thomas Sowell
Jagdish Bhagwati
2. I've mentioned i read sowell, incredibly disappointing book, Sowell's views of state as an entity are hilarious because he doesn't want the state to intervene in the endeavours of the individual except when he does, his views are plainly hypocritical and recommending this to someone is bad faith as fuck
3. Idk why you mentioned bhagwati though he stands in conflict to both friedman and sowell
My Own Boswell
Roses in December
Nani Palkhiwala: The Courtroom Genius
Before Memory Fades
Supreme Court: The Beginings
Supreme Whispers
As trite as this sounds - first get a grip on first principle - then look at perspectives / views.
Understand the history behind the first principle (though hopefully your college will teach you this) - if not - read the commentary.
Your first port of call would be positive law - then the interpretation on natural law / deconstructive justice / left-right-centre-liberal perspectives.
Also learn how to read a judgment:
How to read judgements effectively | Harish A. Raichura, Advocate, Supreme Court of India - YouTube
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avital_Ronell#Sexual_conduct_investigation_and_suspension
And, of course, I have a similar low opinion of Butler's guru Foucault, the paedophile god of the woke left .
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia
Since you're suggesting neither Butler or Foucault should be 'named' in such lists, are you suggesting both be cancelled then and particularly Foucault's scholarly work should be disregarded? Or can Foucault still be named, but with an asterisk and footnote next to his name?
https://www.lexpress.fr/idees-et-debats/michel-foucault-et-la-pedophilie-enquete-sur-un-emballement-mediatique_2148517.html
Another article also analyses various testimonies from other sources and Sorman's accusations simply dont line up
https://lundi.am/The-Black-Masses-of-Michel-Foucault-the-Bullshit-of-Guy-Sorman
And even if Foucault was "the pedophile god of the woke left" that doesn't detract from what he added, this is one of the most influential academics of our generation whose work spans multiple disciplines. His personal character has nothing to do with this.
And the same goes in relation to Judith Butler, she's a horrible person, and even regrets writing that letter, doesn't excuse her actions, but how does this detract from her ideas?
It just seems like you're grasping at straws to debunk otherwise accepted ideas just becuase the authors are le woke moralists