What do you think?
Rate this book
No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed
The government is not a neutral arbiter of truth. It never has been. It never will be. Doubt everything. John Stossel does. A self-described skeptic, he has dismantled society’s sacred cows with unerring common sense. Now he debunks the most sacred of them our intuition and belief that government can solve our problems. In No, They Can’t, the New York Times bestselling author and Fox News commentator insists that we discard that idea of the “perfect” government—left or right—and retrain our brain to look only at the facts, to rethink our lives as independent individuals—and fast. With characteristic tenacity, John Stossel outlines and exposes the fallacies and facts of the most pressing issues of today’s social and political climate—and shows how our intuitions about them are, frankly, • the unreliable marriage between big business, the media, and unions • the myth of tax breaks and the ignorance of their advocates • why “central planners” never create more jobs and how government never really will • why free trade works—without government Interference • federal regulations and the trouble they create for consumers • the harm caused to the disabled by government protection of the disabled • the problems (social and economic) generated by minimum-wage laws • the destructive daydreams of “health insurance for everyone” • bad food vs. good food and the government’s intrusive, unwelcome nanny sensibilities • the dumbing down of public education and teachers’ unions • how gun control actually increases crime . . . and more myth-busting realities of why the American people must wrest our lives back from a government stranglehold. Stossel also reveals how his unyielding desire to educate the public with the truth caused an irreparable rift with ABC (nobody wanted to hear the point-by- point facts of ObamaCare), and why he left his long-running stint for a new, uncensored forum with Fox. He lays out his ideas for education innovation as well and, finally, makes it perfectly clear why government action is the least effective and desirable fantasy to hang on to. As Stossel says, “It’s not about electing the right people. It’s about narrowing responsibilities.” No, They Can’t is an irrefutable first step toward that goal.
338 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 10, 2012
81 people are currently reading
1130 people want to read
About the author
John Stossel
18 books111 followersJohn Frank Stossel is an American consumer television personality, author, and libertarian pundit, known for his career on both ABC News and Fox Business Channel.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews
October 16, 2016
If you're looking for a quick introduction to the Libertarian viewpoint, this is a good primer and worth considering. "No, They Can't" (an obvious pun on Obama's "Yes We Can") decries government overreach in the economy, business, regulation, health care, workers' rights, diet, safety, censorship, education, the war on drugs, military, and conservation. John Stossel is a long-time television host with a history of exposing scams and challenging common conceptions. He's done some great work on skepticism. Most of his career was at ABC, but now he's over at Fox (he discusses the transition extensively in the book), a non-union shop that gives him the freedom to upset all the apple carts he wants.
This book has the same goal of disabusing the public of notions Stossel sees as false. Each individual argument is prefaced by two statements: "What intuition tempts us to believe" and "What reality taught me". Stossel does a poor job of stating his opponents' arguments in a single sentence, and sometimes we get some odd constructions. For example: "What intuition tempts us to believe: To protect the tigers, ban tiger hunting. What reality taught me: To protect tigers, eat tigers." (he thinks Ted Turner farming buffalo is somehow relevant to saving jungle cats and rhinos), or, "What intuition tempts us to believe: Tax the rich! What reality taught me: The rich don't have enough. Really."
The thrust of the book is that government unrelentingly attempts to control more functions of society, and that control is never dialed back. As good as the original intentions may have been, central planning is always doomed to failure. Government's solutions are backed by force and there's no consequence for failure or squandering taxpayer money. On the other hand, individuals acting in the free market introduces competition: driving down prices for consumers, encouraging development of better practices and technology, and letting failed ideas go out of business.
There's a lot of fair points here. Stossel presents the most egregious examples of failed government programs and wasted money. I totally agree with him on the power and benefits of the free market, and that bottom-up solutions are the best. When they are available and working well, government should get out of the way and let them do their thing. (Funny enough, pretty much all of his examples are of businesses doing great things in America, in the very system he's decrying.). I even agree with Stossel on cutting military spending and ending the drug war.
All that is well and good, but then Stossel goes off the rails. The book is jam-packed with ridiculous analogies and comparisons. Here are two consecutive sentences (p118): "Heck, in the agriculturally rich Soviet Union, there was so little food that mothers sent their kids into the fields to kill mice and rats. Yet now, somehow, under President Obama's management, government will give us better health care? Give me a break." Give me a break, indeed. Stossel rarely presents data and makes wide-reaching conclusions in nuanced situations. He relies heavily on anecdote, shifting constantly to back up one of his points with statements like this: "A North Carolina doctor we interviewed hired four people just to fill out forms. He wishes he could spend that money on caring for patients." Some of the points are just out of date (and proven misguided), as the book was written in 2012. He talks about the high unemployment rate under Obama, which was already falling at that point, but is now down to 4.9%. Stossel also lumps in small issues, like certain politicians trying to control what people eat with legislation, that are not part of, say, the Democratic Party's platform. He'll point out where various overreaches have been overturned by law, and I can only think, "Yeah... that's the system working, buddy."
The discussion about education was particularly irritating. Stossel talks about how terrible public schools are, and recommends getting rid of them in favor of private schools. His example for how much better schools can be are to point at the success of charter schools. Nowhere does he acknowledge that charter schools are also publicly funded. Still like them, Stossel? He also tries to pretend that they must play by the same rules in terms of accepting students (they don't). Even then, he must admit that test scores aren't improved between private and public schools when accounting for socioeconomic factors, but he still prefers private. He wants to abolish the Department of Education (and refers to the public education system repeatedly as "the BLOB" without any explanation of why that term is relevant or helpful to the discussion - it's not even an acronym). This raises the question: how would all children go to school without public schools? He seems confident that even poor parents will go out of their way to get extra jobs and pay for private schooling, because they want the best for their kids. Again, this is backed up by an anecdote of a parent he talked to. Why do you think we created public schools in the first place, Stossel? Because that wasn't happening! Yes, private schools are fantastic. There are lots of problems with the public school system. No, doing away with it entirely will not improve education.
Another primary point in that chapter is that we need to get rid of teachers unions and tenure. If you're not afraid of losing your job, you'll be a bad employee and automatically turn lazy and greedy - Stossel really promotes that idea throughout the book as if it's a universal truism, and provides a handful of examples of the worst offenders. Having just finished the book, I walked through a TSA line yesterday and couldn't help but notice: the employees were friendly and professional and fast. The woman who greeted us laughed and smiled and told my son how handsome he was as she efficiently moved us through the line. I pondered how someone writing at Stossel's level could make an equally-effective counter-argument with that anecdote.
I really want to go into more detail, but I have once again written an absurdly long book review. I'll just sum up: I think Stossel is misleading with this book from the very title: "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails - But Individuals Succeed". He's already skewed the conversation. Government is treated as some sort of monolithic edifice, "them/they", that operates in its own interest. In some instances that's true. However, government is made out of people, many who want to make a positive difference. Sometimes they're actually successful, and you could fill another book with those examples that never show up here. Government also strives toward transparency and accountability - there are certain decisions for which we want everyone to have a seat at the table, regardless of their connections. Business, on the other hand, is characterized as "individuals". I don't recall Stossel ever actually using the word "corporation" in the book, and he ignores the various abuses of private industry that necessitated regulation in the first place. The stock market isn't even mentioned in the book. Stossel feels that eventually all problems will be solved because consumers will support good causes and impoverish the bad. Even if that were true, those gradual changes would in many cases not be fast enough to help people who really need it. Greed and laziness and cruelty exist in government AND business - it's messy, because it's real life and it's all run by humans. We really do need a combination of approaches - sometimes the free market is the best, but sometimes government has to balance the equation. Is the mix perfect? No. Will it ever be? Probably not. That's why we've got to keep working.
I'll still give the book three stars, because I like Stossel's role as a challenger of popular assumptions. I think that's valuable, and I think he's made about as good a case here for Libertarian politics as one can - so it's worth reading, and can definitely provide some good food for thought on some of the issues.
This book has the same goal of disabusing the public of notions Stossel sees as false. Each individual argument is prefaced by two statements: "What intuition tempts us to believe" and "What reality taught me". Stossel does a poor job of stating his opponents' arguments in a single sentence, and sometimes we get some odd constructions. For example: "What intuition tempts us to believe: To protect the tigers, ban tiger hunting. What reality taught me: To protect tigers, eat tigers." (he thinks Ted Turner farming buffalo is somehow relevant to saving jungle cats and rhinos), or, "What intuition tempts us to believe: Tax the rich! What reality taught me: The rich don't have enough. Really."
The thrust of the book is that government unrelentingly attempts to control more functions of society, and that control is never dialed back. As good as the original intentions may have been, central planning is always doomed to failure. Government's solutions are backed by force and there's no consequence for failure or squandering taxpayer money. On the other hand, individuals acting in the free market introduces competition: driving down prices for consumers, encouraging development of better practices and technology, and letting failed ideas go out of business.
There's a lot of fair points here. Stossel presents the most egregious examples of failed government programs and wasted money. I totally agree with him on the power and benefits of the free market, and that bottom-up solutions are the best. When they are available and working well, government should get out of the way and let them do their thing. (Funny enough, pretty much all of his examples are of businesses doing great things in America, in the very system he's decrying.). I even agree with Stossel on cutting military spending and ending the drug war.
All that is well and good, but then Stossel goes off the rails. The book is jam-packed with ridiculous analogies and comparisons. Here are two consecutive sentences (p118): "Heck, in the agriculturally rich Soviet Union, there was so little food that mothers sent their kids into the fields to kill mice and rats. Yet now, somehow, under President Obama's management, government will give us better health care? Give me a break." Give me a break, indeed. Stossel rarely presents data and makes wide-reaching conclusions in nuanced situations. He relies heavily on anecdote, shifting constantly to back up one of his points with statements like this: "A North Carolina doctor we interviewed hired four people just to fill out forms. He wishes he could spend that money on caring for patients." Some of the points are just out of date (and proven misguided), as the book was written in 2012. He talks about the high unemployment rate under Obama, which was already falling at that point, but is now down to 4.9%. Stossel also lumps in small issues, like certain politicians trying to control what people eat with legislation, that are not part of, say, the Democratic Party's platform. He'll point out where various overreaches have been overturned by law, and I can only think, "Yeah... that's the system working, buddy."
The discussion about education was particularly irritating. Stossel talks about how terrible public schools are, and recommends getting rid of them in favor of private schools. His example for how much better schools can be are to point at the success of charter schools. Nowhere does he acknowledge that charter schools are also publicly funded. Still like them, Stossel? He also tries to pretend that they must play by the same rules in terms of accepting students (they don't). Even then, he must admit that test scores aren't improved between private and public schools when accounting for socioeconomic factors, but he still prefers private. He wants to abolish the Department of Education (and refers to the public education system repeatedly as "the BLOB" without any explanation of why that term is relevant or helpful to the discussion - it's not even an acronym). This raises the question: how would all children go to school without public schools? He seems confident that even poor parents will go out of their way to get extra jobs and pay for private schooling, because they want the best for their kids. Again, this is backed up by an anecdote of a parent he talked to. Why do you think we created public schools in the first place, Stossel? Because that wasn't happening! Yes, private schools are fantastic. There are lots of problems with the public school system. No, doing away with it entirely will not improve education.
Another primary point in that chapter is that we need to get rid of teachers unions and tenure. If you're not afraid of losing your job, you'll be a bad employee and automatically turn lazy and greedy - Stossel really promotes that idea throughout the book as if it's a universal truism, and provides a handful of examples of the worst offenders. Having just finished the book, I walked through a TSA line yesterday and couldn't help but notice: the employees were friendly and professional and fast. The woman who greeted us laughed and smiled and told my son how handsome he was as she efficiently moved us through the line. I pondered how someone writing at Stossel's level could make an equally-effective counter-argument with that anecdote.
I really want to go into more detail, but I have once again written an absurdly long book review. I'll just sum up: I think Stossel is misleading with this book from the very title: "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails - But Individuals Succeed". He's already skewed the conversation. Government is treated as some sort of monolithic edifice, "them/they", that operates in its own interest. In some instances that's true. However, government is made out of people, many who want to make a positive difference. Sometimes they're actually successful, and you could fill another book with those examples that never show up here. Government also strives toward transparency and accountability - there are certain decisions for which we want everyone to have a seat at the table, regardless of their connections. Business, on the other hand, is characterized as "individuals". I don't recall Stossel ever actually using the word "corporation" in the book, and he ignores the various abuses of private industry that necessitated regulation in the first place. The stock market isn't even mentioned in the book. Stossel feels that eventually all problems will be solved because consumers will support good causes and impoverish the bad. Even if that were true, those gradual changes would in many cases not be fast enough to help people who really need it. Greed and laziness and cruelty exist in government AND business - it's messy, because it's real life and it's all run by humans. We really do need a combination of approaches - sometimes the free market is the best, but sometimes government has to balance the equation. Is the mix perfect? No. Will it ever be? Probably not. That's why we've got to keep working.
I'll still give the book three stars, because I like Stossel's role as a challenger of popular assumptions. I think that's valuable, and I think he's made about as good a case here for Libertarian politics as one can - so it's worth reading, and can definitely provide some good food for thought on some of the issues.
January 5, 2020
A good starter to libertarian philosophy if you’re wanting to learn more about libertarianism. I enjoy watching Stossel’s videos on YouTube and this book felt like one long video in the form of a book. As a conservative I can’t say that I agree with Stossel on everything he says but what I can say is that he makes a very eloquent case for libertarianism in this book.
April 24, 2012
I am getting old. That's a good thing because I have the advantage of having watched government for a long time. At one point I thought, incorrectly, that government could solve problems. And I thought I knew everything. Both observations were incorrect. Government throws money at problems. That rarely solves the problems but can sometimes ameliorate the suffering of some individuals involved. That's a good thing...sometimes. When there is too much money, it has a corrosive, corrupting effect. When it occurs too often it attracts the vultures to feed at the trough of human misery. Because they are well fed, the vultures multiply. Stossel demonstrates with a series vignettes that we have reached a point where the vultures have propagated to an extreme extent and now encourage tragedy and other situations that will encourage the money to flow.
As Stossel, I have moved from liberal to a libertarian. Where once we practiced a live and let live, laisse faire approach to our government assuming they will act rationally. We assumed the help they provided would be helpful. We have migrated to the position that when government acts to help they fail to consider the secondary and tertiary effects, they stay engaged too long, and they pervert the charitable intent of their actions by institutionalizing the assistance so it stays forever.
Obviously I enjoyed reading this book. I could not stop agreeing with his indignation and awe at the ineptness of our government. Having worked with government at all levels during my career I have a great deal of respect for the individuals who are our public servants. It is the mechanism of rules and regulations with the threat of jail when broken that tends to put most of these public servants in the position of having to implement stupid, clumsy, oafish policies. As the government becomes larger, it becomes more unwieldy resulting in less common sense, excessive waste, and ineptitude.
As Stossel, I have moved from liberal to a libertarian. Where once we practiced a live and let live, laisse faire approach to our government assuming they will act rationally. We assumed the help they provided would be helpful. We have migrated to the position that when government acts to help they fail to consider the secondary and tertiary effects, they stay engaged too long, and they pervert the charitable intent of their actions by institutionalizing the assistance so it stays forever.
Obviously I enjoyed reading this book. I could not stop agreeing with his indignation and awe at the ineptness of our government. Having worked with government at all levels during my career I have a great deal of respect for the individuals who are our public servants. It is the mechanism of rules and regulations with the threat of jail when broken that tends to put most of these public servants in the position of having to implement stupid, clumsy, oafish policies. As the government becomes larger, it becomes more unwieldy resulting in less common sense, excessive waste, and ineptitude.
April 19, 2012
If you're a liberal, you'll hate this book. If you are an open-minded conservative (like I was so many years ago when I read his first two books), it will make you think. If you are a libertarian, this is a book for you. Government is not the solution to our problems... government IS the problem... and it's high time we shrink it down to size.
July 28, 2016
I always knew I had libertarian leanings and this booked sealed the deal! This book confirmed many of my suspicions-and fears. As much as I appreciated this book, at the end I was depressed. How have we derailed from such a great path and how, oh how will we ever get back on track??
Highly recommend to anyone interested in putting their politics under a microscope. He doesn't pull any punches with democrats or republicans so if you feel protective of either party, you may need to prepare a "safe space" for yourself before delving in:)
Highly recommend to anyone interested in putting their politics under a microscope. He doesn't pull any punches with democrats or republicans so if you feel protective of either party, you may need to prepare a "safe space" for yourself before delving in:)
December 31, 2016
In this series of examples, John Stossel argues persuasively that we are almost always better off making our own decisions instead of appealing to government—mainly the federal government—to solve them for us. Because politicians aren’t any smarter than we are, and even if they were, their incentives to make a decision are different from our incentives to make our own lives better.
He leads off each discussion with a statement on What intuition tempts us to believe such as that Markets are cruel. Government is kind and a response of What reality taught me such as that Governments’ attempts at “kindness” are cruel.
The final sentence of each essay often leads into the next topic.
In some cases, he attacks topics in ways that I haven’t thought of, but really should have. For example, seat belt laws:
The seat belts I wear today are not significantly different than the seat belts I wore when I bought my second car thirty years ago. Think about how just about everything else we use has changed over thirty years. Imagine if government regulations had frozen what kinds of phones or computers we could use back then. We would never know what we’re missing today.
The biggest passenger-safety feature added since then, the air-bag, was so poorly managed that it required several other regulations mandating serious changes in how we seat our passengers, to keep them from dying because air-bags deploy.
There were a lot of things I disagreed with, too, but all were worth reading and thinking about.
He leads off each discussion with a statement on What intuition tempts us to believe such as that Markets are cruel. Government is kind and a response of What reality taught me such as that Governments’ attempts at “kindness” are cruel.
The final sentence of each essay often leads into the next topic.
In some cases, he attacks topics in ways that I haven’t thought of, but really should have. For example, seat belt laws:
The first seat belt law required a certain kind of belt. That set the standard and relieved auto companies of the need to compete in seat belt safety and comfort. No longer did Volvo need to try to invent a better seat belt than GM’s; it would have been foolish if it tried. The new seat belt would have to clear onerous and expensive regulatory hurdles. Even if it were safer, the first time someone was injured wearing one, personal injury lawyers would swarm, knowing that they could convince some juries that deviation from the government standard was “reckless.” For carmakers, it is safer to stick with the government standard. Drivers and passengers, of course, are also stuck with the government standard, and that makes us less safe because we’ll never see the improvements carmakers might have made.
The seat belts I wear today are not significantly different than the seat belts I wore when I bought my second car thirty years ago. Think about how just about everything else we use has changed over thirty years. Imagine if government regulations had frozen what kinds of phones or computers we could use back then. We would never know what we’re missing today.
The biggest passenger-safety feature added since then, the air-bag, was so poorly managed that it required several other regulations mandating serious changes in how we seat our passengers, to keep them from dying because air-bags deploy.
There were a lot of things I disagreed with, too, but all were worth reading and thinking about.
May 31, 2012
Libertarianism thought delivered painlessly by nice guy Stossel
Published April 10, 2012 by Simon and Schuster Audio.
Read by the author, John Stossel
Duration: 9 hours, 14 minutes
The title of this audiobook, No, They Can't , is a play on the 2008 campaign slogan of then-candidate Obama, "Yes We Can!" Stossel, of course, is the TV consumer reporter turned anchor of ABC's 20/20 who now hosts a weekly show of Fox Business News and a series on one-hour specials on Fox News. He has won nineteen Emmy Awards. He begins his book with an explanation of why he left ABC after more than 20 years and how the culture of ABC made it very uncomfortable for him to explore stories in any way except the tried and true politically correct way.
The premise of the this audiobook is that entire thought process behind that campaign slogan is wrong - the government cannot do a lot of the things that people want it to do, and even if everyone agreed it should give those things a try, it would do a very poor job of them because government is inefficient at almost everything it does.
Stossel is an outspoken but soft-spoken Libertarian and he makes a very thoughtful presentation of Libertarian thought on a variety of topics. He generally starts with a variation on this phrase: "Intuition tells me...but reality has taught me..." and...
Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2012/...
Published April 10, 2012 by Simon and Schuster Audio.
Read by the author, John Stossel
Duration: 9 hours, 14 minutes
The title of this audiobook, No, They Can't , is a play on the 2008 campaign slogan of then-candidate Obama, "Yes We Can!" Stossel, of course, is the TV consumer reporter turned anchor of ABC's 20/20 who now hosts a weekly show of Fox Business News and a series on one-hour specials on Fox News. He has won nineteen Emmy Awards. He begins his book with an explanation of why he left ABC after more than 20 years and how the culture of ABC made it very uncomfortable for him to explore stories in any way except the tried and true politically correct way.
The premise of the this audiobook is that entire thought process behind that campaign slogan is wrong - the government cannot do a lot of the things that people want it to do, and even if everyone agreed it should give those things a try, it would do a very poor job of them because government is inefficient at almost everything it does.
Stossel is an outspoken but soft-spoken Libertarian and he makes a very thoughtful presentation of Libertarian thought on a variety of topics. He generally starts with a variation on this phrase: "Intuition tells me...but reality has taught me..." and...
Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2012/...
December 3, 2013
The BEST non fiction book I've read in long time. I love John Stossel - have since I was in high school. He and Brit Hume were my favorites when I was young. They were the only ones on ABC that made sense to me. Such voices of reason. I loved this book because it explains how many of the things we're told or taught are just plain wrong, and how we hurt ourselves and those we claim to help with our faulty thinking. I'm a libertarian by nature, so I knew Stossel's views lined up with mine in many places, but I was surprised by some things I didn't know about the way things worked, and I was pleased to discover that his views on the military are not inconsistent with my way of thinking. I thought he was "anti-war" but he's just "anti-nation building" and that's a different animal altogether.
I loved it so much I plan to give it to every highschooler who sends me a graduation invite. (along with some money, of course) Most of them probably won't read it, but maybe some will be open minded enough to read it and consider the possibility that the "right way" of thinking that we're so often fed just might be wrong.
I can't recommend it highly enough... even if you disagree with him, he'll make you think, and that's always a good thing.
I loved it so much I plan to give it to every highschooler who sends me a graduation invite. (along with some money, of course) Most of them probably won't read it, but maybe some will be open minded enough to read it and consider the possibility that the "right way" of thinking that we're so often fed just might be wrong.
I can't recommend it highly enough... even if you disagree with him, he'll make you think, and that's always a good thing.
September 24, 2012
Fantastic book that helped me get a firmer grasp on how libertarians see the world. And frankly, Stossel may just win me to their cause. I especially loved his discussions on education, gun control, and drug legalization. Concerning the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the libertarian view is the right one, but I'm much more conflicted about it now, which means I'm having to take a good hard look at what my own beliefs are. I appreciate that in any book.
Two things that kept a star off of my final review:
1) No actionable advice, like how to stop the government from growing, if that's the goal.
2) A whole lot of anecdotal evidence, with less emphasis on data (not that wasn't any, just not enough for my taste). I'd love to see a longer book go deeper into some of the issues and give more data to support the seeming mounds of anecdotal evidence.
All in all, a wonderful read from a guy who can take complex and sensitive topics and explain them simply and passionately. I'd love to read a book that can explain liberal and/or conservative political philosophy in as simple and entertaining a way as Stossel's.
Two things that kept a star off of my final review:
1) No actionable advice, like how to stop the government from growing, if that's the goal.
2) A whole lot of anecdotal evidence, with less emphasis on data (not that wasn't any, just not enough for my taste). I'd love to see a longer book go deeper into some of the issues and give more data to support the seeming mounds of anecdotal evidence.
All in all, a wonderful read from a guy who can take complex and sensitive topics and explain them simply and passionately. I'd love to read a book that can explain liberal and/or conservative political philosophy in as simple and entertaining a way as Stossel's.
March 12, 2013
A good read, certainly indignance-raising. The only errors I noticed were minor (such as calling Ayn Rand a libertarian). The book doesn't delve into why independence, smaller government, absence of force, etc. is virtuous; it assumes, as does the Declaration of Independence, that they are self-evident. The book promotes a foreign policy that is, in my opinion, a little isolationist, although Stossel himself admits his unsurity, pondering where to draw the line. Quite interesting to me was his comparison of working for the liberal ABC network, then the more libertarian Fox. That story, however, is covered more deeply in another of his books.
May 22, 2012
This is libertarian John Stossel’s retort to the big government political slogan “Yes We Can”. It is his latest book for individual freedom of choice and against overbearing government. Stossel was a consumer reporter on ABC network and its 20/20 investigative show for a couple of decades. Since becoming more conservative and sanely libertarian he has been on the Fox News network and has his own show on Fox Business Network.
Although a libertarian in the Ron Paul vein, supporting legalization of drugs and prostitution and less military intervention overseas (not that there’s anything wrong with that), he is always open to debate. I thought the book might be rehashed scripts of his TV shows but I have found it to be a fresh, reasoned discussion even if the topics are similar.
A few lines at the end of Chp. 1 ‘Fixing’ The Economy summarized that portion nicely:
“Bureaucracies have no bottom line, no market prices for there “output”, fewer rewards for excellence. What they have is an incentive to keep their heads down and to spend all the money budgeted (or lose it next year).”
“It is absurd to think the humongous constellation of federal bureaucracies is going to identify and root out “waste” in any significant way. …No one spends other people’s money as carefully as he spends his own.”
“You can’t change those incentives by electing a different president or a different Congress. The only way to do it is to switch from the noncompetitive, parasitic incentive structure of politics to the competitive, efficiency-seeking incentives of the free market. Good government has to mean less government.” (p. 44-45)
I’m not planning to comment on every chapter but Chp. 2 Making Life Fair intrigues me. I’ve been wanting to know for some time just who are the Fairness Police? I’ve always heard ‘life isn’t fair’. I’ve also never heard so much about income equality, even to the point that it is statistically measured in depth in government reports. Since when is everyone supposed to make the same income? Yes, corporate CEOs are chastised for making phenomenal sums but no one disparages professional athletes, movies stars, or singers for doing the same. Is that ‘fair’? I admire people who make substantial incomes but I’m not jealous or envious. I never felt such people has ever deprived me of one cent of my income because of their income. But I digress.
Passages from Chp. 2:
“As Aristotle noted, “That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.”
“If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in, then each person has an incentive to be a “free rider”–to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon the pot is empty.”
What private property does… is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce. Then, when there’s a free market, people trade their surpluses to others for thing they lack. Mutual voluntary exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.” (p. 55)
Sounds fair to me.
Throughout the book Stossel heads subsections with a format “What Intuition Tempts Us To Believe:” (statement) “What Reality Taught Me:” (response).
For example:
“What Intuition Tempts Us To Believe:”
If we want nice public spaces, government must create them.
“What Reality Taught Me:”
The nicest public spaces escaped government control. (p. 56.)
He will then expound upon the issue, sometimes specifically, as in the previous subsection citing Manhattan’s Bryant Park cleaned up by private efforts, other times generalizing.
Chp. 5 Fixing Health Care made me think about some issues. When we have insurance we pay little attention to the price of things. We pay for the coverage and can generally get as much treatment as we want within the contractual confines. We don’t bargain, negotiate, or shop around for the least expensive of any particular procedure, even a common blood test. We usually make a co-pay and that’s it. We may get a statement from the insurance company saying how much the doctor billed them and how much they actually paid based on their contractual agreement with the doctor. It’s always less than the doctor billed, but if I paid the doctor cash I would probably pay the full amount. I’ve had some hospital surgeries in which the hospital portion of the bill was say $30,000 but the insurance company only paid$5-6000. What’s up with that? Who over billed or who under paid? (OMG I am straying again from just a review, but he has made me THINK!)
Stossel contends that we may be OVER insured. Many of us might be better off having a high deductible insurance for major illness or injury and paying cash for the small things. As I look back on the phenomenal sums I and my employer paid throughout my career we might have been better off paying cash, though despite some injuries I have avoided all but a few major health problems. I was fortunate. Wouldn’t it be nice if part of your health insurance premiums were like a savings account where you could get a refund at the end of 20-40 years if you stayed healthy. What about that for incentive?
Thoughts from Stossel in Chp. 5:
“One of America’s biggest health-care problems is not that 48 million people lack insurance–it’s that 250 million Americans have too much of it.” (p. 121.)
“Because employers pay most of the bills [employer-based health insurance], the patient doesn’t shop for insurance. Because the patient has insurance he doesn’t care what services cost. Because he doesn’t care and doesn’t shop around, the cost of care goes up and up.”
“Third-party payment destroys the shopping process that is the essence of a market.”
“What holds costs down is patients acting like consumers, looking out for ourselves in a competitive market. Then providers, even insurance companies, fight to win business by keeping costs down.”
(p. 123.)
He does take a swipe at the sacred cow of Medicare but his main complaint is that it is hugely, HUGELY, unfunded.
This is a good chapter.
Loved this quote in Chp. 6 The Assault On Food: ”Government attracts do-gooders and meddlers who believe that, as Mark Twain put it, “Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits”" (p. 153.)
Chp. 7 Creating A Risk-Free World: “Nineteenth-century libertarian writer Herbert Spencer wisely said, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.”" (p. 166.)
On ‘seat belt laws save lives’: “…economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly because they worry less about accidents. …Studies do show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts. …Perhaps the best safety device would be a sharp spike mounted to the dashboard–pointed right at your chest.” (p. 170-171.) [!!-JH]
The chapter on education is good. We spend a fortune per student in the U.S. and don’t get results.
Chp. 10 The War On Drugs is a sensitive issue. I can see prohibition doesn’t work but it’s hard to wrap my head around legalization. Stossel is usually factual but he is a bit sloppy when he cites “The U.S. government says heroin and nicotine are similarly addictive, but people don’t rob convenience stores to get Marlboros.” (p. 216.) Uhhh, does not make sense. There is no reference in the footnote section at the back of the book. Very loose logic.
“While drugs harm many, the black market harms more.
And regardless of the harm, what about freedom? Once we become adults, we should own our own bodies.” (p. 225.) Logically true, but hard to stomach. Sort of like motorcycle helmet laws. We don’t have one in Colorado and my lady cringes when she sees people riding without helmets, but I say it’s their choice if they want to risk splitting their skull and they’re not harming anyone else.
The chapter on Budget is very good. Stop… spending… money…
I thought the reference section at the back was too loosely constructed. There are no footnotes during the book, which can be a good thing as one can spend too much time incessantly flipping back and forth. Instead the rear section has loose references by page number. Some items I questioned while reading did not have any reference in back. It seemed very random and not very valuable.
Very good book otherwise. Not a rant, but a reasoned discussion. You don’t have to agree with him in order to read this. You might learn something regardless, or at least have an appreciation for his point of view, many of which are shared by others tired of big government.
Although a libertarian in the Ron Paul vein, supporting legalization of drugs and prostitution and less military intervention overseas (not that there’s anything wrong with that), he is always open to debate. I thought the book might be rehashed scripts of his TV shows but I have found it to be a fresh, reasoned discussion even if the topics are similar.
A few lines at the end of Chp. 1 ‘Fixing’ The Economy summarized that portion nicely:
“Bureaucracies have no bottom line, no market prices for there “output”, fewer rewards for excellence. What they have is an incentive to keep their heads down and to spend all the money budgeted (or lose it next year).”
“It is absurd to think the humongous constellation of federal bureaucracies is going to identify and root out “waste” in any significant way. …No one spends other people’s money as carefully as he spends his own.”
“You can’t change those incentives by electing a different president or a different Congress. The only way to do it is to switch from the noncompetitive, parasitic incentive structure of politics to the competitive, efficiency-seeking incentives of the free market. Good government has to mean less government.” (p. 44-45)
I’m not planning to comment on every chapter but Chp. 2 Making Life Fair intrigues me. I’ve been wanting to know for some time just who are the Fairness Police? I’ve always heard ‘life isn’t fair’. I’ve also never heard so much about income equality, even to the point that it is statistically measured in depth in government reports. Since when is everyone supposed to make the same income? Yes, corporate CEOs are chastised for making phenomenal sums but no one disparages professional athletes, movies stars, or singers for doing the same. Is that ‘fair’? I admire people who make substantial incomes but I’m not jealous or envious. I never felt such people has ever deprived me of one cent of my income because of their income. But I digress.
Passages from Chp. 2:
“As Aristotle noted, “That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.”
“If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in, then each person has an incentive to be a “free rider”–to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon the pot is empty.”
What private property does… is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce. Then, when there’s a free market, people trade their surpluses to others for thing they lack. Mutual voluntary exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.” (p. 55)
Sounds fair to me.
Throughout the book Stossel heads subsections with a format “What Intuition Tempts Us To Believe:” (statement) “What Reality Taught Me:” (response).
For example:
“What Intuition Tempts Us To Believe:”
If we want nice public spaces, government must create them.
“What Reality Taught Me:”
The nicest public spaces escaped government control. (p. 56.)
He will then expound upon the issue, sometimes specifically, as in the previous subsection citing Manhattan’s Bryant Park cleaned up by private efforts, other times generalizing.
Chp. 5 Fixing Health Care made me think about some issues. When we have insurance we pay little attention to the price of things. We pay for the coverage and can generally get as much treatment as we want within the contractual confines. We don’t bargain, negotiate, or shop around for the least expensive of any particular procedure, even a common blood test. We usually make a co-pay and that’s it. We may get a statement from the insurance company saying how much the doctor billed them and how much they actually paid based on their contractual agreement with the doctor. It’s always less than the doctor billed, but if I paid the doctor cash I would probably pay the full amount. I’ve had some hospital surgeries in which the hospital portion of the bill was say $30,000 but the insurance company only paid$5-6000. What’s up with that? Who over billed or who under paid? (OMG I am straying again from just a review, but he has made me THINK!)
Stossel contends that we may be OVER insured. Many of us might be better off having a high deductible insurance for major illness or injury and paying cash for the small things. As I look back on the phenomenal sums I and my employer paid throughout my career we might have been better off paying cash, though despite some injuries I have avoided all but a few major health problems. I was fortunate. Wouldn’t it be nice if part of your health insurance premiums were like a savings account where you could get a refund at the end of 20-40 years if you stayed healthy. What about that for incentive?
Thoughts from Stossel in Chp. 5:
“One of America’s biggest health-care problems is not that 48 million people lack insurance–it’s that 250 million Americans have too much of it.” (p. 121.)
“Because employers pay most of the bills [employer-based health insurance], the patient doesn’t shop for insurance. Because the patient has insurance he doesn’t care what services cost. Because he doesn’t care and doesn’t shop around, the cost of care goes up and up.”
“Third-party payment destroys the shopping process that is the essence of a market.”
“What holds costs down is patients acting like consumers, looking out for ourselves in a competitive market. Then providers, even insurance companies, fight to win business by keeping costs down.”
(p. 123.)
He does take a swipe at the sacred cow of Medicare but his main complaint is that it is hugely, HUGELY, unfunded.
This is a good chapter.
Loved this quote in Chp. 6 The Assault On Food: ”Government attracts do-gooders and meddlers who believe that, as Mark Twain put it, “Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits”" (p. 153.)
Chp. 7 Creating A Risk-Free World: “Nineteenth-century libertarian writer Herbert Spencer wisely said, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.”" (p. 166.)
On ‘seat belt laws save lives’: “…economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly because they worry less about accidents. …Studies do show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts. …Perhaps the best safety device would be a sharp spike mounted to the dashboard–pointed right at your chest.” (p. 170-171.) [!!-JH]
The chapter on education is good. We spend a fortune per student in the U.S. and don’t get results.
Chp. 10 The War On Drugs is a sensitive issue. I can see prohibition doesn’t work but it’s hard to wrap my head around legalization. Stossel is usually factual but he is a bit sloppy when he cites “The U.S. government says heroin and nicotine are similarly addictive, but people don’t rob convenience stores to get Marlboros.” (p. 216.) Uhhh, does not make sense. There is no reference in the footnote section at the back of the book. Very loose logic.
“While drugs harm many, the black market harms more.
And regardless of the harm, what about freedom? Once we become adults, we should own our own bodies.” (p. 225.) Logically true, but hard to stomach. Sort of like motorcycle helmet laws. We don’t have one in Colorado and my lady cringes when she sees people riding without helmets, but I say it’s their choice if they want to risk splitting their skull and they’re not harming anyone else.
The chapter on Budget is very good. Stop… spending… money…
I thought the reference section at the back was too loosely constructed. There are no footnotes during the book, which can be a good thing as one can spend too much time incessantly flipping back and forth. Instead the rear section has loose references by page number. Some items I questioned while reading did not have any reference in back. It seemed very random and not very valuable.
Very good book otherwise. Not a rant, but a reasoned discussion. You don’t have to agree with him in order to read this. You might learn something regardless, or at least have an appreciation for his point of view, many of which are shared by others tired of big government.
May 26, 2012
Five Stars! Five Stars! No they Can't (an obvious shot at Obama's Yes We Can) makes the strong argument why government fails (so make it smaller) and individuals achieve.
Stossel quit his job at ABC after he found that he couldn't do journalism like he wanted to do. Even though he disagree's much with Fox News (on gay marriage, military spending, legalization of drugs, etc) he took a position with them. He claims the Fox News is more open minded and educated that the other stations.
Stossel is of course a Libertarian and does an excellent job of explaining his views and makes many compelling arguments (He could do a much better job than Ron Paul railing against the Fed and ranting about going back on the Gold Standard.
A few of Stossel's arguments
1) Taxing the RIch more doesn't work...they stop working. In California back in the 1960's the top tax rate was 90% for income beyond 400,000. Do you want to know what Ronald Reagan did after making movies and he hit the limit....he took the rest of the year off and road horses.
2) Alternatives to OBama Care...Whole Foods gives it employees catastrophic medical insurance with low fees and high deductibles but also puts in 1500 dollars into a HSA. Many of their employees now have over 10 k in this account...they are now consumers and are watch their health care cost and avoid costly ER visits.
3) We now spend over 155 K to educate a child K-12...3 times the inflation adjusted amount from 1970. But scores are flat.
4) Less Guns = less violence. Stossel doesn't think so. Washington DC with the strictest hand gun laws (recently argued as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) also has the highest rate of home break-ins.
Great Book!
Stossel quit his job at ABC after he found that he couldn't do journalism like he wanted to do. Even though he disagree's much with Fox News (on gay marriage, military spending, legalization of drugs, etc) he took a position with them. He claims the Fox News is more open minded and educated that the other stations.
Stossel is of course a Libertarian and does an excellent job of explaining his views and makes many compelling arguments (He could do a much better job than Ron Paul railing against the Fed and ranting about going back on the Gold Standard.
A few of Stossel's arguments
1) Taxing the RIch more doesn't work...they stop working. In California back in the 1960's the top tax rate was 90% for income beyond 400,000. Do you want to know what Ronald Reagan did after making movies and he hit the limit....he took the rest of the year off and road horses.
2) Alternatives to OBama Care...Whole Foods gives it employees catastrophic medical insurance with low fees and high deductibles but also puts in 1500 dollars into a HSA. Many of their employees now have over 10 k in this account...they are now consumers and are watch their health care cost and avoid costly ER visits.
3) We now spend over 155 K to educate a child K-12...3 times the inflation adjusted amount from 1970. But scores are flat.
4) Less Guns = less violence. Stossel doesn't think so. Washington DC with the strictest hand gun laws (recently argued as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) also has the highest rate of home break-ins.
Great Book!
November 5, 2023
This was my first delve into reading a libertarian book. I've researched online and read some articles, but haven't touched anything that laid out so many political issues at once. I've always been a socially liberal person, but am still looking as to where I fit in on financial issues. I was looking for this book to give a base understanding of the libertarian ideals and Stossel delivered. You may ask, "Then why the three stars?"
While Stossel did provide that base layer of knowledge, I was left feeling more confused at the end of some chapters than I was at the start. Some of his examples seemed cherry-picked and poorly expanded upon; he acknowledged that there would be strong rebuttals to his words but didn't go into why those wouldn't discount his theories. This left me with an impression that he wasn't providing strong arguments, but rather singular examples that happened to support his claims. There were many instances where his anecdotes seemed lost on me, liked I needed way more background information on the libertarian standpoint before reading this.
Overall, I think that this book is great for people that already consider themselves libertarian or libertarian leaning. For someone just beginning to look into the political party, it might not be the best first step. I found myself wanting to look up every single issue he brought up. So, kudos to this book for planting the seeds of a new viewpoint, but ultimately there was a lack of the depth that I was searching for.
While Stossel did provide that base layer of knowledge, I was left feeling more confused at the end of some chapters than I was at the start. Some of his examples seemed cherry-picked and poorly expanded upon; he acknowledged that there would be strong rebuttals to his words but didn't go into why those wouldn't discount his theories. This left me with an impression that he wasn't providing strong arguments, but rather singular examples that happened to support his claims. There were many instances where his anecdotes seemed lost on me, liked I needed way more background information on the libertarian standpoint before reading this.
Overall, I think that this book is great for people that already consider themselves libertarian or libertarian leaning. For someone just beginning to look into the political party, it might not be the best first step. I found myself wanting to look up every single issue he brought up. So, kudos to this book for planting the seeds of a new viewpoint, but ultimately there was a lack of the depth that I was searching for.
August 3, 2014
I think I need to switch to the libertarian party. I identify with nearly everything they espouse. Specifically, very limited government!
I agree wholeheartedly with Stossel's views stated so well here. I've even come to accept and agree with his suggested cuts to social security and medicare, so they can be privatized and made better by free market competition.
I have two sons who are active duty military. I would love to see them come home to the states and stop policing the world. Yes. Cut military spending. Establish a mission goal. We are the UNITED STATES military! We should be guarding and protecting OUR OWN borders. Let the rest of the world police themselves!
I have learned so much, reading this. Stossel states his point so well. But now I'm depressed because I can see, like never before, what must be done. And I can't imagine an administration with the backbone to do it!
I agree wholeheartedly with Stossel's views stated so well here. I've even come to accept and agree with his suggested cuts to social security and medicare, so they can be privatized and made better by free market competition.
I have two sons who are active duty military. I would love to see them come home to the states and stop policing the world. Yes. Cut military spending. Establish a mission goal. We are the UNITED STATES military! We should be guarding and protecting OUR OWN borders. Let the rest of the world police themselves!
I have learned so much, reading this. Stossel states his point so well. But now I'm depressed because I can see, like never before, what must be done. And I can't imagine an administration with the backbone to do it!
May 27, 2012
I thought I was a republican, but after reading This book, i am questioning myself. Great book, like all of his books really.
April 15, 2015
Lightweight in the sense of an easy read that covers a lot of territory. Not a lot of info on any one thing, but a nice place to start if someone's curious about the libertarian perspective.
April 11, 2012
No, They Can't: Why Government Fails - But Individuals Succeed by John Stossel
"No, They Can't" is the thought-provoking, no-nonsense book that makes the compelling case that government is not the best entity to solve our problems, individuals are. With great eloquence, mastery and in a conversational tone that makes his books a joy to read John Stossel attacks many preconceived notions about the proper scope of the government. Accomplished author and investigative journalist and one of the most trusted defenders of libertarian views, John Stossel provides yet another book that causes cognitive dissonance to many of my own progressive and skeptical views on politics. Be that as it may, it is always a treat to read John Stossel and whether you agree with him or not, at the very least this book will make you think and question some of your preconceived notions. This provocative 336-page book is composed of the following thirteen chapters: 1. "Fixing" the Economy, 2. Making Life Fair, 3. Keeping Business Honest, 4. Improving Life for Workers, 5. Fixing Health Care, 6. The Assault on Food, 7. Creating a Risk-Free World, 8. Making Sure No One Gets Offended, 9. Educating Children, 10. The War on Drugs: Because Alcohol Prohibition Worked So Well..., 11. Wars to End War, 12. Keeping Nature Exactly As Is...Forever, and 13. Budget Insanity.
Positives:
1. Well-written, and well-researched book that is accessible to the masses.
2. Eloquent, conversational tone that is always a treat to read.
3. Great format. The author has a way of making his most important thoughts known by providing a "What intuition tempts us to believe" versus a "What reality taught me". Excellent.
4. For the record, I'm a skeptic and a progressive and this book provided me some welcomed cognitive dissonance. In particular with economics.
5. Whether I agree with the author or not, I do appreciate well-stated arguments. Enlightening.
6. Reality versus perceptions. One of Stossel's great strengths the ability to convey in lucid manner what is generally accepted to be true versus reality. Many great examples throughout the book. Kudos.
7. The links worked wonders in the Kindle version! Makes for a more immersive, reading experience.
8. Despite my differences, I consider Stossel to be fair, evenhanded and most important trustworthy.
9. An interesting look at subsidies and what they do.
10. Too many regulations..."The Code of Federal Regulations, which contains all the final regulatory rules under which we live, is now 160,000 pages long". Ouch.
11. A lot of great examples where well-intentioned rules in fact backfire.
12. Great quotes, "The more power we give government to control businesses, the more businesses seek to control government".
13. Against "crony" capitalism or "crapitalism" agreed!
14. There are some examples that will make you pull your hair out.
15. A great defender of libertarian principles.
16. Four Ridiculous Business Regulations.
17. I have to say I enjoy the back and forth between Michael Moore and Stossel.
18. Interesting chapter on Health Care. A lot of good points, like the fact that insurance companies spend too much on insurance paperwork...
19. Once again some rather provocative takes on unions and some great examples.
20. Some ideas are really counterintuitive but perhaps he is on to something, "When Congress creates a 'protected group,' some employers avoid hiring, members of that group." Really? As I said, thought-provoking and worth looking more into.
21. This book is so full of interesting quotes that I can go on and on, "Governments' attempts at "kindness" are cruel".
22. Good use of evolution in his examples, if only Ron Paul would accept evolution...
23. I do like the author's dismay at hyperbole. Consider his dismay at NY banning trans fat to children...I agree with him, the food police can be overbearing. Let me know what's in my food and I'll decide what to eat.
24. Some zero tolerance rules in fact lack common sense.
25. I love when Stossel defends individual rights. One of his strong suits. Take the war on drugs and alcohol as a for instance.
26. Makes some wonderful points regarding the FDA.
27. Great points on free speech.
28. "Being able to fire people is the only way to keep schools accountable". I wouldn't say it's the only way but I agree with the sentiment.
29. Some interesting points on defense.
30. I do agree with simplifying the tax laws...
31. Spending is out of control. Debt is a big problem. Some interesting points. The MD case example is eye opening.
32. Wasteful projects...it's always good to keep both parties honest.
33. One of the most interesting sections in the book...A Bright Spot in the United States: Puerto Rico.
34. An overall fun book to read.
35. An extensive notes section.
Negatives:
1. I'm a defender of sensible regulation. In one of the worst economic disasters of our history...we allowed no-doc loans (loans without documents needed to justify it) and the rest is history. So yes, greed can happen and waiting for the markets to correct themselves was disastrous.
2. The book's focus is on everything negative about the government and spends little to no time discussing those areas where government is essential and I'm not talking just about keeping us safe. As an example, investing in important research that is considered high risk but have lead to significant findings like the...internet. For the record, Al Gore did not invent the internet.
3. Fox News misinforms the public more than any other of the main networks...I hate seeing Stossel go there and having to defend it.
4. Stossel relies on a lot of studies conducted by the Heritage Foundation, the same foundation that he used to declare Singapore one of the "freest" countries?? Where one party has a monopoly on power since independence. Also, the Heritage Foundation is tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, set up a parallel organization called Heritage Action for America, which is not tax exempt and is organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. This allows Heritage to be more active politically on the conservative issues of concern without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Hmmm...
5. The notion that governments don't innovate is a false one. Many scientists work for the government and have made major contributions to the world. The government established the Advanced Research Projects Agency, later the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has made contributions to the Saturn V rocket and the first surveillance satellites to name a few.
6. As much as I enjoyed the chapter on Health Care wouldn't it be better to compare our Health Care System to say one like Taiwan's? And Medicare is a Ponzi scheme??
7. Not a mention of "Golden parachutes" offered to gold-digging CEO's who abuse their own companies and employees. The ever-increasing gap between the 1% and the rest of us.
8. Global warming is a scientific fact but you know what...we do need to be fiscally responsible, and prioritize. I'll give him that but the planet will notice.
9. I disagree with his stance on taxes. It's a more complicated issue than covered in this book but the super rich are not paying their fair taxes as some of my further suggestions will attest.
10. No mention of faith-based initiatives. We are a giving country there was no need to further erode our First Amendment.
11. No formal bibliography.
In summary, this was an enlightening, thought-provoking and cognitive-dissonant causing book that I enjoyed. I don't mind reading books that go against some of my views; I mind reading books with poor, nonsensical arguments and that is not the case with John Stossel. John Stossel is the kind of guy you like to have as a friend; he is smart, witty, and not afraid to go against the current and even though you may not agree with all his points...damn it, you know he makes you smarter because he forces you to take a good look at your own views and everyone can use a friend like that. Libertarians don't have a better defender of their principles than John Stossel. As a progressive, I do believe that government can have a positive influence on the well-being of our citizens and that sensible "smart" legislation is a path to a better future for all. The biggest complaint I have about the book is relying on data from questionable sources like the aforementioned Heritage Foundation and similar right-wing think tanks. It also rarely mentions fiscal abuses committed by the rich and powerful. That aside, this progressive-minded reviewer enjoyed the intellectual challenge presented by the provocative John Stossel. I recommend you pick this one up.
Further suggestions: "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality" by Chris Mooney, "The Benefit and The Burden: Tax Reform-Why We Need It and What It Will Take" by Bruce Bartlett, "That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back" by Thomas L. Friedman, "War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back" by Lou Dobbs, "The Post-American World: Release 2.0" by Fareed Zacharia, "Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class" by Jacob S. Hacker, "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - And What We Can Do about It (BK Currents (Paperback))" by Thom Hartmann, "Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present" by Jeff Madrick, "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future (Vintage)", by Robert B. Reich, "The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America--and Spawned a Global Crisis..." by Michael W. Hudson, "Perfectly Legal..." by David Cay Johnston, and "The Looting of America" by Les Leopold.
"No, They Can't" is the thought-provoking, no-nonsense book that makes the compelling case that government is not the best entity to solve our problems, individuals are. With great eloquence, mastery and in a conversational tone that makes his books a joy to read John Stossel attacks many preconceived notions about the proper scope of the government. Accomplished author and investigative journalist and one of the most trusted defenders of libertarian views, John Stossel provides yet another book that causes cognitive dissonance to many of my own progressive and skeptical views on politics. Be that as it may, it is always a treat to read John Stossel and whether you agree with him or not, at the very least this book will make you think and question some of your preconceived notions. This provocative 336-page book is composed of the following thirteen chapters: 1. "Fixing" the Economy, 2. Making Life Fair, 3. Keeping Business Honest, 4. Improving Life for Workers, 5. Fixing Health Care, 6. The Assault on Food, 7. Creating a Risk-Free World, 8. Making Sure No One Gets Offended, 9. Educating Children, 10. The War on Drugs: Because Alcohol Prohibition Worked So Well..., 11. Wars to End War, 12. Keeping Nature Exactly As Is...Forever, and 13. Budget Insanity.
Positives:
1. Well-written, and well-researched book that is accessible to the masses.
2. Eloquent, conversational tone that is always a treat to read.
3. Great format. The author has a way of making his most important thoughts known by providing a "What intuition tempts us to believe" versus a "What reality taught me". Excellent.
4. For the record, I'm a skeptic and a progressive and this book provided me some welcomed cognitive dissonance. In particular with economics.
5. Whether I agree with the author or not, I do appreciate well-stated arguments. Enlightening.
6. Reality versus perceptions. One of Stossel's great strengths the ability to convey in lucid manner what is generally accepted to be true versus reality. Many great examples throughout the book. Kudos.
7. The links worked wonders in the Kindle version! Makes for a more immersive, reading experience.
8. Despite my differences, I consider Stossel to be fair, evenhanded and most important trustworthy.
9. An interesting look at subsidies and what they do.
10. Too many regulations..."The Code of Federal Regulations, which contains all the final regulatory rules under which we live, is now 160,000 pages long". Ouch.
11. A lot of great examples where well-intentioned rules in fact backfire.
12. Great quotes, "The more power we give government to control businesses, the more businesses seek to control government".
13. Against "crony" capitalism or "crapitalism" agreed!
14. There are some examples that will make you pull your hair out.
15. A great defender of libertarian principles.
16. Four Ridiculous Business Regulations.
17. I have to say I enjoy the back and forth between Michael Moore and Stossel.
18. Interesting chapter on Health Care. A lot of good points, like the fact that insurance companies spend too much on insurance paperwork...
19. Once again some rather provocative takes on unions and some great examples.
20. Some ideas are really counterintuitive but perhaps he is on to something, "When Congress creates a 'protected group,' some employers avoid hiring, members of that group." Really? As I said, thought-provoking and worth looking more into.
21. This book is so full of interesting quotes that I can go on and on, "Governments' attempts at "kindness" are cruel".
22. Good use of evolution in his examples, if only Ron Paul would accept evolution...
23. I do like the author's dismay at hyperbole. Consider his dismay at NY banning trans fat to children...I agree with him, the food police can be overbearing. Let me know what's in my food and I'll decide what to eat.
24. Some zero tolerance rules in fact lack common sense.
25. I love when Stossel defends individual rights. One of his strong suits. Take the war on drugs and alcohol as a for instance.
26. Makes some wonderful points regarding the FDA.
27. Great points on free speech.
28. "Being able to fire people is the only way to keep schools accountable". I wouldn't say it's the only way but I agree with the sentiment.
29. Some interesting points on defense.
30. I do agree with simplifying the tax laws...
31. Spending is out of control. Debt is a big problem. Some interesting points. The MD case example is eye opening.
32. Wasteful projects...it's always good to keep both parties honest.
33. One of the most interesting sections in the book...A Bright Spot in the United States: Puerto Rico.
34. An overall fun book to read.
35. An extensive notes section.
Negatives:
1. I'm a defender of sensible regulation. In one of the worst economic disasters of our history...we allowed no-doc loans (loans without documents needed to justify it) and the rest is history. So yes, greed can happen and waiting for the markets to correct themselves was disastrous.
2. The book's focus is on everything negative about the government and spends little to no time discussing those areas where government is essential and I'm not talking just about keeping us safe. As an example, investing in important research that is considered high risk but have lead to significant findings like the...internet. For the record, Al Gore did not invent the internet.
3. Fox News misinforms the public more than any other of the main networks...I hate seeing Stossel go there and having to defend it.
4. Stossel relies on a lot of studies conducted by the Heritage Foundation, the same foundation that he used to declare Singapore one of the "freest" countries?? Where one party has a monopoly on power since independence. Also, the Heritage Foundation is tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, set up a parallel organization called Heritage Action for America, which is not tax exempt and is organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. This allows Heritage to be more active politically on the conservative issues of concern without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Hmmm...
5. The notion that governments don't innovate is a false one. Many scientists work for the government and have made major contributions to the world. The government established the Advanced Research Projects Agency, later the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has made contributions to the Saturn V rocket and the first surveillance satellites to name a few.
6. As much as I enjoyed the chapter on Health Care wouldn't it be better to compare our Health Care System to say one like Taiwan's? And Medicare is a Ponzi scheme??
7. Not a mention of "Golden parachutes" offered to gold-digging CEO's who abuse their own companies and employees. The ever-increasing gap between the 1% and the rest of us.
8. Global warming is a scientific fact but you know what...we do need to be fiscally responsible, and prioritize. I'll give him that but the planet will notice.
9. I disagree with his stance on taxes. It's a more complicated issue than covered in this book but the super rich are not paying their fair taxes as some of my further suggestions will attest.
10. No mention of faith-based initiatives. We are a giving country there was no need to further erode our First Amendment.
11. No formal bibliography.
In summary, this was an enlightening, thought-provoking and cognitive-dissonant causing book that I enjoyed. I don't mind reading books that go against some of my views; I mind reading books with poor, nonsensical arguments and that is not the case with John Stossel. John Stossel is the kind of guy you like to have as a friend; he is smart, witty, and not afraid to go against the current and even though you may not agree with all his points...damn it, you know he makes you smarter because he forces you to take a good look at your own views and everyone can use a friend like that. Libertarians don't have a better defender of their principles than John Stossel. As a progressive, I do believe that government can have a positive influence on the well-being of our citizens and that sensible "smart" legislation is a path to a better future for all. The biggest complaint I have about the book is relying on data from questionable sources like the aforementioned Heritage Foundation and similar right-wing think tanks. It also rarely mentions fiscal abuses committed by the rich and powerful. That aside, this progressive-minded reviewer enjoyed the intellectual challenge presented by the provocative John Stossel. I recommend you pick this one up.
Further suggestions: "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality" by Chris Mooney, "The Benefit and The Burden: Tax Reform-Why We Need It and What It Will Take" by Bruce Bartlett, "That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back" by Thomas L. Friedman, "War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back" by Lou Dobbs, "The Post-American World: Release 2.0" by Fareed Zacharia, "Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class" by Jacob S. Hacker, "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - And What We Can Do about It (BK Currents (Paperback))" by Thom Hartmann, "Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present" by Jeff Madrick, "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future (Vintage)", by Robert B. Reich, "The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America--and Spawned a Global Crisis..." by Michael W. Hudson, "Perfectly Legal..." by David Cay Johnston, and "The Looting of America" by Les Leopold.
June 30, 2021
Very thought provoking!
July 26, 2012
I enjoyed this book. John Stossel is a guru when it comes to economics. You can see the teachings of Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek coming out in his writings. That was really fun.
He also addresses many other areas of government control. You can tell that when he strays from economics his knowledge isn't as strong, but he still did an excellent job of portraying the libertarian perspective.
I'm a conservative who leans libertarian, but I didn't necessarily agree with everything he wrote. However, he presented the libertarian viewpoint in such a logical and straightforward manner that it was really hard to disagree with very much.
The book presented a lot of logical arguments, but it didn't have tons of small snippets or sound bytes for me to quote. However, I really liked this quote in the conclusion. It sums up what the book was about:
"But it's not from $3.8 trillion in spending, eighty thousand new pages of regulations-or democracy-that we get wonderful options like flexible contact lenses, Google, cell phones, increasing life spans, and so much food that even poor people are fat. We get that from limited government and free markets. Government gets credit for the good times even when it does little to bring them about...There is nothing that government can do that we cannot do better as individuals-and as groups of individuals, working together voluntarily, not at the point of a gun or under threat of a fine."
I would recommend this to anyone who doesn't quite understand the libertarian view of limited government and how it can affect your personal freedom.
He also addresses many other areas of government control. You can tell that when he strays from economics his knowledge isn't as strong, but he still did an excellent job of portraying the libertarian perspective.
I'm a conservative who leans libertarian, but I didn't necessarily agree with everything he wrote. However, he presented the libertarian viewpoint in such a logical and straightforward manner that it was really hard to disagree with very much.
The book presented a lot of logical arguments, but it didn't have tons of small snippets or sound bytes for me to quote. However, I really liked this quote in the conclusion. It sums up what the book was about:
"But it's not from $3.8 trillion in spending, eighty thousand new pages of regulations-or democracy-that we get wonderful options like flexible contact lenses, Google, cell phones, increasing life spans, and so much food that even poor people are fat. We get that from limited government and free markets. Government gets credit for the good times even when it does little to bring them about...There is nothing that government can do that we cannot do better as individuals-and as groups of individuals, working together voluntarily, not at the point of a gun or under threat of a fine."
I would recommend this to anyone who doesn't quite understand the libertarian view of limited government and how it can affect your personal freedom.
April 18, 2012
A comment that John Stossel made in NO THEY CAN'T gives a compelling reason why people, especially liberals, should read his book.
'Emmy’s are silly awards that the liberal media give to people who confirm their anticapitalist attitudes. I won nineteem Emmy’s before I moved to Fox. I don’t win them anymore."
The Peterson foundation offered $1.2 milllion to six think tanks to write budget proposals and the winner was offered one of Stossel's Emmy's. In an all-too-common display of liberal chutzpah, the day after the award was given, the chairman of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences called Stossel to inform him that the Emmy's are not his property but the property of the Academy and that he may not give them away.
Contrasting what (liberal) intuition tempts us to believe, with what reality taught him, John Stossel writes an entertaining and informative book that atomizes liberal nostrums with cool logic.
'Emmy’s are silly awards that the liberal media give to people who confirm their anticapitalist attitudes. I won nineteem Emmy’s before I moved to Fox. I don’t win them anymore."
The Peterson foundation offered $1.2 milllion to six think tanks to write budget proposals and the winner was offered one of Stossel's Emmy's. In an all-too-common display of liberal chutzpah, the day after the award was given, the chairman of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences called Stossel to inform him that the Emmy's are not his property but the property of the Academy and that he may not give them away.
Contrasting what (liberal) intuition tempts us to believe, with what reality taught him, John Stossel writes an entertaining and informative book that atomizes liberal nostrums with cool logic.
March 21, 2013
"I can go to a foreign country, stick a piece of plastic in the wall, and cash will come out. I can give that same piece of plastic to a stranger who doesn't even speak my language--and he'll rent me a car for a week. When I get home, Visa or MasterCard will send me the accounting--correct to the penny. That's capitalism! I just take it for granted.
Government, by contrast, can't even count votes accurately."
John Stossel is the rare libertarian in the mainstream media. Using his position as a well-known, award-winning journalist; he dismantles the myth of effective government action in this book. Many of his arguments are supported by Hazlitt's Broken Window Fallacy, raw economic data and common sense. This is one of the best popular political books that I've read so far this year.
I highly recommend it.
Government, by contrast, can't even count votes accurately."
John Stossel is the rare libertarian in the mainstream media. Using his position as a well-known, award-winning journalist; he dismantles the myth of effective government action in this book. Many of his arguments are supported by Hazlitt's Broken Window Fallacy, raw economic data and common sense. This is one of the best popular political books that I've read so far this year.
I highly recommend it.
August 16, 2016
Stossel is a libertarian. If you have a problem that needs solving, don't give it to the government.
He definitely challenged my preconceptions on the drug war and generalized legalization. After all, I don't love alcohol or tobacco, but those are legal products.
I think he's preaching to the choir, and his lack of citations and examples demonstrates that he is a reporter, not a scholar (one could argue that its readability demonstrates that, too).
I do notice that he didn't try to push the choir too hard: he devotes a whole chapter to the waste and foolishness of the war on drugs, but only gives a sentence or two here and there including gambling and the sex trade in the category of things that should be legal.
I'd love to get the opinion of people less likely to agree with him: Obama supporters, teachers, etc.
He definitely challenged my preconceptions on the drug war and generalized legalization. After all, I don't love alcohol or tobacco, but those are legal products.
I think he's preaching to the choir, and his lack of citations and examples demonstrates that he is a reporter, not a scholar (one could argue that its readability demonstrates that, too).
I do notice that he didn't try to push the choir too hard: he devotes a whole chapter to the waste and foolishness of the war on drugs, but only gives a sentence or two here and there including gambling and the sex trade in the category of things that should be legal.
I'd love to get the opinion of people less likely to agree with him: Obama supporters, teachers, etc.
January 16, 2019
While I do not agree with every assertion John makes, and some of the points of discussion are now outdated, this book is very eye opening to the potential (and existing) wastes of big government, and challenges many of the broadly accepted beliefs and policies of both political parties. Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or Republican (or Independent), this book is certainly worth a read, if for no other reason than to expose yourself to the counter arguments to many policies and beliefs popular over the last couple decades. John Stossel delivers his observations in his typical witty and well sourced style, and "No, They Can't" is a very entertaining (yet unfortunately disheartening) read.
November 28, 2012
This book is an awesome exploration of the shortfalls of government. Stossel is my favorite journalist, and every time I read one of his books (or watch one of his TV specials, for that matter) it makes me feel ten times smarter. NO, THEY CAN'T is basically a cross between THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO CAPITALISM and something written by Ron Paul. But this book did one thing for me that Ron Paul was never able to do...cause me to start identifying myself as Libertarian! Stossel tackles a lot of tough issues here, and his insights are usually as surprising as they are fascinating. The more people who read this book, the better off America will be.
October 19, 2014
It was an interesting read and certainly introduced new ways of thinking to me that I haven't thought of before. The book is also funny and entertaining, especially when Stossel attacks those that make claims that he disagrees with.
Unfortunately, Stossel takes very strong stances on many issues but will only give brief, over-simplistic justifications for many of those stances, without ever going into why the other side's logical support is wrong. Many times he'll make a claim and use logic to support it instead of evidence and statistics. The Washington Times has a review proving Stossel wrong on several points with actual studies. Read this book with caution.
Unfortunately, Stossel takes very strong stances on many issues but will only give brief, over-simplistic justifications for many of those stances, without ever going into why the other side's logical support is wrong. Many times he'll make a claim and use logic to support it instead of evidence and statistics. The Washington Times has a review proving Stossel wrong on several points with actual studies. Read this book with caution.
May 11, 2025
I really enjoyed John Stossel's presentation of economic and political theory. Although I enjoy Thomas Sowell and other similar authors, Stossel kept it on a more easy to understand level, and I think that anyone could read this book and understand it's message.
His basic idea is that there is nothing that the government can do that the private sector cannot do better. (Other than national defense.)
If you're interested in some basic economic or political science theory, this is a good book for you.
His basic idea is that there is nothing that the government can do that the private sector cannot do better. (Other than national defense.)
If you're interested in some basic economic or political science theory, this is a good book for you.
June 22, 2012
I thought I had libertarian tendencies before reading this. Now I've been moved deeper into libertarianism. This should not frighten anyone. It's not a cult rather a true understanding of constitutionalism applied to everyday life and an understanding how we're chiseling away at it's foundation during the last century. And it's written in easy, short sentenced, manner in the way Stossel speaks. Brilliant!
October 23, 2015
Typical of Stossel's libertarian views he circles major issues and offers reasonable solutions. While I don't agree with some libertarian theories you have to admit that the media makes many people feel like the government is the only "nonpartisan" "nonprejudiced" entity that can solve our nation's problems. Individual Americans and the market system are both extraordinarily good at this...the government is definitely not. A great read for those who prefer to think through problems.
January 6, 2015
Whether you're liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Independent or Libertarian, everyone should read this book. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything Stossel says, I do like the way he presented the information. I didn't feel like any agenda was being shoved down my throat. I definitely view government is a whole new light....I'd say I've been enlightened by this book.
June 3, 2012
I like John's straight ahead point of view. Don't always agree with him but he doesn't hammer you with his POV. He gives examples to back up his perspective and I believe I learned a thing or two along the way. Fast and breezy reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews