Liberty Books

Oh, no! Not another book about the Liberty Bell, and at first glance, a rather juvenile-looking one, at that. But--this is an excellent book! Themed as if taking a tour at Liberty Bell Center in Philadelphia, it is appealingly illustrated with broad, earth-tone water-color pictures, giving it the edge for a show-and-tell read -aloud. The text is large, clear and diversely well-defined. The history of the bell is pointed out clearly, simply and concisely; a glossary helps out for those unfamiliar terms. Every reader is sure to learn something they had not known from this fun and interesting book! By the value of this book alone, I would not hesitate to purchase all the books in the American Symbols series for library or classroom.

This is a great book for learning about the Liberty Bell. It's not in a storyline format, but the images are great and the information is accurate. This is a great tool for the younger students learning about Philadelphia, PA and the Liberty Bell. Great book.

Liberty Blue Dinnerware is compact, concise and provides everything a collector or dealer needs. Debbie and Randy Coe have done an excellent job of providing the history of Liberty Blue Dinnerware with pictures of original ads adding value to the readers experience.

The pictures are excellent and the organization of the book makes it easy for identification purposes including descriptions, measurements and current values. Although the book is a "soft cover" the glossy pages are first rate and enhance the quality of the pictures.

Buy it, use it, enjoy it. Value pricing makes it that much better!

This book is a MUST for all collectors of patriotic Liberty Blue dinnerware, a grocery store premium that celebrated the Bicentennial years of the mid-1970's. The Coes combine excellent photos, realistic values and lots of historical information in this brief book.

. Martin Sketchley's THE LIBERTY GUN represents Book 3 of the 'Structure' series and as such as a recommended pick for prior fans who will enjoy a smooth transition to his latest adventure. Delgado and Ashala are sent to a future Seriatt occupied by a three-species race and search for a way back: ideals thwarted by an arrest and the Sinz's military needs. Perfect for fans of military sci fi.

In 2379 earth equivalent time Delgado and Ashala land on Seriatt, a planet at war between alien occupiers the Sinz (a triad species of humanoid, avian, and amphibian) vs. a native resistance movement. However, before they can act, the Seriattic insurgents capture Delgado and Ash. Their leader, Cowell, is a Vilume, one of the three genders that make up this race. The outsiders quickly learn that the seemingly invincible Sinz have made this orb their platform for the invasion of other worlds with earth on the agenda. Cowell forms an alliance with the two earthlings as they prepare for battle against the powerful common enemy as well as forming a strange romantic triangle.

However, this Sinz contingent is cut off for now from their distant homeworld, which means they have supply problems as they need basillia, a subterranean organism to survive. Structure's Commander Supreme General William Myson sends Colonel Viktor Saskov to Seriatt with a "scorched earth" strategy to eradicate the basillia and to reclaim the time gate even if that means stranding or killing two operatives. However, as several groups move against the Sinz on Seriatt from different perspectives, the time-space continuum comes under assault.

The third Structure science fiction thriller (see THE DESTINY MASK and THE AFFINITY TRAP) is a superb novel that makes a strong case how stupid people are to go to war over cultural, religious or ethical differences as everyone pays the price for these insane hostilities. The species seem odd yet genuine whether they are purebred earthlings, the three Seriatt humanoid genders, or the Sinz. Martin Sketchley makes the audience feel the planet Seriatt exist actually exists. Though the erotic scenes between two species are graphic and not for everyone, they add to an overall feel that the Sketchley universe is a dangerous real place.

Harriet Klausner

What can I say? I've been a bonafide monkeyboy for a few years now and anyone who picks this book up will know why you just can't say no to Frank Cho's work.

This is not a great place for new comers to start but if you have even a basic understanding of the Liberty Meadows world (from those lovely syndicated newspaper cartoons), then I guess you'll be okay with the story. If you end up liking this book I highly recommend you to search for some of the older titles.

As always Frank's artwork is top-notch and this book was so funny I actually laughed out loud reading some of the scenes. This is the type of book you'll want to share with your friends. But if you have friends like mine you won't want them to get their grubby paws all over the beautiful Jen and Brandy!

Great book, great story, great price. Books like this is probably why I'll never stop reading comics.

I first discovered Frank Cho's work through a published edition of U2 (University Squared), the comic strip he produced as a college student in Maryland. With a few alterations, Liberty Meadows is, essentially, a revamp, continuation and elaboration of that work. Cho is quite the master, both in draftsmanship and in humor (which is sometimes quite risque - this is certainly not a comic strip collection for children, by any means). His jokes and his artistic styles pay homage to many sources, from old-school cartoons and classic comic strips to fanboy references to movies and comic books.

Liberty Meadows itself follows the tale of Brandy and Frank, an animal psychologist and veterinarian, respectively, who work at a wildlife preserve with a number of neurotic animals, including Dean (a pig), Leslie (a frog in a straw hat), and Ralph (a former circus bear). They get into all kinds of wacky adventures, from the just plain nutty to the downright dangerous. Everyman Frank is desperately in love with the outgoing, beautiful Brandy, but can't ever seem to bring himself to tell her.

In this volume, matters are complicated by Brandy's beautiful roommate, Jen, who has decided to toy with Frank's emotions simply for fun; add to this the fact taht Brandy's former college boyfriend is back in town, and has asked her to marry him. All the while, the Liberty Meadows animals engage in their usual spate of hilarious shenanigans. Will Frank find the strength to break away from Jen and the courage to tell Brandy how he truly feels about her in time? Will Brandy follow the true yearnings of her heart? You've gotta read it to find out. I hope additional volumes come out, as I've thoroughly enjoyed this series, and I think you will too. the book also includes a fairly extensie sketchbook section and a handy introductory section that will catch you up on the characters if you're new to the books. If you're looking for an offbeat comic read with great art, this is the book for you (read the other 3 first, though...). Enjoy!

"Liberty Street: Encounters at ground Zero" is an amazingly powerful and beautiful book. In my opinion this book takes its place with great works that bring to life a place for the reader, like Hemingway's "A Movable Feast" does Paris, and Kerouac's "On the Road" does this great country of ours. Only this book gives you an unfictionalized account of a place that in some ways has vanished forever - the community of Lower Manhattan that worked to clean up, rebuild and relocate back into their beloved neighborhood. This book is a must read, not only for its profoundly elegant and engaging writing, but for its chronicling of a very significant time and place in the history of America.

I have just read an advance review copy of this remarkable book. You're sick of all the jingoism, political exploitation and demagoguery that the disaster of 9/11 entailed. You want an intelligent and poetic account of how lives were altered in the neighborhoods around Ground Zero - how, in fact, Ground Zero itself became a "neighborhood" with a two-plus-years-long half-life. In other words, you want to read this book. If you have shared in the national malaise that settled in after the disaster, and have been further depressed by the heavy-handed bungling of the response, you want to read this book. Ground Zero became populated by remarkable men and women, and in its surrounding neighborhoods residents who wouldn't be bullied, badgered or scared away by bureaucrats or terrorists alike strove indomitably to preserve and rebuild their lives. You knew nothing about any of this until this book. No one cared - least of all the politicians who were aggrandizing the spotlight with their hand-wringing and buffoon-like pronouncements about justice and patriotism - that miracles were being performed on a daily basis by lower Manhattan residents who wouldn't be broken. Few of us were ever informed that while our attention was being deliberately diverted by a bogus war, the real American spirit was being challenged by bureaucratic indifference and stupidity, yet triumphing in the mouth of hell in lower Manhattan regardless, as genuinely as on any fraudulently engendered battlefield among the oil derricks of the Middle East. You'll encounter all of this within the pages of Peter Josyph's stunning account of the transient world of Ground Zero. I grant that no one could blame you for being sick of this whole subject, but then, before this book was written I don't think many of us really had an opportunity to comprehend what the real subject was. Moreover, Josyph's sinuous prose ripples and roils with an angry poetic music that never succumbs to partisan political banality. It will captivate you on its own terms. This book is a knockout. Don't miss it.

Prof. (Dr.) Yaffe,

Your words have been inspirational to both my peers and I. Thank you for your insight and help in this complex philosophical world. Everyone should read this book. Dr. Yaffe has accompished the impossible and has answered the unanswerable. We're all waiting for the next one.

Do I have free will? And if I have her and I call her "Liberty," is she worth the name? To professor Gideon Yaffe of the University of Southern California, the answers are 'yes' and 'you bet, Huckleberry!' In Yaffe's latest tour-de-force, he offers up the intellectual key to open the door to the shoddy basement where Free Will has lain dormant in the philosophy mansion on Important Problems street. But although the key fits the Locke and the basement sorely needs cleaning, the door will not budge easily. Yaffe points out early on that this stubbornness is due to the rust brought on by decades of stagnant contemporary philosophy. In order to facilitate entry into this dark cellar of festering potential, Yaffe says we must anoint its door-hinges with a hefty dose of the old-school grease of John Locke. And here, in the greasing, is where Yaffe shines. As I, the reader, accepted the gentle overtures of Yaffe and Locke and descended arm in arm with these men into the darkness of Free Will, I could not help but feel I was being guided by docents of unusual perspicuity--perhaps even of the caliber of those at Graceland. As Yaffe flicked on his many lamps of insight, Locke pointed out the cracked walls of volition, the musty sweaters of self-consciousness, and the urine-stained mattresses of good conduct. Yaffe and Locke seemed to organize the room right before my eyes, their taut muscles rippling under the weights of their efforts.

The book includes most of the standard Yaffian literary tricks aficionados have come to expect--the inappropriate (yet deliciously naughty!) introduction of profanity to underscore a critical point, the thinly-veiled references to the author's ample manhood--but unlike in his other recent works (Yaffe's titillating but philosophically unsatisfying 'I Gets Mine' comes to mind) these ploys are not incorporated gratuitously. Many times I would bristle at Yaffe's use of the f-word to make a point, when a simple line drawing or mathematical equation would seem to have sufficed. But my discomfort would gradually melt into recognition, and then understanding, and, finally, I would become aroused. "Oh yes," I would sigh contentedly, "I am experiencing Yaffe."

Yaffe wields old man Locke like a jedi light saber against the modern philosophical Darth Vaders who would trivialize or oversimplify Locke's conception of free will. But, in the final assessment, is Yaffe the triumphant Luke Skywalker or the beaten, bodyless robe of Obi-Wan Kenobi? This reviewer unreservedly calls him Skywalker. All hail Gideon Yaffe, the Jedi Master who cleaned up the basement.

The world is in crisis; will America once again take the lead? According to Dr. Kim Holmes, the answer is a resounding yes. In his beautifully formatted book, both detailed and insightful, Dr. Holmes lays out the course that must be taken for America to reassert herself globally.

Liberty's Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century provides a refreshing and much-needed view of America's role in the world both now and in the future. As anti-American sentiment runs rampant throughout the world, and especially in university classrooms, Dr. Holmes presents America as she truly is; a strong, free, and peace-loving nation whose leadership is crucial in these uncertain times. The America that Dr. Holmes presents in his book hearkens back to Reagan's "shining city upon a hill," a place of innate goodness and a moral compass for the rest of the world.

Dr. Holmes guides America smoothly into the future by providing decisive answers to some of today's most demanding questions. A thorough roadmap is provided for America's interaction with her allies, the war against Islamic extremists, the struggle to reform international organizations, the threat of nuclear proliferation, and the universal assault on American values and actions. Dr. Holmes offers fresh approaches to solving the challenges that face America, such as creating a "Global Freedom Alliance," and he does not ignore America's domestic problems, as he calls for the country to "get its own house in order." Most importantly, Dr. Holmes identifies American leadership as key to the preservation of liberty.

This book will appeal to anyone who is interested in America's welfare and what she must do to maintain her greatness. America is under attack like never before in her history, and Dr. Holmes provides, in encyclopedic detail, the missteps that America has taken and ways for her to right the course. Dr. Holmes' view of America as a kind and compassionate country is not compromised by the assertive approach he believes America must take to combat the many threats she faces.

Liberty's Best Hope should be required reading for all Americans and all those who believe in America's ability to lead the free world. Dr. Holmes' words will reinvigorate America's image and make people think twice before doubting her inherent goodness and immense influence.

With the upcoming Presidential election just months away, war facing the nation on numerous fronts, and rampant media accounts of economic instability continually confronting the populace, there could not have come a better time for Kim Holmes to release this groundbreaking work. Liberty's Best Hope is a testament to the domestic and foreign policy legacy left behind by Ronald Reagan, and shows how we can relive the standard set forth by our most innovative predecessors to transcend our present challenges.
Through a mix of historical and policy analysis, Kim Holmes does an excellent job of showing where our present problems stem from, and the most efficient, direct, and immediate course of action policy makers can take to confront them. Issues such as anti-Americanism, our "faltering security bargain with Europe", the lack of foreign allied persistence in the War on Terror, and confusion and intrusion caused by international laws, are not presented by Holmes as eternal problems, but rather as challenges that must, and can, be effectively solved given the appropriate mix of political will and strategy.
What is exceptional about Liberty's Best Hope, is that Holmes clearly did not fall into the trap of discussing only the most hot-button, presently relevant issues in the interest of selling books. Rather, he mixes current events as well as long-standing challenges to construct an analysis that is beneficial and relevant to anyone that cares about the future of the country. Holmes not only takes the reader around the world in cataloging our various challenges and proposing innovative solutions, but also into the classroom, the border, and the energy and financial markets. In facing such a breadth of issues, theoretical subjects like America's evolving national identity are discussed alongside the dynamics of hard issues like free trade and missile defense. Regardless of whether philosophical or physical threats are presented, Holmes always provides straightforward, sensible answers to how best proceed in distinguishing flames, whether they are wildfires or minor sparks on the horizon.
In contrast to similarly published material, Liberty's Best Hope is not merely a rallying cry to a support base, nor a justification for previously existing policies and actions already undertaken. Holmes clearly shows a genuine devotion to this nation and a concern for her future. His book implores each and very American to expect more from their government and themselves not just in defending liberty abroad, but also in ideological and tangible struggles at home. Holmes' blueprint for the future requires a nation that foresees threats as they emerge and takes effective, practical action in diffusing them.
Liberty's Best Hope is written for anyone who loves America and seeks a prescription to the ills that could harm her. Holmes' effective writing style can be easily understood and appreciated by any American, and the means by which he frames his arguments provides adequate framework such that even the most uninformed reader can grasp the subject matter and his analysis. A must-read for anyone who demands not just rhetoric, but affirmative solutions to America's problems.

John Stuart Mill's "liberty principle" caused a great schism between his and James Stephen's ideas of human nature, the public role of religion, and society's duty in setting moral standards for its citizens. James Fitzjames Stephen lived from 1829 to 1894. After serving as a judge in India for three years, Stephen decided to write a critical analysis of Mill's book, while on his long voyage back to Great Britain in 1872. While Stephen was in India, he observed with great trepidation, political changes taking place back in Great Britain after the passage of the Reform Act of 1867. This legislation granted voting rights to male urban workers. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was the most penetrating defense of conservative values written in Victorian times--and after Burke and perhaps Coleridge, the most important work of English conservative thought." However, Stephen's book never really caught on in his lifetime. Alexander Bain recorded Mill's only known comment on Stephen's book. Stephen "does not know what he is arguing against; and is more likely to repel than to attract people." These were very prophetic words, "Stephen suffered the fate of most men out of step with their age: unable to attract any school of thought, his ideas failed to bear fruit in his lifetime." While Mill's book On Liberty has had numerous printings after its publication, Stephen's book laid virtually dormant until 1967, when it finally came back into print. Though Stephen failed while he was alive to garner a multitude of adherents to his cause, his ideas have earned a considerable amount of vindication in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Stephen distilled Mill's "liberty principle" theory down to every person pleasing himself without harming his neighbor. This means that every moral system that interferes with Mill's "liberty principle," "either to obtain benefits for society at large other than protection against injury or to do good to the persons affected, would be wrong in principle." This leads Stephen to think that Mill had made a fatal flaw politically in his "liberty principle," when he said that free discussion was primarily all that society needed to rule its citizens. Once again, Stephen thought that Mill put too much faith in education advancing humanity to a place where a shared social morality would become obsolete. Stephen made his point with a bit of wit when he wrote, "Society cannot make silk purses out of sows' ears." First, Stephen argued that a large portion of the population has been and always would be either uneducated, or of dubious character. Second, Stephen argued that most of law-abiding society did not feel particularly constrained by the moral force and law imposed by society on them. After all, most of the citizens have enacted and supported these moral standards and laws through their elected representatives in government. Stephen agreed with Mill, that people felt most restrained in their actions by public opinion and from social ostracism.

Once again to restate the issue, Mill's main reason for proposing his "liberty principle" was to free people from the constraints placed on them by the moral values, customs, and mores of society. Mill wanted people to have unfettered freedom to experiment with their lives provided it did not harm others. Stephen rightly concluded that societies used force of morality and sometimes the law, depending on the severity of the act, in order to guard against social ills that a society deemed dangerous to its existence. "Laws and moral systems are conditions of life imposed upon men either by political power or by the force of argument." Thus, Stephen took great umbrage with Mill's "liberty principle," because it disallowed three types of coercion that Mill argued society had no business imposing on its citizens, since they did not meet the standard of self-protection, or of preventing harm to others. These three types of coercions are,

1. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and maintaining religions.
2. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and practically maintaining
morality.
3. Coercion for the purpose of making alterations in the existing forms
of government and social institutions.


Stephen pointed out, that all three type of coercion's were examples of coercion used by people in their opinion for the betterment of society. Simply stated, the world of politics and the world of morality cannot exist separately. Since these coercive forces went against Mill's "liberty principle," Stephen concluded that Mill would consign every system of morality to the dustbin.
Stephen believed that the correct answer in how to build and maintain a healthy society came from his readings of the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, and from religious morality. Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679, and he greatly influenced Stephen's knowledge of human history and psychology. Both Stephen and Hobbes correctly perceive that humankind has been constantly in fear and conflict with one another, "Man has a fearful disease..." Stephen wrote Hobbes on Government for the Saturday Review, which illustrated the influence Hobbes ideas had on Stephen. In his essay, Stephen writes, "If no one or more men had the power of issuing to others such commands as appeared reasonable to themselves, there would be no such thing as society amongst men." Stephen understands, as Thomas Hobbes did, that force lies at the root of all government. "People are said to govern others by law, where they influence their conduct by imposing laws upon them." In politics, moral persuasion and coercion went hand-in-hand, and Stephen expanded on this duality of moral persuasion and coercion to illustrate his point. One could not be a political leader without the ability to use moral persuasion to convince others to follow their leadership, and while possessing the capability of consolidating the force and power of their numbers. Stephen correctly realized, that it was only natural for people, when they came together to form societies, to bring with them shared religious and cultural values that would serve as the foundation of the society they wished to build.

Stephen's experience, as an attorney and judge, gave him a unique insight into human psychology, which had him arguing that most of the social ills perpetrated by humankind were done out of evil or weakness of willpower, and not out of ignorance. To illustrate his point in his argument, Stephen used, as an example, the poor plight of the drunkard. No drunkard would admit to making a reasoned choice to become a drunkard. If asked to reflect on their choice, they would freely admit that they had no willpower to stop their drinking habit. Looking at human misconduct, which Stephen saw a lot of as an attorney and judge, he adamantly believed that persuasion of argument alone, an idea that Mill supported, could do little to persuade people to change their mischievous ways. Thus, Stephen refuted Mill's idea of reasoned discussion being an adequate amount of force to change a person's actions. Only people that had control of their willpower would be open to change through the force of a reasoned argument. It was Stephen's experience that coercion through punishment and force of law, more times than not, changed one's conduct when they were devoid of an adequate willpower. Moral persuasion also had the ability to point to the consequences of one's actions. One could say that Society's laws were morality and force working in conjunction. Moral persuasion caused people to act in accordance with the law, because the force of punishment instilled fear in them. Stephen understood the human psychology of how in most cases, when moral persuasion and force were applied together to elicit the same outcome, some people considered themselves persuaded, while others considered themselves forced to commit the same act. This fact becomes abundantly clear for anyone who has raised or worked with children. One can observe how children react differently to the same argument. When adults ask children to conduct themselves in a certain way, some children persuaded by the reasoning of the argument will comply, while other children would have to be threatened with some form of punishment to comply. The preceding examples help to illustrate how society winds up infringing on people's liberty every day. People will always have to make choices based on moral persuasion and force, and once they choose, they will have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Based on their character and psychological makeup, their actions will receive either reward or punishment. As a whole, this is how society operates; it persuades morally or threatens, causing people to act accordingly. Stephen rightly articulated that laws and punishments were nothing more than outgrowths of moral precepts, which were handed down by religious institutions in order to establish and maintain moral values that citizens of a society agreed to follow.

In fact, as a society matured, it would find many of its moral values evolving; thus, becoming constantly debated. Therefore, when Stephen observed what was taking place during the current political affairs of his day, he saw that even small issues before Parliament engender endless debate with seemingly no resolution, until finally a majority forms to solve the issue on their own terms. "Parliamentary government is simply a mild and disguised form of compulsion." Stephen observed that moral force was even more influential in his time, and would be so in the future. The most that one could hope for was that one could regulate and subdue the government's use of force. However, Stephen astutely observes that, "President Lincoln attained his objects by the use of a degree of force which would have crushed Charlemagne and his paladins and peers like so many eggshells."

Stephen knew through his study of history, that no amount of economic progress, improvement in education, freedom of religion, or political equality would change the fact that any society would always embrace shared moral, religious, and cultural values. Simple human nature taught Stephen, that most of the citizens in any society would want to impose their moral values and beliefs on all the members of the society. The majority of citizens in any society will constantly be jostling for the adoption of their beliefs, and will be probing the boundaries of how far they can impose their beliefs on the rest of society. Thus, the very best that citizens of a society can hope for is that those people who are in power, and have the public trust of most of a nation's citizens will follow Stephen's examples of legislative restraint, and respect for people's privacy as he defined privacy.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill's "liberty principle" caused a great schism between his and James Stephen's ideas of human nature, the public role of religion, and society's duty in setting moral standards for its citizens. James Fitzjames Stephen lived from 1829 to 1894. After serving as a judge in India for three years, Stephen decided to write a critical analysis of Mill's book, while on his long voyage back to Great Britain in 1872. While Stephen was in India, he observed with great trepidation, political changes taking place back in Great Britain after the passage of the Reform Act of 1867. This legislation granted voting rights to male urban workers. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was the most penetrating defense of conservative values written in Victorian times--and after Burke and perhaps Coleridge, the most important work of English conservative thought." However, Stephen's book never really caught on in his lifetime. Alexander Bain recorded Mill's only known comment on Stephen's book. Stephen "does not know what he is arguing against; and is more likely to repel than to attract people." These were very prophetic words, "Stephen suffered the fate of most men out of step with their age: unable to attract any school of thought, his ideas failed to bear fruit in his lifetime." While Mill's book On Liberty has had numerous printings after its publication, Stephen's book laid virtually dormant until 1967, when it finally came back into print. Though Stephen failed while he was alive to garner a multitude of adherents to his cause, his ideas have earned a considerable amount of vindication in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Stephen distilled Mill's "liberty principle" theory down to every person pleasing himself without harming his neighbor. This means that every moral system that interferes with Mill's "liberty principle," "either to obtain benefits for society at large other than protection against injury or to do good to the persons affected, would be wrong in principle." This leads Stephen to think that Mill had made a fatal flaw politically in his "liberty principle," when he said that free discussion was primarily all that society needed to rule its citizens. Once again, Stephen thought that Mill put too much faith in education advancing humanity to a place where a shared social morality would become obsolete. Stephen made his point with a bit of wit when he wrote, "Society cannot make silk purses out of sows' ears." First, Stephen argued that a large portion of the population has been and always would be either uneducated, or of dubious character. Second, Stephen argued that most of law-abiding society did not feel particularly constrained by the moral force and law imposed by society on them. After all, most of the citizens have enacted and supported these moral standards and laws through their elected representatives in government. Stephen agreed with Mill, that people felt most restrained in their actions by public opinion and from social ostracism.

Once again to restate the issue, Mill's main reason for proposing his "liberty principle" was to free people from the constraints placed on them by the moral values, customs, and mores of society. Mill wanted people to have unfettered freedom to experiment with their lives provided it did not harm others. Stephen rightly concluded that societies used force of morality and sometimes the law, depending on the severity of the act, in order to guard against social ills that a society deemed dangerous to its existence. "Laws and moral systems are conditions of life imposed upon men either by political power or by the force of argument." Thus, Stephen took great umbrage with Mill's "liberty principle," because it disallowed three types of coercion that Mill argued society had no business imposing on its citizens, since they did not meet the standard of self-protection, or of preventing harm to others. These three types of coercions are,

1. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and maintaining religions.
2. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and practically maintaining
morality.
3. Coercion for the purpose of making alterations in the existing forms
of government and social institutions.


Stephen pointed out, that all three type of coercion's were examples of coercion used by people in their opinion for the betterment of society. Simply stated, the world of politics and the world of morality cannot exist separately. Since these coercive forces went against Mill's "liberty principle," Stephen concluded that Mill would consign every system of morality to the dustbin.
Stephen believed that the correct answer in how to build and maintain a healthy society came from his readings of the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, and from religious morality. Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679, and he greatly influenced Stephen's knowledge of human history and psychology. Both Stephen and Hobbes correctly perceive that humankind has been constantly in fear and conflict with one another, "Man has a fearful disease..." Stephen wrote Hobbes on Government for the Saturday Review, which illustrated the influence Hobbes ideas had on Stephen. In his essay, Stephen writes, "If no one or more men had the power of issuing to others such commands as appeared reasonable to themselves, there would be no such thing as society amongst men." Stephen understands, as Thomas Hobbes did, that force lies at the root of all government. "People are said to govern others by law, where they influence their conduct by imposing laws upon them." In politics, moral persuasion and coercion went hand-in-hand, and Stephen expanded on this duality of moral persuasion and coercion to illustrate his point. One could not be a political leader without the ability to use moral persuasion to convince others to follow their leadership, and while possessing the capability of consolidating the force and power of their numbers. Stephen correctly realized, that it was only natural for people, when they came together to form societies, to bring with them shared religious and cultural values that would serve as the foundation of the society they wished to build.

Stephen's experience, as an attorney and judge, gave him a unique insight into human psychology, which had him arguing that most of the social ills perpetrated by humankind were done out of evil or weakness of willpower, and not out of ignorance. To illustrate his point in his argument, Stephen used, as an example, the poor plight of the drunkard. No drunkard would admit to making a reasoned choice to become a drunkard. If asked to reflect on their choice, they would freely admit that they had no willpower to stop their drinking habit. Looking at human misconduct, which Stephen saw a lot of as an attorney and judge, he adamantly believed that persuasion of argument alone, an idea that Mill supported, could do little to persuade people to change their mischievous ways. Thus, Stephen refuted Mill's idea of reasoned discussion being an adequate amount of force to change a person's actions. Only people that had control of their willpower would be open to change through the force of a reasoned argument. It was Stephen's experience that coercion through punishment and force of law, more times than not, changed one's conduct when they were devoid of an adequate willpower. Moral persuasion also had the ability to point to the consequences of one's actions. One could say that Society's laws were morality and force working in conjunction. Moral persuasion caused people to act in accordance with the law, because the force of punishment instilled fear in them. Stephen understood the human psychology of how in most cases, when moral persuasion and force were applied together to elicit the same outcome, some people considered themselves persuaded, while others considered themselves forced to commit the same act. This fact becomes abundantly clear for anyone who has raised or worked with children. One can observe how children react differently to the same argument. When adults ask children to conduct themselves in a certain way, some children persuaded by the reasoning of the argument will comply, while other children would have to be threatened with some form of punishment to comply. The preceding examples help to illustrate how society winds up infringing on people's liberty every day. People will always have to make choices based on moral persuasion and force, and once they choose, they will have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Based on their character and psychological makeup, their actions will receive either reward or punishment. As a whole, this is how society operates; it persuades morally or threatens, causing people to act accordingly. Stephen rightly articulated that laws and punishments were nothing more than outgrowths of moral precepts, which were handed down by religious institutions in order to establish and maintain moral values that citizens of a society agreed to follow.

In fact, as a society matured, it would find many of its moral values evolving; thus, becoming constantly debated. Therefore, when Stephen observed what was taking place during the current political affairs of his day, he saw that even small issues before Parliament engender endless debate with seemingly no resolution, until finally a majority forms to solve the issue on their own terms. "Parliamentary government is simply a mild and disguised form of compulsion." Stephen observed that moral force was even more influential in his time, and would be so in the future. The most that one could hope for was that one could regulate and subdue the government's use of force. However, Stephen astutely observes that, "President Lincoln attained his objects by the use of a degree of force which would have crushed Charlemagne and his paladins and peers like so many eggshells."

Stephen knew through his study of history, that no amount of economic progress, improvement in education, freedom of religion, or political equality would change the fact that any society would always embrace shared moral, religious, and cultural values. Simple human nature taught Stephen, that most of the citizens in any society would want to impose their moral values and beliefs on all the members of the society. The majority of citizens in any society will constantly be jostling for the adoption of their beliefs, and will be probing the boundaries of how far they can impose their beliefs on the rest of society. Thus, the very best that citizens of a society can hope for is that those people who are in power, and have the public trust of most of a nation's citizens will follow Stephen's examples of legislative restraint, and respect for people's privacy as he defined privacy.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

I first learned of the book "Life, Liberty, and Happiness: An Optimist Manifesto" by Frank S. Robinson from an e-mail from the author himself. I am not certain how I came to be on his list of e-mail addresses but he correctly identified me as being within his target market. Being fond of the Humanist Manifesto and a long-term optimism, the subtitle immediately caught my eye. I was further intrigued by the fact that he originally started out to write a letter to his daughter about life, something I have considered doing for my own children.

I have described my own beliefs as a blend of Religious Humanism, Neo-Objectivism, and Libertarian Transhumanism. Being at the tiny overlapping intersection of what are small minority beliefs to begin with, I suspected I was alone. You can imagine how pleased I was, then, to read in his introduction that his book "reflects elements of libertarianism, humanism, objectivism, and so forth". I even found a footnote in his chapter "The Meaning of Life" that leans toward Transhumanism.

The more I read, the more astonished I became that this book could so closely mirror my own beliefs while simultaneously covering so many different topics. It was not until I reached one of the last chapters where I finally found one issue, capital punishment, where I was not in substantial agreement with the author. It made me wonder how was it that we thought so much alike.

One possibility is that it is because we are reading many of the same books. A criticism I do have of this work is that it perhaps leans too heavily on repeating historical examples I have already read in other places. I can forgive this, however, if I consider that the author might have had a different target audience in mind where these core examples are still novel.

My other criticism is what I perceive to be his overuse of footnotes for parenthetical side comments. This seems to me to distract from the flow of reading his main text. I wonder if this comes from his twenty years of service as a judge in which footnotes in legal opinions frequently do convey significant information yet are considered subsidiary.

I started heartily recommending this book long before I finished reading it. Now that I have completed the text in its entirety and I am assured that there is nothing in it to which I have any strong objections, I am pleased to say that I am adding this title to two of my recommended books lists. I plan to purchase a number of copies for my friends. I look forward to reading additional publications from this author in the future.

As the table of contents is not provided above, I list it here:

Introduction
The Meaning of Life
Reason, Science, and Human Values
Living a Good Life
Happiness is a Choice
Satisfaction
Consciousness, Thought, and Personal Responsibility
Always Question
Relativism and Nonjudgmentalism
The Mystery of Creation
Freedom from Fear
Love, Marriage, and Sex
Political Vocabulary
The Social Contract
Individualism and Society
Government is the Problem
The Forced March to Paradise
The Era of Big Government
But What About the Truly Needy?
Wrongful Rights
America the Beautiful
The Morality of Free-Market Capitalism
Globalization and World Poverty
Why Corporations are Not Totally Evil Scum
Territoriality and Tribalism
Why the Gloom and Doom Crowd is Wrong
Man, Technology, and Nature
History and Its Lessons
Freedom of Expression
Race
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice
Animal Rights
Crime and Punishment
Homosexuality
The War with Islamic Extremism
Coda
Index

Frank S. Robinson views life as a cosmic accident with no ordained purpose other than to perpetuate itself. This may sound like a rough start for a self-described optimist but wait. It is our infinite luck that Evolution has given us consciousness tricked-out with intelligence - the better to survive. That evolutionary adaptation is our gift. Relish the gift. That is the meaning of life. Simply. The freedom to live our lives beyond the molecular drive to reproduce is an inalienable right. Because this right is universal it requires our tolerance for the rights (freedom) of others. Society and government only gain their legitimacy when they serve the rights of the individual. Free market capitalism is one expression of human creativity and intelligence. This is the bedrock on which Robinson bases his discussion of an ambitious run of issues that include Islamic extremism, the environmental movement, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, the war on drugs, etc.

Will you find yourself in agreement with all of Frank's [*] opinions? Not likely. For one, he has little patience for the Left. They are all about redistributing wealth (viz. taxation) and not enough about finding ways to produce it! He is clearly rankled by President Clinton's soothing refrain, "Government must do more". He has a deep distrust of the regulatory vise of Big Government - "a one way ratchet" - having worked as a Public Service Commission lawyer. Good-minded people work in government, but it's often "like a giant creature with no brains". Frank is far more comfortable with the Libertarian's minimalist view of government's role.

At the margin: Frank's glowing admiration for those who struggle to our shores on rafts, etc. in search of freedom and opportunity evokes in me other thoughts of border security and human trafficking. A comment on society's efforts on behalf of the disabled - "all of us have our limitations" - may seem glib. However, the key here and throughout is that Frank is always the advocate of the individual, all individuals, maximizing their potential. He views all issues seeking balance (versus perfection), fairness of opportunity (versus equal results), and weighing consequences (sometimes unintended) against the real costs of social action. Consistently the enemy of "facile" thinking Frank's views accomplish at least two things for the reader - a better understanding of our own reflex responses to controversial issues and a clearer lens for viewing new ones.

[*] Disclosure: I refer to the author by his first name out of familiarity. I am pleased to say that I have known Frank S. Robinson for a decade...was unaware that this book was in the works...and was not asked to review it. To me he is "Frank" both in person and in manner.

Maldwyn Jones' book manages to pack almost 400 years of American history in to just over 600 pages. His account is concisely written and provides for an easy read, encompassing a sweeping range of topics - politics, economics, social conditions, religion, and culture. Beginning from the earliest settlements from the Old World and tracing the evolution of a unique and diversified nation, Jones' organization is infallible, his attention to detail superb, and his conclusions sound. It is a very fair representation of American History, presenting all the relevant arguments to any issue and is a book where one can open to any page and become instantly enveloped. It is simply one of the best books on the topic I have ever read.

This is the best one volume history of the United States I have read. The other two I have read are those by Hugh Brogan and Howard Zinn. Whilst Brogan's book was good, I found his style a bit meandering and old fashioned. Zinn's was a good read but it is very biased and therefore not suitable as an introduction to this subject.

Maldwyn Jones' `The Limits of Liberty' on the other hand, features both enjoyable, highly readable prose and balanced information on every topic it covers. I have used this throughout my American history degree course and whenever there is something I have needed to look up; sure enough the information has been in here.

Another advantage is the extensive bibliography at the end. If there is anything in this edition that you come across and would like read more about, then Jones' bibliography will almost certain lead you in the right direction, offering a good selection.

The only minor (and these are very minor) complaints I can think of are that Jones sometimes goes overboard with the amount of facts and figures he uses, to the extent that I often wondered whether this should have been titled `A statistical History of the USA'. As with other single volume histories of the US, Jones also dedicates a disproportionate amount of the book to the twentieth century. The colonial period, which is of particular interest to me, is given only scant coverage here. However, such things are bound to happen in a book that aims to pack so much information in a limited space.

I would certainly recommend this as an introduction to the subject it covers.