Whatever Happened to Justice?

Uncle Eric #3

by Richard J. Maybury, Jane A. Williams (Editor)

"Whatever Happened to Justice?" shows what's gone wrong with America's legal system and economy and how to fix it. It also contains lots of helpful hints for improving family relationships and for making families and classrooms run more smoothly. Discusses the difference between higher law and man-made law, and the connection between rational law and economic prosperity. "Whatever Happened to Justice?" introduces the Two
1) Do all you have agreed to do, and
2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

Can be used for courses in Law, Economics, Business, Finance, Government and History.

To improve the student's learning experience, also purchase the student study guide for "Whatever Happened to Justice?" titled "A Bluestocking Justice", also available through Amazon.

Table of Contents for Whatever Happened to Justice?

Study Guide Available
Note to Reader
Author's Disclosure
About Richard J. Maybury
Author's Introduction
1. The Cause Is Law
2. A Higher Authority
3. A Higher Law
4. Two Kinds of Law
5. The Two Fundamental Laws
6. Enforcement of Early Common Law
7. How Do We Know If It's Law?
8. Logic and Atoms
9. Ambient Encroachment & Tacit Contracts
10. Economic Calculation
11. Force or Fraud
12. The Lawless West
13. Natural Rights
14. The Human Ecology
15. How Things Get Done
16. Political Law
17. Discovery vs. Enactment
18. Our New Religion
19. Common Law Wasn't Perfect
20. Liberty vs. Permission
21. Instability, Nuremberg and Abortion
22. Democracy and the Constitution
23. The Highest Law of the Land?
24. Competing for Privilege
25. The Great Mystery
26. The Privilege and the Thrill
27. The Fun Is In the Playing
28. The Lessons of Simon Bolivar
29. Eating the Seed Corn
30. Origin of Government
31. Are Lawyers and Judges Corrupt?
32. So Why Do We Have a Government?
33. Unsolved Risk
34. Unsolved Capital Punishment
35. Unsolved The Environment
36. Unsolved Drugs
37. Unsolved War
38. Unsolved Irredentism
39. Unsolved Poverty
40. Unsolved Consumer Protection
41. Unsolved Are There More Rules?
42. Summary
Appendix
A Memo from Richard Maybury (Uncle Eric)
Table Comparing Scientific vs. Political Law
Systems of Law Chart
Standard of Living Chart
Agreement Between Parent & Child
Agreement Between Teacher & Student
Thought-Provoking Movies About Law
Bibliography and Suggested Reading
Glossary
Index

Suggested Supplemental
"Whatever Happened Penny Candy?"
Maybury says, "In my opinion, you and your family and friends will avoid a lot of trouble, and find success of every kind much easier to achieve, if you adopt these two models, Austrian economics and common law."
"Whatever Happened to Justice" explains the Legal model. Read "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy" to understand the Economic model (also available through Amazon).

Genres: Nonfiction, Economics, Politics, History, Education, School, Government

255 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Richard Maybury, also known as Uncle Eric, is the publisher of U.S. & World Early Warning Report for Investors. He has written several entry level books on United States economics, law, and history from a libertarian perspective. He writes the books in epistolary form, usually as an uncle writing to his nephew, answering questions.

Maybury was a high school economics teacher. After failing to find a book which would give a clear explanation on his view of economics he wrote one himself. Some of his books include Uncle Eric Talks About Personal, Career & Financial Security, Higher Law, Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? and Whatever Happened to Justice? .

Reviews

[Amy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some genuinely good points in here laid out in an understandable fashion but it just rubbed me totally wrong. I don't even disagree with Mr. Maybury on most of it! Heck, I might even agree with him on all of it. But his smug tone and the format did not click for me. It felt too dumbed down. Also his habit of warning 'Chris' that his teachers and parents won't understand grated on me.

[Natalia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought it was a WHOLE lot better (less depressing, actually) than Penny Candy. L, C, or Confused is my new favorite though!

[Girly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great book by Maybury. Uncle Eric books should be required reading for high schoolers, if not middle schoolers. It still amazes me how much of this I didn't even learn in school way back when, and they are definitely not teaching this to kids nowadays.

I believe we'd be living in a much different world today if a strong grasp of Economics and the Justice System (and the history of each) were required in public schools.

***I was just reading some of the reviews on this book and although the reviewers thought the book was enlightening they complained the author was too opinionated. But what author isn't (including even those that are supposed to write facts in our history books)?

I would just like to add that the author adds a disclosure at the beginning of the book:

"For reasons I do not understand, writers today are supposed to be objective. Few disclose the viewpoints or opinions they use to decide what information is important and what is not, or what shall be presented or omitted.

I do not adhere to this standard and make no pretense of being objective. I am biased in favor of liberty, free markets, and international neutrality and proud of it. So I disclose my viewpoint, which you will find explained in detail in my other books..."

[Chloe ✿ Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book taught me so much and it's actually sticking in my brain. I'm not sure I'd pick it up and read it if it wasn't assigned for school, but it was very interesting and I'd probably read it again. I think I liked it better than Whatever Happened to Penny Candy.

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

I want to give this a 3.5, so, I am rounding up. But it's hard, it doesn't deserve a 4, but I hate to see it with a 3.

Why? He's got some great things to say about common law and government and the impact on economy. I agree with much of what he has to say, and am intrigued by how he connects them all. I am fascinated by his explanation of political law and the danger of majority rule.

He boils down Common Law to two points:

1) Do all that you have agreed to do., and
2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

His premise is that any other laws should flow from these as ways of carrying them out in practice, and developing consequences for breaking an agreement or for encroaching on other persons/property - making it right.

All of these laws and consequences need to be subject to a higher law, what is right, not to majority rule. He further asserts that greater freedom within those constraints leads to a better economy as people are confident that they will be rewarded for the work that they do. This leads to issues with burdensome government policies restricting freedom causing restrictions to the economy.

He also talks about the power addictions of governing that cause Democrats and Republicans in office to do things they would never do in principle, yet it is part of the lure of power in the form of government spending.

All of that to say, I am learning a lot from these books, but reading with a grain of salt as I try to fully incorporate the principles discussed with the reality of the current culture and the character of man (in the gender free sense). He seems to have a higher view of men's character than I think is warranted, though fully understanding the lack of character on display in the workings of government.

One point he makes that I think is very significant, on p. 219: "Perhaps the greatest tragedy of our age is that economists do not study law and lawyers do not study economics. Each group makes public policy recommendations that the other group knows are silly or dangerous, but they speak different languages and rarely talk with each other. The crucial connection between law and economics - the connection examined in these letters - remains largely unknown.

[Caroline Potterf · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was absolutely brilliant. So much sense, reason and organized thought! This book is empowering and I feel that all adults should be fully aware of Common Law. I am very excited to read more about it... This book is a fantastic place to start.

A quick note about the book itself, not its subject: It is written to be engaging at all times. I really appreciate that, after a lame high school education using drab textbooks. This book is written as an uncle to his nephew, in letter-form. Each letter is pretty short, always concise and always drives a point. I am so impressed by how clear these Uncle Eric books are.

Anyway, I give this book a seven stars out of five. :) I highly recommend it to any and everyone.

[Lauren Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed the principles set forth in this book. I had my seventh grader read it for school this year, and it has led to some very good discussions, including me telling him that some of the things stated in this book are overly simplistic and often-cynical explanations of human government and its origins. Still, the exposure to the "two laws," the discussion of common law, and the numerous quotations from America's founding fathers make this a great read for a13-year-old who has 7 years of studying history under his belt. Principles make a lot more sense when you have some historical context as a backdrop.
I told my son this will not be the only book he reads on the subject. To really get a handle on it, we'll need to read more deeply and from other authors. But this was a great start.

[Celeste Batchelor · Rating 5 out of 5]

My opinion of this books cannot be expressed enough in this review. Whatever Happened to Justice?, along with it's predecessor Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?, simply explain in layman's terms the extent of what our society is missing today in economics and law. I HIGHLY recommend them to all. They are written for about high school level, even though some bright middle schoolers could probably understand them. They are best used in a discussion setting. We have found them to be very enlightening and led to many discussions of how these concepts relate to today's world.

Here are some points made in the book that are part of the Summary:

"1 - An economic system is the result of its legal system. Or, economics is a symptom, the cause is law.

2 - The two fundamental laws on which all major religions and philosophies agree are: Do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on other persons. These laws were the basis of the old common law. But only these two. Except for them we have little or no agreement about right and wrong....

3 - America was the place where the principles of the old common law were more widely obeyed - by everyone including the government officials - than anywhere else. This is how America became the most free and prosperous land ever known.

4 - "All men are created equal," means no one is above the law, not even government officials.

5 - Thomas Paine said, "Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them." This is the premise of both science and the common law.

8 - Natural Law cannot be repealed by good intentions or majority rule."

These are just a few of my favorites. I hope everyone will read this book so we can regain our freedoms and return to sane law "discovery" rather than the current majority rule/mob rule.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an absolute must-read. Not only do I want to own this book in my library of classics, I desire the entire series. I am excited to read it to, and with my children and discuss the topics it adresses.

I can understand now why other reviewers of this book state that if there was only ONE change they could make to the American Public High School Curriculum, they would make Maybury's "Uncle Eric" books required reading and toss the other textbooks out.

This book helped me understand the WHY behind the founding Father's famous quotes. I'd heard the quotes before, and I'd been taught some of the concepts, but never have I seen the whole story laid out in a concise manner that even a 6th grader could understand. Each chapter is short, clear, and easily understood. There are stories, pictures, and quotes to verify the topic of each section.

This book is written from an Uncle Eric, to his Nephew Chris to explain what has happened to American Justice. What the founding Father's intended, what they tried to accomplish, and what has happened since. I was pleased with how complicated matters that elude most American Citizens could be explained in a logical and simple format. I think our country's leaders need to read this book as well! The lawyers have a great advantage, if they are only Americans walking around who know what "Common law" is. Too bad we can't practice it anymore. I'll never think of law the same way ever again.

I'm so grateful that I heard about this series online. This book made several references to the book "Whatever happened to Penny Candy?" about American Economics. The justice book makes many references to it, and so that one will be next on my to-read list!

I highly recommend this book to parents, children of all ages, schools, teachers, and leaders everywhere!!!

[Aria Maher · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is very interesting and explains common law and political law in an eye opening way, but I don't really agree with some of Richard Maybury's arguments. For example, he says that all government is inherently evil. Although people make mistakes and power can be corrupting, that doesn't make the idea of government itself evil, especially from a Christian point of view, where the highest form of government, that being God Himself, is true goodness itself. However, he does do a good job showing how the government is different from the country (and why being patriotic doesn't mean bowing down to the government, but standing up for your people) and he has some good ideas about law and justice.

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Whatever Happened to Justice?" Has been a life changing book for me. I look at everything that is happening around me in a diffrent light dealing with politics, and how this country is what it is.

[Rebekah · Rating 5 out of 5]

According to Maybury, the two essential laws are:
1. Do all you have agreed to do and
2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
There is a lot of good stuff in this book. Highly recommended.

[Victoria Silbernagel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was really good at explaining laws, and the judicial system in america.

[Jill Courser · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars:) My son (age 15) and I both really enjoyed this book. Very enlightening perspective on the state of our country's government and justice system. I consider myself a conservative, and I still found some of my own views challenged by Maybury's arguments - how my mind has been shaped by the culture and "system" we live in. Excellent introduction to our country's roots in common law and how far we have strayed from that foundation.

[Julie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't think Maybury gets everything right, such as the origins of government, but this provides much food for thought. Although it's a book for young people, it is worth reading at any age.

[Heather Purvis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've never read an Uncle Eric book that didn't leave me with a much clearer understanding of basic principles, and this was no exception.

The importance of common law/natural law and how its disappearance has impacted our society. Clear, easy to understand, with lots of good examples and historical information.

I guess the one thing I'm left wondering is, okay, but how do we fix it? Where do we go from here? The author offers suggestions of books for further reading on that topic, but next steps were beyond the scope of this book.

[Eden D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Richard Maybury explains the history of the United State's legal system. He goes into many things, including flaws and solutions. I enjoyed this book very much. Maybury explained complex principals in a very simply way. Because of this, they were very easy to grasp. The thing about this was that some topics felt a bit unanswered. One thing I particualrily liked about it is his explaination of natural law. Natural law is basically a few things that all humankind generally accept as fair and just. I would reccomend this book to anyone who's looking for a short telling on Americas's legal history.

[LeeAnn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am really enjoying this series of Uncle Eric books about economics and law. Each book basically covers one topic so you can either read it quickly or delve into it and learn a great deal. In this book, he discusses the two basic systems of law, common and political law, and how each affects the economic prosperity of the people. Common law came out of religious laws and clergymen were frequently the intermediaries who helped settle disputes. They would hear each side and then study their religious doctrine to come up with the solution. As more disputes were settled, that built the groundwork of case law. He explains the way the disputes were settled relied on 1) each person doing all they agreed to do and 2) not encroaching on others' property. They had no means to force each party to make reparations to the victim so if the person refused, they would declare him an outlaw and publish the details to all those around. Outlaw simply meant they had no protection to the law, meaning that if someone killed that person or stole from him, or anything else, the outlaw had no legal recourse. He made that choice voluntarily, and that was enough to make most people to agree with the arbitrators' decisions.

Pure genius! People valued each other and themselves. That's a far cry from when so many criminals do--and we have far more criminals today--maybe because we don't obey those two fundamental laws taught by ALL religions? If those two tenets are part of all religions, and they also agree that there is a Higher Authority, no matter what they call it, and civilizations only advance when they obey it, why do we think those are no longer important and we can allow a government to ignore those and do whatever they see as expedient? Silly and shortsighted at best; dangerous at worst.

Correction to Goodreads description of the author: The author of this book is Richard J. Maybury. Jane A. Williams wrote the Bluestocking guide you can buy to accompany it.

Posted a few days later: I'm upgrading this to 5 stars. This book is right on the money (no pun intended) and includes some good laughs. One of his points is that law should not encroach on anyone and should make sense. It shouldn't be laughable, and of course he throws in some very laughable laws.

Okay, I've finished this book now. It is an excellent treatment of the differences between common law and political law. It shows how common law brings prosperity and continuity while political law brings widespread poverty and destroys civilizations. This is a must read!!!

[Tleary · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this book is a valuable explanation of common law and the rise of political law in contrast. The second half is a fairly simplistic agenda to promote a purely libertarian viewpoint, which sometimes assumes truths which he has not necessarily proven.

[Dave Burns · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is not perfect, but he makes common law interesting and understandable. If you don’t know why you should care about common law, this book will surprise you.

Maybury's treatment of common law is a bit incomplete, so a serious student might prefer Bruno Leoni's Freedom and the Law, which does a better job of distinguishing the historical common law (which was encroached upon by political law more and more through history) from the abstract principles involved, which might be applied more successfully in a more favorable circumstance.

Government's privilege consists of the ability to disobey the law. It may apply differently or not at all to government agents. “Governments are large organizations that are a little different from private organizations. They're made not of angels or miracle workers but of humans who have no special powers or abilities. The only thing that sets these humans apart from the rest of us is that they are not legally equal; they have the privilege of encroaching.”

“If something is prohibited for you and me, it’s prohibited for kings, dukes, presidents, minorities, majorities, and everyone else.” This attractive generalization needs to explain property. I am not prohibited from driving my car whenever I like, but everyone else is prohibited unless I give my permission. This is a quibble. Maybury's point is that government agents have privileges that are difficult to justify except on consequentialist grounds that might also justify genocide. The platitudes we learned in civics class fall short at explaining the exceptions government asks us to make.

Maybury offers common law as a more scientific way of discovering law. He criticizes the idea that people can actually make law. I find this idea attractive, but many people have interpreted the idea of natural law in odd and unsupportable ways. Maybury waves his hands at this, but does not really tackle it. Maybe that would be too philosophical for this book. I think a case can be made that natural law refers to whatever facts social science might discover. Unless we think social sciences have nothing to say, that means natural law exists; whether that means natural law is what Maybury or other advocates of natural law think it is must be answered sepately. That argument was not made in this book.

He argues that common law is scientific and provides some cherry-picked statistics to suggest that countries that come closer to his ideas do better in various ways.

Maybury makes the point that law is not the same as government. But he does not clarify how a judge gains authority other than from the government. In a purely voluntary society, any person could act as judge or arbitrator in a dispute, if the persons involved in the dispute accepted that person as neutral. Is that what Maybury imagines?

Maybury provides two fundamental laws: Do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons and their property. But this takes for granted that we know whose property is whose. “Whatever belongs to everyone belongs to no one.” Again, I suppose this would be a heavier book if he had addressed that, in at least two senses.

The law applies only to competent adults. This is nearly circular. Competence means the ability to take legal responsibility for one's self. “Competent agent” or “competent participant” might be more accurate, unless we want to assume only adults are competent. Maybury makes a small effort to address how children become adults, without the arbitrariness of a specific age which will fit a few but be late for some and early for others. He provides a puzzling contract for parents and children, and one of the clauses mentions emancipating the child by mutual consent. “Eventually the child will reach a stage of maturity in which parent and child both agree that the child is ready for the full rights and responsibilities of an adult. At this stage, parents and child will write an agreement emancipating the child.” This seems odd to me. If the child is not considered competent, no contract with the child is valid. If the child is competent, then the contract is redundant. If the parents must agree, the child is effectively their possession. In principle, at least, there must be a way for children to emancipate themselves or request a different guardian against the wishes of their parents. Maybury seems to want to address the question of what obligation the parents have toward the child, what the basis of the obligation is, and how children can establish their competence. Again, that might go into more philosophical territory, and Maybury skipped it.

Maybury's vision of common law includes the concept of outlawry, where someone is denied the protection of the law and so can be killed or enslaved. “A criminal who harmed someone seriously could end up the victims slave.” I think this needs more explanation at the very least. Maybury does not seem concerned with proportionality. Again, that would make the book bigger and more complicated.

Part of the virtue of this approach is that people who are actually harmed put things in motion (not some bureaucrat) and “the person who did it was responsible for fixing it”. This decentralization could mean that it is more responsive, adaptable and scaleable.

Maybury's discussion of morality and religion is a bit confusing. He is clear that law is not the same as government, is he clear that law is not the same as morality? He gives religion some credit for common law, but does he think it was fostered by divine command, religious practice, or community?

He discusses Nuremberg as a demonstration that there exists a law that is higher than government law. He quotes the judges, “The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility.”

“No one in 1776 was fighting for democracy, they were fighting for liberty, which is something entirely different.”

His discussion of how common law deals with risk was very vague. Some risks encroach on us and some do not, but it’s not clear where to draw the line.

It’s not clear what the point of the book is, what call to action the the author wants the reader to hear. No existing political party or movement really embraces these ideas or suggests a way to experiment with them or transition toward them. The persuaded reader can ask, “what now?”.

[Daniel Godfrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just going through books I was assigned in high school, trying to figure out "What It All Means"™. Second in a series of 9 books, whose third (Are You Liberal? Conservative? Or Confused?) I read right before this. Follows the same style of chapters written as letters to a younger relative, although the tone is a little more formal in this one, and there's more emphasis on American History (quotes from Founding Fathers, Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, etc.).

The author describes the history and taxonomy of law, writing that American law started with Common Law from England. Common Law is a methodical way of discovering what justice is (an element of what the author calls Natural Law), similar to how science discovers truths about the physical world. After Common Law arose a very different kind of law, Political Law, which is fairly modern, made through voting, and less respected by the author.

Political Law is a good segue for the next book, about political ideology. Similarly, there are discussions in here about the subject matter of the previous book, Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?. I think the idea behind the order of the books is how things developed: Two parties decide to make a trade (economics), which sometimes goes south and requires a third party to settle the dispute (law/justice), and a body (government) is required for handling this at large-scale (many laws, many parties, etc.)

There are a few indicators I could have chosen law as a career path. (As well as a doctor. Or a computer programmer, which I am. Or a detective. Or a newsperson. I have a wide variety of interests.) To name a few: I must have read most of John Grisham's books when I was in high school. (I think there was a lot about law I didn't know, but I enjoyed the books all the same.) Had a few coaches who were in law school around the same time. (They went to UNM, where I would later go, and I've heard it has a pretty good law program.) One of the TV shows my hometown of Albuquerque is known for, Better Call Saul, is about a lawyer. (Don't think I've seen a full episode of it yet though, or its related show Breaking Bad.) I was named after a relative who I'm told was named after William Jennings Bryan, attorney for the prosecution in the Scopes Monkey Trial case. (My relative didn't turn out to be a lawyer either, but a builder, I think.)

All these considered, I'm not too sure why I didn't read this one when it was assigned. And I've been trying to figure out what I would have thought about it if I had read it then. I would have been steeped in a Biblical view of law at the time, which I would summarize as "It's better to settle your differences privately, outside of court." I think the author would agree, although he didn't cite much Scripture in this one. Law to me would have existed entirely in the courts; I don't think I knew Congress made laws, for example. I don't think I would have understood the parts on Political Law. I knew lawyer jokes, but I don't think I had a negative opinion of lawyers, and I thought even more highly of courts and judges. And so the author asking if they're corrupt in Chapter 31 would have seemed like hyperbole to me.

I liked Peck's portrayal of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. This book comes with a list of movies to watch, and even though I'm a cinephile I haven't heard of some of them. I think I would have seen how many I could get on Netflix through the mail (wasn't fully online then), which was what I did with another curriculum. Another list at the end has recommended reading. Two additions I might make to those lists have strongly influenced how I think of law, especially how an over-reliance on (human) law can lead to absurd conclusions: P. D. James' A Certain Justice, in which a lawyer pays a high price for giving the best possible defense for someone she suspects/knows to be guilty, and Herman Melville's Billy Budd, in which a good man is sentenced to death for effectively an accident. Rumpole of the Bailey would be an honourable (wink, wink) mention.

Would this book have persuaded me to look more into law? Chapter 8, drawing parallels between Common Law and Scientific Law (the pursuit of truth) might have. But a lot of the last part of the book talks about how Political Law has taken over, so maybe not. I think I would have thoroughly enjoyed all the discussion up to that point, especially Chapter 9's discussion of all the tacit laws (e.g., unwritten rules) all around us when we're shopping in a candy store, for instance.

Some of the things said about political law I think would have done me good to hear: "Once a right-to-life question has been decided democratically, then fourteen centuries of common law reasoning will be swept away. The right to life--your's, mine, and everyone else's--will be regarded not as a given, not as a gift from the Creator, but as a gift from the voters. And the voters can change their minds." I don't think it would have resonated with me then the way it does now, but I think it would've been good to have heard it then anyways.

I think the text is really well supplemented with current events. Many rules surrounding COVID (vaccine and mask mandates, proofs of vaccination, etc.) are hard-to-miss examples of Political Law. A hallmark of Political Law is its capriciousness, making it difficult to plan around, which made me wonder: Is this what Political Law has been doing to other entities, like companies? I don't know a whole lot about it, but discussion of Common Law ideas like restitution, reducing who gets sent to prison, and "court as a last resort," reducing how many cases courts need to hear, sounds like it would fit right in with talk of police and prison reform, in addition to governmental and technological solutions. The discussion of the multiplicative effect of economic calculation (if I have something I don't use and you have something you don't use, and we trade and start using them, now two things are being used which were previously just taking up space) in Chapter 10 and how government involvement can hamper it in Chapter 11 have made me curious about free markets; I feel I have a better idea of what former President Trump might have been after with some of his policies.

This is a very good starter book, with lots of recommendations of where to look next for more information.

[Barbara Radisavljevic · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be must reading for all those who think character doesn't matter as long as the economy is good. In this book Mr. Maybury explores America's legal heritage and explains the two kinds of law -- the higher law and man-made or political law. He shows how substituting the latter for the former causes the economy to suffer. He also explains two laws on which all major religions and philosophies agree that are the basis of our common law. When politicians make laws that displace this common law, it wrecks havoc with the economy.

In his attempt to define the role of government and how to approach unsolved problems in our society, Mr. Maybury enters some controversial territory. You may or may not agree with his ideas on capital punishment, illegal drugs, the environment, war, poverty, and other hot topics. But Mr. Maybury provides a framework for discussing them and explaining and defending your own values as they relate to these topics. For ages 14 thru Adult.

[Furbjr · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm reading this because it was selected as the Book of the Month for June 2012 on http://freedombookclub.com

This book, written as a series of letters from Eric doing his avuncular duties towards his nephew, are laying the groundwork for the return to common law. Whatever Happened to Justice exposes, in language that any high school student should be able to understand, the difference between statutory law and common law. That is to say the differences between the laws decreed by the ruling classes, and the laws discover-able through the methods devised through the ages and civilizations to determine right from wrong, just from unjust.

I'll be having my 9 year old read this one.

[Davis Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

These Maybury books are so insanely limited in their anarcho-libertarian views that they serve more as illustrations of that perspective than helpful guides to understanding real situations. I was raised on these vastly over-simplifying diatribes in high school, and deeply regret not getting the whole picture. Beware of the deceptively simple young readers' facade due to this. This is not to say there aren't interesting ideas, but I wouldn't recommend using it as a teaching tool, and for adults looking to be educated on natural law ethics, there are probably much better books out there that don't have a radical libertarian agenda. Go straight to the source and read Hayek.

[JP · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once again, Uncle Eric explains clearly and concisely the fundamentals we have forgotten. He focuses this time on our system of justice, especially the abandonment of common and higher law. If more people understood these concepts, our world would improve. He addresses that there are some unresolved problems, and offers some direction toward solving them (example: capital punishment completely ignores the tradition of restitution). This book reminds us that democracy can easily become a tyranny of the majority. The French Revolution exemplifies this in horrific form.

[Dawn Oswald · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book and should be read by all who wish to know about the impact of economics on our justice system as well as the history of law. Mr. Maybury is clear and concise in his analysis of various aspects of the law and our society- where we started and where we have ended up. Although written in 1992, I find it very interesting that many of the same topics discussed around the nation today were being discussed then. I can't wait to read the next "Uncle Eric" book and would love to own the entire series. Every person should read this!

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This great book gives a fabulous, detailed description of America's legal system today and how it relates to the original ideals of the Founders and the Constitution. A definate must-read for everyone interested in law or the legal system, and a very highly reommended read for every single American!! I appreciated the perspective and style - I really enjoyed this book, and I think you will, too!!

=)

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

My colleagues and I each received a copy of this book as a company Christmas present. I thought it would be boring, but it's actually very interesting and absorbing. It's about the connection between economics and law, and the difference between common law and political law. In brief, common law is natural law, based on moral absolutes, while political law is force wielded by whoever is in power.

[Joy · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a bizarre book. Maybury begins by praising the common law system of the Dark Ages which involved declaring criminals outlaws, allowing for them to be hunted down by anyone, says taxes cause poverty and are an unjust use of force by the government on innocent citizens, and that our people have essentially started worshiping our government as their god.

Finally, we should make it our goal abolish government.

Yay, we all love anarchy!