This is a horribly list to read, albeit a very nice list to put in to the front of a book shelf. Most importantly, if one reads only one book on any given subje

This is a horribly list to read, albeit a very nice list to put in to the front of a book shelf. Most importantly, if one reads only one book on any given subject, then one will only hear of one point of view. A problem that is made worse by selecting classics, which are usually written to make a point instead of summarizing the broader debate. The most obvious example from this list is probably Origin of Species, a work where Darwin did not talk about the evolution of man, because he did not wanted to be drawn into a theological debate. Additionally the classics carry context, which may or may not be obvious. Here the most obvious example from the list is Adam Smith, who did not write about abstract global markets, as the term is used today, but he did write about a collection of market stalls. Similarly, his thought about government and regulation was informed by his times, the first edition appeared in 1776, the same year as the declaration of independence and thirteen years before the French revolution. So Adam Smith did never write about a modern nation, with formal representation and a process for the transition of power, but he did write about a late feudal society, in which the political power was held by an unchecked former warrior elite. [ The above does not mean that I am against reading classics, in fact quite the opposite. The problem is just, that trying to get an important idea x, then you should probably read "A modern introduction to x," not the classical book where it first appeared, in an convoluted way embedded into some discussion at that time.]