Richard Epstein rocked the legal-academic world in 1985 with his property-right manifesto, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Supreme Neglect is essentially a greatly condensed and somewhat updated version of that earlier work, minus footnotes. If you were enthusiastic about Epstein's original message concerning the vital importance of protecting property rights against state encroachment, you'll probably like Supreme Neglect. If you found Epstein unconvincing in 1985, you'll probably find him more so now.

One topic covered in the new book that was not discussed 24 years ago is intellectual property. Unfortunately, Epstein does not give a convincing explanation of why, if the state can create and modify "property rights" in the form of patents and copyrights at will, it should not have the mirror-image power of constraining or eliminating traditional property rights like land ownership as it sees fit. Since his account of property rights rests upon their economic utility, rather than upon the nature of man or the requirements of natural law, Epstein's case for upholding these rights against state usurpation boils down to: abrogating property rights is bad for business. Some readers will find this to be a compelling argument, but I think stronger ones could be advanced. ( )