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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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