Liberty Books

This little essay/study by Ludwig Von Mises again reinforces his views on laissez-faire capitalism and for the most part is very strong: he focuses this work on how Marxists attack capitalism when the truth is that capitalism is responsible for the rise of the living standards and soaring of technology ever since the Industrial Revolution. He also makes a devastating point when he points to the caste system-esque rankings of the "status societies" that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution and points out that, unlike in th pre-industrial caste/status, you CAN move up in a system of capitalism.

Which leads me to the reason I give this 4 stars instead of 5: he seems to state that if you are lower on the capitalist food chain than another, that the higher-up is automatically more "successful" than the lower. Here I'm confused as to what he exactly means by the term "successful": I'm not sure whether he means "successful" as in the free market has deemed them as more fit for the higher position than the lower man's position, or if he means "successful" in terms of actual "success" in terms of output of some sort measurable by empirical figures. If he meant the latter, I disagree that that is always the case. I have a feeling he did in fact mean the latter since early on he frequently attributes the lower status of various employees (of status ranging from factory worker to VP of a corporation) to his own personal "shortcomings." I differ with this view of "shortcomings" because I see their lower status (and the other man's higher status) not necessarily as a result of anyone's shortcomings at all because it may not be possible at all for the lower man to possess or attain the skills or level necessary to reach the higher position that the other man has reached. Now, I'm seeing Von Mises' use of "shortcomings" as meaning that the lower person HAD/HAS a chance to obtain those skills/etc., but it's likely I misunderstood this and he is speaking of all shortcomings no matter whether the lower man can achieve them or not. I probably erred.

But the long and the short of this is that this paper excellently expands on Von Mises' beliefs of the laissez-faire capitalist system as well as his views on Marxism and Leninism.

Ludwig von Mises hit the nail on the head in this book when he explains very clearly why anti-capitalists hate capitalism. It basically boils down to jealousy. So if you want a great read that is less than 100 pages and will leave you with new knowledge, then you should buy this book.

Von Mises really exposes the socialist envy-mongers for what they are. He explains why so many people, especially the pseudo-intellectuals that fill a lot of universities and Hollywood entertainers with little or no background in economics, hate capitalism. It all boils down to envy - they don't want to take responsibility for the fact that they are failures.

Not only does this book provide an explanation for why people hate capitalism, it provides a good basic economics lesson. It covers a lot of the essentials about how the market works, explodes common myths, and critiques socialism, all at the same time.

This is one of those "must-read" worldview books. I particularly appreciated this book as a Christian libertarian (although Von Mises wasn't a Christian as far as I can tell). Regardless of your political persuasion, though, I would strongly recommend reading this book. Most people don't have a clue how economics actually works. Unfortunately, this means that most people aren't really able to evaluate the different positions on the economy when they're asked to vote on them in elections. People are forced to dissect thousands of hapless frogs in biology class, even though most people will never use it again. On the other hand, economics is something that effects everyone every day, and yet few if any high schools or colleges require it as a general elective. A lot of people, including a lot of supposed conservatives, are basically socialists in their actual thinking and practice. I would urge everyone to read this book if you want to be informed on economics issues. If you're currently in, or about to go to, college this book is particularly important for you because you WILL be confronted with the ideas that Von Mises critiques (take it from someone whose currently a senior in college).

Over fifty years ago, the famous economist whose career "showed that government intervention is always destructive," penned The Anti-capitalistic Mentality. This short book marked his official venture into psychology. We should be grateful today for its insight. His deconstruction of those opposed to free markets indicates that he had a far better understanding of humanity than do the majority of psychologists.

What impresses most about The Anti-capitalistic Mentality is just how prescient a work it is. The failures of socialism were evident in the 1950s but not as glaring as they are in 2008. Yet this truth does not prevent our politicians from continuing to push for more and more government expansion. The concomitant disruption and diminution of the private sector is discounted entirely. The experiences of Soviet Russia, the Warsaw Pact countries, and the vivid and ongoing failures of communist starvation zones like Cuba and North Korea are pooh-poohed by those desirous of further empowering the Leviathan. In light of what America has become, Von Mises' elucidation of the enemies of capitalism is more pertinent than ever.

It is the common man who benefits most from capitalism. He profits from those who save, who invest, and who engage in entrepreneurial activities. These individuals expand the economy, elevate wages, and employ him directly. More importantly, there are no structural barriers which prevent him from joining the ranks of such persons.

In the final analysis, to hate capitalism is to hate liberty as only within the framework of personal choice can one choose an education, a vocation, and course of life that suits them. The laissez-faire philosophy is what put an end to slavery and serfdom. Nobody born poor in a free society is destined to poverty. How ironic it is that so many anti-capitalists describe themselves as being "liberal" when there is nothing liberal about stealing the dreams and futures of those you regard as nothing more than wards or mascots.

Psychologizing proved a very elementary feat for Ludwig von Mises. His deconstruction and refutation of the anti-capitalist outlook was a noble undertaking. He flamboyantly paraded its irrationality for all to see over fifty years ago, but it is now up to us to popularize his forgotten, but exquisite, argumentation.

The Anti Capitalistic Mentality is Mises' attempt to uncover the driving force behind the socialist movement of the early twentieth century. As such, it should be seen as an alternative to Hayek's `Fatal Conceit/Abuse of Reason' hypothesis. Mises and Hayek agree on some points. Mises claims that "everyone is prone to overate his own worth and deserts" (p10). This is consistent with Hayek's Fatal Conceit hypothesis, but Mises takes the idea that people overate themselves inn a different direction. Hayek thought that intellectuals disdain capitalism because it offends their intellectual pride. Those who see themselves as the best and brightest cannot accept the idea that spontaneously evolved orders outperform any system that they can consciously design.

Mises emphasizes envy and resentment, along with the lack of proper economic education. As Mises puts it on page 36 socialists "are blinded by envy and ignorance. They stubbornly refuse to stuffy economics ... they pretend to trust only in experience. But they also stubbornly refuse to take cognizance of the undeniable facts of experience".

The main problem with this book is that it is too short. Mises did not develop his ideas in this book to the extent he developed other ideas elsewhere. Also, Mises relies too much on the notion that people hate capitalism because the market value of their wage is below their self-evaluation. People do tend to overate their own worth. However, it should be noted that even those who succeed often hate capitalism. Consider the following list of highly successful wealthy capitalism haters: John Lennon, James Cameron, George Soros, Stephen Speilberg, Warren Beatty, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda... These people passed the market test and then some. Yet they hate the system that made them wealthy and famous. Why? Lack of economic education might explain more than does envy. Who would they envy?

The Anti Capitalistic Mentality is still an important book. It explores vital issues that should be sorted out more completely. Since Mises kept this book brief, the task of developing this and Hayek's work on the motivations behind the socialist/interventionist movement will be left to their intellectual heirs.

I think this book is the best choice for peaple who are wanting to learn how to program but don't know where to start. It doesn't teach you how to program in a specific language, but it shows you the basic thing of lots of languages. It has lots of book and magazine suggestions also. This book is very easy to understand. Although you might not agree with what Jesse Liberty is suggesting for your career, it's a great book.

The frist day I recieved this book I could not put it down ! Not only does it give you helpfull advice, it also teaches you the basics of programming. In time I will own every book written by Jesse Liberty, great author (Try his book C++ in 10 minutes)Simple to understand and read, so far his books have been the best out of the several programming books I have purchased !

As much as I would like to become immersed in programming, the field is becoming obsolete. There are too many easier ways to program something like an HTML document than to write it out long-hand. Had I found this book/field five or even ten years ago I could be rich by now. Oh well! But the book itself isn't bad, it just needed to be more specific on the actual programming steps instead of pushing that off to other resources. This book is a "How to learn about Programming" instead of the actual programming steps. But for those points, it was very good.

Unfortunately Liberty comes across with a chip on his shoulder against formal college education in this book. Statements like some of the best programmers he knows are "taxi drivers and psychologists" and former university training mainly teaches students to operate "mainframes". In the Introduction it says "According to a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by the year 2005 there will be over two million new jobs for software professionals!" which fails to mention most of the jobs will be overseas easily outsourced as making tennis shoes. Otherwise, Liberty still shows his expertise and there are good sections on advice for interviewing and resume writing. But in the end as an idiot, I wished I had majored in engineering instead of computer science especially when 90% of my undergraduate computer science student body were graduate students from the eastern side of the world.

Some time ago (December 1999), I wrote a review on this book and I stated that it was working for me. Well, I wanted to update that message and say that it has worked for me completely. I am now a Test Engineer (since May 2001) for a major company ... and I have completed my first project. I created the program using MFC(Microsoft Foundation Classes) and C++. It has impressed my supervisor throughly and is in use at the company at this time.

This came about by hard work and study on my own part (I did not go to college.) and by studying and applying the information found in this book and some others (especially Jesse Liberty's "Teach Yourself C++ in 21 days" and Scott Meyer's "Effective C++").

If you are really serious about changing careers to computer programming, BUY AND USE THIS BOOK!!! I did and within one year I started a better paying career that is very enjoyable and rewarding to me.

There is a great story of Margaret Thatcher throwing this book down on the table at an economic policy meeting and saying "This is what we believe". Great chapters on how democracy can't exist with coercion; how the "idle rich", though oft bally-hooed are really the driving force behind the great museums, art, and sports that the general public enjoy today.

Frederich August Hayek

"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."

"Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom."

"If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this justly and equitably."

This review will be mostly technical in nature. Some good reviews already exist that discuss the overview of the material.

1. Part 1 The Value of Freedom, 8 chapters.
2. Part 2 Freedom and the Law, 8 chapters
3. Part 3 Freedom in the Welfare State, 8 chapters
4. Postscript: Why I am not a Conservative, 13 pages
5. End Notes = 100 pages
6. Analytical Table of Contents (valuable for reference), listing sub-topics by page number = 7 pages
7. Name Index = 10 pages
8. Subject Index = 16 pages.

My Remarks: this is philosophy of government, plus some historical development, plus economic theory-and-practice. It is a rather tough read, exact logic and completed thoughts until each point is carefully constucted and then commented on.

There are many quote-able passages, and the exhaustive referencing confirms the scholarly style.

The print is small: 42 lines per page, 17 characters per inch.

So, the 3-stars are given so as to ward-off readers that are looking for libertarian views of a popluar nature. Though the reading is somewhat hard, the individual cases discussed make this a perfect source for a dedicated libertarian to reference.

Hayek undertook a monumental task when he set out to write the The Constitution of Liberty. Hayek aimed at finding the proper limits between public and private life. How far should the authority of the state extend? What areas of life should be beyond the reach of the government? Hayek is stating his version of the general principles of classical liberalism, based on utilitarian ethics. Since his arguments are utilitarian, this book has economic overtones.

Hayek's purpose in restating the principles of liberal society is to defend these principles against the opposing intellectual movement of collectivism. Western Civilization succeeded largely because of its individualism. Collectivism is undermining the basis of modern civilization in the West. Individualism is important because we each lack the knowledge needed to rationally direct the affairs of others. Some people believe that they can plan out society because they are `experts' or because they are educated. Hayek saw that nobody can posses the knowledge needed to design a rational order for society. As Hayek put it, "it is largely because civilization enables us constantly to profit from knowledge which we individually do not posses that men can pursue their individual ends more successfully than they could alone".

In writing this book, Hayek shifted his attention away from full-blown socialism and towards the modern welfare state. Hayek seems to have felt that the case for socialism had been sufficiently weakened so as to allow him to critique welfare states. Hayek accepted some types of government intervention that libertarians typically oppose. Rather than opposing each program point by point, Hayek sought out some `lynchpin issues' that would limit state growth. Hayek argued strenuously against state control of the money supply, and suggested ways of limiting taxation. Hayek's libertarian critics typically cringe at some of his concessions, but we would all be in a much better position now if his constitution had been adopted.

The Constitution of Liberty is more than well reasoned, it is subtle and profound. This book reveals Hayek's deep understanding of economics, politics, and history. Reading the COL is no small undertaking, but it is a highly useful undertaking for any serious student of political economy.

This is the most consistent level headed book of political philosophy I have read. The first section in particular has a new fascinating idea on almost every page. Hayek was not a libertarian. His thought allowed a fair amount of elbow room for public policy as the third section will show. I also found his postscript "Why I'm not a conservative" very interesting.

I'm only 2/3 of the way through this book, and already the Lord has used it as a tool to powerfully change my life! I have been a Christian for over 12 years, and spent the last 10 of them unhappy and confused. Yes, I attended a wonderful church regularly, read the Bible, and did every Bible study offered! But I just kept asking God "Where is this abundant life You've been promising me?!" Liberty has taught me how I have actually opposed myself by opposing the work the LORD was wanting to do in my life because of the strongholds I have built up around old hurts and lies I've believed about myself and about God! If you've got problems, habits, depression, etc. that you just don't seem to be able to get victory over, this book is definitely for you! First, absolute repentance is crucial (I highly recommend "Prayer Portions" by Sylvia Gunter), then learn how to pray to be set free by "shattering your strongholds", and give the battle to the LORD!

My daughter is working her way thru these book and what she has shared with me, states it is very good. Easy to read and understand, yet helpful in bible study. When she is done with it, I plan on reading it.

Understanding strongholds has transformed my scientific understanding of dysfunction/codependency in a soul. Consequently, it has brought me to a new level of freedom in Christ Jesus. Praise God for the life and ministry of Liberty Savard.

This is an awesome book that is teaching me a lot. I'm on the last chapter and I don't want it to be done. It is for christians who are ready to mature in Christ.
The delivery of the book and the condition were excellent.

This book continues the authors step-by-step instructions on how to live out our faith in every day life. All the practical steps needed to continue on the journey of walking with God in reality and intimacy.

This narrative has all the ingredient necessary to produce a ...say...corny story. However, thanks to Danticat's honesty and brilliance, it turned out been a great book, a painful narrative.

The worst thing on it? It's that it's all true, no fiction at all, unfortunately.

You'd have to be made of stone not to be affected by this lovely, touching memoir by one of our finest writers, writing about her relationships with her two fathers. The fact that she is so eloquent and able to convey this story so well brings it sharply into focus. And that an innocent man, fleeing for his life, is treated with such unbelievable disregard makes me ashamed to be an American.

Ms. Danticat writes a enlivening account of a painful Haiti. She shook and defied the Haiti that I was raised in. She gave a voice to the millions of Haiti who are caught up in the hopeless situation. She also challenged the Haitians who are too comfortable to notice the misery around them. Each page reminded me of a Haitian that I was shielded from, each angered me, made me cried, hurt me and in the end showed many opportunities that i have missed to promote social justice in my own land. Each page is a riveting, raw as the last one and gives the reader a different definition of justice both in Haiti and in the United States. Bravo!

This book is a clear, beautifully written story of a family and their struggles, life and death, and the way we connect to our relatives. The tone is easy to read, and Danticat sheds light on life in Haiti (and as an immigrant) in an accessible, personal way.

What resonates throughout this book is the love and generosity between the families of two brothers. I think the writing is not bad, but rather unremarkable, full of emotions, but lack of deeper recflections or insight.

This is Tom Hartmann's best and most indispensable book. In his last book, Screwed, he talked about how Republicans and right-wingers have screwed middle-class and working-class Americans. This book tells you how you can bring back the American Dream for yourself, for your family, and for your community. Stop subsidizing pampered, corrupt, and useless CEOs and heiresses with your tax dollars and and earnings.

It's hard to say enough about this little gem. Hartmann is on to something here and we should listen to him. From Facebook to keeping a job is about communication and relationships, and this is what Hartmann understands best. This book will change your mind about a lot of things -- maybe even your life.

I'm such a kindred spirit of Hartmann's that I often think that I thought of what he says before he says it on Air America. As a writer, I found this book one that expresses in clear language many points that I thought I knew beforehand. But I never put them together logically the way he has. Since then, I've tried to use ideas in this book to guide me in writing some paragraphs that could be used in campaigning for sustainable living, and I've found that when you consciously use his techniques, you come up with something powerful. At one "group think" an acquaintance of mine objected that if convincing people is this kind of emotional exercise, he wants none of it. He prefers pounding people with "facts." Well, Hartmann has it right. We progressives need to sharpen our story. The only criticism I have of this book is that it is too facile. I hope that when the 2008 presidential campaign is over, he slows down and takes a long look at the psychological ebb and flow of it, and how the media abused the public and the candidates. He could come up with something very, very good.

I found the book very informative and well written. I bought the book from Thom at a talk and am purchasing additional copies for friends. Everyone should learn the truth about how the masses are controlled and why we got to where we are today.
Gay Jones

Also add How to Win a Local Election, Third Edition and Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, Revised and Updated Edition and Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present (P.S.).

And of course, the little tome that inspired Thom, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives.

As ever, I begin the reviews with a list of typos and other barriers to communication. This volume is pretty clean.

On page 60 and again on page 146, Thom uses the word "pentaflex" to describe the robust metaphor he's building on "chunking" (not the city, but the NLP practice, "if you will," of ascending and descending the "frames" of communication. Well, manufacturer Esselte calls the hanging folders Pendaflex©) folders. Unless Thom was trying to avoid getting into a copyright kind of thing, it's the wrong product name.

And a really easy one for an editor to miss, I guess, is this one on page 73, paragraph 2, describing and giving examples of how good speeches "anchor" words to highly emotive other words. The sentence goes, "And it ends with a call to action that also anchors Republican to assault."

I haven't figured out how to use HTML in these reviews--and perhaps we're not supposed to, but that last phrase, "Republican to assault" is ALL in italics. It SHOULD be "Republican" in italics, "to" in Roman, and "assault" in italics again, to read (in a non-italic environment), "anchors 'Republican' to 'assault'." A case of "anchors IN the way," perhaps?

I bring these lapses to folks' attention because I believe that they shouldn't appear in a well-edited (and usually expensive) book, and because they break the continuity of attention and thought. I'm just sayin'.

And in Cracking the Code, one needs to pay strict attention to what the author is saying. It's not your easiest book to understand, especially when you're trying, as you read, to apply the lessons to an immediate need to develop campaign position papers -- at least as I was trying to do.

PS: Useless facts department: The company name Esselte stands for S (ess) L (el) T (te), SLT, or Sveriges Litografiska Tryckeri, a gang of 13 Swedish Lithographers who combined in 1913 (13 in '13?) -- a Scandinavian outfit, as you might have guessed.

I must confess (embarrassed) I knew very little about this man called
Robert Ingersoll that lived over a century ago, and wondered why I had
never heard of him if he had garnered so much attention from some famous
people that used to listen to his orations, like Mark Twain and Thomas
Edison. What could be so great about him if I had hardly heard anything
about him? There is no way to express what attracted the attention of
those people of note back in his day unless you take the time to read
some of his thoughts. All I can say is compared to the other thinkers I
have read, he was the next best thing to Thomas Paine (in THE AGE OF
REASON - a must read).

I think what one comes away with when reading Ingersoll is not only a
realization of how absurd some of the biblical accounts are, but how
offended this man was by the sheer brutality that is often laid at the
feet of the god of the universe, if one indeed exists. His view of this
was that if such a god did things like in Numbers 31, ordering the
killing of every living thing and person except of course the young
women that were virgins (however that was determined!), and the
assignment of such virgins as "booty" for the troops, with a percentage
given to the priests for their enjoyment, such a god was not worth our
worship. But of course, a god did not order such things, but those who
benefited from the atrocity. He wrote that if there were a god, let that
god record in his book that Ingersoll denied this lie for him.

The love for family and sensitivity toward fellow humans was obvious in
Robert Ingersoll, and is illustrative of the morality that humans can
have, regardless of the absence of religion.

I loved it. Had me laughing out loud several times. Book is more than 125 years old, but still much more believable than that black book most people have but don't read. As a staunch atheist, I loved his writing. Especially liked his response to personal attacks from Christians - (I'm paraphrasing) - Even if I was the worst man in the world, it still would not make the story of the great flood less doubtful.

This book is a riot. Ingersoll's prose is heart-wrenchingly earnest. No one has ever picked a fight with his grandmother with more zest and determination than the Colonel. One is tempted to read this book with one's hand over one's heart and a perpetual tear ready to drip form one's eye, as Ingersoll (The Magnificent!) courageously dismantles a 14th century literalist's interpretation of Christian scripture, lower lip a' quiver.

If you are a male virgin, between the ages of 18 and 25 and have parents who go to stupid dumb church every Sunday (and expect you to go too, those ignorant stupids!), then here's your deliverance. Accidentally leave it on the coffee table for them to discover! What a hoot!

If you're anyone else then this book will be a pleasure to read simply for its grandiose, sweeping, self-conscious prose. Many quotable zingers.

Wow. I thought that I knew the first 5 books of the bible fairly well, and had found most of the logical flaws that existed... but wow! Ingersoll has an incredible intellect and is quite witty as well. He goes through the first 5 books of the bible and just rips them apart. I don't see how any objective/rational person could read this and continue to believe any of it. Brilliance!

It's really interesting to think about how Ingersoll would view modern politics. On the one hand he was rabidly opposed to Biblical literalism, also known as the cement shoes around the feet of the American electorate. But his opposition to the Bible wasn't due to any of the forces that get today's Bible-thumpers foaming at the mouth. He wasn't (as far as I know) a communist, hippie, satan-worshipper, or even an atheist. He was actually a family-values kind of guy, and his problems with the Bible stemmed from his hatred of slavery, murder, rape, genocide, and polygamy. Hard to argue with that, and even harder to argue that the god of the Pentateuch doesn't clearly endorse all of the above. In Some Mistakes of Moses Ingersoll reproduces the relevant Bible passages, interspersed with his own commentary, which alternates between funny and furious.

I suppose if Ingersoll were around today, his writing would be more like that of his intellectual heir Sam Harris. I recently read this funny quote from Harris's new book: "The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive." Ha!

As a certified Life Coach and State Farm Agent this book is a MUST HAVE for any leader who wants to understand and improve workplace performance. Buy it already!

As a management consultant and trainer, I have been using this book as the basis for leadership development as well as 1:1 coaching with supervisors and managers for about five years. Fournies articulates a philosophical approach and provides practical tools and processes to enhance performance communication and improve working relationships with with employees at all levels, and his book is an easy read for busy professionals. This is one of the most useful and "used" books in my library - I couldn't recommend more highly.

I have been a sales manager for 10 years. In that time I have read close to 100 books on management and leadership. this is one of my favorites. It is an easy read, it makes solid points and it provides clear direction on what a manager needs to do to help get the most out of their people. I highly recommend this book.

This is a must have for anyone in a supervisory or managerial role. Simple concepts, easy read...with actual dialogues to help you practice the coaching techniques discussed. And best of all, IT WORKS.

This is an excellent book on coaching. You will read other views here to the contrary, but that is largely due to the many interpretations of the word "coaching." My primary focus is coaching managers and salespeople in a highly demanding, very technical field. There are many useful and effective tools presented in Fournies' work. Not everything will be applicable in every situation, but this book will give you many ideas for respectful, empathic coaching. If you are a "life coach" or a "mentor" you may prefer other techniques, but you'll still find some good advice here. Looking for achievement and opportunities to provide reinforcement can hardly be considered bad advice. Many managers simply don't know how to make the transition from technical expert or great performer to someone responsible for the performance of others. Fournies gives some valuable tips on doing so.

My recommendation is to read several books on coaching, beginning with John Whitmore's 3rd edition of Coaching for Performance. If you coach salespeople, also read Managing Major Sales by Rackham and Ruff. And if you are coaching others, read Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman; coaching others requires, first and foremost, self-awareness, self-regulation, and empathy. Goleman's book will raise awareness of the importance of these qualities in business and in life.

Before reading the book, I did not know what a libertarian was beyond a vague idea that he was some kind of extreme right winger. After reading The Machinery of Freedom I still don't know what a libertarian is except for the fact that it is someone whose ideas are a terrific muddle: an anarchist who believes in institutions; an altruist who does not realize that he is an altruist (utilitarian); an anarchist who wants to organize a political party to end all political parties and the list goes on. Apparently a libertarian does not realize that all rights stem from the use of force or the threat of use of force -- if all else fails.

Why Friedman has such a hard time understanding the ownership of land is also a muddle. Land, by itself, is valueless. Value is created by the use and exploitation of the land. The value is created by the work done to it and on it. I believe the legal term for it in English is "improvement" (bienhechuría in Spanish). Once you have made an improvement to the land, the land and the improvement become inseparable and that is how the improver acquires ownership of the land. Imagine an artist walking down a deserted beach in search of driftwood or shells or pebbles with which to create a work of art. How does he acquire ownership of these items? Simply by picking them up because no one else is claiming them. If there were more that one scavenger on the beach, they would have to agree on how to divide up the loot. Hernando de Soto describes in "The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else" how this was achieved in early America. David, read that book and discover how you become owner of virgin land.

The discussion of money with a basket of commodities to back it is also a terrific muddle. Again, money is something quite simple that even the simple minds understand. It is only learned people who have such a hard time understanding money. Money is a contract often breached but usually honored. Another book recommendation for David is "Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went" by John Kenneth Galbraith.

Anarchy has been tried before, by socialists in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was an utter failure, the Communists gained the upper hand. I'm an anarchist at heart (a right wing anarchist) but my brain tells me it does not work. A third book suggestion for David: "No Gods No Masters" by Daniel Guerin, a anthology of anarchism.

In summary, The Machinery of Freedom is a most disappointing text.

This work spends a little time on the basic points of limited government and policies of libertarianism and anarchism. However, most of the work is spent trying to explain the hard questions of national defense and police protection in a stateless society.

David Friedman is successful is laying out the viewpoint of the anarcho-capitalist. The reader may or may not be convinced of the feasibility of his proposals(I wasn't and I bet most people likewise will find his proposals unlikely to succeed.) Nevertheless, the book is well worth the read for the clear and concise way it lays out this difficult political viewpoint.

The book is quick to the point and a quick read. The reader is not inundated with frivolous facts but is given the philosophy in a nutshell, take it or leave it fashion. The author recognizes the shortcomings and instead of dodging the questions meets them head on. For this, he should be commended. The book is a quick read and accessible to anyone and is well worth the read.

Dare I say it? Is he not only the heir of those esteemed gentle men, but in fact having not squandered the family millions, he has expanded the business? Yes, he has. I just love the book. Without the all-too-easy examples that all opposing camps would make, but well though-out cases and situations, he strongly makes the case for the market in general, and Capitalism in particular.

Whether you agree or not with David Friedman, you will learn a lot from reading this book. David doesn't duck any of the hard questions, and even on the most difficult issues, such as eliminating government defense, he will make you think. In the end, even those who oppose what Friedman has written will have a much better understanding of their own positions in the end.

Friedman's rather utilitarian approach to the issue of public goods shows how government and monopoly work to produce bad law as a public good, saying "It is no more than a slightly exuberant exaggeration to say that a government functions properly only if it is inhabited exclusively by devils"(p 217). He shows how under the monopoly conditions of government, the "worst get on top".

Friedman shows that under the system of corporate statism we all suffer under today, just law is a public good and bad law is really special interest law and can therefore be viewed as a private good. Friedman says that folks spend more time acquiring private goods than they do public goods because the benefit of a private good is whole whereas the benefit of a public good is divided amongst others. As a result, government overproduces bad law and underproduces good law.

Friedman's solution is to bring about conditions where law is bought and sold under market conditions. In that way, the bad law becomes a public good while the good law become a private good. For the reason given in the previous paragraph, Friedman postulates that good law will be overproduced and bad law underproduced.

In this imagined scenario, of course, there are no corporations. Corporations are creations of the state and these artificial persons have no place in a free market.

I have never seen the documentary series on which this book is base. But, who needs to see it on TV when you have high-quality color photographs of war paintings and artifacts, not to mention an in-depth narrative on the history of the American Revolution? The book is enough, and money well spent, especially for the student in your home.

I continue to be surprised with these movie "companion" books (the Civil War by Geoffrey Ward and Panther by Mario Van Peebles are other notable works). This is an excellent summary of the Revolution and, at some levels, exceeds other more celebrated accounts. We get all kinds of "context" presented with the numerous pictures and paintings as well as little "side-bars" that richly describe,among other things, life in the 13 colonies, the Liberty Bell story and the truth concerning Betsey Ross and the American Flag. Fleming's writing is good, if not a tad "dry", but some details are covered better here than in other histories (the little-known battle of Monotomny as the British are retreating from Concorde is given excellent coverage, for example...). The post-war era up to and including the development and the signing of the Constitution is remarkably detailed and, from which, I learned much. The biggest critique that I'd discuss is the almost criminal lack of maps...these types of books generally make their reputations on the inclusion of excellent battle maps (again, Ward's "Civil War" is the standard), but they are very noticably lacking here. Finally, as other reviewers have stated, this should not be viewed as a comprehensive covering of the war, but it is an excellent introduction and, notwithstanding the movie, completely stands on it's own.

Thomas Fleming has written a most comprehensive overview of the American revolution. He gives us the causes, the players, the conflict and the outcome. Extremely well organized and very well written. Nicely illustrated. The seperate sidebar articles give the reader ample background on such issues as what America was like and what Americans were like during the period. He tells us about slavery. He tells us about the German soldiers hired out to the British by the varius greedy princes. He tells us about George III who was personally a wonderful human being but a political want to be despot and cunning politician but narrowmindedness ultimately proved his undoing. He really does a great job.

Really a great book on the subject. Combined with the video cassets of the same name, this book makes a great and entertaining means for obtaining a basic view of the American revolution.

Too often our knowledge of the Revolutionary War is maimed by our simplistic grade school education. This introduction to this subject gives us a wall-to-wall view of the era. Both the British and Colonial sides of the conflict are given. In addition, the excellent illustrations and Mr. Fleming's great writing keeps us reading and looking at this book.

If you can find it and afford it, get it.

The volume, 'Liberty! The American Revolution' by Thomas Fleming, is a companion volume to the wonderful PBS series by the same name, a six-part treatment of the period leading up to and including the American Revolution in the mid-to-late 1700s.

As Fleming shows in his text, the seeds of the American Revolution were planted long before the actual conflicts began. This was not an overnight decision on the part ofthe colonists or the British; intense negotiations and political attempts were made for years prior to the outbreak of hostilities. The colonists largely came from Britain; the leadership certainly looked to Britain for political, moral and cultural guidance, as well as primary trade and security vis-a-vis the Spanish, the French, and the Native Americans. American leaders were, by and large, British leaders too -- George Washington held a commission and fought with the British in the French and Indian War.

This was a family break-up in many ways -- Fleming's astute use of the actual words of the people of the time show the emotions that conflict, the love-hate relationship both sides embodied. The first chapter shows the beginnings of discontent on both sides, with the colonists beginning to be stressed over being ignored by the British leadership, and the British leadership, in the form of George III, newly ascended to the throne, and various high-powered ministers, feeling that the colonists were rather ungrateful toward their (so-they-considered-themselves-to-be) rightful lords.

Liberty, ironically, was what George III and his first minister, William Pitt, were all about. The Seven-Years War was won as a fight for liberty; the colonies in America and elsewhere were won over to Britain, who had a parliamentary democracy (however poorly enacted) as opposed to absolute monarchy (such as in France). So, the break-up between Britain and the American colonies becomes all the more troublesome -- not only were the opposing sides practically family, but largely believed the same things.

Fleming never makes the direct comparison, but one can get the sense of Jonathan Swift here, that the battles are fought over relatively minor things (like which side of the egg to crack) -- in the scheme of world politics then and now, the controversies were relatively slight. However, the issues of taxation, governance and respect were important, not perhaps so much for what they were, but for what they did portend as future treatment, and the colonists did not like being second-class citizens in a British-dominated world, even if, to the British leadership, being second-class British was better than being almost anything else. There was also the spectre of the Irish tyranny, perpetrated by the English, that loomed large as a possibility. Sadly, one cannot say that these fears were unjustified.

Fleming's book is intriguing, introducing sides to the conflict that one doesn't recall from grade-school and high-school civics classes -- the conflicts among the colonies themselves; the dissent among the colonies who often wanted a repair rather than a break with Britain; and the personal reflections and fears of the founding fathers and mothers (yes, there were many women involved in this process). Using diaries, correspondence, official documents and media reports of the time, Fleming weaves together a narrative history that achieves a good popular balance between historical detail and narrative reporting.

Fleming's admiration for the founding Americans, their bravery and their intelligence, is very apparent. Fleming's concern to present the British in a fair and balanced light is also apparent, and often portrayed as trying to be reasonable and responsive to many of the colonial concerns, if not always pleasant and courteous to the colonial leaders themselves. The writing is interesting and thoughtful, and done in a popular tone that gives personality to the people who figure in the events.

Fleming's final chapter looks at the aftermath of the war, and the struggle for unity as a nation. George Washington's statement that liberty could be both a blessing and curse was taken to heart -- when the Constitutional Convention met to amend the Articles of Confederation, it went far beyond its original mandate, and it was telling that not all colonies sent representatives, and not all that were sent agreed to stay through the proceedings.

The format of the book is quite nice to read -- there are pull-quotes, text boxes, full-colour pictures, drawings, maps, and charts. There are 'visual interest' items on every page, from grand paintings of conventions and major persons, to small details, such as the 'dove of peace' weathervane Washington installed at Mount Vernon prior to his depature to become President. The book is well-indexed, and matches the companion television series very well, but is also perfectly suitable as a stand-alone volume.

A great read in many ways, it makes a great gift for anyone (or to oneself) with an interest in history.