Liberty Books

I will never look at politics, society, or myself in the same way ever again. This book is a masterpiece, and Helmut Schoeck does an outstanding job of showing just how influential and pervasive the emotion of envy is in society. He studies societies all over the globe and shows us one of human nature's uglier aspects which seems to be universal. I found in this book many lessons for myself personally, and I obtained a more profound understanding of society, especially in terms of damaging economic policies peddled by expediency-minded, power-hungry politicians which not only reduce the prosperity of the wealthy, but do not improve the lot of the poor which such policies are intended to help. This book is an excellent guide to human nature and societal structure.

Envy is without a doubt the most corrosive of all human emotions, yet sociological, psychological, and anthropoligical study of its phenomenology is non-existent. How unfortunate!

Enter Helmut Schoek who traces the origins of envy through cultures, philosophy, psychology and politics. After reading this book you will be able to see how politicians appeal to this basest of human emotions to engender dissatisfaction and rage.

The phenomenology of envy needs to be studied in depth because of its pervasiveness in human nature, and societies worldwide. No people, government, religon or social group is immune from its poison.

Just as one point: our "environmentalist" thinkers have decided that all human evil originates from the OUTSIDE. We are all born lovely and natural, but society corrupts us.

How then to explain envy, the cancer which grows from within -- and only grows in SOME people?

I strongly suggest you read this book; it is an important part of anyone's education. And the insights will suddenly start coming: Lee Harvey Oswald shooting John F. Kennedy -- could there be a clearer case of ENVY in the universe? Oswald, a lonely, failed drifter, prey to any radicals who wanted to use him -- versus Kennedy: rich, handsome, famous, brilliant, President of the U.S. and married to Jackie.

Oh, envy pulled that trigger.

What about Al-Qaeda and the Islamofascists? Does anyone doubt that, beneath all their hand-waving, their entire movement is based on ENVY?

Domestically, in the U.S., we have huge cohorts of "political activists" driven by envy. As Schoeck points out, virtually nobody believes that establishing the grand egalitarian socialist state will eliminate envy: on the contrary, such a state will only exacerbate an evil which is detested by all societies on the face of the earth.

On a smaller level, but still very important, this book does an excellent job of explaining that short masterpiece by Herman Melville, "Billy Budd." What was wrong with Claggart? Nothing other than envy. He envied everything good about Billy Budd: his beauty, his charm, his ease of making friends, his lack of envy, and his overall grace. Now there is something to think about when you go to bed at night: malignant people who hate and fear ALL the good qualities of their fellow human beings. (This actually makes me fear for some of my good friends, who are the kind we call "a prince among guys:" -- that snake envy may be waiting to take them down!)

An extremely high recommendation, indeed!

I read Helmut Schoeck's book many years ago and I still consider it the fundamental source for the study of politics. Envy and the deflection of envy are so fundamental to political movements that without understanding these mechanisms, comparative analysis of political systems is worthless.

Because of my proximity in NW, USA his description of the potlatch societies was particularly thought provoking. I believe their relative stasis for 9,000 years can largely be attributed the way in which they treated envy.

Successful societies are those that have developed and continue to nurture coping mechanisms to reduce the prominence this most dangerous of human traits. Unsuccessful societies allow envy to be come prominent and often celebrate it's deflection.

This book makes a moderate number of interesting claims about envy and its economic effects, interspersed with some long boring sections. The claims are mostly not backed up by strong arguments. It was written 40 years ago, and it shows - his understanding of psychology seems more Freudian than modern.
If you read this book, I suggest reading only these chapters: 1,3,5,8,13,17,21,22.
His most interesting claim is that many societies have more envy than ours, and that prevents them from escaping poverty. An extreme example are the Navaho, who reportedly have no concept of luck or of "personal achievement", and believe that one person's success can only come at another's expense. This kind of attitude is pretty effective at discouraging people in such a society from adopting a better way of growing crops, etc.
Unfortunately, his evidence is clearly of the anecdotal kind that, even if I were to track down the few sources he cites for some of them and convinced myself they were reliable, his examples are too selective for me to believe that he knows whether envy and poverty are correlated. His hypothesis sounds potentially important, and I hope someone finds a way to rigorously analyze it.
He describes a few attempts to create non-envious societies, with kibbutzim being the clearest example. He gives adequate but unsurprising explanations of why they've had mixed success.
He claims "The victims claimed by a revolution or a civil war are incomparably more numerous among those who are more gifted and enterprising", but shows no sign that he knows whether this is true. He might be right, but it's easy to imagine that he's been mislead by a bias toward reporting that kind of death more often than the death of a typical person.
He mentions that tax returns have been public in some jurisdictions. I wish he did a better job of examining the costs and benefits of this (one nice example he gives is that people sometimes overreport income in order to appear more credit-worthy than they are).
On page 82, he describes Nazis as having "an almost equally fanatical attachment to the principle of equality". He seems there to be referring to when they were in power, but somewhere else he implies they moved away from this belief when they gained power. He was born in Austria in 1922, and studied in Munich from 1941 to 1945, which gives him a perspective that we don't hear much these days. How much of the difference in perspectives is due to his flaws, and how much of it is due to our focus on the worst aspects of Nazism? There's probably a hint of truth to his position, in that hatred of the Jews partly started with an egalitarian disapproval of their success.
I found a number of other strange claims. E.g. "The incest taboo alone makes possible the co-operative and stable family group."; "Lee Harvey Oswald's central motive was envy of those who were happy and successful"; "In 1920 President Woodrow Wilson predicted class warfare in America that would be sparked off by the envy of the many at the sight of the few in their motor cars.".
He says "No society permits totally uninhibited promiscuity. In every culture there are definite rights of ownership in the sexual sphere, for no society could function unless it had foreseeable and predictable rules as regards selection of the sexual partner." I'm not sure how close-minded that would have sounded in 1966, but there are cultures today which discredit it fairly well.

I would recommend this book to any father that wants to teach his son or his daughter fifty standards to live by. This book give us fifty princilals that should be taught to our young. Sonny gives us hints on everything from how to deal with Bullies, to how to handle yourself if someone wants your woman. He talks about our political situation, he talks about helmet laws and he also talks about drugs, alcohol and smoking. It doesn't matter if you live in the motorcycle community or if your just another citizen, this book will help you teach your teens a code of honor we all should live by.
Great job Sonny

I just got this book and love it. Sonny Barger has taken his years of hard living and forged a gem from it in wise words and lessons learned.
Although I don't share his opinion of law enforcement, since we do need them around, I do share his love of country, making family of friends when your own family isn't there and never has been, his ability to keep the faith with his club and friends and get it back in return.

As a fellow freedom lover, I like this book and wish a lot of folks would read it and take from it something to use in their own life. Make the best of this life and don't take any, well, you know what. Best to Sonny. If he writes any more books, I'm reading them. He's good at this.

Not since Sun Tzu's The Art of War has there been such a collection of philosophies. Sonny Barger illustrates with profound insight, secrets which could apply to personal, as well as business success. This book contains brilliant insights and invaluable perspectives which will help you prevail in every situation you encounter. Freedom, Credos from the Road will be studied for centuries to come. Strong words I believe so much I had sought the man out for myself. He is wonderfully charming, polite and generous. If you read this book, I believe you will respect this man as I do.

This was a worthwhile book, and the best thing that Sonny has written to date. I'm not in full agreement with everything he says, but he does make a number of good points and valid observations. I typically read a book only once, then toss it, sell it, or give it away. This one I've read more than once, it has a permanent place on my bookshelf, and I've purchased copies for friends.

Sonny Barger is no "role model," but at least he has the decency to acknowledge his faults and doesn't pretend to be something he isn't. A lot of folks look down upon him for a number of reasons -- when someone has such a formidable reputation (such as Dick Marcinko and G. Gordon Liddy), and presents themselves as "the baddest man alive," they open themselves up to ridicule when it is eventually revealed that they are less than perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, and it's difficult to continue to play the same role past retirement age.

Regardless of what you think of Sonny, you owe it to yourself to check this book out.

I bought this mostly because I own the rest of Barger's books. This one was MUCH better than anticipated. From his typical twist on the Golden Rule to the theory that freedom is a state of mind, I found it refreshing to receive this information. If Sonny continues writing in this style, he may very well find his next book on my bookshelf.

JSA: THE LIBERTY FILES collects the two part JSA: THE LIBERTY FILE and its sequel JSA: THE UNHOLY THREE (also, a two-parter), which were originally published in 2000 and 2003, respectively. At 264 pages, this trade is a fantastic addition to DC Comics' Elseworlds line (Elseworlds, by the way, takes characters from the DC Universe and places them outside of continuity and into a different timeline or reality).

THE LIBERTY FILE and THE UNHOLY THREE spotlight members of the Justice Society of America, except that, instead of conventional superheroics, these mystery men are re-imagined as U.S. espionage agents operating abroad during World War II (although they still don their costumes whenever it's time to throw down). No surprise then that these stories play out more like an international spy thriller.

THE LIBERTY FILE: It's 1942, and, in Cairo, Egypt, the Bat finds himself on an espionage mission in which he's forced to team up with two agents, Charles McNider and Rex Tyler, codenamed the Owl and the Clock, respectively. Their target is the albino smuggler Jack the Grin, who had intercepted a Nazi communique which just may contain the specs for a new German prototype weapon. This, Jack the Grin promptly puts up for bidding. As the Bat and his team seek to capture the homicidal albino, an old rumor resurfaces: that Hitler had found a Super-Man, whose addition to the German ranks, if true, instantly tilts the war in the Fatherland's favor. From Egypt to Switzerland and back to Egypt, the Bat, with the help of his allies (which would include a revenge-minded Mr. Terrific), races against time to avert ultimate disaster from befalling the Allies.

THE UNHOLY THREE: 1948, and the war's been over for some years. The Bat has re-assumed the mantle of Gotham City's dark guardian and is busy spanking freaky wrongdoers like Two-Face. But when American operatives begin to be horrifyingly tortured and eliminated in Berlin, the Bat gets pulled back into covert government field work and is re-united with his old pal, the Clock. However, the third member of their "Unholy Three," Terry Sloane (Mr. Terrific), has had a falling out with Bruce Wayne years ago and won't be coming. But a near-indestructible rookie agent named Clark Kent will. In fact, because of the metahuman nature of the mission, Kent will be the one giving orders (and can you guess how long that lasts?). So off they go to Berlin, where they mean to hunt down their primary suspects: the super-strong Steel Wolf and the brutal ex-KGB interrogator, the Parasite. Then it's on to Chernobyl, Russia for a final confrontation with the Wolf and the Parasite's shadowy superior. But when the danger is revealed to be the most powerful being on the planet, the Unholy Three find themselves pitifully undermanned.

DC's Elseworlds stories rock! For the most part, I relish these "imaginary" offerings, not all of which come from the Elseworlds label. Because when they work, brother, they work. The appeal of Elseworlds is that it gives us wish fulfillment on top of wish fulfillment. THE LIBERTY FILE and THE UNHOLY THREE are well-constructed dark fables, indulging in plenty of wartime skullduggery and mayhem. It helps tremendously that the same artistic team is on board for both story arcs. Dan Jolley and Tony Harris handle the well written storytelling. Tony Harris also provides the pencils, with fine inks by Ray Snyder, resulting in some very gritty and noirish artwork. It all meshes.

So, a couple of changes. One of the staples of Batman's character is that, however grim he gets, he will NOT take a life. But, in this wartime setting, the Bat feels no compunctions against killing. And it's always fun to re-introduce his relationship with Superman. In this instance, Bruce Wayne is the very experienced operative, whereas Clark Kent is the fresh-faced newcomer. Here Bruce had actually developed a deeper camaraderie with Hourman, Dr. Mid-Nite, and Mr. Terrific. When Clark comes on board late in the game, Bruce treats him as the odd man out and with much condescension and skepticism. Also, keep a close eye on these pages as Jolley and Harris provide quick, askewed takes on other JSA members (for example, Dinah is still the Canary, but in the sense that now she's a chanteuse at a smoky night club). As well, familiar villains are shown in a different light. The Scarecrow, in particular, comes off as even more frightening and unstoppable (he's an undead but fanatical German operative, you see).

There's a nice twist each at the end of THE LIBERTY FILE and THE UNHOLY THREE, both of which I didn't see coming. I almost want to gripe that the big reveal near the end of THE LIBERTY FILE doesn't quite play fair with DC Comics' longtime fans as a key character involved wasn't even created until 1955 and certainly hadn't been around in 1942. But, then, on second thought, this IS Elseworlds, where anything can happen.

Jolley and Harris nicely balance the two elements of wartime intrigue and superheroics. In tone, it definitely feels more like an action film noir. The writers are careful to downplay the superhero elements, as the normal superhero names metamorphose into espionage code names (the Bat, the Clock, the Owl...). The costumes aren't that garish (other than Superman's colorul threads). The costumes worn by the Bat and the Clock aren't nice and clean. They look serviceable and even as if they smell a bit, from endless hours of being sweated in. And, the intense action, when it takes place, is mostly in the shadows. And, because an Elseworlds story owes allegiance only to its own continuity, people die here. And stay dead (Unless you're the Scarecrow. Who's undead). Anyway, the deaths and vicious murders of several of these sorta familiar DC Comics characters are shockingly depicted. In an Elseworld story done right, the stakes seem higher, the story seems more real. JSA: THE LIBERTY FILES is done right. The only thing that never changes, it seems, is that in whatever reality, the Bat flaunts large, brassy ones.

Last riff on Elseworlds and other "imaginary" stories. Every now and then, the mainstream titles, especially the longrunning ones, get pretty stale. Elseworlds injects new life into these characters and also happens to unearth some pretty riveting premises. Off the top of my head, Elseworlds titles I'd readily recommend are the atmospheric Batman: Gotham by Gaslight (Elseworlds), Justice League of America: The Nail (Justice League of America) and its sequel Justice League of America: Another Nail (Elseworlds), and John Byrne's Superman & Batman: Generations, An Imaginary Tale (Elseworlds) and Superman & Batman: Generations 2, An Imaginary Tale (Elseworlds). And Absolute Kingdom Come and Superman: Secret Identity, although not from the Elseworlds stamp, are simply cannot-miss reading experiences. And if you hanker for more JSA of this flavor, then take a peep at Darwyn Cooke's Absolute DC: The New Frontier and James Robinson's JSA: The Golden Age (Elseworlds). See ya in the funny pages.

This book actually collects two separate mini-series, which follow the exploits of Jolley's & Harris's alternate Justice Society of America. More spy than super-hero, the JSAers adventure abroad to stop a Nazi super-weapon in the first story and to protect the ultimate weapon in the second. The Bat, Clock, and Owl (Batman, Hourman, and Dr.Midnight) get great new make-overs by Harris, and its nice to see them in a more foreign setting rather than the amalgamous gotham/metropolis that backdrops most stories.

As always, Harris's deep dark lines make the characters (and the action) pop off of the page. His stylized realism is a perfect match for the setting and tone. There are some artist who I love to re-envision established characters; Harris is definitely near the top of the list. I do have to agree, in civilian ID, most the characters look the same, but this is minor and doesn't slow down the book's momentum too much.

There are some minuses. Like the bulk of DC's "Elseworlds" books, the writer usually tries to cram too many established elements into the story and reintroduce too much. The Mr. Terrific element seemed pretty forced and useless, as did the Red Tornado towards the end. Other than that, the story set a pretty dynamic pace, and upped the ante in every chapter. Twists and turn abound.

This is a great read whether your a mainstream comic fan or not.

I am not the biggest comic book fan. I have never even set foot in a real comic book shop so I don't even know if the 'Comic Book Guy' on 'The Simpsons' is realistic or not. Continuity means nothing to me. Being a history teacher, I was more intrigued by the history part of the story. (Speaking of continuity, I know for a fact that Superman was fighting Nazis during WWII, just like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck - I've seen the movies!)



However, I've read some of the big stuff (Dark Knight I and II, Red Son and a few more). I was dimly aware of some of the heroes featured in this one, which makes sense since JSA was originally intended to promote the lesser known heroes). This one was interesting, but in the end, not as good as I had hoped.



Learning the new characters was fairly easy, but telling them apart in their street clothes was darn near impossible with the exception of "Clark Kent", thanks to the trademark cowlick. Also, even though it was a JSA book, the focus seemed to be Batman. Batman vs. "Jack the Grin" (Joker). Batman vs. Scarecrow. Batman making his teammates mad. Batman's introspection. And, finally, Batman vs. 'Superman'. The last one has been done umpteen times, I know, even though I am, as already stated, a casual fan. Heck, I've seen it done in Frank Miller's "Dark Knight I" and Mark Millar's "Red Son", and to be honest, they both did it better (especially Millar's).



An interesting observation, I appreciated the fact that at the WWII Battle of El Alamein, the artists included two well-known fictional characters of this time period in the two page spread (pp. 116-117): Sgt. Rock and PFC Ryan ("Saving Private Ryan").



So, while not a waste of my time, it certainly did not do the job as well as others. I give this one a grade of C+.

Icons. Powerhouses. Heroes... Spies? What a cool concept making many of DC's heroes into spies for the government during WWII and the Cold War. Batman, Hourman, Dr. Midnight, and Mr. Terrific, are a bunch of Nazi busters. Several other classic characters pop up, especially when Superman joins the team. If you like the characters of the JSA- those original Golden Agers, then you are in for a trip- and a much more realistic look at the way they WOULD have acted in that time and place.

LOTS of twists and turns, but an unexpected level of violence, and killing, especially coming from many of these Heroes. I'd have more of a problem with this... but they ARE soldiers here. So, it's all cool. Definately check it out, if you have the opportunity. One of the best Elseworld tales I've read, that doesn't flat-out ape the comic formula of the characters it is representing. Worth the money.

I read the Golden Age and the Liberty Files, but I am afraid I don't agree with the other reviewer. While it is true that both books are similar in that they both take place during WWII, they are not the same story.

The Golden Age is substantially shorter, involves many more WWII-era characters, and has a America coming out of its Post-War innocence type of feel to it. In the Golden Age, neither Batman, nor Superman appear. Paul Smith's art is possibly the best of his career and seems occassionally geared to evoke thoughts of 1940s comic art or the period generally.

In contrast, the Liberty Files is much, much longer and is really an amalgam of two interrelated but separately published mini-series, both of which were excellent. The majority of the Liberty Files follows the exploits of three heroes, one of which is Batman, in analyzing certain suspicious circumstances occurring during WWII. Tony Harris' art is a pleasure to behold, but is not geared to evoking memories of a period, other than as called for in the story.

Both are great reads. You will not be dissappointed. In fact, for the Amazon prices, you could probably pick up both for a little more than the cover price of one, with free shipping and no tax.

You'll be glad you did. They are excellent additions to any collection.

This Oxford collection of four definitive essays by John Stuart Mill, arguably the most famous Victorian writer who could be called a philosopher, gives an excellent profile of a rigorous social reformer and political thinker. The subjects of these essays--liberty, utilitarianism, government, and women's rights--are interrelated to the extent that they reveal a man with a sharp sense of history and its impact on the methods and mores of contemporary society. Mill, after all, was of Charles Dickens's generation and therefore witnessed an era in which the British crown was inclined to manifest its power through tyranny in its efforts to maintain a costly worldwide empire.

Mill's basic concern is liberty, both social and civil. He identifies a difference between freedom and liberty--freedom is the state of being free, while liberty is the freedom that a government or governing body grants its people. Briefly a member of Parliament (the workings of which are described in great detail in "Representative Government") and heavily informed and influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," Mill recognized that the most important (and perhaps the only proper) function of a government is to protect the liberties of its citizens. However, people generally get the form of government they deserve; if laws they allow to go unchecked become the tools of despotic powers, they have only their own ignorance or indolence to blame.

An enumeration of Mill's finer points may suffice as a summary of his ideas:

1. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are essential rights of man. You don't have to accept as true what other people say, but let them say it because there's always the chance that they're right and you're wrong. Mill points out that even the Roman Catholic Church, most intolerant of religions (his words, not mine), allows a "devil's advocate" to offer repudiative evidence before it canonizes a new saint. He notes instances in which religious intolerance still rears its ugly head in the British Empire of his day.

2. Christianity does not have a monopoly on moral authority; literary history gives evidence of this.

3. Individuality should be fostered so that new ideas may flourish, but society, specifically the middle class, establishes the normative values that unfortunately tend to stifle individuality. You have an unlimited right to your opinion, but you are free to act only so far as you do not harm or molest others. Long before Orwell, Mill had the insight that institutional deprivation of liberty is effectively suppression of thought, for how can someone train himself to think independently when doing so could lead to persecution for heresy or treason?

4. State-sponsored education should restrict itself to teaching scientifically provable or reliably documented facts rather than push religious or political agenda. When or if polemical issues are raised, arguments for and against are to be presented as opinions so that students may draw their own conclusions.

5. The utilitarian principle states that actions that promote happiness (in its most obvious form, pleasure) are "right" and those that reduce happiness are "wrong"--in other words, utilitarianism is the opposite of puritanism. Consider how much better it is to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig, because the human has the potential for so much more happiness than the pig, whose breadth of experience is contained entirely between the trough and the slaughterhouse, could ever know.

6. Women deserve the same rights as men because the social and mental limitations attributed to women are for the most part a male-conceived artifice. Chivalry is a fallacy.

And so on. I'm not sure if it's correct to call Mill a libertarian in modern terms, but he was certainly concerned with the issues with which modern libertarians are concerned. Much of his discourse is relevant to today's world, even though he often draws upon the past for contrast in order to make his conclusions, the implication being that improvement comes with increased knowledge and experience. Anyone who is interested in nineteenth-century thought on democracy and individualism will find much to ponder in Mill's eloquence.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay "Subjection of Women" is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn't think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband's death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to his having syphilis. His dedication to "On Liberty" is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation.

Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means---In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of "pleasure in the absence of pain." What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person's happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, "higher quality pleasures." These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His "higher quality pleasures" in a way echo Aristotle's ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit.

"On Liberty" is Mill's is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the "liberty principle." It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." These quoted sentences in John Stuart Mill's book, "On Liberty," embody the crux of his argument; that the power of the state must intrude as little as possible on the liberty of its citizenry. In essence, Mill was against using the power of the state through its lawmaking apparatus to compel citizens to conduct themselves in ways that society deems moral or appropriate. Mill thought that people had not only a right, but also a duty to develop their intellectual faculties, which is indispensable to maximize their happiness. He believed that society improved for all its citizens when they where left unfettered to the maximum extent possible, allowing them to use their imagination and intellect to improve themselves. Mill postulates a theory that societies usually institute laws based primarily on "personal preference" of its citizenry instead of established principles. This lack of clarity of opinion often leads to the government frequently interfering in the lives of its citizens unnecessarily. For Mill, there are very few times when the state can infringe on the personal liberty of others. Firstly, the state has the right to promulgate laws that prevent a person's actions from harming others. Secondly, the state must protect those citizens who are not mature enough to protect themselves, such as children. Thirdly, he exempts, "... backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage." In Mill's view, immature societies need a benevolent leader to rule them until they have developed to a point where they, "... have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion ..." Mill said this third exemption did not apply to any of the countries in Europe. Mill believed that forced morality by the state on its citizen's liberties was destructive to their inward development, and could even lead to a violent reaction by them against the government.


There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well.

Roger Kimball, in his book "Experiments Against Reality" wrote, "On Liberty" was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as "On the Origin of Species." Darwin's book has been credited--and blamed--for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run "On Liberty" may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment.

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

It is surprising to me how many people assume that 'On Liberty' was written before or during the American Revolution - Mill was certainly influenced by the spirit of American liberty, which was variously romanticised and adapted in Britain and Europe during the nineteenth century. Published in 1859, 'On Liberty' is one of the primary political texts of the nineteenth century; perhaps only the writings of Marx had a similar impact, and of the two, in today's world, Mill's philosophy seems (please note that I only said 'seems') the one that is triumphant.

One of the interesting ideas behind 'On Liberty' is that this may in fact be more the inspiration of Harriet Taylor (later Mrs. J.S. Mill) than of Mill himself; Taylor wrote an essay on Toleration, most likely in 1832, but it remained unpublished until after her death. F.A. Hayek (free-market economist and philosopher) noticed this connection. Whether this was the direct inspiration or not, the principles are similar, and the Mills were rather united in their views about liberty.

'On Liberty' is more of an extended essay than a book - it isn't very long. It relates as a political piece to his general Utilitarianism and political reform ideology. A laissez faire capitalist in political economy, his writing has been described as 'improved Adam Smith' and 'popularised Ricardo'. Perhaps it is in part the brevity of 'On Liberty' that gives it an enduring quality.

There are five primary sections to the text. The introduction sets the stage philosophically and historically. He equates the histories of classical civilisations (Greece and Rome) with his contemporary England, stating that the struggle between liberty and authority is ever present and a primary feature of society. He does not hold with unbridled or unfettered democracy, either (contrary to some popular readings of his text) - he warns that the tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous and damaging toward a society as any individual or oligarchic despotism. Mill looks for a liberty that permits individualism; thus, while democracy is an important feature for Mill, there must be a system of checks and balances that ensures individual liberties over and against this kind of system. All of these elements receive further development in subsequent sections.

The second section of the text is 'Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion'. Freedom of speech and expression is an important aspect here. Mill presents a somewhat radical proposition that even should the government and the people be in complete agreement with regard to coercive action, it would still be an illegitimate power. This is an important consideration in today's world, as governments and people contemplate the curtailment of civil liberties in favour of increased security needs. The possibility of fallibility, according to Mill, makes the power illegitimate, and (again according to Mill) it doesn't matter if it affects many or only a few, people today or posterity. It is still wrong. Mill develops this argument largely by using the history of religious ideas and religious institutions, in addition to the political (since the two were so often inter-related).

The third section is perhaps the best known and most quoted, 'Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being'. It is perhaps a natural consequence of Enlightenment thinking that individuality over communal and corporate identity would dominate. Our world today goes back and forth between individual and communal identities (nationality, regionality, employment, church affiliation, school affiliation, sports teams, etc.). Mill's ideas of individual are very modern, quite at home with the ideas of modern political and civil individuality, with all of the responsibilities.

Mill states, 'No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions.' He recognises the increased limitations on individual liberty given that we do live in communal settings, but this does not hinder the idea of individuality and individual liberty, particularly as it pertains to thoughts and speech. Mill explores various ideas of personal identity and action (medieval, Calvinist, etc.) to come up with an idea of individuality that is rather modern; of course, this is political personhood that pre-dates the advent of psychology/psychoanalytic theory that will give rise to a lot more confusion for the role of identity and personhood in society.

The fourth primary section looks theoretically at the individual in community, 'Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual'; the final section looks at specific applications. Mill discounts the idea of social contract while maintain that there is a mutual responsibility between individuals and community. Mill looks at the Temperance movements and laws as an example of bad laws (not only from the aspect of curtailment of liberty, but also for impractical aspects of enforcement); in similar examples, Mill looks at the role of society in regulating the life of the individual, calling on good government to always err on the side of the individual.

Mill puts it very directly -- Individuals are accountable only to themselves, unless their actions concern the interests of society at large. Few in the Western world would argue with this today; however, we still live in a world where 'thought police' are feared, and 'political correctness' is debated as appropriate or not with regard to individual liberties.

Mill wrote extensively beyond this text, in areas of philosophy (logic, religion, ethics). The particular text here includes other essays of interest: 'Utilitarianism', 'Considerations on Representative Government', and 'The Subjection of Women', and also has a useful bibliography and index. The essay on Utilitarianism is one of the more contentious works of Mill; the later two contain ideas well ahead of their time, and many parts can be seen at work in modern democracies.

This should probably be required reading in civics classes, if not in the pre-university years for students, then certainly in the early university years.

JS Mill is rightfully so one of the most studied political theorists and philosophers. His radical ideas on women started a womens revolution during the Victorian era. His ideas about good government and freedom are applicable today, and obviously not being listened to in this neofascist age. His 'harm principle' for freedom remains one of the most enlightened theories out there, and it is with an open heart that I recommend his readings to anyone with an open mind, who is not afraid of change.

Don't get me wrong. This book is quaint and it certainly has its merits. However, I was disappointed that the character on the cover isn't featured anywhere within. Who is the man with outsretched arms? Is he pleading for alms? Is he offering to pull someone out of a river? In fact, if you look closely he appears to be standing in a body of water which could support the latter theory. Who is he pulling from the river? Or is this a metaphor... do these essays figuratively pull one out of the river - the river of intellectual darkness? Perhaps not, which brings me back to my original point. Who is this man? Like all great philosophical questions... we may never know.

This book is good for basic information, but the best thing, or things about it are the tidbits of information that lead one to further reading. It is a great source for pointing the reader not only to great thinkers, but also to works by great thinkers worthy of further investigation.

Powell deserves great credit for surveying the last two millenia of Western history to find liberty's "greatest champions". I found myself at the end begging for more analytic input from the author to "put it all together". But I am grateful for his compiling this list of the good guys in the struggle to attain the freedom which we all say we want, and are too often willing to sacrifice by pieces to other ends. The book would benefit greatly from better editorial attention to correct obvious syntactical errors and repetitions. Overall, an admirable addition to the literature of classical liberalism.

"The Triumph of Liberty" is best purchased with the notion that you will chew on one or two short nuggets at a time to capture the essence of each "freedom fighter" profiled. Like Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation", it's a compilation of vignettes that illuminate and sometimes inspire, and which can be read in short bursts.

"Liberty" is short on historical analysis and long on basic biographical formula, which made my own read feel somewhat monotonous. Still, it's a worthwhile contribution to the bookshelf of anyone who cares about the rights of the individual, and who knows how precarious those rights have been throughout man's history.

With this book, Jim Powell advances the notion that modern history can best be viewed as a quest for freedom, and even the most cynical among us must agree that "wresting liberty from tyranny's iron fist" is indeed worth fighting for. In a series of short biographical vignettes, Powell looks at the lives of sixty-five historical figures that he deems heroes in this struggle, making for a fascinating and inspiring read. However, any such grouping of people is bound to spark debate, as very few of these individuals would call themselves "libertarian", nor would all libertarians be quick to claim them all as ancestors or heirs.

Historian Paul Johnson may sum up this book best with these words from its foreword: "I do not agree with all of it". That luminaries like Cicero and Thomas Paine belong in this canon is almost without question, but the case for Beethoven, Goya, and Robert Heinlein (among others) requires one to adopt the modern "big L" libertarian perspective in its entirety. I, for one, would prefer to see Margaret Thatcher's place in the book removed, and replaced by a section on Nelson Mandela; economic issues aside, surely most people would place the latter above the former as a champion of liberty and justice in our time.

Thus, the greatest weakness of this book is also its strength: it forces the reader to think, to consider what "liberty" really means. Given the state of the world today, that fact alone merits my recommendation.

In this book Jim Powell attempts to tell us the story of liberty by illuminating the lives of it's greatest champions.Mr. Powell is a great storyteller and for the most part he succeeds in his mission of telling us the story of freedom's champions from Cicero to Ronald Reagan.The book might have been better if Powell had started out by giving us a definition of liberty. In the biblical sense liberty implies the ability to be morally self-governed.This was certainly how Locke, Jefferson and Franklin among other libertarians understood the term.If the concept of self-government is understood as it relates to liberty the author would have to eliminate the chapters on H.L. Mencken,and Albert Jay Nock among others.I agree with a previous reviewer that the book's inclusion of Martin Luther King Jr. is highly questionable.Dr. King was certainly a great man who achieved great things.But He was not a libertarian, He was a socialist.But beyond these criticisms this is an excellent book.My favorite chapter is the one about William E. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone's life was the personification of liberty.Like John Locke and Hugo Grotius Gladstone was a devout christian who practiced moral self-government in his personal life and attempted to impose that same sense of self-discipline upon government. Once again this is a great book, which ought to be required reading in all of our schools. God bless you Jim Powell.

Uri Dowbenko is a clever journalist, and here he has compiled many of the most interesting conspiracy topics of the present era. From Bush family frauds, MK-ULTRA/Monarch mind control, and the bogus war on drugs, to the reptilian revelations of UK author David Icke & Zulu Historian Credo Mutwa, Uri provides an introduction to the materials of several other notable researchers/journalists. This book is somewhat lacking in a coherent sequence or organization, but it does provide a lot of interesting information and is a useful text to examine before reading materials of some of the author's sources, which are more lengthy and in-depth than Dowbenko's articles and chapters.

'Bushwhacked' is one of the best conspiracy books I've read.

Dowbenko writes about forbidden subjects: corruption in government agencies like the CIA, DoD, FAA, IRS and HUD; high level drug trafficking; MK-ULTRA and Project Monarch mind control; the real story of Iran Contra and the secret government; many other frauds in business and society.

Also great chapters on remote viewing, illuminati, and the vatican conspiracy.

It all comes down to belief systems.

You can believe in Faux News and or you can find out about what Al Martin, author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" calls 'how the real world works.'

After reading this book, you will be left empowered, knowing how history and politics are manipulated to keep the power elite in control.

Bushwhacked is a thought provoking intro into the very real world of conspiracy.

Mr. Dowbenko writes his books for the primary purpose of financial gain. When he knows the truth, and it hurts his pocket book, he writes Bushwacked.

My suggestion is, if you want to make Uri rich buy this book. However, if you are looking for truth then don't read this novel.

My name is Vince Lodato Ph.D., and I have had several phone conversations with Mr. Dowbenko-- this man is no Danny Casolaro ---and he runs from the truth about Dominica and the REAL GLOBAL POLITICS.

Sorry Uri but you know it's the truth...Vince

'Bushwhacked' is one of the best conspiracy books I've read.

Dowbenko writes about forbidden subjects: corruption in government agencies like the CIA, DoD, FAA, IRS and HUD; high level drug trafficking; MK-ULTRA and Project Monarch mind control; the real story of Iran Contra and the secret government; many other frauds in business and society.

Also great chapters on remote viewing, illuminati, and the vatican conspiracy.

It all comes down to belief systems.

You can believe in Faux News and or you can find out about what Al Martin, author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" calls 'how the real world works.'

After reading this book, you will be empowered, knowing how history and politics are manipulated to keep the power elite in control.

Bushwhacked is a thought provoking intro into the very real world of conspiracy.

I loved this book. Uri writes what is basically a list of "short stories", each a well referenced expose on a corrupt, illegal, manipulative government. It is hard for me to read the depressing truth and I enjoy reading it in a concise, clear chapter at a time. The subjects are diverse and each was enlightening, thank you, Mr. dowbenko. The last chapter on Reptilian agenda is leading me to read David Icke's "Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center" which I highly recommend also.

This book is a shining example of how good we fought the American Revolution. I gave it four stars because I loved the way the writer expressed the war. The story takes place in the American Revolution and its battlesd. you learn about the Sons of Liberty, Lexington and concord, and the major battles of the Revolution. I thought it was a great reflection on the Revolution. A story element most represented in this book is allusion. At most the writer recalls a lot of facts and incorporates them into the story. I would recommend this book to people who are big history buffs.

(1) The book has a great part when it tells about the boston tea party. (2) I like this book because it talks about the wars that went on in the american revolution.(3) the story element that I am going to pick is flash back because the story flashback to when we were fighting the revolutionary times. (4) I recommend this book to people who like action and fighting in a book. The reason that I only gave it four stars is because it does not have enough fighting in it.

Give me Liberty is a very factual novel about the Revolutionary War and the people who played important roles. This book goes in detail about the Boston Tea Party, Sons of Liberty, Daughters of Liberty, The Battle in Lexington and Concord. Read this book!

I have to adment that it took some time for me to get interested in this book. This book has so much information about the Revolutionary War and people who played big parts in it. This takes you back shows you images of what life was like under British rule. I love my country but what was so harsh about paying 3 cents a pound for tea. That is how this thing got started. If you look at the facts given to us. These farmers with pitchforks weren't that bad off. They revolted out of greed not love of their county. I say againg I love my county, but what was so bad about paying 3 cents a pound for tea. If you think about it we pay taxes all the time for our troops, government employees, and others. They asked us to help pay for war dept. I do understand however that they should have not ignored us. This book tells the stories but not the whole truth.

This book may be aimed at young readers between 9 and 12 years old, yet readers of any age can benefit from Russell Freedman's basic yet very informative look at the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the events and ideas that helped shape it. Opening with the exciting story of the Boston Tea Party, Freedman walks the reader through the series of events leading up to the start of the Revolutionary War and America's formal declaration of independence from the English government. After a quick summary of American history up to the crucial events of the 1770s, Freedman describes the range of taxes, burdens, and laws that the British Crown and Parliament forced on its increasingly recalcitrant colonies. The words of such men as Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry are once again called upon to reveal the unquenchable thirst for freedom which would help convince a divided population to take up arms in defense of a new, independent nation.

Freedman then presents a wonderful summary of the early skirmishes and battles of the Revolutionary War: the Boston Massacre, the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the Battle of Bunker Hill (Breed's Hill), the ill-fated (and very poorly planned) attack on Quebec, the English naval bombardment of coastal towns such as Charlestown, Massachusetts and Charleston, South Carolina, etc. Against this backdrop of burgeoning military conflict stands the work of the First and Second Continental Congresses, and Freedman provides an excellent assessment of the differences of opinion that had to be ironed out before America dared claim her independence. Freedman does an especially nice job of showing how the events of the first skirmishes of the war affected the thinking of Continental Congress delegates. He closes with a discussion of the Declaration of Independence, imparting the true significance and provocative importance of this document too easily taken for granted today.

Freedman does not cover the events of the Revolutionary War after July 1776, but he does devote a chapter to an informed discussion of the legacy of the Declaration of Independence, discussing its relevance to later issues such as the emancipation of the slaves, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movements. He shows just how significant and visionary the document remains to this very day and gives readers the chance to read it in its entirety. He closes with a chronology of important events and a bibliography featuring recommendations to adults as well as children for future reading. Packed with wonderful prints and illustrations, Give Me Liberty! The Story of the Declaration of Independence offers readers a concise yet highly informative look at the document that defines the United States of America.

"A Lady of Hidden Intent" is the 2nd book in the Ladies of Liberty series by Tracie Peterson. And what another wonderful page-turner it is. I started the book yesterday and finished it a few minutes ago.

Catherine Newbury is a 17-year old young lady from Bath, England. She meets Carter Danby on the night she and her father hosts a Christmas party. Later that night, she overhears her father's business partner, Finely Baker claim that the authorities will soon be there to arrest him since his ships were found to have illegally traded slaves. Her father is truly innocent of any crime since it was all Baker's doing. To save her from any suspicion and threat, Catherine's father sends her away to America where she becomes a famed dress designer under the name "Catherine Shay". When Carter's mother and sister asks him to accompany them to a dress/design session with Catherine, Catherine recognizes him immediately while Carter seems to think he has met her before in the past. Catherine becomes close friends with Carter's sister and in the process he takes a liking to her and wants to learn more about who she really is.

I enjoyed the look into the 1850's era. Especially the look into the world of fashion and the hierarchy of the sewing house. It was also refreshing to see how Carter took a dislike to his father and brother having mistresses. We see in the book how an adulterous affair can lead people into unhappiness and the result of an affair can cause the death of an innocent unborn child. Carter's character showed he highly valued human life in any regard. Catherine herself is a very strong female character and not like the damsel-in-distress characters we often see in novels. She has suffered in another country for 5 years without her father. Yet she rises above adversiry and does not submit to those who try to wrong her (Felicia).

The only thing I would have liked to see in this book was a connection to "A Lady of High Regard". Both stories took place in the 1850's and in the same city (Philadelphia) so it would have been nice to see a cameo appearance by Mia and Garrett. Despite this, it was an enjoyable read and Tracie Peterson proves to me once again why she is one of my favorite authors. I look forward to "A Lady of Secret Devotion" which come out later this summer. :)

This book keeps you intrested through the whole story. I would recommend this book to anyone that likes to read.

I have never read anything by Tracie Peterson, and just randomly purchased the book at the airport because it seemed interesting. However, I was sorely disappointed. Possibly the book was meant for the 10-year-old age group, but it was very lacking in any real action, drama, or tension and the characters fell flat. It skips around a bunch too. You read the prologue, and then you are thrown forward 5 years. After one random encounter with someone she didn't like and kept running away from, the main character sees him again in the USA and is scared that he might reveal her true identity and it might hurt her father's chances of getting out of prison. I don't know, it wasn't very intriguing and the author kept throwing in these pages about God and religion and I found it to be very preachy. Instead of developing drama between Felicia and the main character over Felicia knowing her secret, they make it very cut and dry where the main character flees instead of paying blackmail and then Felicia kind of disappears until we find her working in a shop. It lacked a lot of depth and while it may have had good historical notes, everything else was lacking. I could have done without this book and plan on re-selling it ASAP.

Catherine Newbury and her father are introduced to a charming young American, Carter Danby, at a ball they host at their home in England. Later that night, after all the guests have left and the house has gone to bed, Catherine over hears her father in conversation with his partner. Their shipping buisness has been discovered to have been shipping slaves and the (crooked) partner is in the process of fleeing the country. After he leaves, Catherine confronts her father and they decide for her to leave England as well.

Five years later, in Philadelphia, Carter Danby accompanies his mother and sister to the dressmakers. The fashion designer, Catherine Shay, strikes a familiar chord with him, but he can not place when and where he has seen her. Curious about her past, and wanting to know her better, Carter asks his friend to investigate her.

Catherine recognizes Carter immediately, but says nothing. Instead she turns her attetion to drawing out Carter's sister, Winnifred. Winnifred is a shy, retiring girl with few friends and an overbearing mother. Catherine listens to Winnifred's desires for her dress,and also becomes her friend.

This is an enjoyable read because of the interactions of the characters. I also enjoy that Catherine is such a compassionate, strong character. The relationship that develops between Catherine and Carter draws you in and keeps you turning the pages as you wonder what will happen next.

This is another great book in The Ladies of Liberty series by author Tracie Peterson. It kept my attention throughout and it resonates with the power of God. It helps us remember that His ways are not always our ways and we may not always understand why things happen in our lives, but can be assured that God has His reasons.

The heroine in this book (Catherine) had lost a lot, yet she perseveres and has a strong faith in God that sees her through.

It was very enjoyable reading.

Libertarians tend to live in a Manichean world of right and wrong where the means justifies the ends. Ironically the author insists that Libertarians are pragmatic. He does this without backing up this assertion but insists on it strongly and repeatedly. Mr. Walsh relates a story about a man with a habit of threatening people with his large collection of guns. Pulling a Beretta on his estranged wife he cocked the trigger in front of their child. He told a coworker he was going to visit her boyfriend with an AK-47. After being scolded by the courts he continued to threaten her and her friends so a federal court indicted him for unlawfully possessing a firearm. And the victim in this story? The gun owner. On economics he writes, "It's a fundamental libertarian belief that people ought to have unrestricted - or nearly unrestricted - liberty to accumulate, control and transfer property, whatever the consequences or constraints may be for other people" Pragmatic??? Oh boy. In one flash of honesty the writer refers to Libertarianism as an "extreme philosophy" Much truer than calling it pragmatic.

Generally I've found Libertarians to be pleasant but James Walsh is a rather prickly character. He refers to Atheist Michael Newdow as a "grandstanding jerk" and writes that, "An American who calls himself a libertarian but doesn't support the right of a citizen to own a weapon is an as*". He states that, "If you put all your retirement money in Enron stock while it was flying high, you were greedy and stupid" That's pretty cold and ignores the fact that investors were up against a large cadre of talented people (including auditors) who worked hard to make the failing company appear highly profitable.

It's funny that the author accuses the ACLU of being partisan's hacks when Libertarians, including James Walsh, are often loyal sycophants to the GOP. Sure, the author criticizes many Republican politicians but given the last 8 years Libertarians should be burning them in effigy. Even when he agrees with the left he can't resist attacking, calling the 2003 anti-war protests "infantile" He writes, "Loyal Democrats despise Bush because he's not one of them and is fairly popular to the general public" Yes, THAT'S the reason Democrats despise Bush and even in 2004 when this book was published calling Bush "fairly popular" was a stretch. About the Dems he writes his confusion that, "a party that will do anything to protect a `woman's right to choose' an abortion won't support her right to choose a school for her child". Talk about some logical contortions.

The author also supports some truly bizarre ideas. He's a fan of the abandoned `terror futures" project proposed by the Pentagon where investors could wager on when and where terrorist strikes would occur. In my opinion the problem with this scheme (beyond the horrifying image of a national dead pool) would be that unlike crop or mineral futures a terrorist could conceivably influence this market with an opportune bombing. The author also thinks that video surveillance should be monitored by private citizens in their spare time using the internet. I cannot even fathom how that would work.

For me the coup de grâce was the following line, "To political activists who complain that the 2003 war in Iraq was all about oil money, the libertarian response is...of course it's about oil money. That's the best reason that exists for attacking someone" This follows a lengthy defense of Libertarianism by those who claim they are nothing but greedy, amoral corporate tools. I don't think I even need to add anything to this one. If this is the kind of thinking that gets you charged up by all means rush out and get this book.

If you're unsatisfied with Republican abuse of power, then don't expect the Democrats to save the day with an even more powerful government on which the people are even more dependent. That's the unifying theme of this insightful overview of libertarianism.

Do you ever wonder what's in the Patriot Act? Do you ever wonder why the Democratic Party, for all its railing against statist Republican policies, did little to oppose them, and why the Democrat-controlled congress does little to curtail them? The answers may surprise you.

This book goes a long way toward exploding many of the common misconceptions about libertarians, in particular, that they are conservatives. Libertarians are liberals, as evidenced by the fact that they primarily value the liberty and well-being of the individual. However, libertarians differ from statist liberals (largely represented by the Democratic Party), who believe that the greatest threat to individual liberty is from corporations and from other individuals. Walsh argues, convincingly, that both history and economics support the view that the much greater threat to individual liberty is from the government itself (whether democratically elected or not), and moreover, that the framers of the United States Constitution were keenly aware of this.

Chapter by chapter, we see the relevance of this debate to contemporary issues, and how libertarianism offers pragmatic solutions.

Walsh's arguments are eloquent and passionate, although not always convincing. (Even the most dyed-in-the-wool libertarian will find a thing or two to disagree with here.) But most importantly, this is a rare glimpse into the clear thinking of a true libertarian.

In its zeal to deemphasize the economics of libertarianism in favor of its principles, the book overlooks the crucially important point that the history of government intervention ostensibly to benefit the working class at the expense of corporations has largely had the opposite effect. The interested reader should consult Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.

Perhaps most striking are the proposals that this supposedly radical political viewpoint does *not* make. It does not advocate anarchy or the abolition of the federal reserve. It does not call for an end to intellectual property rights or anti-trust litigation. Even the Libertarian Party gets a well-deserved shunning. Ultimately, it all comes down to upholding sensible values.

The terrorist attacks of 2001 have been much less dangerous to the average American than the massive government grab for power that happened in the succeeding months. The author asserts that liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican no longer apply. The new designation should be statist/libertarian.

Libertarians believe that liberty is about fundamental rights, while statists feel that liberty is about quality of life. Libertarians feel that self-ownership is vital to human dignity; government should adopt a laissez-faire attitude as much as possible. Statists believe in a powerful central government that delivers quality of life to the people. This book explores a number of present-day political issues from a libertarian perspective.

The right to privacy is an important check on the power of the state. It should be the right of every citizen to have, or not to have, a faith. But that does not mean that all mentions of religion should be removed from public life. Libertarians need to do a better job of convincing the public that an open-border policy and a vibrant immigrant population is a sign that the economy is growing and that a rising tide lifts everyone. Among the state's few, legitimate purposes is to ensure safety for its citizens. Risk-free existence is not possible, but steps can be taken to stop groups that will destroy the citizens of a free state if they get the chance. A proof that the Patriot Act is a bad law is that the best argument by its defenders is that it is not used as often as people think. The state should get out of the marriage business; offer civil unions to any qualifying couple and leave the granting of marriage to churches. Prohibitions of drugs like marijuana are a bad idea for several reasons: prohibiting the behavior of reasonable adults erodes self-ownership, passing laws that won't be enforced leads to a disregard for all laws, and laws that "send a message" misuse the state's powers and are redundant.

Perhaps it is time for a different way of looking at politics in America; the present system doesn't work very well. The author says that it is not easy to be a libertarian, but for those who are interested, this book is an excellent place to start. It is recommended for everyone, including that who simply want to know what libertarianism is all about.

The book gives a broad but shallow libertarian perspective on current events. I would have liked to have seen more historic context. On the plus side the book is well written and organized.

When the Founding Fathers started the United States of America, they had a strong notion of what liberty meant. It meant freedoms and rights; but it also meant taking responsibility for your beliefs and actions. They expected every American to balance these rights and responsibilities in his heart and in his life. We've drifted such a long way from that....
This book gives you a road map for getting back to those strong notions. Walsh explains the rights that Americans should expect--and the responsibilites they should accept. He makes it really clear.
I've read lots of books about politics and society but I've never read one that puts things so well. In such a balanced way.
To me, libertarians have always seemed like a kind of wacky and extreme group. But this book isn't wacky at all.
I don't know anything about James Walsh. But why isn't he better known in mainstream political circles?

I do not know why anyone would buy this book. The author's views are just ultra right-wing. He makes Ron Paul look like a moderate. I hear this author on NH radio and he is SICK! Save your money.

I have been listening to this guys radio show for a couple of months now and have also checked out his web page [...] and really find this man to be thinker who is completely outside the box. In reading this book Mr. Goldsmith discusses current political events in an entertaining way while pointing out just how far away our government has moved away from the very document in which our country was founded. I think the people who dispise this book or who try to label it as extreme right wing are people who don't fully understand the principles from whichg this country is founded on. For the record this book blasts both Democrats and Republicans for the unconstitutional bills which they create and taking away of OUR LIBERTIES. The main message I got from this is that it's still WE THE PEOPLE who can take back our country if enough of us wake up and choose to so. I challenge anyone to read this and feel the spirit of his words---the words of our forefathers echoing through him for us.

I am very pleased with this book. The mix of essays keep the political banter confined to small chunks. Perfect for someone like me who prefers entertainment. Which is also offered at the end of the book.
A must read for those who want a glimpse into some liberty issues in the state of New Hampshire.

As a response to some of the comments, this book and the author are not "right-wing".
It is about freedom, true freedom. Politics is more than just left or right. Freedom is not confined into political parties or government. Live free or die, most Americans are choosing a slow socialist death.

Today I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Silly me, I thought we were free." I laughed and then it made me a little sad because I realized once again that we are not free. Gardner G. is certainly doing his part to promote and protect true freedom by putting together a smorgasbord of entertaining and enlightening stories that will help you understand and appreciate our current state of affairs. Buy this book, read it, and loan it to a friend when your done.

While on a road trip, during a visit to a friend's apartment in Colorado, she had a new copy of this book lying around, and I decided to pick it up and read it since she was at work and I had nothing else to do. Gardner Goldsmith is an excellent writer, and I love all of his and his father's essays. I didn't get to the fiction section of the book (I was only able to read the first 250-300 pages), but I'm sure it was just as excellent as the rest of Live Free or Die.

I may or may not be joining Gardner up in New Hampshire. I'm still on the fence with the whole Free State Project thing, but Gardner's book has done nothing but push me a little further onto the side of the FSP. Thanks, Gardner.