I'm using this weekend to read into the two libertarian pieces of literature I'm told are the best for a lower intermediate, which I like to style myself as. Going into the legal philosophy does feel like an uncomfortable gear shift, but one I have to make regardless. We see here a book that answers the questions of what is freedom in regards to law, legislation, representation and common will.
When defining freedom, Bruno makes sure to note that we usually associate "freedom" as freedom from undesirable things (disease, debt, etc.) as opposed to the freedom to do something. Much linguistic analysis is given to the difference between the roots of "freedom", "gratitude" and "liberty", respectively. It cleared up a lot regarding how one should talk about the subject.
The legal philosophy aspect of the book did little to impress: the content of law, the certainty of law, representation, legislation and the common will all get their own chapters that really don't do much to clear up the fog. Laws that are clear, enforced regularly, and represent the common man's desires are superior to those that are not - nothing we didn't know already. It's more normative stuff which is sound and correct, but hardly useful.
I think this book is made for a different kind of person than I - somebody who cares about the "why" of things rather than the "how". I've already got my convictions, now I need tools to act with.
5/10