Liberty Books

This is a wonderful book about the Statue of Liberty. It is very moving and I am very impressed with it. I teach ESOL students so immigration is a factor in all my students lives whether they are living here for the rest of their lives or just visiting here for a couple of years while their parents attend university here. I am also a big fan of Doreen Rappaport who wrote wonderful picture books about Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lennon. Lady Liberty tells her story by covering life stories of major figures involved in the creation of the statue. This is quite effective. I learned more about the making of the statue than I had before and I felt very in tune with the people who made the statue happen. The French governments and the US governments weren't all that interested in the project, they had other concerns on their minds and it was more of a bother than anything anyone wanted. It was the pushing of some people from both continents to make it happen and the rest liked it. The courage of the creators was enormous because at any time, people could have convinced them to call it quits. Human creatively and determination is always a good tale.

H. L. A. Hart, who was a contemporary of Lord Patrick Devlin, criticized him for his very rigid position on the government's role in enacting and enforcing morality laws against its citizens. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart lived from 1907 to 1992. Hart was one of the most influential philosophers of law in the twentieth century, and he taught at Oxford University. His 1963, book "Law, Liberty and Morality" is a refutation of Devlin's theories of the government's role in criminalizing private moral misconduct. They both debated on opposite sides of the British government's 1957, Wolfenden Report which looked into the subject of decriminalizing homosexuality and prostitution. Devlin was the only member of the committee of fourteen who voted against decriminalizing the two acts in question. Hart, though not a member of the committee nevertheless, was very influential in the governments relaxing its laws against homosexuality in 1967. Though Hart is supportive of the idea that society did have some common moral values worth supporting, he is troubled by Devlin's far-reaching statement that, "immorality jeopardizes or weakens society." In fact, Hart accused Devlin of holding the position that any change in a society's morality would bring about its demise. Devlin balked at Hart's accusation, and retorted that he only believed the idea that any change in a society's morality could bring about its demise. Hart is definitely in agreement with John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty when he writes, "...society can not only survive individual divergences in other fields from its prevalent morality, but profit from them."

The other aspect of the disagreement between Devlin and Hart was in the arena of how much of an impact religious values should dictate in a society's moral values and laws. In his book, Devlin asked the question, how citizens were supposed to derive moral values if they did not rely on religious authority. He answered, that lawyers had generally ignored the question and had generally accepted the notion that Christian morality remained just as acceptable to society as a whole today as it had been when the church was the sole arbiter of morality in the past. Devlin also takes philosophers to task for thinking that a human being's conscience can fill the void that religious morality would leave if it were no longer in force. "It cannot, unless some way be found of making up a collective conscience." Devlin seriously doubted that humankind would ever be able to find a collective conscience. However, he did not want to stifle people's freedom in asking questions about what the state's role should be regarding moral values. In fact Devlin writes that, "The unending search for truth goes on and so does the struggle towards the perfect society." Instead of outlawing all immoral acts, Hart advocated for a more nuanced approach in answer to Devlin's question on when society should outlaw immorality. Hart separated immoral acts into two types--public and private. Hart supported outlawing public immoral acts, such as prostitution, to preserve public decency. However, he was not in favor of outlawing private acts considered by society as immoral, such as homosexuality, since these acts took place out of view of the public and thus, protecting decency would not be a concern for society in that instance. Hart's argument provided a more balanced approach between society's demand for correct moral behavior and the desire for individual liberty.

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

H. L. A. Hart, who was a contemporary of Lord Patrick Devlin, criticized him for his very rigid position on the government's role in enacting and enforcing morality laws against its citizens. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart lived from 1907 to 1992. Hart was one of the most influential philosophers of law in the twentieth century, and he taught at Oxford University. His 1963, book "Law, Liberty and Morality" is a refutation of Devlin's theories of the government's role in criminalizing private moral misconduct. They both debated on opposite sides of the British government's 1957, Wolfenden Report which looked into the subject of decriminalizing homosexuality and prostitution. Devlin was the only member of the committee of fourteen who voted against decriminalizing the two acts in question. Hart, though not a member of the committee nevertheless, was very influential in the governments relaxing its laws against homosexuality in 1967. Though Hart is supportive of the idea that society did have some common moral values worth supporting, he is troubled by Devlin's far-reaching statement that, "immorality jeopardizes or weakens society." In fact, Hart accused Devlin of holding the position that any change in a society's morality would bring about its demise. Devlin balked at Hart's accusation, and retorted that he only believed the idea that any change in a society's morality could bring about its demise. Hart is definitely in agreement with John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty when he writes, "...society can not only survive individual divergences in other fields from its prevalent morality, but profit from them."

The other aspect of the disagreement between Devlin and Hart was in the arena of how much of an impact religious values should dictate in a society's moral values and laws. In his book, Devlin asked the question, how citizens were supposed to derive moral values if they did not rely on religious authority. He answered, that lawyers had generally ignored the question and had generally accepted the notion that Christian morality remained just as acceptable to society as a whole today as it had been when the church was the sole arbiter of morality in the past. Devlin also takes philosophers to task for thinking that a human being's conscience can fill the void that religious morality would leave if it were no longer in force. "It cannot, unless some way be found of making up a collective conscience." Devlin seriously doubted that humankind would ever be able to find a collective conscience. However, he did not want to stifle people's freedom in asking questions about what the state's role should be regarding moral values. In fact Devlin writes that, "The unending search for truth goes on and so does the struggle towards the perfect society." Instead of outlawing all immoral acts, Hart advocated for a more nuanced approach in answer to Devlin's question on when society should outlaw immorality. Hart separated immoral acts into two types--public and private. Hart supported outlawing public immoral acts, such as prostitution, to preserve public decency. However, he was not in favor of outlawing private acts considered by society as immoral, such as homosexuality, since these acts took place out of view of the public and thus, protecting decency would not be a concern for society in that instance. Hart's argument provided a more balanced approach between society's demand for correct moral behavior and the desire for individual liberty.

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

but let's get a few facts straight. First, this same volume was published by the Huntington Library in 1975 -- and the complete volume is presented as facsimile. Second, the editing of that volume, and the introduction thereto, were by Thomas G. Barnes.

Barnes made the same assertion as Dunn: that this volume was the first codification of (British colony) law on this continent. In fact, the earliest codification I find is that of New-Plimoth Colony for 1636, as contained in the 1836 volume (available in Hein reprint) _The Compact With the Charter and Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth_, as originally edited by William Brigham.

Interesting how a narrow expertise can so easily, for lack of research, leave out a fact bearing upon a claim made centrally relevant and given such great import.

This is a great book to ponder through. Great for University students to broaden their horizon.

This is it, folks -- the point at which classical and modern liberalism began to diverge. Everybody in either camp is indebted, in one way or another, to the great Thomas Hill Green. And sooner or later, everybody in either camp will have to come to terms with him.

Now, in my own not entirely humble opinion, Green's criticisms of other liberal theorists are well-founded and he himself has gotten the philosophical foundations just about exactly right. Basically, his claim is that (my paraphrase) the source of our rights against one another, as well as the source of the state itself, is our possession of an ideal common end in which the well-being of each of us is coherently included.

He develops this account very painstakingly, and one of the joys of reading it is watching him make sense of Rousseau's tortured notion of the "general will." By the time Green is through rescuing this doctrine from Rousseau, it becomes something altogether respectable: that (my paraphrase again) there is an overarching ideal end at which our actions aim, and it is that end which we _would_ have if all of our present aims were thoroughly modified and informed by reflective reason.

I say "_would_ have" with some reservations, since for Green (as for Bosanquet and Blanshard, who followed him here) there is a clear sense in which we _really_ have this ideal end. But this point takes us afield into Green's metaphysics, which are better covered in his _Prolegomena to Ethics_.

As I said, this volume marks the watershed between classical and modern liberalism. Green is often associated with the "modern" side of the divide, but today's reader will be surprised to see just how "classical liberal" Green was (in, e.g., his opposition to paternalistic government and in a good many other respects). Why, heck, there are passages that could have been lifted from David Conway's _Classical Liberalism: The Unvanquished Ideal_.

It does seem, though, that in allowing a positive role for the governmental institutions of a geographically-demarcated State, he has started down the slippery slope to the modern welfare-warfare state. Like Hegel before him and like Bosanquet after him, Green usually means by "state," not the bureaucratic machinery of a territorial government, but the whole of society including _all_ of its "institutions of governance." But -- also like Hegel and Bosanquet -- he does not always keep these two things firmly distinguished, and at times he is clearly thinking specifically of the governmental institutions of a territorial nation-state rather than what some of us would call the "market."

He is also a bit unclear on the ground of "rights." W.D. Ross rightly takes him to task for this in _The Right and the Good_: Green writes on one page that we have _no_ rights until these are recognized by society, and then turns around and writes as though "society" is recognizing rights we _already_ have. To my mind Ross clearly has the better of the argument here, though the problem is not, I think, terribly hard to fix.

On the whole, then, it is probably no wonder that Green and his crowd set into motion -- whether inadvertently or otherwise -- a stream of "liberalism" that would eventually find a far, far larger role for the State than any that Green himself would have approved. But to my mind, these difficulties are removable excrescences, not the heart of his theory. (And it is also worth bearing in mind that Green provides moral grounds for _resisting_ the State: he acknowledges that no actual State is really ideal and, insofar as it falls short of the ideal, should be brought firmly into the service of our common end.)

The theory itself seems to me to be sound. In fact, despite the aforementioned disagreements and several others, I would nominate this volume as perhaps _the_ single greatest work on liberal political theory.

Again, at some point every "liberal" of any stripe will have to come to terms with Green's ideas (perhaps in highly mutated form). And if, with minor tweezing, Green's basic outlook is sound, it also -- suitably adjusted -- forms the proper basis for the classical-liberal commonwealth.

It therefore behooves classical liberals and libertarians to get the word directly from Green himself. Those other "liberals" aren't _entirely_ wrong.

First let me say that you should not let the title "Les Icariens" mislead you. This is a book in English not in French.

Robert Sutton has done a fine job of covering a subject which spans about 100 years in a narrative format where you can follow the story of the Icariens. It starts with the life of Etienne Cabet and his fictional work, which gave birth to the Icarian communal life. It then covers the history of France at the time which made such utopian thoughts look desirable to the common man. It then takes you through the struggles of the several American Icarian communes and their difficulties and final failure. It also gives you an insight into why such a utopian society is almost impossible, due to the nature of man and the pitfalls of leaders who become obsessed with their control over such a venture. It also shows that while full equality was espoused by Cabet, when it came to the women and children, this was not the case.

While it does not cover, in complete detail, all daily life of such a commune, due to the complexity of such a study in the limited space, there are several other books on the subject which will give you an insight on the tribulations and joys of the Icarian community.

This is a well done study of the Icariens, which does not bore you with the more mundane facts, which would turn it into a text book rather than interesting reading on the subject.

I recommend it.
M. Couvillion

One is never too young to learn about our nation's history. "Lessons on Liberty: A Primer for Young Patriots" is a guide full of fun facts and ideas covering the history of the country. Using an alphabet book format for an assortment of topics, "Lessons on Liberty" focuses on the early history of the nation and the American Revolution. Enhanced with full color artwork by Judy Mitchell, "Lessons on Liberty" is an ideal gift for any youngster who has that spark of patriotism within. "Lessons on Liberty: A Primer for Young Patriots" is highly recommended for community library children's and American history collections.

Few in the modern world appreciate how politically radical the leaders of the American Revolution and the writers of the American constitution were. This book is a collection of some of the major documents of that time period as well as portraits of some of the men who created the United States. There is also mention of the "peculiar institution" of slavery. Some of the men were very perceptive, understanding that it would eventually lead to dire political consequences for the country. Slaveholders like George Washington, James Madison and George Mason all spoke out against slavery, but for the sake of national unity, felt that they could do little more than that. If you are interested in the political forces of that time and how the set of colonies that really had little in common with each other became a nation, then this is a book that you must read.

Incredible account of the history of one of America's most historic towns. Beautifully written and informative. Captions are especially well-written, particularly the portions on education and organizations.

I purchased and read this book because I hoped to brush up on my knowledge of American history. However, I learned much more than that, and recommend this as an irreplaceable supplement to any study of the history of the United States of America.

This book captures the essence of a small town's famous place in history.

This is a definite A+, 10 out of 10, and I highly recommend it to all professors and instructors as an addition to a curriculum.