Liberty Books

In the "Coup d'etat Convention at Philadelphia" in 1787, Hamiltonian proponents of a strong central government, who had lamented the establishment of the confederacy since the publication of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776, took the opportunity to overthrow the Articles rather than amend them (the meeting was called for "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation".) and replace them with a Roman-style Constitution. To camouflage their actions and intentions to secure a neo-Roman government as their tool to usurp the peoples' liberties in order to privilege themselves, they then stole the term "Federalist" and applied it to their series of Orwellian double-speak propaganda dubbed "The Federalist Papers". The true federalists who stood for the Principles of 1776 and the Articles of Confederation, were given the misnomer "Anti-Federalists". The key players in the anti-federalist "Federalist" movement were three young opportunists: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Fisher Ames.

Madison and Hamilton are legendary among students of U.S. history; Fisher Ames is relatively unknown. But in his time, his name was mentioned as often as his peers. He was an accomplished propagandist for the Federalists and it was he, at age 31, who penned the final draft of the First Amendment to the Constitution in an attempt to appeal to the true federalists (Anti-Federalists) for support of the ratification of the neo-Romanist document. Ames's oratorial skills were also brilliant; he delivered powerful speeches in sessions of Congress after the neo-Roman republic had been established. His best speech was made on behalf of Jay's Treaty, where Congress had sent the Supreme Court Justice to Britain to reach a settlement that would avoid war between the two countries, and Jay came back with a treaty that sold-out Yankee interests to the British.

During and after his political career, Ames wrote hundreds of letters to Federalist Party leaders, especially in Massachusetts. His letters give an insider's perspective on events and personalites surrounding the "Coup d'etat at Philadelphia" and the establisment of the U.S. Republic. In this two-volume set of the writings of Fisher Ames are 46 essays in Volume I and 292 letters and 17 speeches in Volume II. The essays are grouped under ten themes: Social Class and Character, From Consideration to Nation, On Founding and Patriotism, On Monarchical Versus Republican Government, On America's Political Parties, On Equality, Defending The "Federalists", Attacking the Republicans, On The French Revolution and European Parties, and Eulogies. These two volumes encompass 1,618 pages. As an historical representative sampling of Federalist thought in addition to their Orwellian doublespeak tricks, it is awesome.

For example, Ames wrote a letter under the name Bifron Janus, one of his many pen names. He titled it "Against Jacobins":

"We have a noisy party who call themselves republicans - democrats - equality men, etc. etc. etc. They are forever crying out the people - the people. This hyprocrisy would be a matter of diversion, if we could laugh at what is horrid. These bawlings are against the people, not on their side, and the steps they pursue are intended and well adapted to narrow the power of the people, not to enlarge it. They are anti-republicans, the real and truly dangerous aristocrats of our country, the very men who hate equality, and who try to rule and domineer in spite of the laws. . . When the Constitution was on its passage, this very party, then beginning to rally and to set itself in array, pretended great zeal for the Union, but the old confederation was, said they, equal to every national purpose."

From reading the hundreds of pieces of prose collected here, you will see how the Hamiltonians and other elites feared free enterprise and libertarianism. They seized political power through effective use of propaganda and disinformation in order to suppress free enterprise as much as possible, and to usurp the peoples' liberties in order to privilege themselves.

In spite of entering the First World War pledging to make the world "safe for democracy," the administration of President Woodrow Wilson pursued the war at home with measures that dramatically restricted the rights of American citizens. Speech was curtailed, people were arrested without due process, and homes and businesses were searched without warrants, all in the name of the wartime emergency. Paul Murphy makes this campaign and the response it engendered the subject of this book, an excellent short study of the war's impact on civil liberties.

With America's entry into the war in April 1917, the Wilson administration secured the passage of emergency wartime measures designed to control domestic opposition to the war effort. These laws were onerous, but were presented as temporary measures necessary to achieve victory. In many ways this embodied what Murphy sees as the traditional view of civil liberties that predominated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which argued that only those who had "proved" that they could use their civil liberties in the right way deserved to have them protected - a view that excluded minorities, aliens, and people advocating radical ideas. That the federal government was now being employed to restrain civil liberties, Murphy argues, reflected the Progressivism of the era, as paternalistic attitudes which before the war had sought to use the federal government to address social problems now viewed it as a means of ensuring support for the war.

Murphy goes on to depict the enforcement of the laws, an enforcement that was often characterized by zealousness. Though many officials used discretion in implementing the measures, others treated it as a tool for harassing groups seen as unpatriotic or unrepresentative of American values. Often private groups such as American Protective League joined in, taking it upon themselves to conduct investigations and intimidate citizens. Nor was the judiciary immune from such passions, as judges often favored prosecutors in wartime cases and instructed juries to demonstrate their patriotism by handing down guilty verdicts. Though some people were dismayed by such oppressive action and the American Union Against Militarism created a Civil Liberties Bureau (the forerunner to today's American Civil Liberties Union) in an attempt to stem these abuses, their efforts ran counter to the public climate of the time, which did not turn against the measures until after the war.

With this book, Murphy has provided an excellent short overview of his topic. Written with clarity and a solid command of the legal aspects of his subject, he sheds considerable light on an often-overlooked aspect of America's past. Though some of Murphy's broader historical interpretations seem open to question and the text is peppered with mistakes (such as his continual labeling of William Gibbs McAdoo as Wilson's Secretary of State instead of Treasury), the book itself is a fine introduction to the history of civil liberties during the First World War - one with disturbing similarities to the situation that our country faces today.

This book is NOT by John T. Scopes, who did not pen his autobiography "Center of the Storm" until after the release of the film version of "Inherit the Wind" rekindled interest in his 1925 trial in Dayton, Tennessee. This volume contains the "complete stenographic record" of the trial, which was published that same year as "The World's Most Famous Court Trial." The book is supplemented by the text of William Jennings Bryan's undelivered antievolution speech, caricatures of the various lawyers, and photographs of the proceedings. This volume should not be confused with the official trial transcript and the only point at which the absolute accuracy of the record is suspect is the end of the celebrated cross-examination of Bryan by Clarence Darrow. Several of the first person accounts of the conclusion of that infamous encounter have lawyers yelling things that are not preserved in this record, but it is not all that farfetched to imagine the bedlam at the moment and the impossibility of maintaining an accurate record. Besides, Judge Raulston ruled the exchange inadmissible when court reconvened.

I did my dissertation on the Scopes Trial and if you are interested in doing anything with the case or its still vibrant issues, this book contains your primary documentation. Do not get caught up with what people SAY about the trial, READ the transcript. Many history books confuse the "Inherit the Wind" version of what happened with the real trial (most importantly, Bryan volunteered the idea the days of Genesis were not literally twenty-four hour periods, he was not cornered into the admit ion). This trial is as fascinating today as it was 75 years ago.

A look into one of the minds that shaped this very country over two hundred years ago - that is what "The Revolutionary Writings of Alexander Hamilton" brings to the table. An examination of his viewpoints as his work is compiled into this books, one can get the idea of what one of the country's founding fathers wished his country to be. "The Revolutionary Writings of Alexander Hamilton" is a deftly compiled set of work, highly recommended to American history collections.

What I love about this book is that you don't need to read it from front to back. Just flip it open and start reading. A collection of over 50 different alarms telling us to wake up and look what's happened to our country. Lets get out of bed and take it back!

This book is the perfect combination of humor and insight. In order to make its points about the harm caused by being in a toxic relationship, it doesn't resort to preaching or psychiatric babble, nor does it make the reader feel inferior or stupid. The perfect book to give to someone you know in a toxic relationship, as well as buying for yourself if you are unsure about the nature of your own relationship. One of the best things about the book is that it points out that being in a toxic relationship hurts others, not just you. For some people, that could provide the motivation to finally get out the relationship. I also liked the section which provides positive motivation for leaving a toxic person--how great life is going to be when you are finally away from him/her.

This is an excellent book for anyone who owns or operates a car. Mr. Freemon's writing style is clear, organized and easy to understand. He concisely explains the components and workings of each automobile system from starting to the steering. He also provides valuable checklists regarding maintenance, an extensive troubleshooting guide, and a glossary of terms. Illustrations supplement the text well. All in all, he provides the novice with a strong working knowledge of car basics and the confidence to deal with and understand automechanics (i.e. speak their language!)

It can be said of this book, as it can for most of McCullough's work, that it is a rare example of accurate history blended with well-crafted story telling that is equally appealing to both mainstream history buffs and seasoned professionals. Usually with books (music and movies too for that matter) it is the case that integrity and depth of ideas become diluted proportional to their popularity - something meant for a larger audience looses the specifics and details that are only appealing to a smaller set of people, thus reducing marketability. David McCullough, whether writing about a person, an event, or in this instance, a year's worth of events, consistently breaks this rule. 1776 is a readable book that deserves credit for its ability to enlighten the historical novice while contributing a worthwhile perspective to the first "official" year of American History.

The book itself is a simple narrative that moves proportionally and chronologically through the events of 1776. George Washington is the book's central figure. His relationship with Henry Knox stands out among numerous themes. Most of the emphasis is placed on the Siege of Boston, the Fall of New York, the New Jersey retreat, and the Battle of Trenton. While it takes place in early 1777 the Battle of Princeton is briefly detailed, largely because of its proximity in both time and importance to the Battle of Trenton. McCullough fills the spaces in between with a variety of stories pertaining to notable figures on both sides including Nathanial Greene, Israel "Old Put" Putnam, William and Richard Howe, and General Henry Clinton. One such story, a Thursday afternoon journey to Parliament by George III in October 1775 to discuss the Colonial problem, effectively starts off the book as it reviews the events of 1775, particularly Bunker Hill, and also delves into the daily political and social life of London. Some readers will be surprised to see an American book about the American Revolution cast King George III in a favorable, yet objective light. Absent from this book are the reports of a delusional tyrant. Instead we are given the description of a simple man, whose reported two favorite things included "a leg of mutton and his plain little wife", with a job to do and an empire to preserve.

A few things come to mind upon completion of this book. One is a sense that the real significance of the year 1776 was that of the decisions and sacrifices that were made along with the physical and mental conditions endured by those at every level who did the work. This same sentiment is also noted by the surprisingly brief appearance made by the Declaration of Independence roughly halfway through the book. Its absence does not imply a diminished sense of importance, rather a commitment to the reality that it was only a document that, no matter how eloquent, meant nothing without military success, which was hard to come by for the colonials in 1776.

Most notable of all is a point that McCullough alludes to throughout the book, first early on by the British parliament or through the eyes of loyalists fleeing Boston, then later from the perspective of the English and Hessians troops pushing through New Jersey. The point being the fact that this revolution was started and carried out by people who had some of the best material lives that the 18th century had to offer. The question of why they were doing it and what they were willing to go through is a large part of what makes the American Revolution the fascination that it is. 1776 is a thorough exploration of this important history that should, and probably will, contribute something significant to any reader's understanding of the American Revolution.

NOTE: There are some authors who read their own work on audio format and David McCullough is one of them. This book is available unabridged. Sometimes, particularly with abridgments, listening to a book in audio format gets frowned upon, as if it is considered cheating or at least skimping. This review has been written by someone who has both read and listened to parts of this book. McCullough's narrating skills being what they are, which is to say superb, leave one with the sense that both formats are legitimate and make a strong case for the validity of well produced audio presentations.

1776 Adds perspective to the American Revolution, and provides many new details, but is a bit long for those just wanting basic history.

This may not be the definitive book about the Revolutionary War, but it is a great place to start learning more about American History. It's meant to be a companion book to the biography "John Adams" and it serves its purpose well.

I like history, and I love the way that David McCullough conveys history not as a set of dates, places, and events, but as stories. He brings each historical figure to life and has a unique way of teaching history that I think most readers will enjoy.

Do yourself a favor and pick up "John Adams" too and read them both.

This is a heckuva well researched book. In terms of content, it can't be beat. The writing tends to be a bit uneven at times, with sentences that seem to lack flow and rhythm, but McCullough is first and foremost a historian and not a stylist.

Overall, 1776 deserves high praise.

Wonderfully researched by McCullough's staff and various librarians all over America and the UK. This book is worth purchasing used if only for the bibliography, which covers more than 20 pages. Alas, Pulitzer Prize & National Book Award winning author, David McCullough delivers by far the weakest presentation of material I've yet to read by him. Truman and John Adams are towering works and Mornings on Horseback is an excellent read. I've not read any of his other books.

1776 is a short, quick, unchallenging read about a particular aspect of an extraordinarily important period in American history. McCullough does not concern himself beyond the most perfunctatorial mentioning of anything besides the struggle between the American army under General George Washington and the British army it opposed in Boston, in and around New York City and in New Jersey. From rousing victory without bloodshed to crushing and repeated defeats to tide-turning and decisive victory.

McCullough's presentation is dutiful and repetitive. Only General Washington is delineated with any particular effort. Other important personages are presented with an offhanded chattiness just barely this side of cuteness. The miserableness of the American army is incessantly referred to, as is the commonness of it's soldiers. McCullough seems to have an almost perverse insistance that American freedom was bought with the blood of the most vulgar wretches imaginable; the lowest of the low. Duly noted. Wars are rarely fought by the rich and there was nothing profoundly patriotic or "American" about the peasantry of nation taking up arms to defend it's land. What's your point, Mr. McCullough?

This is McCullough's only effort and describing battle tactics and events that I'm aware of and he does not equip himself well. He fails to convey with any clarity the lay of the land, intended tactics or actual troop movements. He describes land only very generally, general orders vaguely and troop movements hurridly. To read the seige of Boston & battles of New York and New Jersey, I would recommend using the internet for area maps, specific orders and other helpful clarifying information. It may well be McCullough's strength lay much more in biography (Adams, Truman, T. Roosevelt, Brave Companions subjects) and topical history (Brooklyn Bridge, Johnstown Flood and Panama Canal) than in the minutae of military history.

McCullough's tone is relaxed and chatty to a fault. I like my history as easily digestable as the next guy but there is a fine line between popular history and a downright commercial presentation deliberately designed to capitalize on the author's popularity. For all of the research, there is very little hard history here. Furthermore, it has been my experience that Revolutionary War history, both militarily and politically, is best understood by reading biographies of the principal participants, particularly Washington, Andrew Hamilton, Adams, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson because a well written biography inevitably places the subject in the larger context of their time. This is not a necessary read as the same information can be had with a reading any one of the several excellent biographies of Washington availiable in conjuction with a familiarity with the numerous websited that delineate in excruciating detail the actual events of the battles outlined in this book.

I was very satisfied with my recent purchase for this text book that I needed for my college class. It was delivered on time, and in great condition.

This book is an easy read, it is very entertaining, and will improve your print designs. It is great for teaching you to refine your page layouts. I loved the writing style too.

Fun, practical, readable and packed with examples are just a few of the words that came to mind as I was reading "The Non-Designer's Design Book" by Robin Williams. She has done it again and produced an updated version of a classic that is thoroughly enjoyable to read. I feel the book was written specifically for me - someone who is looking to increase their Design skills, develops presentations, white papers and other documents, and which them to have a 'professional' look and feel, then this book is for you. Robin discusses the four basic principles of Contrast, Repetition, Alignment and Proximity. If you don't apply these principles, then you are very likely to have a crap presentation, newsletter or document. She also covers the use of color and how the use of typeface can influence your readers perception of you and the document you developed.

As an added bonus, Robin spread included several exercises throughout the book. For me this is a huge benefit - it gives me a chance to try and apply the skills she described. Any book that helps ME improve, is worth the price on the cover, and this book is worth every penny.

All-in-all, I highly recommend this book and found the examples very helpful. Run, don't walk to the bookstore to get your copy.

The Non-Designers Design Book is well thought-out and organized. I come from a programming background and my ability to design visuals is limited, so whenever I find a book that can shed light on how designers think and put it in terms that a programmer can understand I am all for it. If you are a designer I think this book would be too basic for your liking, but us non-designers it is as simple as it gets. Do not get the wrong idea the information may be presented in a simple organized way, but the information is very valuable. I would have liked more examples for the web, but the concepts can easily be translated to the web. It was a pleasure to read and I recomend it for any non-designer. I give it four out of five stars.

Once again when a real expert writes a book the complex can seem so simple. This is a gorgeous book. She shows you exactly what to do about keeping items with intellectual connectivity proximate. She holds forth on how to best use Alignment, Repetition, Contrast and Colour for print, web and all types of content. Thoroughly done asd 100% enjoyable ot read. I loved the sections on Fonts; begone Arial/Times Roman !

Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom was written at a time when the Labour Party of Britain was openly socialist. Although modern social democrats renounce the 's' word, socialism is indeed the root of their thinking, and in this exposition, his magnus opus, Hayek unabashedly sends socialism to the gutter where it belongs. Hayek's thesis, that socialism and totalitarianism are two birds of the same feather, has stood the test of time, and it continues to show up today in the cases of Venezuela or Bolivia. Hayek was arguably responsible for Labour's (and the Democrats') turn to the right, set in stone by former PM Tony Blair (and former President Clinton). This book is, however, still very relevant, exemplified by the Democrats' plan to invade the health care sector, the countless bureaucracies located in Washington, and President Bush's reckless invasion of privacy (which is related to Hayek's arguments about war time and peace time). Although Hayek often comes off as soft on a number of issues, he could not be nearly as dedicated as Milton Friedman to absolute freedom because the intelligentsia was on the far-left in the 40's.

For classical liberals, modern leftists, and conservatives alike, The Road to Serfdom is extraordinarily eye-opening.

The only, effective way to reject socialism is by attacking it's fundamental philosophical ideas. That collectivism is good and the individual must be sacrificed for the "good of the people". Attacking a philosophy such as communism or socialism, because it is not "practical" is a contradiction and undercuts any argument against such a corrupt philosophy. These ideas are not good in theory but bad in practice. They are evil in theory and therefore evil in practice.

I would like to also recommend Ayn Rand's, "The Virtue of Selfishness". This is THE work to understand Man's Individual Rights based on His Rational Nature. It is from these fundamental Truths that the ONLY proper function of a legitimate government is derived - The protection of Individual Rights.

Considering it my duty as an economics major, I took it upon myself to read this book, with little expectations as to its brilliance, and was completely swept away. Not only is Hayek extremely eloquent in articulating the case for free trade, he supports his arguments with facts (e.g. what was then going on in Nazi Germany) and with theory (e.g. why without even the historical evidence that we do have we must conclude that a centralized system cannot equally favor everyone).

Since it is my tendency to look at the 1 star reviews before making a 5 star one, I recognize that some people don't like Hayek because he doesn't recognize the great things about socialized medicine (like how a guy in Canada signed up for a CAT scan under his dog's name because animals are not covered under their highly efficient centralized health care...true story by the way) or the kind thoughts of socialist thinkers (please don't make me choose my selection of Marx quotes). But what Hayek does is present a prima facie case against socialism; before anyone can advocate socialism, they MUST address Hayek's arguments.

This is why I think before any socialist and libertarian face each other in a squabble, both must have read The Road to Serfdom so that they can hit on the applicable issues instead of babbling on about poverty statistics. Are you a socialist and disagree with Hayek? Fine, but read the book so that you know where your opponents stand. I really think that socialists think lovers of capitalism are greedy and have no ethics. But if you read our spokesman Hayek, you'll see why we think that the free market is actually BETTER for society.

Let's change the scope of the argument. Socialists should stop arguing about how some people are poor...yes, some people are poor...and demonstrate how a centralized system can make people BETTER than they would be under the free market system. How planning the systems of production would be more efficient and prosperous than under the system of competition. How giving all our freedoms to one entity would guarantee them for all. If you can effectively address these issues and the many more that Hayek brings up, we will soon see a blessed change in the current headache of debates on socialism.

Friedrich August von Hayek was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. Since 1920s, he worked in Austria. Unwilling to return to Austria after its annexation to Nazi Germany, Hayek became a British citizen in 1938, a status he held for the remainder of his life. It was during this time that "The Road to Serfdom" originated, originally published by Routledge Press in March 1944 in the UK and then by the University of Chicago in September 1944.

Hayek's central thesis of this book is that all forms of collectivism lead logically and inevitably to tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which had gone down "the road to serfdom" and reached tyranny.

The book has many worthy observations. For example, all people are different by their mental development (which is also influenced by family environment and education, not counting the physical differences of the brain and endocrine system) and thus the classes of the society are needed at least to give more developed people to fully put into action their potential. Liquidation of social classes will also liquidate the abilities of more developed individuals. The same is on the international level. Consider international planning. Whichever honest and democratically open panning system will be adopted, it will be opposed by less developed and poorer nations, because they will see it as ignorance or oppression of their interests. This is obvious - the needs and goals of poor or underdeveloped countries cannot match the goals of rich or developed countries; as the interests of more educated people cannot match the interests of less educated ones.

Many people came to a conclusion that the wealth, in some extent, depends on a level of education. The problem is that not all the people in equal extend incline to the education, to their self-improvement. This is because of the differences of their needs, habits, abilities, capabilities, and so on. Leo Tolstoy in his novel "Resurrection" arose a question of how to improve the level of education: from inside of each individual or from outside? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Should first the level of education in the society be risen which yields a revolution (dialectic transition of quantity into quality) or the revolution should make the environment to foster the education. Hayek doesn't explicitly raise this issue, but brings parallel between delegation of decision making in managing an enterprise and managing the state. Hayek thought that if a company boss makes all decision making solely by himself and doesn't give the work (of decision making) back to the people (see Ronald Heifetz's publications), it is similar to the states with totalitarian government. Such a dictatorship, enterprise-wide or country-wide, can be used in particular circumstances, but should not be used in all cases as the absolutely correct way of management, according to Hayek.

Hayek gives us a step by step development from well meaning socialist ideals to the cataclysm of their results over time. Hayek, a Nobel Laureate and Medal Of Freedom winner, writes from his life experiences in Austria during Germany's completion of National Socialism with the ascension of Hitler, whereupon he moved to Britain seeing the same social principles dominate there. Italy, the USSR and China allowed additional observations from a distance. His analysis goes far in clearing the mess that is modern human social evolution, showing how humans behave under the three systems of capitalism, socialism, tyranny, and how one gets from the first to the later. One of his most enlightening morsels is that the system we create, creates us. That is, once we enact a new system of living, humans mold themselves to it. Different regimes produce different human types. (Zimbardo's "Lucifer Effect") Early on we see a redefining of old words with new meanings. Freedom had once meant freedom from coercion, from arbitrary power over others, from arbitrary restrictions on individual choice. The "new freedom" becomes freedom from necessity, from compulsion, from circumstance. Excepting immediate needs of war and natural disaster, "Individual freedom," writes Hayek, "cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole society must be entirely and permanently subordinated." Like radical equality (complete in every way), "economic freedom" is represented as an indispensable condition of "real liberty" as liberty is dispensed of. Morals are of necessity a phenomena of individual conduct, notes Hayek, existing only in a sphere of individual freedom where one decides for themselves. Let the State dictate morality, as it eventually must under socialism, and morality disappears from individuals. People come to see themselves as more ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger and larger groups. Progression hastens another socialist teaching - the deliberate disparagement of all activities involving economic risk, and a moral opprobrium cast on gains which makes risks worth taking. Schools and press present the spirit of commercial enterprise as disreputable and making profit as immoral. "Where to employ a hundred people is represented as exploitation, but to command the same number is honorable." No longer is independence but State-sponsored security what provides rank and status.

Though socialists promise themselves a more abundant life, free of economic tethers, they must come to renounce it. As organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity, as no government can address the millions of products and services a blind price system manages without "managers". Recalling Hoffer's "True Believer" and the control required for any dogma to protect itself from challenge, the evolving socialist society must create glorious goals "for the people", close itself off from external influence, and lose a sense of and respect for truth as the world shrinks around them to support the social ambition. Successful socialism requires creation of a common view on essential values. It is not a rational conviction, but the acceptance of a creed that is required to justify the national plan. As the rule of law is blind, it is also incompatible with a government deliberately aiming at material equality for certain groups as "distributive justice" attempting to produce the same results for different people all under the guise of "social justice" or "greater equality" ["diversity", "inclusivity", "sensitivity"]. "I have never accused the socialists of deliberately aiming at a totalitarian regime, or even suspected they had such inclinations," writes Hayek. However, what are unforeseen yet inevitable consequences of social planning create conditions eventually requiring totalitarianism in order to succeed. Notice, economic control leads to control of all kinds. Once government is enlisted to service these higher virtues of economic equality through planned, collectivist, distributions, then someone, sometime has to start making arbitrary choices about who to benefit and who to penalize. High morals born from capitalistic democracies are the same morals demanding socio-economic equality for all, tired of waiting for results, weary of abuses and corruptions. (Sounding a great deal like America's move to Supreme Court test cases in the 1960s when Congressional legislation seemed time consuming and uncertain, as laws could be made from the bench instead.) The very opposite of intensions are created, sinking not only capitalism and democracy but morality as well, as tyranny rises to do the hard job of social control required to service the new dogma. At this point the ground is set for the National Socialist's elevation of Hitler, socialist Fascist's ascension of Mussolini and the United Soviet Socialist Republic's embrace of Stalin. Moral values socialists pride themselves in are the product of institutions they end up destroying, and the poor remain poor, or worse under tyranny, unless they are lucky enough to become one of the tyrants. It's no wonder Hayek is seen still at the political science and policy journal shelf in bookstores. He serves as a permanent reminder that, as he writes, freedom must be won over and over again in order to be maintained.