The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise

by Arthur C. Brooks

Entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, and upward mobility: These traditions are at the heart of the free enterprise system, and have long been central to America's exceptional culture. In recent years, however, policymakers have dramatically weakened these traditions--by exploding the size of government, propping up their corporate cronies, and trying to reorient our system from rewarding merit to redistributing wealth.
In The Road to Freedom , American Enterprise Institute President Arthur C. Brooks shows that this trend cannot be reversed through materialistic appeals about the economic efficiency of capitalism. Rather, free enterprise requires a moral defense rooted in the ideals of earned success, equality of opportunity, charity, and basic fairness. Brooks builds this defense and demonstrates how it is central to understanding the major policy issues facing America today.
The future of the free enterprise system has become a central issue in our national debate, and Brooks offers a practical manual for defending it over the coming years. Both a moral manifesto and a prescription for concrete policy changes, The Road to Freedom will help Americans in all walks of life translate the philosophy of free enterprise into action, to restore both our nation's greatness and our own well-being in the process.

Genres: Politics, Economics, Nonfiction, Business, Public Policy, Cultural

224 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

The research that went into this book is incredible! Every bold claim Brooks makes is substantiated with peer-reviewed studies and data. In this excellent but unfortunately short book, Brooks makes the case for economic freedom, cutting spending, reducing the public sector, and introducing more high-skilled immigrants. Every page has a statistic or study that is guaranteed to raise an eyebrow. I very much look forward to reading Brook’s next book!

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, and upward mobility: Traditions at the heart of the free enterprise system, have long been central to America's exceptional culture. In recent years, however, policymakers have dramatically weakened these traditions -- by exploding the size of government, propping up their corporate cronies, and trying to reorient our system from rewarding merit to redistributing wealth. In The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise, American Enterprise Institute President Arthur C. Brooks shows that this trend cannot be reversed through materialistic appeals about the economic efficiency of capitalism. Rather, free enterprise requires a moral defense rooted in the ideals of earned success, equality of opportunity, charity, and basic fairness. Brooks builds this defense and demonstrates how it is central to understanding the major policy issues facing America today.

The future of the free enterprise system has become a central issue in our national debate with many of those who are leaning more and more socialist if not outright communist calling for dropping capitalism altogether for socialism despite the consistent record of failure of states that have done so resulting in poverty, oppression, and even death as a result. Brooks offers a practical manual for defending it over the coming years. Both a moral manifesto and a prescription for concrete policy changes, The Road to Freedom will help Americans in all walks of life translate the philosophy of free enterprise into action, to restore both our nation's greatness and our own well-being in the process. A definite read for those confused by offers of "free stuff" and the common sense of capitalism and its track record of success in improving peoples' lives.

[Neal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent Read. Book is fairly short and argues compellingly moral arguments for Conservative issues. Brooks posits the way to win with
Liberals is to show moral reason's for Capitalism, Welfare reform, etc.

[Mirek Kukla · Rating 3 out of 5]

Defining Free Enterprise
Brooks defines free enterprise as “the system of values and laws that respects private property and limits government, encourages competition and industry, celebrates achievement based on merit, and creates individual opportunity.”

Summary
“The Road to Freedom” is split into two parts. The first is titled “Making the moral case for free enterprise.” Here, Brook states that economics arguments for free enterprise have failed to stem the tide of big government, and argues that only a moral argument can change the minds of ‘big government’ aficionados. Here, Brooks tries to argue that free enterprise is a moral imperative. This part of the book is simplistic, unconvincing, and - more or less - sucks. In short, Brooks’ forays into philosophy fail.

The second part of the book is titled “Applying the moral case for free enterprise,” and here Brooks starts to phase out philosophy in favor of facts. He explains the libertarian take on contemporary policy issues – he presents problems, and proffers solutions. This second half of the book is far more interesting, and even educational.

Unfortunately, it’s also hopelessly biased. It often feels like Brooks presupposes the validity of his conclusion, and only then sets out in search of evidence. Discriminatory evidence abounds: for instance, you’re often told that “many economists believe X,” without being told what the others believe, or even how many “many” really is.

Nonetheless – once you get over the fact that Brooks is a shamelessly biased proponent of libertarian ideals, you’re left with some solid data and occasionally convincing conclusions. This book is anything but an objective examination, so don’t come here to make up your mind. Do, however, come here to hear one side of the story, for it’s fairly well articulated. Brooks makes a terrible philosopher, but he’s a convincing policy analyst.

Let’s Argue With Brooks
Like I said, I disliked the first half of the book. As such, it’ll much more interesting to write about, and so that’s what I’ll do.

Brooks Argues That Free Enterprise Maximizes Happiness
Brooks argues that a system of free enterprise maximizes the opportunity for people to obtain that which really makes them happy: earned success. Earned success is presented as the ultimate source of human happiness, and since free enterprise (presumably) maximizes an individual’s ability to earn success, free enterprise, Brooks concludes, is a moral obligation.

Is Brooks a Libertarian, or a Utilitarian?
First, notice there’s an implicit utilitarian assumption here – that maximizing happiness is an ultimate moral objective. This seems kind of odd, since utilitarianism is a political philosophy that’s strikingly at odds with libertarianism.

Utilitarians believe that it is our moral duty to maximize aggregate happiness, and ironically, they argue that the best way to do so it to redistribute wealth – not to the point of absolute equality, but to the point where marginal deadweight loss is equivalent to marginal gains in aggregate utility. Currently, we’re nowhere near that point, so utilitarians argue to increase wealth redistribution.

Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that the government ought to uphold laws – and that it ought to do no more than uphold laws. According to libertarian political philosophy, the government has no right telling people what to do with their wealth. In other words, for a libertarian, happiness isn’t a moral imperative: freedom is. And so it’s odd that Brooks, a self-avowed libertarian, would appeal to utilitarianism when making a moral argument.

Let’s Assume That Brooks Is a Utilitarian
But ok – let’s say we all agree that maximizing happiness is a moral imperative. Does this mean we should all endorse free enterprise, as Brooks envisions it? Hardly. Let’s re-examine Brooks’ argument. He states that “the free enterprise system allows the most people to earn their success” and thus increase their happiness, and concludes that “free enterprise is therefore not an economic imperative. It is a moral imperative”.

Let’s say that free enterprise is the political system under which it’s easiest to earn your success (and I believe it is). Let’s further assume earning your success maximizes your happiness (I disagree, but let’s let that slide). Does it follow that free enterprise maximizes happiness? Of course not. What about all the people that don’t earn success under free enterprise? The fact that people can earn success under a certain system doesn’t mean they will.

American Happiness vs. European Happiness
And in fact, it seems that people can be pretty darn happy even if they don’t live in a system of free enterprise. Brooks acknowledges that Europeans – living in “social democracies” – are roughly as happy as Americans, and often more so. So, if Europeans are quite happy living in a system far removed from free enterprise, why should we, as Americans, strive for free enterprise as a means to happiness?

Because, Brooks argues, Americans place more personal value in work than do Europeans. Americans outrank Europeans in happiness at high work levels, and vice versa at low work levels. Presumably, Europeans don’t much care about work, and they’re content being taken care of. For Americans, on the other hand, success is essential for happiness, and thus Americans will be happiest in a system that rewards skills and talents – that is, free enterprise.

Thus, Brooks urges us to “resist all efforts to push America in a European direction”. But hold on a second: by analogy, shouldn’t Europeans “resist all efforts to push Europe in an American direction”? And if some people are happier in a free enterprise system and others are happier without, then you cannot make the moral case for free enterprise. You cannot say that free enterprise intrinsically the best system, and ought to be pursued as a moral imperative, if it’s only the “best” sometimes, for some people. But I digress.

A Subjective Moral Imperative, Then?
So, perhaps there’s a moral imperative to push for free enterprise, if you’re an American. But if you actually look up the only study Brooks cites to support this theory (you can find the study at http://people.hmdc.harvard.edu/~akoza...), you’ll find that Brooks misrepresents the data. As a reminder, Brooks argues that Americans place more personal value in work than do Europeans. And this is true: a hard working American is happier than a leisurely American. On the flipside, a hardworking European is less happy than a leisurely European. But here’s the point Brooks neglects to mention: a hardworking American is less happy than a leisurely European.

It makes sense that hardworking Americans would be happier in a system that rewards hard work, and doesn’t subsidize leisure (ie, America). Similarly, it makes sense that hardworking Europeans would be less happy in a system that doesn’t reward hard work, and does subsidize leisure (ie, Europe). The important question, however, is: would Americans be more, or less, happy in a European system?

Studies tell us that Americans need to work to be happy under the current economic system. This does not mean things would be the same if we switched to the European system. Brooks’ contention that we should “resist all efforts to push America in a European direction” is entirely unfounded. There might be other “moral” reasons why free enterprise is better than social democracy, but I’m not convinced that this is one of them.

On Income Inequality
Brooks states that recent increases in income inequality are largely due to the fact that the “the one percent,” in the rhetoric of the Occupy Wallstreet movement, have gotten much wealthier in recent years. But Brooks claims that this “growth hasn’t occurred at the expense of the 99 percent.” I agree that the economy this isn’t a zero-sum game, and in absolute terms, it might be the case that the poor have also gotten a bit richer.

But if we’re making utilitarian arguments, let’s pause to consider the following: happiness is dictated by our relative level of wealth, and not by our absolute level of wealth. In one famous study, experimenters found that almost everyone would prefer to live in a 400k house in a world where everyone else lives in a 300k house, than live in a 500k house in a world where everyone else lives in a 600k house. The economist Robert Frank wrote a fascinating book (see http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/70...) examining the extent to which increasing inequality decreases happiness, even if a rising tide is raising all boats. And thus, up to a point, a utilitarian should be against rising inequality, even if wealth increases across the board in absolute terms.

Conclusion
Brooks does a woefully inadequate job making a “moral case” for free enterprise. But seriously, the second half isn't so bad.

Random: I Disagree
Hill complains that government bail out companies “for the sake of ‘fairness’.” I disagree – governments bail out companies so that the economy does go to shit and tailspin out of control.

Random: I agree
“It is truly galling to see the 2011 Occupy Wallstreet protestors demonstrate with signs that read “we are the 99%,” as if they were somehow treated unfairly by an objective world standard. These protestors, as privileged Americans, are part of the world’s 1 percent."

[Julie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I proofread this book. It is about the United States economy and free enterprise. It paints a scary picture of the road we are on with our current system and makes some very real and practical suggestions for how to fix it. It's a must read; we need to fix things for our kids and grandkids!!!!!

[Dimitar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is amazing, even though the bias of the author is too exposed. This is the second book written by Arthur Brooks that I have read (The Battle is the first one). Arthur Brooks wrote this book for the purpose of convincing the free enterprise advocates how to argue for free enterprise against Liberals and Progressives (socialists and communists among them).

He believes that the most compelling argument is the moral argument - that it is not moral to take wealth away from the rich and redistribute it. One of his strongest supports for his argument that he gave in his book is during his years as economics professor. His students were often having disputes about redistribution of wealth. His reflection in front of them - would it be a good idea to take points from the most successful students have acquired in that class and redistribute them to the least successful students in order to make everyone happy. Even the students with the lowest achievements in that class agreed the idea was not good.

The argument that he made that I utterly disagree with is the one that claims that entrepreneurs are the happiest people. Of course he cited data to support it but he also talked about his conversations with other people - among them social entrepreneurs who were happy with what they were doing even though they were so poor they lived off of noodles and tap water. I have had different experience. When I was working as a fitness instructor, I suggested to one of my colleagues - who was apparently into workouts, nutrition and competition - that he become a powerlifter. His answer: "I would love that but I cannot. There is not much money in that sport, especially unless you are among the first in your country." A similar situation that I bumped into involved a college tennis player. She told me she was admitted on with a sports scholarship but she doesn't see her future in tennis: one reason because she is tired of tennis, and another reason because she is not that good compared to her potential opponents so she would end up barely making ends meet, regardless of whether she likes playing tennis or not.

I can think of personal examples. I have had lots of passions in my life, most of which would not pay me the bills, even if I do them 24:7, so I already know if I am to survive in this world, I have to look for something else.

Not to mention that living off of noodles and tap water (literally or not - we are talking about poverty here) is detrimental to one's health. So living within such limited means deprives one of taking care of their health when they really need it - just because they cannot afford it.

Nevertheless, the book is a must-read. I liked the concepts there, especially the discussion of social capital. If everyone reads that book and applies most (not all) of its concepts, the world will be a better place to live in - and with a better social capital even in the big city. In my opinion, this book should be required from high-school teachers. The best way to sustain positive mentality in a country is when valuable concepts and ideas are taught in K-12.

[JP · Rating 4 out of 5]

This excellent book successfully argues that advocates for free enterprise should do so primarily as a moral stance. The first half explains why this approach is more effective. Free enterprise is better not just because of the outcomes it produces, but more importantly because it reflects values underlying true liberty. Policies counter to free enterprise are damaging not just to overall growth, but more importantly, to individuals, because they are kept from achieving their own potential. He wraps up in the last few chapters with a practical application to current issues. The whole argument is well structured and convincing.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me a while to read this one, but I really liked it.

The author makes the moral case for the free market system - as opposed to the numbers, charts and graphs arguments that are most commonly made.

I think both statists and free market people agree that certain problems should be addressed - but disagree about the best means and ways. I liked that this book supported the morality of the free market system.

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book to anyone that wants an easy explanation as to why free enterprise is superior to socialism in any form. At less than 200 pages and with a conversational tone, this book is extremely accessible and provides excellent examples of the benefits of free enterprise vs. government interference.

[cassandramonds · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quick and easy, the author was probably a hit with his econ students. I liked this book for the author's use of empirical data to back up his major claim: earned success is foundational to the American "pursuit of happiness". This was a "must-read" for me in this election year.

[Glenn Landstrom · Rating 4 out of 5]

The C.S. Lewis of economics.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Brooks, he has a lot of good content in here and it is well worth the read but I think his book The Conservative Heart is the choice if you are only going to read one of them.

[Alicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brooks shows (with tables, charts and many pages of footnotes) that downsizing the federal workforce will increase net American employment, how labor unions increase labor prices and thus drive down hiring, that our country’s debt problem is caused (mainly) by out-of-control entitlement spending, that we also need to slash discretionary programs such as agricultural subsidies and cut down the federal workforce to reduce the federal debt. He suggests that people should have ownership over their retirement savings so those savings are not raided by politicians.

“I believe that if we want a better future, liberated from statism and corporate cronyism, the answer is the system that removes the shackles: free enterprise...a noble system that rewards aspiration instead of envy. It must be protected and strengthened for the sake of our self-realization, for a fairer society, and for the poor and vulnerable - not just because it is the best system to make us richer, but because it is the most moral system that allows us to flourish as people.” -p. 18

“People thrive when they can earn their success, and they suffer under conditions in which they can’t, or are trained not to, succeed. People flourish when they control their lives. When that is taken away from them by the state or corporate cronies, everyone suffers.” -p. 31

“Leaders who insist that opportunity is not real and encourage policies that redistribute more and more income are moving America from a culture of aspiration to a culture of envy.” -p. 60

“For some people, inequality is all they’re worried about. In that case, then communism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism may be the best systems, because they keep almost everyone poor. But if quality of life matters to you, then you should support free enterprise unequivocally. It pulls millions of people out of poverty every year, increases their health and life expectancy, and gives them the possibility of something even greater.” -p. 80

“Free enterprise advocates need to master the facts on this subject. Only then can they combat the common redistributionist argument that capitalism is good for the rich but not the poor, and that it corrupts us morally. The hard evidence clearly shows that free enterprise is the best system for lifting up the poorest in society and the best system for encouraging moral action on the part of private individuals. Statism halts free enterprise’s virtuous cycle in its tracks. When we take away people’s ability to prosper privately, they work less, earn less, spend less, and create fewer jobs for others.” -p. 88

“America simply cannot expect to maintain a responsible citizenry when half of its citizens don’t pay for key public services such as the national defense.” -p. 104

“Social democracies sacrifice robust economic growth for a strong welfare state and income equality. Every serious economist - left or right - knows it to be true.” -p. 108

“Free enterprise’s unparalleled ability to create wealth ended poverty for many millions of our own citizens and billions more around the world.” -p. 110

“The basic problem is that America’s minimum ‘safety net’ has become appallingly broad. It has little to do with helping the poor, and a lot to do with passing out favors to voters and smoothing the risks out of ordinary life.” -p. 117

To reform the bloated Medicare payouts: “Provide the federal subsidy as a block grant to the states… States would have the incentive to economize and innovate within a fixed budget, just as private companies (and all individuals) do.” -p. 164

“The key to our success lies in free enterprise-- the system our Founders left us to maximize liberty, create individual opportunity, and reward entrepreneurship. Free enterprise creates the opportunities our ancestors came to America seeking- the opportunities that allowed them to pursue their happiness in a new land. It is the free enterprise system that treated them fairly for the first time; instead of being penalized for lacking a noble birth, they were rewarded for their hard work and personal responsibility. Free enterprise made a country of immigrants into the most powerful, prosperous nation in the history of the world...Free enterprise teaches us to earn success, not learn helplessness.” -pp. 174-5

For more resources: www.aei.org.arthurbrooks

[Jason Isaacs · Rating 4 out of 5]

In “The Road to Freedom: How to win the fight for free enterprise”, Arthur Brook makes the moral case for capitalism. Written in 2012, the book focuses on the turbulent political situation in the United States. Since the trend of big government continues unabated in the United States, the federal government is becoming increasingly involved in a cycle of increased taxation, more borrowing, and redistributive policies. The United States risks a more comprehensive transition toward statism unless a conscious decision is made to defend economic freedom.

Brooks argues that many advocates for free markets have made accurate and astute cases based on policy, causal relationships regarding the effects of entitlements, and the ability of capitalism to raise millions out of poverty. These same people have the statistical and empirical evidence they need to in order to prove their points; yet, a compelling and persuasive defense of free enterprise must appeal to the moral sensibility of people. As Brooks states, “Moral arguments for freedom have always proven more powerful than material ones in moving ordinary people around the world to act in courageous ways.”

Some readers may be uncomfortable framing an economic discussion in terms of happiness. In response, Brooks quips “It may sound like a squishy topic, but it turns out there is a lot of good evidence on who is happy and who isn’t.” He contends that people are most satisfied with their work when they experience earned success, even if the product of their work does not translate into increased wealth; the rewards of earned success are developing skills and passions in a way that create meaningful work. Redistributive economics often cushion people from the urgency needed to fully develop their skills, accept the lessons learned from mistakes, and make informed decisions based on potential risks. As a result, Brooks contends “Free enterprise is therefore not an economic imperative; it is a moral imperative.”

The United States is sometimes criticized as being unfair. Brooks acknowledges that “The moral legitimacy of free enterprise depends largely on how the system enables people to flourish, whether the system is fair, and how the system treats the least fortunate in society.” Along with most free markets advocates, Brooks acknowledges the place for a safety net to help those who truly need it; however, free markets advocates should reject ever-expanding government programs designed to increase political power and consequently cripple human potential.

If you find yourself unsatisfied by his moral arguments in the first half of the book, I challenge to ask yourself how this case can be refined. Brooks wants to expand the conversation concerning the morality of free markets. Readers should remember that he is framing the conversation in a way he believes is underrepresented by many free market advocates; he does not have a plethora of voices from which to recalibrate well tread arguments. His case should be considered the springboard from which arguments are developed and expanded.

The second half of the book details a road map to expanded freedom. Brooks shows his readers how to apply the moral case and illustrates the potential for increased freedom in our country. He articulates many of the traditional arguments for capitalism and shows their viability in our political dialogue. Many of his examples apply to events that were current at the time of publishing and lend sharpness to his cultural critique.

Brooks’ critique and arguments will remain relevant for the foreseeable future. The United States is certainly at a turning point. The defense of liberty never ends, yet we can hope for the day that books such as these are reminders of an era in which the United States turned back from the sunset of freedom and finally secured the blessings of liberty we were meant to enjoy.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Arthur Brooks is head of the American Enterprise Institute and an unabashed proponent of free enterprise as the solution to everything. His claim that welfare reform was a success in creating self-sufficiency because it reduced the number of people receiving benefits immediately called this view into question for me: I had plenty of clients who simply lived on less as a result of welfare reform and were not even close to self-sufficient.

The first half of the book claims to provide a moral justification for free enterprise. I found some of this interesting, though this is by no means an objective look. He clearly had his conclusion and then marshalled arguments to support it. I think free enterprise is important, but I don't think it's the cure to all evils. I would rated this book more highly if it felt like an honest examination of free enterprise rather than a polemic.

The second half of the book focuses on cures. He argues (and I agree) that the minimum safety net has become way too broad, touching on all levels of society (i.e., Medicare, esp. Part D, and the mortgage interest tax deduction) instead of just the truly poor. I agree that we need major entitlement reform such as a raising the minimum age for SS and Medicare I also appreciate that his view on the regulation of monopolies is to consider "What is best for the consumer?" rather than "What will protect powerful industries?"

I am skeptical, though, of his argument that everyone will get along better without the government getting in the way. There are examples of terrible treatment of workers under a less-regulated environment. I have also read studies that come to very different conclusions about the effect of government spending on the economy.

All in all, a quick read with a few good suggestions that no politician is likely to actually be able to implement.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had gotten a taste of Arthur Brooks' thinking in AEI's Poverty in America, so this lecture seemed like the best next step.

The lecture is a short summary of a book of the same name. Here are the main points:


Brooks critiques free enterprise advocates' reliance on cold analysis, saying that those type of arguments will always lose when confronted with even the weakest moral argument. Therefore, Brooks endeavors to offer a moral argument in defense of free enterprise (the effort to communicate "what is written on our hearts"). He focuses on the absolute importance of earned success as a driver of peoples' happiness, contrasting it with the damage that learned helplessness does to people. Then he gets into the idea of fairness, showing that a broad consensus of Americans have a merit-based conception of fairness that is compatible with free enterprise. Next, he provides strong, concise arguments for the American free enterprise system being "the best antipoverty measure ever invented." He also notes that in America the safety net ends up benefitting the middle class more than the poor and that the irresponsible policies that rack up debt will threaten the economy and could bring on a Greece-style slashing of relief measures, causing the poorest people in society to suffer the most. In summation, "...free enterprise is not an economic alternative. It's a moral imperative."

After reading this lecture I am primed for spending more time with Arthur Brooks' works. Even as an economist, he seems to offer a good counterweight to some conservative visions that can overemphasize economic factors, as if they were the only ones that matter.

[Liuyang Li · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the book is a rehash off the author’s previous book, the battle. The second half of the book is the author’s recommendations on the government’s rule and policies.

The author presents the arguments not in a rigorous way, and mostly through common sense. I’d recommend Hayek’s original work instead.

[Alex O'Donnell · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has some interesting insights into the moral case for conservatism - it's good to understand the rationale for why conservative politicians promote what they do. Another interesting facet is how similar the basic viewpoint for government is between me, a liberal, and Brooks, a conservative. At some points I disagree with his policy recommendations for various reasons, but at least I understood why he (and conservatives in general) make them.

On the other hand, this book feels hollow. The point where I felt most disappointed was at the literal end, where my Kindle said I was at 60% and suddenly I was at Acknowledgements. It felt worse because he had finally started to talk about basic policy ideas, and then it was done.

Another point to make is that, being 5-6 years old now, the references are a little dated, especially considering unemployment and debt statistics. It would be interesting to see how he would update the book given the economy (and administration) now.

Anyway, do I recommend the book? No. While I enjoyed his viewpoints, they are nothing you could not find on Youtube or on the AEI website. At $18, this book is not worth what you are given. Good, but not worth it - even if you agree with him more than you would like to admit.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Brooks makes important points about the bloated state of government benefits and spending. In general, I think he oversimplifies reality to a distorting extent. For example, his presentation of impoverished Americans is incomplete; he treats them as people suffering due to increased dependence on government entitlements. Take them away and provide minimum benefits enabling basic existence, and they will rise out of poverty on their own. Additionally, the fairness of capitalists' free markets across multiple generations and justification for removing all capital gains and estate taxes are unconvincing. I rarely feel this way about books, but I think he could have made it longer to more fully express his points. He did not adequately demonstrate that the "moral argument" was definitely on his side. It is inadequate to cite one survey or an out of context quote from one intellectual; consensus is not necessarily required, but picking and choosing isolated quotes and statistics requires additional justification. Not a bad book, but I imagine it mainly solidifies people who already hold beliefs similar to Brooks, rather than persuading those left of center.

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 3 out of 5]

Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, here presents a conservative critique of the last hundred years of liberalism in general, and the Obama administration in particular, to support his thesis that the only way to persuade the American people to reject big government is to emphasize the morality of rewarding merit through free enterprise. Brooks writes in an unpretentious anecdotal style, which is fine; but the book is less profound than “timely”: that is, it seems intended to influence the 2012 election or perhaps potential policy makers in a vainly-hoped-for Romney administration. If you’re already a believer in free market capitalism (perhaps after having read Henry Hazlitt or Milton Freidman many years ago), read Road to Freedom as a refresher and then pass it on to some younger person who needs enlightenment.

[Robert Murphy]

Politics, economics, & morality... *yawn* but wait it was actually interesting!

The author had well laid out and thought provoking arguments backed up by plenty of research and numbers. He clearly explained where we are currently are and where we are headed if we stay the course. He explained how we can right the ship and why he believes that doing so ultimately is the best for everyone.

If you want to learn more about the basics of the free enterprise system and how it works or if you want to learn how to argue for and defend those ideals this is a good starting point. Even if you just want basic information reading this is a good choice.

[Kenny Sullins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this book a few years back and used it as help for a research paper in my English Comp. class.

Loved it! A very good book in the pro-free-market capitalism perspective, for anyone wanting to look into that. I've always thoughts Brooks was a smart man and he actually backs up his claims with info and sources. Not that all would agree with him (we can't all be for capitalism, though there are different kinds, in my opinion), but I'd like to think most rational people can at least say he makes a good argument for his side.

[Adrielle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here is a data-driven work that avoids the vitriol typically found in popular political writing. When I read a political piece (which I rarely do because I do not like vitriol), I like to feel like I'm exchanging ideas with a reasonable person.

Also, I agree with the author's position regarding the paramount importance of freedom in achieving happiness.

I thought this was a great read. (An easy read, too.)

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought Brooks did a compelling job of making a moral case for free enterprise. We need to analyze every program we have created, every effort to help others and examine their effectiveness. Sometimes it is easier to continue doing the wrong thing especially when it creates the illusion of being caring.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really appreciated the clear, simple writing style with tangible proof points vs dwelling in the abstract or academic realm. The author tackles a highly complex and political subject and breaks it down to bite-size pieces. Quick and engaging read.

[Mike Thoennes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was a very valuable book and Mr. Brooks has a great argument he makes. If you are a democrat or republican, this is an excellent book for you to read, to get straight in your mind the importance of free markets and the role of governments. I recommend you read this book.

[Alberto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interest introduction into the virtue of selfishness and the problems with big government. Good to get the neophytes interested in the subject. To delve in deeper, I recommend reading Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government
by Yaron Brook

[Shane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book that clearly spells out why free enterprise is the system that will help people to prosper, and why big government doesn't help people out of poverty. Highly recommended.

[Marjorie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just found this author. He is amazing and saying what has needed to be said for a long, long time.

[Sean Hackbarth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good polemic and useful for crafting pro-economic freedom messages that should connect with people, because it's about telling compelling, moral stories.