What do you think?
Rate this book
It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom
DOES THE GOVERNMENT EXIST TO SERVE US OR TO MASTER US? If the government exists to serve us, and if freedom is part of our humanity, how can the government take freedom from us? Is human freedom in America a myth, or is it reality? The United States of America was born out of a bloody revolt against tyranny. Yet almost from its inception, the government here has suppressed liberty. Within the pages of It Is Dangerous To Be Right When The Government Is Wrong , New York Times best-selling author Judge Andrew P. Napolitano lays out the case that the U.S. government, whose first obligation is to protect and preserve individual freedoms, actually does neither. The judge offers eye-opening, sometimes frightening examples of how, time and again, the human liberties we are guaranteed in the Constitution are vanishing before our eyes. He where does freedom come from? How can government in America exercise power that the people have not given to it? What forces have collaborated to destroy personal freedom? This back-to-basics on freedom addresses hard America is at a fundamental crossroads. There are stirrings in the land and a cry that "enough is enough." The stories within these pages are told to help reawaken the natural human thirst for freedom-to point out government interference with natural order and the disastrous consequences that follow.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published October 18, 2011
34 people are currently reading
503 people want to read
About the author
Andrew P. Napolitano
19 books144 followersAndrew Paolo Napolitano is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge. He is a political and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, commenting on legal news and trials. Napolitano started on the channel in 1998. He is a Libertarian and a strong advocate of the Constitution, viewing it as a contract that must, according to rule of law, be interpreted the way its authors intended or else be invalid. He therefore asserts that the Federal government has a very limited set of powers, that it is exceeding, and that the Bill of Rights limits its valid actions in all circumstances.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
March 1, 2012
First things first: A WORD OF WARNING. Judge NapOlitano's writings are dry. I will give the other reviewers that. Simply said. I have to have some source of caffeine close by when I read his works or watch his show. However, he is one of the top sources I turn to for the interpretation of the US Constitution.
On that note, the works of this Constitutional scholar are dead on to the abuses of Americans' rights by the governments, at all levels, for their own greed or under the guise of being for the "greater good". This book was no different. He not only shows a history of abuses from the government, but current incidents, as well. He shows how laws have stayed on the books EVEN AFTER THE US SUPREME COURT HAS STRUCK SIMILIAR LAWS DOWN.
I would say this book is one big bullhorn that Americans should read to see how our government continues to violate and spit on the constitution for their own greediness of power!
On that note, the works of this Constitutional scholar are dead on to the abuses of Americans' rights by the governments, at all levels, for their own greed or under the guise of being for the "greater good". This book was no different. He not only shows a history of abuses from the government, but current incidents, as well. He shows how laws have stayed on the books EVEN AFTER THE US SUPREME COURT HAS STRUCK SIMILIAR LAWS DOWN.
I would say this book is one big bullhorn that Americans should read to see how our government continues to violate and spit on the constitution for their own greediness of power!
Want to read
March 28, 2015You can easily spot the libertarian spirit in Judge Andrew Napolitano interviews; these few sentences ahead are based on interviews he gave (one to Reason TV).
Napolitano, citing the civil liberties conquered through the years (for black African Americans and women), thinks, however, that “we’re losing liberty”. He suggests we’re in a ”downward spiral”; crushed, so to speak, by regulation issued from a sort of Leviathan (my expression) State, in its multiple arms: welfare state, surveillance state, warfare state. And here is the point: the individual freedom gets questioned, if not abused (see the recent NSA spying issues or the Snowden case).
Napolitiano is for Small Government. In another interview I've heard him saying: “the government is utterly addicted to DEBT,…and never pays it back”. The burden shall rest on the taxpayers!
Judge Napolitano seems to be faithful to the “libertarian virtues” of the “primacy of the individual” (greater than the State). No wonder he considers Ron Paul the only “game-changer” (hope) for the current grim situation in the USA. RP is truly faithful to the USA Constitution. Both democrats and republicans have subverted that faithfulness.
To him, the fertilized egg should be protected (“it is not your body”), since it has got all the makeup (human genome) to become a human being. So, anybody should be prosecuted (even medical personnel) when killing (aborting) an innocent life. Clearly, he’s pro-life.
He makes interesting considerations, as well, on freedom of speech, the Fed transparency, private property/ownership (of one’s own body, included). He goes to the point of wondering: “do we really own anything?”, so much can be the interference of the State.
A conservative view worth pondering. The title of the book was suggested to him by Voltaire (250 years ago):”It’s dangerous to be right when government is wrong”.
Please, don’t read it “right-wing”...; if you do it,you're wrong,but it's not dangerous;I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3pW3...
Napolitano, citing the civil liberties conquered through the years (for black African Americans and women), thinks, however, that “we’re losing liberty”. He suggests we’re in a ”downward spiral”; crushed, so to speak, by regulation issued from a sort of Leviathan (my expression) State, in its multiple arms: welfare state, surveillance state, warfare state. And here is the point: the individual freedom gets questioned, if not abused (see the recent NSA spying issues or the Snowden case).
Napolitiano is for Small Government. In another interview I've heard him saying: “the government is utterly addicted to DEBT,…and never pays it back”. The burden shall rest on the taxpayers!
Judge Napolitano seems to be faithful to the “libertarian virtues” of the “primacy of the individual” (greater than the State). No wonder he considers Ron Paul the only “game-changer” (hope) for the current grim situation in the USA. RP is truly faithful to the USA Constitution. Both democrats and republicans have subverted that faithfulness.
To him, the fertilized egg should be protected (“it is not your body”), since it has got all the makeup (human genome) to become a human being. So, anybody should be prosecuted (even medical personnel) when killing (aborting) an innocent life. Clearly, he’s pro-life.
He makes interesting considerations, as well, on freedom of speech, the Fed transparency, private property/ownership (of one’s own body, included). He goes to the point of wondering: “do we really own anything?”, so much can be the interference of the State.
A conservative view worth pondering. The title of the book was suggested to him by Voltaire (250 years ago):”It’s dangerous to be right when government is wrong”.
Please, don’t read it “right-wing”...; if you do it,you're wrong,but it's not dangerous;I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3pW3...
November 30, 2011
He's a judge and a legal scholar, so the writing style is a bit dry. The material is well-argued and he brings up so many interesting points -- whether or not you agree with the Libertarian party or not, give it a read. Makes you think!
December 21, 2012
In this book Napolitano argues that our rights are not arbitrarily created by government but instead are innately endowed by the fact that we are human beings. It also tries to portray how the federal government is encroaching on these rights by overstepping the powers delegated to them by the Constitution. He makes the case for a small federal government and a return to the ideals set forth by our founding fathers. Overall it is a well written and argued book, and assigns blame where it is deserved regardless of political affiliation. One of Napolitano’s most impressive traits, and one I find shared by most who claim to be libertarian, is that he believes that the Constitution limits the federal government’s power even when he finds the act in question morally repugnant. Often those who cry loudest for a smaller limited government, easily change their tune in the name of “security,” “morality,” or wealth. That said, there are a few areas which I found lacking that I would like to point out (I am by no means an expert on any of this, so feel free to comment if you disagree):
Near the beginning of the book, Napolitano states that our natural rights include those civil rights which people like Rev Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders fought for (and in my opinion people still fight for today). This made me think back to Barry Goldwater’s claim in “The Conscience of a Conservative” that civil rights was a states’ rights issue and that forced desegregation was unconstitutional. Specifically he says: “Civil rights is frequently used synonymously with ‘human rights’ – or with ‘natural rights.’ As often as not, it is simply a name for describing an activity that someone deems politically or socially desirable.” Goldwater was not defending the racism behind these types of practices but his opinion that the “equal protection” clause did not allow for federal intervention in this matter. Later on in the book, Napolitano does agree with Goldwater on the right to discriminate but that is not my point here. The issue is that the idea of “natural rights” may sound like an easy concept to understand and govern by but Napolitano never delves into what happens when things are not so clear cut or when your definition of “natural rights” is different than someone else’s. Too often “natural rights” was just a phrase for those rights which Napolitano personally thought everyone should have. For instance property rights in regards to land. When do you actually own land? From what I gathered from Napolitano’s writing ownership does not start just because the government says it does because God gives us this right. So would that mean that most of the United States still belongs to the Native Americans since they were the original owners and did not consent to most of the land that was taken from them? But if we claimed that the land is ours because it was not being used, does that mean I can take my neighbor’s land if he goes on vacation too long? Obviously I’m being a little facetious here but I hope you get my point, mainly that the idea of “natural rights” is not the straight-forward concept that Napolitano describes it as.
Another difficulty Napolitano has is with the attachment of Christian beliefs to the support of property rights. The starting premise is that we own our bodies and therefore own what we produce using them. Here he is correct, but when we try to resolve this with Christ’s teachings in the Gospel the two ideas do not mesh well. When Christ does preach about material possessions, he focuses not on our rightful ownership of them but on the spiritual hindrance they cause. One passage in particular comes to mind:
“17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”(Mark 10:17-25)
Also the idea that our constitutional rights derive from Christian beliefs of our founding fathers is a half-truth. Their beliefs are something often argued, with the right stating that they were Christian fundamentalists while the left proclaims them to be atheists. The truth is somewhere in between. They did pray together daily while debating over the Constitution and almost all were churchgoers, but to say that they were akin to what we see in the modern day religious right is incorrect. These were men greatly influenced by the philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment and some such as Jefferson would probably not be deemed “Christian enough” by the standards set forth by today’s evangelicals. In the end the inspiration came from both these sets of views, the Christian beliefs emboldened by the Great Awakening and those who rallied under the banner of such Enlightenment figures as Locke and Rousseau.
The weakest parts of the book though are when Napolitano discusses economics. One of the first instances of this is his claim that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) caused the housing bubble. Sorry but that’s not true. First of all half of the subprime loans did not even come from companies that fell under the CRA. Second half of Freddie and Fannie’s losses came from investing and not even the mortgages in question. And lastly but most importantly, people were not securitizing and buying these mortgages because of the CRA. They were doing it because it was very profitable. And when it wasn't many of them bet against the securities they had created and made more money. Later on he also tries to make the claim that the FDIC is taxpayer funded. Incorrect again.
In conclusion, regardless of its shortcomings this book is a worthwhile read. Even if you disagree with some of Napolitano’s claims, it still provides a good primer on the limitations of the federal government. One final note, some have described it as dry, but if you are accustomed to more historical or philosophical texts, I do not think you will find it a difficult read.
Near the beginning of the book, Napolitano states that our natural rights include those civil rights which people like Rev Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders fought for (and in my opinion people still fight for today). This made me think back to Barry Goldwater’s claim in “The Conscience of a Conservative” that civil rights was a states’ rights issue and that forced desegregation was unconstitutional. Specifically he says: “Civil rights is frequently used synonymously with ‘human rights’ – or with ‘natural rights.’ As often as not, it is simply a name for describing an activity that someone deems politically or socially desirable.” Goldwater was not defending the racism behind these types of practices but his opinion that the “equal protection” clause did not allow for federal intervention in this matter. Later on in the book, Napolitano does agree with Goldwater on the right to discriminate but that is not my point here. The issue is that the idea of “natural rights” may sound like an easy concept to understand and govern by but Napolitano never delves into what happens when things are not so clear cut or when your definition of “natural rights” is different than someone else’s. Too often “natural rights” was just a phrase for those rights which Napolitano personally thought everyone should have. For instance property rights in regards to land. When do you actually own land? From what I gathered from Napolitano’s writing ownership does not start just because the government says it does because God gives us this right. So would that mean that most of the United States still belongs to the Native Americans since they were the original owners and did not consent to most of the land that was taken from them? But if we claimed that the land is ours because it was not being used, does that mean I can take my neighbor’s land if he goes on vacation too long? Obviously I’m being a little facetious here but I hope you get my point, mainly that the idea of “natural rights” is not the straight-forward concept that Napolitano describes it as.
Another difficulty Napolitano has is with the attachment of Christian beliefs to the support of property rights. The starting premise is that we own our bodies and therefore own what we produce using them. Here he is correct, but when we try to resolve this with Christ’s teachings in the Gospel the two ideas do not mesh well. When Christ does preach about material possessions, he focuses not on our rightful ownership of them but on the spiritual hindrance they cause. One passage in particular comes to mind:
“17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”(Mark 10:17-25)
Also the idea that our constitutional rights derive from Christian beliefs of our founding fathers is a half-truth. Their beliefs are something often argued, with the right stating that they were Christian fundamentalists while the left proclaims them to be atheists. The truth is somewhere in between. They did pray together daily while debating over the Constitution and almost all were churchgoers, but to say that they were akin to what we see in the modern day religious right is incorrect. These were men greatly influenced by the philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment and some such as Jefferson would probably not be deemed “Christian enough” by the standards set forth by today’s evangelicals. In the end the inspiration came from both these sets of views, the Christian beliefs emboldened by the Great Awakening and those who rallied under the banner of such Enlightenment figures as Locke and Rousseau.
The weakest parts of the book though are when Napolitano discusses economics. One of the first instances of this is his claim that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) caused the housing bubble. Sorry but that’s not true. First of all half of the subprime loans did not even come from companies that fell under the CRA. Second half of Freddie and Fannie’s losses came from investing and not even the mortgages in question. And lastly but most importantly, people were not securitizing and buying these mortgages because of the CRA. They were doing it because it was very profitable. And when it wasn't many of them bet against the securities they had created and made more money. Later on he also tries to make the claim that the FDIC is taxpayer funded. Incorrect again.
In conclusion, regardless of its shortcomings this book is a worthwhile read. Even if you disagree with some of Napolitano’s claims, it still provides a good primer on the limitations of the federal government. One final note, some have described it as dry, but if you are accustomed to more historical or philosophical texts, I do not think you will find it a difficult read.
February 22, 2019
The Judge is spot on!
July 4, 2019
Love Judge Nap. Excellent information.
October 25, 2012
"Do we have a two-party system in America today? I think not. We have one Big Government Party. It has a Republican wing that prefers war, deficits, assaults on civil liberties, and corporate welfare, and a Democratic wing that prefers war, taxes, assaults on commercial liberties, and individual welfare. Neither wing is devoted to the Constitution, and members of both wings openly mock it."
I'd imagine that people's first thought when seeing a book like this is that it's a hyped up pro-Republican argument. If someone isn't familiar with the constitutionalist Judge Napolitano, then the book's title (which is a quote) and the bold red jacket might trigger an automatic, speculative judgement about what this book is all about. And that would be FAR from the truth.
A translation of the book's title could be: It's Dangerous to be CORRECT when the Government is Wrong. (Note: Wrong, not just "incorrect".) This book begins with a crash course in Natural Law vs. Positivism, and a reminder from the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. Then, one by one, Judge Napolitano re-examines our rights protected by the Constitution, it's history and intentions, and how over the last 240 years we've twisted and contorted it beyond recognition, and have beat it into a bloody, useless pulp. All parties and governmental branches are guilty.
The Judge confronts many governmental actions and institutions that we've come to accept, and demonstrates logically and constitutionally how they violate our natural rights. These involve free speech and self-defense limitations, deficits and taxation, civil rights and marriage equality, privacy and property deprivation, gambling and prostitution, and many other fascinating subjects.
All in all, this is a wake-up call for all Americans, to remind us that we should "hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I'd imagine that people's first thought when seeing a book like this is that it's a hyped up pro-Republican argument. If someone isn't familiar with the constitutionalist Judge Napolitano, then the book's title (which is a quote) and the bold red jacket might trigger an automatic, speculative judgement about what this book is all about. And that would be FAR from the truth.
A translation of the book's title could be: It's Dangerous to be CORRECT when the Government is Wrong. (Note: Wrong, not just "incorrect".) This book begins with a crash course in Natural Law vs. Positivism, and a reminder from the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. Then, one by one, Judge Napolitano re-examines our rights protected by the Constitution, it's history and intentions, and how over the last 240 years we've twisted and contorted it beyond recognition, and have beat it into a bloody, useless pulp. All parties and governmental branches are guilty.
The Judge confronts many governmental actions and institutions that we've come to accept, and demonstrates logically and constitutionally how they violate our natural rights. These involve free speech and self-defense limitations, deficits and taxation, civil rights and marriage equality, privacy and property deprivation, gambling and prostitution, and many other fascinating subjects.
All in all, this is a wake-up call for all Americans, to remind us that we should "hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
October 24, 2011
I'm on the fence about this book. I really like the Judge's opinions and viewpoints. However, his writing style is almost too dry for me. He provides quite a few facts along with his opinions, but he does not provide the information in an exciting, easy-to-read format. Therefore, while I enjoyed learning the information in the book, I did not enjoy the act of reading the book. I think this book would do best as a college textbook instead of a pleasure book.
However, just because I do not feel that the book is a good pleasure book does not mean that it does not contain excellent information. This might be one of those books that need to be listened to instead of read in order to fully enjoy and understand the knowledge being presented. If it were presented in a livelier format, then it might be more enjoyable. That being said, I think that, even if you have to read it a chapter at a time, this is a book that every American should read and digest. It might even be a good book club book for that every reason. I give it three stars out of five and might have to give it another read at a later date.
However, just because I do not feel that the book is a good pleasure book does not mean that it does not contain excellent information. This might be one of those books that need to be listened to instead of read in order to fully enjoy and understand the knowledge being presented. If it were presented in a livelier format, then it might be more enjoyable. That being said, I think that, even if you have to read it a chapter at a time, this is a book that every American should read and digest. It might even be a good book club book for that every reason. I give it three stars out of five and might have to give it another read at a later date.
September 20, 2018
Judge Napolitano presents an enlightened take on personal liberty and it's erosion under government action. It's written in his direct speaking style, in which he builds his explanations methodically, supporting each point and illustrating with clear examples - the way you would think a legal mind would do - but without being stuffy or overly academic.
Some of the examples of the transgressions of liberty are unsettling, and I was struck by how actually commonplace these transgressions have become in modern American society. The Judge makes the case that we have become inured to it, even numb to the dictates of politicians and political power - and there are plenty of shocking examples to drive the point home.
I recommend it, whether you're of a conservative or liberal bent, mainly because Napolitano, who is clearly libertarian in temperment, states his arguments eloquently and with humor, while keeping things elegantly simple.
Some of the examples of the transgressions of liberty are unsettling, and I was struck by how actually commonplace these transgressions have become in modern American society. The Judge makes the case that we have become inured to it, even numb to the dictates of politicians and political power - and there are plenty of shocking examples to drive the point home.
I recommend it, whether you're of a conservative or liberal bent, mainly because Napolitano, who is clearly libertarian in temperment, states his arguments eloquently and with humor, while keeping things elegantly simple.
March 24, 2017
So I actually picked up this book at my library literally a week before finding out he was the judge claiming a British spy agency was used to get intel on Trump. Regardless, I decided to go on reading b/c the first few chapters had already peaked my interest.
There is a wealth of Constitutional history and information in this book. There are countless stories of the government overstepping these bounds. It is quite eye opening and educational.
Where I start having a problem is the author taking his philosophy too far. Sometimes he gets unrealistic. At one point he states majority rule is not necessarily good and reminds us that Hitler was put into power by majority vote. Then elsewhere he makes cases where businesses should not be forced by government to NOT discriminate. Well, but if you know anything about US civil rights history then you know the Feds were trying to stay out of it but people were DYING and many states were letting shit get out of control to over-simplify things.
I also have a huge problem with the book bc he's constantly remind us of our right, our duty, to overthrow such a govt but gives us no practical advice on how to maybe start doing this in a reasonable manner. Are we to all pick up our muskets and form a militia against this giant US military?
I still give the book 3 stars due to the depth of information provided. But make sure you read it with a huge grain of salt to swallow along with it.
There is a wealth of Constitutional history and information in this book. There are countless stories of the government overstepping these bounds. It is quite eye opening and educational.
Where I start having a problem is the author taking his philosophy too far. Sometimes he gets unrealistic. At one point he states majority rule is not necessarily good and reminds us that Hitler was put into power by majority vote. Then elsewhere he makes cases where businesses should not be forced by government to NOT discriminate. Well, but if you know anything about US civil rights history then you know the Feds were trying to stay out of it but people were DYING and many states were letting shit get out of control to over-simplify things.
I also have a huge problem with the book bc he's constantly remind us of our right, our duty, to overthrow such a govt but gives us no practical advice on how to maybe start doing this in a reasonable manner. Are we to all pick up our muskets and form a militia against this giant US military?
I still give the book 3 stars due to the depth of information provided. But make sure you read it with a huge grain of salt to swallow along with it.
July 19, 2020
I left off reading this with a chilled feeling, which is relieving, considering the time of year.
(This is a book I taped for the library since p.121, the start of Chapter 8, was about to rip off, and that is an important one, particularly at this moment in politics. It's about the right to bear arms.)
I argued for a while over text about this book - most likely about whether there'd be sanctions for desecrating the book with dreadful Scotch tape, but I don't remember very clearly anymore.
I just found this a pretty interesting book to read.
(This is a book I taped for the library since p.121, the start of Chapter 8, was about to rip off, and that is an important one, particularly at this moment in politics. It's about the right to bear arms.)
I argued for a while over text about this book - most likely about whether there'd be sanctions for desecrating the book with dreadful Scotch tape, but I don't remember very clearly anymore.
I just found this a pretty interesting book to read.
May 24, 2017
Excellent book - this one rivals his other book, A Nation of Sheep for me. I've read 5 of his books, this one is definitely close to the top of the list, if not THE best. From 2011, relevant information even on ObamaCare. Well written and clear. The beginning was a little slow - defining rights, but then it turns into quite the page turner, in my opinion.
January 1, 2021
Judge Andrew was spot on, unfortunately we have to rely on the govt.
October 8, 2016
Decent book and well written by a retired American Judge. Argues from the political philosophy standpoint of 'natural rights,' that our rights are not given by government, but come from our humanity or our nature as human beings (or God, which is the religious equivalent source as 'nature' is the secular), and governments, which the people create, enforce these rights. Therefore the individual, politically, is sovereign, and no government or group can strip a person of their rights. From this principle, he shows the US Constitution is also built with this assumption "endowed by our creator with these inalienable rights..." and shows, over time, how governments have failed to sustain this principle and thus the Constitution, and as a result over time, our rights have been violated and continue to be violated by exactly the institution created to safeguard them.
October 17, 2012
Judge Andrew Napolitano has done a great job with this book. He presents clear and logical explanations of his political philosophy. He traces the origins of this philosophy successfully to the founders, the constitution and natural law. Since he is trained as a lawyer and a judge, he presents his case in a very orderly and logical manner, with each step building upon basic foundational elements.
He presents numerous real-world examples from recent news that demonstrate the loss of our fundamental rights and places where the federal government has clearly overstepped its constitutional authority.
If there was one small area where I was not able to quickly concede to his point of view, it was his perspective on crime and punishment. With his credentials as judge, I certainly respect his authority on this subject and the insight he has, but his position seems to be somewhat logically inconsistent with his own views on positivism. He uses an illustration of a child breaking a neighbor’s window while carelessly throwing a baseball. He breaks it down into two separate consequences for this crime: First is the need for restitution to the owner of the broken window in the form of payment for the loss. Second he suggests that the neighborhood (society) has a need to punish the boy beyond this restitution to ensure that he changes his behavior (punishment as a deterrent). He suggests that hard labor (making the boy mow lawns all summer) is a suitable punishment in this case.
While Napolitano's view is a very orthodox and modern position of justice, it seems to go beyond other libertarian viewpoints such as those set forth by Murray Rothbard focused purely on property rights and restitution. In Rothbard’s view of libertarian justice, deterrence is an indirect consequence of the goal of restoring a victim’s property rights, not a goal of the justice system. Similarly Bastiat explained that the purpose of the law was not to ensure justice but to repress injustice. To depart from this property-rights based concept of justice into a theory of deterrence is to slip into the positivist viewpoint. Who decides when deterrence is necessary and how much is appropriate? If there is any punishment beyond restitution for the infringement of property rights, haven’t we granted the government authority we don’t have ourselves? (Sure a parent may have this authority over his own child, but does a neighbor have this authority over your child?) Judges are used to assuming this responsibility, but does that make it ethically and morally right?
For further consideration on this topic of justice, see Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick. I am personally unresolved on this issue and will require further study. Neither Nozick nor Napolitano have convinced me of a criminal justice approach that is completely moral or ethical.
Overall this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. If you have a logical mind of a lawyer, an engineer, or a scientist, or simply like to read material that presents orderly arguments, you will enjoy this book. It may challenge some of your ideals and cause you to dig deeper as it did for me.
He presents numerous real-world examples from recent news that demonstrate the loss of our fundamental rights and places where the federal government has clearly overstepped its constitutional authority.
If there was one small area where I was not able to quickly concede to his point of view, it was his perspective on crime and punishment. With his credentials as judge, I certainly respect his authority on this subject and the insight he has, but his position seems to be somewhat logically inconsistent with his own views on positivism. He uses an illustration of a child breaking a neighbor’s window while carelessly throwing a baseball. He breaks it down into two separate consequences for this crime: First is the need for restitution to the owner of the broken window in the form of payment for the loss. Second he suggests that the neighborhood (society) has a need to punish the boy beyond this restitution to ensure that he changes his behavior (punishment as a deterrent). He suggests that hard labor (making the boy mow lawns all summer) is a suitable punishment in this case.
While Napolitano's view is a very orthodox and modern position of justice, it seems to go beyond other libertarian viewpoints such as those set forth by Murray Rothbard focused purely on property rights and restitution. In Rothbard’s view of libertarian justice, deterrence is an indirect consequence of the goal of restoring a victim’s property rights, not a goal of the justice system. Similarly Bastiat explained that the purpose of the law was not to ensure justice but to repress injustice. To depart from this property-rights based concept of justice into a theory of deterrence is to slip into the positivist viewpoint. Who decides when deterrence is necessary and how much is appropriate? If there is any punishment beyond restitution for the infringement of property rights, haven’t we granted the government authority we don’t have ourselves? (Sure a parent may have this authority over his own child, but does a neighbor have this authority over your child?) Judges are used to assuming this responsibility, but does that make it ethically and morally right?
For further consideration on this topic of justice, see Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick. I am personally unresolved on this issue and will require further study. Neither Nozick nor Napolitano have convinced me of a criminal justice approach that is completely moral or ethical.
Overall this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. If you have a logical mind of a lawyer, an engineer, or a scientist, or simply like to read material that presents orderly arguments, you will enjoy this book. It may challenge some of your ideals and cause you to dig deeper as it did for me.
June 3, 2012
+ 5 more stars:
Another Amazing book from this era's Thomas Jefferson on steroids. His wealth of knowledge on Constitutional matters is virtually unequaled today. In this, his sixth book, The Judge tackles the many fallacies that are propagated to the public by media, schools, and other progressive talking heads. Napolitano is, as always extremely neutral with regards to party. He is an "equal opportunity basher". He pulls no punches.
This book was thoroughly researched and Judge Napolitano breaks things down for both the learned and layman. Napolitano points out where the various "central" governments lost their ways and how it eventually ended up with the people losing their rights.
Some label Mr. Napolitano as a "Right-winger" and I even saw a comment on Amazon about him being a mouthpiece for Saudi royalty. He is a confessed libertarian that believes in personal rights and freedoms. regardless of your party.
"...now consider the passage of Obamacare. Your once private communications and medical decisions with your doctor will now be regulated and monitored by the government. The law requires the Department of Health and Human Services to issue forty thousand laptops, one to each primary care physician in the United States, and it requires the physicians to record for federal bureaucrats whatever you tell your physician and whatever your physician tells you."
It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong (Andrew P. Napolitano) Page 141
Just one of the nuggets from this book. I absolutely love reading Napolitano. I wish he would consider running for office. The united stated needs someone like him, intelligent with fidelity to the Constitution.
Another Amazing book from this era's Thomas Jefferson on steroids. His wealth of knowledge on Constitutional matters is virtually unequaled today. In this, his sixth book, The Judge tackles the many fallacies that are propagated to the public by media, schools, and other progressive talking heads. Napolitano is, as always extremely neutral with regards to party. He is an "equal opportunity basher". He pulls no punches.
This book was thoroughly researched and Judge Napolitano breaks things down for both the learned and layman. Napolitano points out where the various "central" governments lost their ways and how it eventually ended up with the people losing their rights.
Some label Mr. Napolitano as a "Right-winger" and I even saw a comment on Amazon about him being a mouthpiece for Saudi royalty. He is a confessed libertarian that believes in personal rights and freedoms. regardless of your party.
"...now consider the passage of Obamacare. Your once private communications and medical decisions with your doctor will now be regulated and monitored by the government. The law requires the Department of Health and Human Services to issue forty thousand laptops, one to each primary care physician in the United States, and it requires the physicians to record for federal bureaucrats whatever you tell your physician and whatever your physician tells you."
It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong (Andrew P. Napolitano) Page 141
Just one of the nuggets from this book. I absolutely love reading Napolitano. I wish he would consider running for office. The united stated needs someone like him, intelligent with fidelity to the Constitution.
November 9, 2011
Shocking,Eye-opening,and will certainly make you mad enough to do something. I would hope anyway! Judge Andrew P. Napolitano lays it all out for you in how your freedoms and rights are being taken away right under your nose without so much as a whisper of outcry. When we should be outraged and fighting against such governmental abuses whether from federal,state,or local governments.
Making laws that resoundingly are against the constitution,those in power and office feel they know what is best for you and that you are not intelligent enough to make your own choices. Whether we make good choice or bad the option should be up to the individual to decide and having that option taken away from you is unconstitutional. But that is just one area of governmental involvement that has occurred that affects our lives in a negative way.
Property rights,Medical care,transportation,commerce,privacy and so much more has been tampered with by government involvement when there was no constitutional right to do so on their part. Much of what should be left to the States making these decisions has been decided by the federal courts without warrant to do so. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano speaks in terms of legality in all these areas and it’s time the people know what is happening right in front of them. Every American needs to read this book,become aware,and become involved in fighting and changing what is happening,bringing We The People back into focus.
I highly recommend reading It’s Dangerous To Be Right When The Government is Wrong by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano and give it a full 5 stars across the board for importance,intelligent comprehension,writing style,and so much more!
Making laws that resoundingly are against the constitution,those in power and office feel they know what is best for you and that you are not intelligent enough to make your own choices. Whether we make good choice or bad the option should be up to the individual to decide and having that option taken away from you is unconstitutional. But that is just one area of governmental involvement that has occurred that affects our lives in a negative way.
Property rights,Medical care,transportation,commerce,privacy and so much more has been tampered with by government involvement when there was no constitutional right to do so on their part. Much of what should be left to the States making these decisions has been decided by the federal courts without warrant to do so. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano speaks in terms of legality in all these areas and it’s time the people know what is happening right in front of them. Every American needs to read this book,become aware,and become involved in fighting and changing what is happening,bringing We The People back into focus.
I highly recommend reading It’s Dangerous To Be Right When The Government is Wrong by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano and give it a full 5 stars across the board for importance,intelligent comprehension,writing style,and so much more!
April 3, 2015
Judge Nap is one of the best libertarian voices out there. It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong lays out 10-15 of Napolitano's primary ideals and how the American government has tread on these ideals. His philosophies are rooted in Natural Law; because people are the masters of government, government does not have any rights beyond what people are willing to cede to it. Natural Law, for example, allows for me to do anything that I like as long as I am not intruding on the property of another, of which "property" includes possessions, body, and money. Thus, government is also not able to intrude on the property of its people. It exists solely to enforce Natural Law.
I wish this book was longer, as he gives a fairly brief overview of a bunch of different topics, including taxation, war, the Federal Reserve, imprisonment, and private property rights. This is a good introduction to Judge Nap's beliefs, so I would probably recommend this if you've never read anything by him before. However, I would have liked to see more detail. In all, though, I still decided to give this five stars. Unlike a lot of other libertarian writers who tend to draw primarily from economics and finance perspectives to support their points, Napolitano looks at a lot of these issues from a legal standpoint. He is constantly citing cases, legal precedent, and specific language to develop his points, which is refreshing in libertarian writing.
I wish this book was longer, as he gives a fairly brief overview of a bunch of different topics, including taxation, war, the Federal Reserve, imprisonment, and private property rights. This is a good introduction to Judge Nap's beliefs, so I would probably recommend this if you've never read anything by him before. However, I would have liked to see more detail. In all, though, I still decided to give this five stars. Unlike a lot of other libertarian writers who tend to draw primarily from economics and finance perspectives to support their points, Napolitano looks at a lot of these issues from a legal standpoint. He is constantly citing cases, legal precedent, and specific language to develop his points, which is refreshing in libertarian writing.
June 21, 2016
WOW, WOW, WOW! I thought I understood our Government in relationship to the U. S. Constitution but I was wrong. This books is both very depressing yet extremely educational. I could not possibly recommend it any more/ Every American who wants to believe in its Government should read this book to see just how our Government has been failing us at least in regards to meeting the very specific terms of the U. S. Constitution. While every Chapter is excellent and should be considered as required reading, the Chapter describing the Federal Reserve and how is has for the most part adversely affected our economy and our personal net worth is very much worth reading. While I found the book depressing in regards to its contents, the manner in which the Judge has written the book is easy to understand. By depressing, I simply mean every can read the Constitution and get an understanding of how government is suppose to work. This book clearly describes how our Government is REALLY working or not working. In that regard, it is totally depressing especially when you think of how it should and could be working. Every American should read this book. You can form your own opinions of what is covered but it would be extremely difficult to disagree with the Judge!
December 27, 2012
While I don't agree with everything Judge Napolitano states in his book, albeit I do agree with a lot, he does make a compelling argument with this book about government power, the constitution and freedom. His strongest weapon, the US Constitution and the mighty pen. He yields them and maneuvers while explaining it with the skill of a well trained swordsman.
Napolitano has a way of making "Constitutional Law" a topic that sounds as dreary as a Tax Audit, appear exciting and interesting. I attribute that to his talent as a writer. He was a way of illustrating a point so that everyone can understand it and relate to it. You may not necessarily agree with his point of view, but he will definitely open your eyes, if they have been shut, and educate you in the fragile nature of our most significant natural right-freedom. Which in today's environment is ever so fleeting and fragile.
Thoroughly enjoy it and I can't wait to finish it so that I can start his next book on my list.
Napolitano has a way of making "Constitutional Law" a topic that sounds as dreary as a Tax Audit, appear exciting and interesting. I attribute that to his talent as a writer. He was a way of illustrating a point so that everyone can understand it and relate to it. You may not necessarily agree with his point of view, but he will definitely open your eyes, if they have been shut, and educate you in the fragile nature of our most significant natural right-freedom. Which in today's environment is ever so fleeting and fragile.
Thoroughly enjoy it and I can't wait to finish it so that I can start his next book on my list.
May 14, 2013
So, Napolitano is hilarious, in a sarcastic kind of way that I love because my humor is the same way. The book was very informational, I learned a lot as someone not familiar with the theory of libertarianism. But, I'm sorry, society gains freedom through being moral, and morality doesn't appear out of nowhere, it comes from God and Christianity. End of story. Trying to separate the two and saying we should be able to say and do whatever we want to whoever we want as long as it doesn't harm their person or take their property is just as pie-in-the-sky as socialism and will end in the same crappy civilization.
February 20, 2012
This is a great defense of libertarian philosophy. I appreciated Napolitano's judicial bent on things, too. It added a great deal to the conversation, in my mind. Still, I'm not completely compelled by his intellectual presuppositions: natural rights are inborn, but to say that government is an institution devised by men and devoid of moral character or mission does not correspond to my Christian worldview.
The writing was dry at times, perhaps because he delved fairly deeply into legal details, but overall I found it worth the labor.
The writing was dry at times, perhaps because he delved fairly deeply into legal details, but overall I found it worth the labor.
April 9, 2012
The book reads just like stinding down for a conversation with Judge Napolitano. I could hear every inflection of his voice and his laughter at certain points as I read. The book was very enlighting and inspiring, even though the Judge was preaching to the chior. Our freedoms have been eroded away over the last one hundred years and are presently being attached at a blistering rate. We must change this direction!
January 6, 2013
This book is an excellent read. It is clear how much of our liberties government has taken away over the years. We do not have a two-party political system in this country rather we have Big Government dictating how we should run our lives. Government should protect our freedoms and not take them away.
February 13, 2012
While I agreed with most of Andrew Napolitano's views (some are still a bit too libertarian for me) you can tell this book was written by a lawyer. If I was not laid up after surgery I am not sure I would have made it through this book
January 6, 2015
This book clearly create a debate in which court judge Andrew Napolitano discuss how in today's world US government is suppressing citizens' rights by regulating too much and in an excessive and unjustified way. His opinion is clearly stated and understandable.
September 13, 2015
I really enjoyed reading this book. Even though I disagree with him & Libertarians on foreign policy, open borders, and The NSA....I found that I'm a little more libertarian than I realized. Even if you don't consider yourself a libertarian, I suggest you give it a try.
December 20, 2011
Here is a link to my review: http://cookscrapcraft.blogspot.com/20...
I received this as a free e-book from BookSneeze.com.
I received this as a free e-book from BookSneeze.com.
April 28, 2012
A profound analysis of freedom from a judge who can beak it down so that a 5 year old could understand. I really enjoyed this book! Hope everyone reads this!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews