I never heard of John Stossel before I read this book-- mostly because I am not a fan of Fox news. I was drawn to the title, "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails- But Individuals Succeed" because the title suggests that this book would expand on the novel concept of how the people hold the power to change the current flow of society. Essentially this is what Stossel writes about.

It's hard to determine whether I would recommend this book to anyone or not. I agree with some of his opinions (ex. Ban government regulation over what is considered to be "bad foods" and let the people decide. Limit the power and persuasion that the FEDERAL government has over public schools and allow the communities and states teach how they want to teach students). I disagree with some of his opinions (ex. Stossel believes government should not regulate pay rates because if pay rates were left to the employer to decide then employees will drift towards the better paying employers. I don't think Mr. Stossel is aware of how much power he has as an adult white male in a patriarchal society. He can go from ABC to FOX without a problem (he left voluntarily to avoid being cut due to budget issues and ideological differences), but most women and minorities can not afford risking their low-paying/non-existing benefit jobs on a chance that a free-market employer might offer them an incentive to come and work for them). And there were some opinions that Stossel had that managed to change my own opinions (ex. Gun control laws, making tiger poaching illegal, and the war on drugs does not equal less crimes. Criminals will not follow the civilized law. If people want guns, drugs, and to poach then they will do so illegally through an underground market which increases violence.)

The only criticism that I could make is that Stossel doesn't truly specify or declare a difference between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. Sure, he'll make a couple of distinctions such as FEDERAL spending for FEDERAL programs such as Social Security should be cut, but most of the time I am forced to make the assumption that he means to restrict the FEDERAL and not the STATE governmental powers. And then I wonder if we do this, how much power can the STATE governments have before it conflicts with the people. Stossel states if people don't like a STATE law, then they can move out of the STATE... well this is true, however if people don't like the FEDERAL law, then they can move out of the country. Why hasn't Stossel moved? The same reason why millions of people don't move out of their homes to a different STATE when their has passed a law they don't like-- nobody wants to move, we all just want to sit in a rocking chair on the front porch complaining how the STATE/country has gone to hell since the government allowed so-and-so to happen. So, I apologize for the rant just now and I'll get back to the point and my main question: How much of the FEDERAL and STATE government are we willing to limit?

I found his thoughts to be intriguing and interesting. I did attempt to open my mind to his point of view and I suppose if I were to recommend this book it would be to somebody who is willing to look more left (or right) then they usually do and is capable of making decisions for themselves. I honestly do believe this book would be wasted on someone who is closed-minded and unwilling to change-- even if that person is the one who needs to read this book the most.