What do you think?
Rate this book
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom
In Liberty Defined, congressman and #1 New York Times bestselling author Ron Paul returns with his most provocative, comprehensive, and compelling arguments for personal freedom to date. The term "Liberty" is so commonly used in our country that it has become a mere cliché. But do we know what it means? What it promises? How it factors into our daily lives? And most importantly, can we recognize tyranny when it is sold to us disguised as a form of liberty? Dr. Paul writes that to believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions. It is the seed of America. This is a comprehensive guide to Dr. Paul's position on
325 pages, Audiobook
First published January 1, 2011
About the author
Ron Paul
92 books521 followersRepublican United States Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a physician, a bestselling author, and a former 2008 U.S. presidential candidate.
Originally from the Pittsburgh suburb of Green Tree, Pennsylvania, he studied at Duke University School of Medicine; after his 1961 graduation and a residency in obstetrics and gynecology, he became a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon, serving outside the Vietnam War zone. He later represented Texas districts in the U.S. House of Representatives (1976–1977, 1979–1985, and 1997–present). He entered the 1988 presidential election, running as the Libertarian nominee while remaining a registered Republican, and placed a distant third.
Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. He advocates a foreign policy of nonintervention, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, citing the dangers of foreign entanglements to national sovereignty. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax, scaling back government spending, abolishing most federal agencies, and removing military bases and troops from foreign soil; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, No Child Left Behind, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, and has introduced bills to negate Roe v. Wade, but affirms states' rights to regulate or ban abortion, rather than federal jurisdiction.
While Paul was a leading 2008 presidential candidate in some Republican straw polls, he saw substantially less support in landline opinion polls and in the actual primaries. Strong internet grassroots support was indicated by his popularity as a web search term, his lead in YouTube subscriptions, and, on December 16th 2007, the largest one-day fundraiser in U.S. political history, netting over $6 million in 24 hours through an independently organized effort. His book commenting on the presidential run, The Revolution: A Manifesto, became a bestseller immediately upon release and went on to be #1 on the New York Times nonfiction best sellers list.
Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."
Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests."
"There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles," added a congressional colleague. "Ron Paul is one of those few."
Originally from the Pittsburgh suburb of Green Tree, Pennsylvania, he studied at Duke University School of Medicine; after his 1961 graduation and a residency in obstetrics and gynecology, he became a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon, serving outside the Vietnam War zone. He later represented Texas districts in the U.S. House of Representatives (1976–1977, 1979–1985, and 1997–present). He entered the 1988 presidential election, running as the Libertarian nominee while remaining a registered Republican, and placed a distant third.
Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. He advocates a foreign policy of nonintervention, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, citing the dangers of foreign entanglements to national sovereignty. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax, scaling back government spending, abolishing most federal agencies, and removing military bases and troops from foreign soil; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, No Child Left Behind, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, and has introduced bills to negate Roe v. Wade, but affirms states' rights to regulate or ban abortion, rather than federal jurisdiction.
While Paul was a leading 2008 presidential candidate in some Republican straw polls, he saw substantially less support in landline opinion polls and in the actual primaries. Strong internet grassroots support was indicated by his popularity as a web search term, his lead in YouTube subscriptions, and, on December 16th 2007, the largest one-day fundraiser in U.S. political history, netting over $6 million in 24 hours through an independently organized effort. His book commenting on the presidential run, The Revolution: A Manifesto, became a bestseller immediately upon release and went on to be #1 on the New York Times nonfiction best sellers list.
Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."
Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests."
"There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles," added a congressional colleague. "Ron Paul is one of those few."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 265 reviews
December 16, 2015
I'd always written Paul off as a nutcase (looks like many reviews here that start that same way), but last Saturday I told a friend that Paul was probably the only candidate who would actually change the foundations of government.
After I said that the only conclusion I could come to is that I should read his recent book, which was refreshingly consistent and principled. I've never felt excited about a national politician, but I think Paul might be authentic and genuine enough for me to passionately support.
For those who voted for Obama under the assumption he'd change politics as is, Paul might be the exact candidate you were looking for. Paul's been preaching the same revolutionary ideas for decades, and his message is consistent: every issue is measured by the single standard of liberty (and by implication, love).
*His book doesn't have the old-man, rambly feel of his interviews, and that's good.
After I said that the only conclusion I could come to is that I should read his recent book, which was refreshingly consistent and principled. I've never felt excited about a national politician, but I think Paul might be authentic and genuine enough for me to passionately support.
For those who voted for Obama under the assumption he'd change politics as is, Paul might be the exact candidate you were looking for. Paul's been preaching the same revolutionary ideas for decades, and his message is consistent: every issue is measured by the single standard of liberty (and by implication, love).
*His book doesn't have the old-man, rambly feel of his interviews, and that's good.
June 19, 2011
In the run-up to any presidential election, it is not uncommon to see new books hit the market from the pens of those who are in the running. These books often take the form of memoirs, introducing readers to the candidates on a more personal level; at other times a politician will actually put in writing what he or she intends to do if elected. While I have nothing against biographies, I prefer the more policy-oriented texts from those who desire my vote.
Thankfully, Ron Paul’s books tend to fall into this latter category, and his latest is no exception. This book is quite different from his previous works, though. In it he writes more broadly, outlining his views on a wide variety of topics (arranged alphabetically from “Abortion” to “Zionism”) rather than focusing on a single topic à la End the Fed. This book will serve well as an introduction to Dr. Paul, whose message continues to gain popular support, though it has remained remarkably consistent through over 30 years of public service.
Rather than comment on the individual “essential issues”, I wanted to analyze Paul’s political philosophy as a whole, based on the arguments presented in this book. To do this, I asked three important questions that would help me (and perhaps others) decide whether this is a man I would support for President. The questions:
1. Is his policy consistent?
2. Are his objectives desirable?
3. Can it work?
Consistency
Nobody likes a flip-flopper. Often a politician will hold a position on an issue so long as it is politically convenient, only to switch positions later. Sometimes this happens because he or she is too easily swayed by special interest groups or popular conventional wisdom (which is often no wisdom at all). Other times, it happens because a candidate’s political vision has no logical internal consistency. When politicians have supported positions that are mutually exclusive or policies that are working toward opposing ends, they eventually must backtrack.
One thing that struck me when reading this book was how consistent Paul’s logic is. On every issue his position is well thought out, clearly articulated, and organized around one central objective. His introduction says of this book and of his philosophy in general: “Above all, the theme is liberty. The goal is liberty.” Paul desires a government that exists solely to maximize personal liberty, and his commitment to his ideas has been unwaivering, even when they are very unpopular.
Love him or hate him, at least you know what you’re getting with Ron Paul.
Desirability
Of course, it’s possible for someone’s logic to be perfectly consistent yet still be based on undesirable objectives or false premises. So a reader (or voter) must ask: Do I want what Ron Paul wants?
On the surface, most everyone would agree that freedom is a good thing. Few would say that they desire less liberty. However, when it comes to personal responsibility — the flip side of the freedom coin — objections begin to be raised.
Ron Paul would have lovers of liberty realize that a government that allows its citizens the freedom to succeed must also allow them to be free to make poor choices and be responsible for their consequences. In business, this means letting companies fail (no matter how large or small) as the market regulates itself. Paul is an enthusiastic proponent of the “Austrian School” of economics. In his words, “the Austrian School champions private property, free markets, sound money, and the liberal society generally”.
What does the “liberal society” look like? Protecting individual freedom, according to this model, requires the federal government to be involved as little as possible in the lives of citizens, which necessitates a willingness to let individuals fail should their free choices result in harm to themselves. Thus, Paul is in favor of deregulating things like drugs and prostitution, while ending government welfare, unemployment, and a host of other programs that keep citizens reliant on the State.
Far from being a compassion-less society, this is a society that makes it easier for those in need to receive aid from family, friends, neighbors, religious organizations, and other local sources, which are far better suited to meet needs. Of course, this also leaves the responsibility for meeting those needs in the hands of compassionate individuals and communities, which is why our Founding Fathers were so insistent that a free society rested entirely on the morality of its people.
Two areas in which Paul encounters much resistance are products of his consistent approach to the size of the government. His philosophy of limited government requires ending the monopoly on education held by nationalized schools, and drastically scaling back the single largest hub of federal power and spending: the military. Strangely, many of the biggest proponents of free markets (who tend to support Paul’s economic policies) are also staunch supporters of public schooling and military empiricism — two things that inhibit market freedom more than nearly anything else. So people tend to look less favorably on Paul’s positions on competition for schooling and non-interventionist foreign policy.
Even in areas where people disagree with Paul, his arguments are compelling. Citizens from all points on the political spectrum owe it to themselves to consider Paul’s case. At the end of the day, though, your agreement with him will depend on how much freedom you really want (and want others to have). Real liberty, almost totally free from government regulation, can be a scary thing. Are we ready for that kind of responsibility?
Feasibility
Having considered his objectives, what about the premises on which Paul’s philosophy is based? One of the primary critiques of classical liberalism/libertarianism has long been that it is based on a Utopian fantasy; that it sounds good in theory, but can’t work in practice. Is this true?
In some senses, yes, it is true. The “Great American Experiment” (as Alexis de Toqueville called it) which sought to provide liberty for all was an imperfect system because it counted on the morality of sinful people. But the founders of that political system, which Paul seeks to reclaim for America, acknowledged its imperfection and made provision for compensating for Man’s inherent sinfulness by giving us a very limited government with many checks and balances, codified in the Constitution and protected by a Bill of Rights.
Besides, political systems are not to be judged against perfection, but against their competing alternatives (a point fleshed out by Jay Richards in Money, Greed, and God). There is no such thing as a “perfect” human government. So if one agrees that Ron Paul’s objectives are better than the alternatives, the proper question is whether it is achievable.
Paul’s book contains a mix of optimism and pragmatism. While he truly believes that his policies would work, he realizes that implementing them immediately would be too drastic a change from where we are now. Thus, he suggests several practical intermediate solutions that are steps in the right direction, which could be done upon his election (for instance, seeking to give public schools over to local control, rather than eliminating public schooling altogether).
Whether it could work may be moot, however. Unless more Americans come around to Ron Paul’s way of thinking, we may never get a chance to see whether his policies can work in 21st-century America. Even if he is never elected, though (and he is considered a long shot for the White House), Paul will not consider his endeavor a failure. He writes as a modern-day Cicero; hopeful to help save the Republic, but committed to passing on a legacy of ideas to educate future generations about the blessings of liberty and peace and a system of government that honors the rule of law. Should the United States prove to have passed the point of no return with regard to the loss of personal liberty, Paul hopes that his message will help preserve the vision of the founders of our nation to be revived again some day.
So, can Ron Paul’s policies work? I suppose that depends on whether or not one believes that America has crossed her Rubicon.
This is a book every politically interested citizen should read.
Thankfully, Ron Paul’s books tend to fall into this latter category, and his latest is no exception. This book is quite different from his previous works, though. In it he writes more broadly, outlining his views on a wide variety of topics (arranged alphabetically from “Abortion” to “Zionism”) rather than focusing on a single topic à la End the Fed. This book will serve well as an introduction to Dr. Paul, whose message continues to gain popular support, though it has remained remarkably consistent through over 30 years of public service.
Rather than comment on the individual “essential issues”, I wanted to analyze Paul’s political philosophy as a whole, based on the arguments presented in this book. To do this, I asked three important questions that would help me (and perhaps others) decide whether this is a man I would support for President. The questions:
1. Is his policy consistent?
2. Are his objectives desirable?
3. Can it work?
Consistency
Nobody likes a flip-flopper. Often a politician will hold a position on an issue so long as it is politically convenient, only to switch positions later. Sometimes this happens because he or she is too easily swayed by special interest groups or popular conventional wisdom (which is often no wisdom at all). Other times, it happens because a candidate’s political vision has no logical internal consistency. When politicians have supported positions that are mutually exclusive or policies that are working toward opposing ends, they eventually must backtrack.
One thing that struck me when reading this book was how consistent Paul’s logic is. On every issue his position is well thought out, clearly articulated, and organized around one central objective. His introduction says of this book and of his philosophy in general: “Above all, the theme is liberty. The goal is liberty.” Paul desires a government that exists solely to maximize personal liberty, and his commitment to his ideas has been unwaivering, even when they are very unpopular.
Love him or hate him, at least you know what you’re getting with Ron Paul.
Desirability
Of course, it’s possible for someone’s logic to be perfectly consistent yet still be based on undesirable objectives or false premises. So a reader (or voter) must ask: Do I want what Ron Paul wants?
On the surface, most everyone would agree that freedom is a good thing. Few would say that they desire less liberty. However, when it comes to personal responsibility — the flip side of the freedom coin — objections begin to be raised.
Ron Paul would have lovers of liberty realize that a government that allows its citizens the freedom to succeed must also allow them to be free to make poor choices and be responsible for their consequences. In business, this means letting companies fail (no matter how large or small) as the market regulates itself. Paul is an enthusiastic proponent of the “Austrian School” of economics. In his words, “the Austrian School champions private property, free markets, sound money, and the liberal society generally”.
What does the “liberal society” look like? Protecting individual freedom, according to this model, requires the federal government to be involved as little as possible in the lives of citizens, which necessitates a willingness to let individuals fail should their free choices result in harm to themselves. Thus, Paul is in favor of deregulating things like drugs and prostitution, while ending government welfare, unemployment, and a host of other programs that keep citizens reliant on the State.
Far from being a compassion-less society, this is a society that makes it easier for those in need to receive aid from family, friends, neighbors, religious organizations, and other local sources, which are far better suited to meet needs. Of course, this also leaves the responsibility for meeting those needs in the hands of compassionate individuals and communities, which is why our Founding Fathers were so insistent that a free society rested entirely on the morality of its people.
Two areas in which Paul encounters much resistance are products of his consistent approach to the size of the government. His philosophy of limited government requires ending the monopoly on education held by nationalized schools, and drastically scaling back the single largest hub of federal power and spending: the military. Strangely, many of the biggest proponents of free markets (who tend to support Paul’s economic policies) are also staunch supporters of public schooling and military empiricism — two things that inhibit market freedom more than nearly anything else. So people tend to look less favorably on Paul’s positions on competition for schooling and non-interventionist foreign policy.
Even in areas where people disagree with Paul, his arguments are compelling. Citizens from all points on the political spectrum owe it to themselves to consider Paul’s case. At the end of the day, though, your agreement with him will depend on how much freedom you really want (and want others to have). Real liberty, almost totally free from government regulation, can be a scary thing. Are we ready for that kind of responsibility?
Feasibility
Having considered his objectives, what about the premises on which Paul’s philosophy is based? One of the primary critiques of classical liberalism/libertarianism has long been that it is based on a Utopian fantasy; that it sounds good in theory, but can’t work in practice. Is this true?
In some senses, yes, it is true. The “Great American Experiment” (as Alexis de Toqueville called it) which sought to provide liberty for all was an imperfect system because it counted on the morality of sinful people. But the founders of that political system, which Paul seeks to reclaim for America, acknowledged its imperfection and made provision for compensating for Man’s inherent sinfulness by giving us a very limited government with many checks and balances, codified in the Constitution and protected by a Bill of Rights.
Besides, political systems are not to be judged against perfection, but against their competing alternatives (a point fleshed out by Jay Richards in Money, Greed, and God). There is no such thing as a “perfect” human government. So if one agrees that Ron Paul’s objectives are better than the alternatives, the proper question is whether it is achievable.
Paul’s book contains a mix of optimism and pragmatism. While he truly believes that his policies would work, he realizes that implementing them immediately would be too drastic a change from where we are now. Thus, he suggests several practical intermediate solutions that are steps in the right direction, which could be done upon his election (for instance, seeking to give public schools over to local control, rather than eliminating public schooling altogether).
Whether it could work may be moot, however. Unless more Americans come around to Ron Paul’s way of thinking, we may never get a chance to see whether his policies can work in 21st-century America. Even if he is never elected, though (and he is considered a long shot for the White House), Paul will not consider his endeavor a failure. He writes as a modern-day Cicero; hopeful to help save the Republic, but committed to passing on a legacy of ideas to educate future generations about the blessings of liberty and peace and a system of government that honors the rule of law. Should the United States prove to have passed the point of no return with regard to the loss of personal liberty, Paul hopes that his message will help preserve the vision of the founders of our nation to be revived again some day.
So, can Ron Paul’s policies work? I suppose that depends on whether or not one believes that America has crossed her Rubicon.
This is a book every politically interested citizen should read.
May 15, 2011
"I certainly agree that every so often, after long periods of apathy, when the people, driven by architects of fear, have plunged into dependency, agitators have their day. That which has been ignored and scorned bursts forward with sudden credibility and offers an alternative to the failed ideas that bred and nourished a tyrannical government. Though great agitators for liberty in past centuries have struggled to keep the spirit alive, the climate looks quite healthy for significant and fruitful social and political changes to come out of hibernation. We all need to become agitators for liberty, else we end up in a permanent state of slavery." pg 264-65
This book records Rep. Pauls thoughts on 50 issues that affect our freedom. A-Z from Abortion to Zionism. Each subject garners 3-10 pages on average. Because there are short answers given within each section theres a listing of additional books that cover the sections in depth. If I were to discuss a few chapters that I thought were most important, I'd have to say all the ones on government intrusion. They can only intrude because they can print, borrow and steal money from the taxpayer. Most problems would be solved by closing the fed, and going to a flat or fair tax. Though all politicians swear to uphold the constitution there may only be 1 that does, and he's the author.
There is the far left, communists if you will, and far right or anarchists, Ron would be a few steps to the left of the anarchist understanding that the government provides some things of use. The best thing for the individual is a small government that stays out of the way, unless they are to protect us from a foreigh invader. Ron says that people have been brainwashed for so long that it will take a constant message in our ear plus the reality of failed policies of the republicans and democrats. When you go to the polls in 2012 are you for liberty or statism, the collective or the individual, the constitution or the unending laws of an inept congress and our King.
This book records Rep. Pauls thoughts on 50 issues that affect our freedom. A-Z from Abortion to Zionism. Each subject garners 3-10 pages on average. Because there are short answers given within each section theres a listing of additional books that cover the sections in depth. If I were to discuss a few chapters that I thought were most important, I'd have to say all the ones on government intrusion. They can only intrude because they can print, borrow and steal money from the taxpayer. Most problems would be solved by closing the fed, and going to a flat or fair tax. Though all politicians swear to uphold the constitution there may only be 1 that does, and he's the author.
There is the far left, communists if you will, and far right or anarchists, Ron would be a few steps to the left of the anarchist understanding that the government provides some things of use. The best thing for the individual is a small government that stays out of the way, unless they are to protect us from a foreigh invader. Ron says that people have been brainwashed for so long that it will take a constant message in our ear plus the reality of failed policies of the republicans and democrats. When you go to the polls in 2012 are you for liberty or statism, the collective or the individual, the constitution or the unending laws of an inept congress and our King.
November 24, 2011
Amazon review:
Ron Paul continues the noble tradition of founders and thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke, James Burnham and Patrick Buchanan in social-political conditions of the 21st Century. The book is written in lucid, vital and free flowing style without any convoluted jargon.
The stage is set in contemporary America, and the intended audiences are likely the young indoctrinated subservient Americans, victims of Washington DC. This book could be the conservative bible for next two decades to effect political renewal of a tired, beaten and declining America. It deals with Paul's unique approach as a practicing Christian, a conservative libertarian and a citizen statesman. The amoral and utopian aspects of left-libertarianism are absent in this book.
Indeed the word libertarian has been mentioned only 6 times in the text. In comparison, the word moral has been mentioned a good 109 times, and "liberty" occurs 191 times. The book emphasizes the true essence of Christianity and Christ as the prince of peace, not a messenger of aggressive/deceitful secular wars.
The writing is universal in its appeal so that a person from China, India, Africa, Islamic World or Europe will naturally relate to its contents. It defines the true meaning of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the three principles of humanity. It is applicable to all human societies and aggregates, not just America. It shows the essence of conservatism and social order and extensively deals with liberty's relationship with morality, religion and ethics.
Ron Paul continues the noble tradition of founders and thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke, James Burnham and Patrick Buchanan in social-political conditions of the 21st Century. The book is written in lucid, vital and free flowing style without any convoluted jargon.
The stage is set in contemporary America, and the intended audiences are likely the young indoctrinated subservient Americans, victims of Washington DC. This book could be the conservative bible for next two decades to effect political renewal of a tired, beaten and declining America. It deals with Paul's unique approach as a practicing Christian, a conservative libertarian and a citizen statesman. The amoral and utopian aspects of left-libertarianism are absent in this book.
Indeed the word libertarian has been mentioned only 6 times in the text. In comparison, the word moral has been mentioned a good 109 times, and "liberty" occurs 191 times. The book emphasizes the true essence of Christianity and Christ as the prince of peace, not a messenger of aggressive/deceitful secular wars.
The writing is universal in its appeal so that a person from China, India, Africa, Islamic World or Europe will naturally relate to its contents. It defines the true meaning of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the three principles of humanity. It is applicable to all human societies and aggregates, not just America. It shows the essence of conservatism and social order and extensively deals with liberty's relationship with morality, religion and ethics.
May 18, 2011
Without a doubt the best political book I've read in a long time. It is difficult to address 50 topics as complex as the ones Dr. Paul addresses here in full detail but you definitely get a clear picture of his thought process and stance on the subject matter. He covers everything from Abortion to Israel and his message and his theme are consistant throughout.
We have become a nation no longer focused on Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but a nation focused on winning. Democrats vs. Republicans, Christians vs. Islam, Pro-life vs. Right to chose. Ironically we don't seem to fit into these categories logically. The lines are drawn by those who "Demagogue" the issues. Those that make the pro choice argument don't seem to apply the same logic when it comes to other personal choices. Those that want religious freedom don't seem want to defend others religions. Those that want to save money on welfare don't seem to want to save money military. Each side is serving its political machine vs. making smart choices that can benefit everyone.
The message is clear. Giving the government too much control creates a market for those that would use that control for their own benefit. Wether those people are lobbyist or gullible politicians. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting over whats for dinner. Our original constitution was not a promise to deliver us from want. It was a blueprint for a Republic to give protection to the small and weak from the power and tyranny of the strong and or many.
A message summed up by "Love your Neighbor as yourself" a message supposedly shared by all the major religions of the world.
Notable mentions:
lewrockwell.com
mises.org
antiwar.com
campaignforliberty.com
We have become a nation no longer focused on Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but a nation focused on winning. Democrats vs. Republicans, Christians vs. Islam, Pro-life vs. Right to chose. Ironically we don't seem to fit into these categories logically. The lines are drawn by those who "Demagogue" the issues. Those that make the pro choice argument don't seem to apply the same logic when it comes to other personal choices. Those that want religious freedom don't seem want to defend others religions. Those that want to save money on welfare don't seem to want to save money military. Each side is serving its political machine vs. making smart choices that can benefit everyone.
The message is clear. Giving the government too much control creates a market for those that would use that control for their own benefit. Wether those people are lobbyist or gullible politicians. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting over whats for dinner. Our original constitution was not a promise to deliver us from want. It was a blueprint for a Republic to give protection to the small and weak from the power and tyranny of the strong and or many.
A message summed up by "Love your Neighbor as yourself" a message supposedly shared by all the major religions of the world.
Notable mentions:
lewrockwell.com
mises.org
antiwar.com
campaignforliberty.com
July 11, 2011
So far ( i'm about 2/3 thru his book), Dr.Paul has managed to write an entire book, and not say a whole lot. He's a pacifist at best, and a tad bit looney at worst. He makes outlandish comparisons and doesn't bother to back them up. While I agree with his main assertion that our Federal Government has gotten much too big and strayed from its Constitutionally enumerated powers, his views on how best to correct that seem laughable and at times not dealing with the reality we are faced with. Being an idealist doesn't solve problems and I don't see anything he brings to the table that would actually solve the problems effectively. That said, maybe he will drop a bombshell on me at the end. I'll keep reading, and waiting to see, what, if anything he offers.
June 13, 2011
“Let us give up our longing for welfare, our love of war, and our desire to see the government control and shape our fellow citizens. Let us understand that it is far better to live in an imperfect world than it is to live in a despotic world ruled by people who lord it over us through force and intimidation. We need a new understanding of what it means to be a great nation; it should mean, as George Washington said, that our nation is a beacon unto the world, not that we conquer the world militarily, impose our will on everyone, or even remain number one in the GDP rankings. Our sense of what it means to be great must defined first by morality.”
So Ron Paul states in the afterword of his most recent book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. All Americans should read this book! Paul takes us on an A-Z journey of issues that affect the world and in every one he gives his freedom loving perspective. You may not agree with Paul on every issue, but I guarantee there are very few people out there that are as reasoned and read in their own positions. Discounting him as a crazy old man is in no way accurate, it does more to insult your own intelligence than to detract from his message. America needs more Ron Pauls, not less.
So Ron Paul states in the afterword of his most recent book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. All Americans should read this book! Paul takes us on an A-Z journey of issues that affect the world and in every one he gives his freedom loving perspective. You may not agree with Paul on every issue, but I guarantee there are very few people out there that are as reasoned and read in their own positions. Discounting him as a crazy old man is in no way accurate, it does more to insult your own intelligence than to detract from his message. America needs more Ron Pauls, not less.
May 16, 2011
Dr. Paul hits the nail on the head once more. I love Ron Paul, and I love all that he stands for. This is a MUST read before voting in the primaries. I can't say enough good things about Ron Paul or this book.
May 19, 2011
I once heard Ron Paul say, "You can't have liberty in pieces." Say what you want about Ron Paul, but he is consistent -- a rarity among those inside the Capitol Beltway.
November 23, 2011
I think I might go Libertarian for awhile
November 5, 2021
This is the third of Ron Paul's books I've read, and arguably the least inspiring of them. While it may be somewhat optimistic in tone, its bullet-point style makes this far more political, as opposed to ideological. It recognizes many of the most central problems of American life, but places the blame on government nearly exclusively and argues for capitalist solutions. It is a call to action to support a libertarian vision of freedom, with the thesis that an imperfect world is still better than a despotic one.
Paul is something of a contrarian, and contrarians of all stripes will appreciate this work. It forces its audiences to reconsider their views in varying lights, promoting critical thinking above all. Paul takes rare and unpopular opinions, such as opposing bipartisan compromise and supporting gridlock, but provides novel arguments for his points. In this collection of lightly related essays, Paul makes a compelling case against fear and for a freer future. And with a great grasp of history on topics like drug prohibition, you may be happy coming along for the ride.
There is a lot that is arguably problematic about Paul's book, however. He gives credence to the idea of voter fraud, scarier now after January 6th, and criticizes even basic tenets of democracy. He doesn't fully accept evolution, nor does he believe the scientific consensus on climate change. Arguing against "forced integration," affirmative action, and hate crime legislation, there's a prickly approach to race too, exacerbated by the knowledge Paul was once in trouble for a racist email list. (Perhaps I'm just one of the "anti-discrimination fanatics" Paul describes.) Paul is nearly equally critical of liberals and conservatives, but sometimes it feels like he's just being critical of progress.
I would be hard-pressed to argue this book will considerably change someone's mind. If one supports gun control, unions, the minimum wage, or any degree of political correctness, they will find their views opposed by Paul. However, people of all stripes will also likely find some of their views orienting toward liberty: Paul is as ardent an anti-imperialist as any leftist and as vocally anti-choice on abortion as any conservative. If you love this country but don't always love its government, you'll appreciate his basic sentiment: "Patriotism is about standing up to the government when the government is wrong." For libertarians, contrarians, and those looking to expand their liberty-oriented minds, this is an imperfect and flawed tome that you might appreciate.
Paul is something of a contrarian, and contrarians of all stripes will appreciate this work. It forces its audiences to reconsider their views in varying lights, promoting critical thinking above all. Paul takes rare and unpopular opinions, such as opposing bipartisan compromise and supporting gridlock, but provides novel arguments for his points. In this collection of lightly related essays, Paul makes a compelling case against fear and for a freer future. And with a great grasp of history on topics like drug prohibition, you may be happy coming along for the ride.
There is a lot that is arguably problematic about Paul's book, however. He gives credence to the idea of voter fraud, scarier now after January 6th, and criticizes even basic tenets of democracy. He doesn't fully accept evolution, nor does he believe the scientific consensus on climate change. Arguing against "forced integration," affirmative action, and hate crime legislation, there's a prickly approach to race too, exacerbated by the knowledge Paul was once in trouble for a racist email list. (Perhaps I'm just one of the "anti-discrimination fanatics" Paul describes.) Paul is nearly equally critical of liberals and conservatives, but sometimes it feels like he's just being critical of progress.
I would be hard-pressed to argue this book will considerably change someone's mind. If one supports gun control, unions, the minimum wage, or any degree of political correctness, they will find their views opposed by Paul. However, people of all stripes will also likely find some of their views orienting toward liberty: Paul is as ardent an anti-imperialist as any leftist and as vocally anti-choice on abortion as any conservative. If you love this country but don't always love its government, you'll appreciate his basic sentiment: "Patriotism is about standing up to the government when the government is wrong." For libertarians, contrarians, and those looking to expand their liberty-oriented minds, this is an imperfect and flawed tome that you might appreciate.
November 18, 2020
Good thoughts on liberty and the importance of a small government.
Best quotes:
“Patriotism never demands obedience to the state but rather obedience to the principles of liberty.”
“Moderates are somehow convinced that they are the saviors of the country, rescuing us all from the effects of philosophical differences. In fact, philosophical differences are healthy because they lead to the clarification of principles. Genuine progress is going to require more confrontation, partisanship, and serious and honest discussion of the truth about government, the economy, and every sector of American life.”
Best quotes:
“Patriotism never demands obedience to the state but rather obedience to the principles of liberty.”
“Moderates are somehow convinced that they are the saviors of the country, rescuing us all from the effects of philosophical differences. In fact, philosophical differences are healthy because they lead to the clarification of principles. Genuine progress is going to require more confrontation, partisanship, and serious and honest discussion of the truth about government, the economy, and every sector of American life.”
August 31, 2011
For a book attempting to define liberty, the defintion liberty he comes up with is quite limited, and only refers to the liberty that wealth provides.
(also, it's been a while since i read it, so i may not get every single thing right)
For example, in his chapter on world trade, he laughs off the biggest humanitarian objection to free world trade , which is that free world trade funds sweat shop labor in foreign countries with less labor laws than us. After describing it as "slavery," he says it's really nothing o worry abou because their working conditions are better in China now than they were under strict Communist rule (China is the only country he gives an example of, by the way, not Indonesia, not the Philippines - he only mentions a country where he can play the Communist card). Liberty? Not unless you own the sweatshop, import sweatshop projects or buy the sweatshop products - not unless your (relatively) wealthy.
And While his chapter on immigration shows the ideal libertarian concept of an open border and that a big challenge to that is the crime coming of the border of mexico (a very good point) One part of the chapter approaches but misses the point that land owners rights (rights of the wealthy) can truly oppress rights of others. He says that if every bit of land in America was privately owned, illegal immigrants couldn't come in because they were trespassing on private property. This shows a huge problem in his definition of liberty. Is not freedom of movement a part of liberty? Not according to Paul. Every movement by every immigrant, citizen or even tourist would have to be according to the land owner's rules. "Liberty" is not the word I'd use to describe this.
Other problems with this book include:
-The only threat to liberty he accepts is the federal government.
-He ignores most bad things that happened in America in the 19th century - he mentions the Native American genocide at one point, i forget where, but ignores it in his chapter about Public Land.
-He doesn't seem to question if the Founding Fathers were really worth idolizing. After all they tolerated slavery or owned slaves, and didn't mind commiting genocide and stealing land to make the U.S. a bigger country.
-He doesn't look at other countries with small governments that abuse human rights (say, Cambodia), or countries with welfare states that don't have a U.S.-style foreign policy (Norway)
So read the book. I recommend it. it's illuminating of the Libertarian viewpoint, it's well-written and it will get you thinking. But take everything he says with an altruistic grain of salt.
(also, it's been a while since i read it, so i may not get every single thing right)
For example, in his chapter on world trade, he laughs off the biggest humanitarian objection to free world trade , which is that free world trade funds sweat shop labor in foreign countries with less labor laws than us. After describing it as "slavery," he says it's really nothing o worry abou because their working conditions are better in China now than they were under strict Communist rule (China is the only country he gives an example of, by the way, not Indonesia, not the Philippines - he only mentions a country where he can play the Communist card). Liberty? Not unless you own the sweatshop, import sweatshop projects or buy the sweatshop products - not unless your (relatively) wealthy.
And While his chapter on immigration shows the ideal libertarian concept of an open border and that a big challenge to that is the crime coming of the border of mexico (a very good point) One part of the chapter approaches but misses the point that land owners rights (rights of the wealthy) can truly oppress rights of others. He says that if every bit of land in America was privately owned, illegal immigrants couldn't come in because they were trespassing on private property. This shows a huge problem in his definition of liberty. Is not freedom of movement a part of liberty? Not according to Paul. Every movement by every immigrant, citizen or even tourist would have to be according to the land owner's rules. "Liberty" is not the word I'd use to describe this.
Other problems with this book include:
-The only threat to liberty he accepts is the federal government.
-He ignores most bad things that happened in America in the 19th century - he mentions the Native American genocide at one point, i forget where, but ignores it in his chapter about Public Land.
-He doesn't seem to question if the Founding Fathers were really worth idolizing. After all they tolerated slavery or owned slaves, and didn't mind commiting genocide and stealing land to make the U.S. a bigger country.
-He doesn't look at other countries with small governments that abuse human rights (say, Cambodia), or countries with welfare states that don't have a U.S.-style foreign policy (Norway)
So read the book. I recommend it. it's illuminating of the Libertarian viewpoint, it's well-written and it will get you thinking. But take everything he says with an altruistic grain of salt.
June 3, 2011
If I totally agree with anyone who writes political analysis, there is a problem. I never expect to be in lock-step agreement with a politician, and even ones that I detest, I can usually salvage a few points of agreement. In the case of Dr. Paul's latest book, I found myself in about 90 percent agreement with his views. He does a very sound job at covering liberty defined, and laying out points that one can focus upon when doing a litmus test for liberty.
My complaint with Dr. Paul is that he does a great job stating what the problems are with this nation, but is not very assertive when it comes to what to do about them. It is nice to have an active politician not be in denial and to be able to point to the proverbial elephant in the parlor, but as far as a game plan to rid the house of the pachyderm, he is quite ineffectual.
His views on nuclear power and the environment are a bit frightening to me, but factoring in his age and his background, I am not terribly surprised. For things like that, it is nice that we have checks and balances or at least the illusion thereof.
Would he make a good president? Who knows. I am so jaded politically, that apathy and distrust comes with any possibility. I am hopeful that this book will encourage dialogue and educate folks who are not in the loop of current events in this country. As long as the loop isn't used as a noose, there will always be another day.
My complaint with Dr. Paul is that he does a great job stating what the problems are with this nation, but is not very assertive when it comes to what to do about them. It is nice to have an active politician not be in denial and to be able to point to the proverbial elephant in the parlor, but as far as a game plan to rid the house of the pachyderm, he is quite ineffectual.
His views on nuclear power and the environment are a bit frightening to me, but factoring in his age and his background, I am not terribly surprised. For things like that, it is nice that we have checks and balances or at least the illusion thereof.
Would he make a good president? Who knows. I am so jaded politically, that apathy and distrust comes with any possibility. I am hopeful that this book will encourage dialogue and educate folks who are not in the loop of current events in this country. As long as the loop isn't used as a noose, there will always be another day.
June 21, 2016
a few weeks ago I read Ron Paul's Liberty, Defined, which works out what liberty entails in the 21st century. For the author, it is nothing less than the golden rule applied to politics, and he uses fifty issues floating around in the sewage tank of American political debate as examples. These range from abortion to Zionism, with less controversial fare in between. The subjects are alphabetical, without any other structure, which makes it less a definitive argument for liberty and more a collection of policy papers. There are no surprises for someone who is familiar with Ron Paul's reputation as a staunch libertarian: naturally, he is against an over-mighty executive, against constantly deploying the military to police other nations, and against burdensome taxes and irresponsible legislation. Because of the arrangement, it's hard to imagine a man off the street picking up the book and reading it through -- what's the hook? I went for it because I knew the author, but because I was familiar with the author, nothing in here was really new.
August 16, 2011
50 essential issues is a lot of issues, as a friend of mine pointed out in a TIC sort of way. And she was right. In his attempt to find and indentify/discuss 50 issues, Ron Paul spent a good bit of time repeating himself. That said, it was an interesting read if taken in small doses of 4-5 issues at a time. I identify and agree with a lot what Paul discusses in this book, even if there are a few things I disagree with completely or only agree with to a certain point. People on the left and the right like to throw out the term "kook" when discussing Paul, but the truth is that he's not afraid to speak his mind and he's just as likely to fall on the same side with Democrats on an issue as he is with Republicans. Translation... he's got balls the size of melons and people on both sides of the aisle don't like him because he won't side with either one of them consistently. That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
May 17, 2011
Who is Ron Paul? The answer lies in this book. If I were asked to write a list of book recommendations for those seeking liberty - this would be number one on that list!
A quick read. The short chapters provide easy entry and exit points for readers on the go.
My only complaint is that it is a bit repetitive at times within each subject, however, I can see how it serves as building blocks for the title's foundation, as well as proving that most everything in politics is never a single-issue matter.
A quick read. The short chapters provide easy entry and exit points for readers on the go.
My only complaint is that it is a bit repetitive at times within each subject, however, I can see how it serves as building blocks for the title's foundation, as well as proving that most everything in politics is never a single-issue matter.
March 4, 2019
Ron Paul was my first true liberty hero. I’ve been a huge fan since 2009. Reading this book was like Ron Paul speaking to my internal choir. It is an easy reference guide, with topics going in alphabetical order. You can quickly refer to it when you’re in debates and discussions with others. I love how Ron Paul references personal experiences and quotes of other liberty heroes in the book. I can’t wait to read his other books!!
May 16, 2011
Loves this book. I agree with virtually everything Ron Paul espouses and feel a little disheartened that it seems unattainable. His approach of spreading the ideas of individual liberty without violence but with persuasion helps to cast his message in a way that will hopefully win over more listeners and others who will help.
March 29, 2016
So good. I love Ron.
April 10, 2017
Ако не сте чели и една политическа книга и се чудите с какво да почнете, започнете с тази. Може да се окаже и единствената, от която имате нужда.
Бих нарекъл Рон Пол гений, но това не е точно така. Рон Пол е нещо като политическата версия на Братя Грим, събирайки на едно място най-доброто от своите и чуждите възгледи, идеи и идеали, представяйки ги на един разбираем и добре обяснен език.
Свободата, Санчо. Свободата или данъците...
Бих нарекъл Рон Пол гений, но това не е точно така. Рон Пол е нещо като политическата версия на Братя Грим, събирайки на едно място най-доброто от своите и чуждите възгледи, идеи и идеали, представяйки ги на един разбираем и добре обяснен език.
Свободата, Санчо. Свободата или данъците...
December 25, 2019
Great book that separates its chapters into ideas. This book can be read as a whole front to back or individually.
Dr. Pail has broken down the goals of what the founding fathers had in mind for every individual. This best framework that could be placed to work for all as a country to keep us all free.
Topics today used by the ever so growing government and how each of these individual liberties is used by government/politics to destroy and remove our RIGHTS!!!!!
This book is a wake up call place in a very simple format for anyone to grasp and read.
Those with no introduction into politics and freedom, to those with a more sophisticated knowledge base. Each will gain value from this book.
A must read for anyone. Especially if you find yourself like many without a solid base on your constitutional rights.
Dr. Pail has broken down the goals of what the founding fathers had in mind for every individual. This best framework that could be placed to work for all as a country to keep us all free.
Topics today used by the ever so growing government and how each of these individual liberties is used by government/politics to destroy and remove our RIGHTS!!!!!
This book is a wake up call place in a very simple format for anyone to grasp and read.
Those with no introduction into politics and freedom, to those with a more sophisticated knowledge base. Each will gain value from this book.
A must read for anyone. Especially if you find yourself like many without a solid base on your constitutional rights.
June 14, 2011
I liked this book alot, for a few reasons:
1) Ron Paul's stance is very, very clear on the 50 complex issues he presents here. And I agree with most, if not all of them. These issues are not easy to present, but he does so succinctly, relates it to our liberty as individuals, and then states his opinion on each one.
2) The format of the book makes it easy to get through. Anyone not completely enamored with politics, but wants an honest, real perspective of all the goings-on in Washington (like me), will be happy to read these short chapters. The longest is about 10 pages. Seriously. I can't read 20 pages about Keynesianism or trade policies without my eyes glazing over. Paul's chapters are just what he says government regulations should be - short and sweet.
And 3) These are issues we all need to know more about!! Most of us have no idea what goes on in Washington. Rarely do we get the truth from our government leaders. Our liberties are being taken away little by little.
Some thoughts I liked:
"A free society is based on a simple moral imperative. Everyone's life is his own, and the fruits of his labor should be his as well. No part of it belongs to the government as a matter of right. This right to life comes naturally to everyone, with the gift of liberty and the right to keep the fruits of one's labor. The most that should every be expected of government is to protect that liberty. That authority, gained by the explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. Consenting to a greater role for government violates the moral defense of freedom."
"This impossible notion that government can guarantee freedom from want and fear destroys the concept of liberty. Instead, it is the exact opposite. It claims that all individuals and groups have a right to whatever they want or need and it can be obtained by robbing from those who produce...Wants are endless and are unrelated to the definition of freedom...Since government never produces anything, its only option is to steal from one group and pass what it has stolen on to the next. Most people believe the people have a "right" to food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, and jobs. This misguided school of thought...is responsible for the poverty and economic suffering and wars that we are forced to live with...Any attempt to achieve the goal of "freedom from want" can only be done by the use of government force and at the sacrifice of personal liberty."
"The organic process of markets is the source of economic development. It's a loss of both confidence and understanding of how markets work that causes so many people to accept the need for government to provide us with goods and services. There should be no difference between the distribution of cell phones, computers, TVs, medical care or energy. It's amazing that people don't understand that the more the market is involved and the smaller the government, the lower the price, the better the distribution, and the higher the quality."
(with comments of my own...) "True deregulation of the insurance industry would legalize various options that would appeal to individuals who don't want to pay for care they do not need (like mandatory mental health insurance in WA!!??)...adjusting coverage to the wishes of the individuals would drive costs down. Rating smokers and motorcyclists and overweight hypertensives makes economic sense. Why should those who have better health habits pay more to take care of those who don't? (THANK YOU!)"
"...the worldwide failure of Keynesian-type central economic planning (spend, spend, spend!) is staring us in the face. They have but one card left to play: the argument that anyone who doesn't go along with their bailout programs, which are nothing more than rehashes of the programs that created the crisis, doesn't care about people and is devoid of all compassion. Instead of debating the underlying economic policies, they resort to demagoguing the issues with innuendos and false charges regarding compassion."
"What moral system should government follow? The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. Do not foster vice. If governments would merely follow the moral law that all religions recognize, we would live in a world of peace, prosperity, and freedom. The system is called classic liberalism. Liberty is not complicated."
1) Ron Paul's stance is very, very clear on the 50 complex issues he presents here. And I agree with most, if not all of them. These issues are not easy to present, but he does so succinctly, relates it to our liberty as individuals, and then states his opinion on each one.
2) The format of the book makes it easy to get through. Anyone not completely enamored with politics, but wants an honest, real perspective of all the goings-on in Washington (like me), will be happy to read these short chapters. The longest is about 10 pages. Seriously. I can't read 20 pages about Keynesianism or trade policies without my eyes glazing over. Paul's chapters are just what he says government regulations should be - short and sweet.
And 3) These are issues we all need to know more about!! Most of us have no idea what goes on in Washington. Rarely do we get the truth from our government leaders. Our liberties are being taken away little by little.
Some thoughts I liked:
"A free society is based on a simple moral imperative. Everyone's life is his own, and the fruits of his labor should be his as well. No part of it belongs to the government as a matter of right. This right to life comes naturally to everyone, with the gift of liberty and the right to keep the fruits of one's labor. The most that should every be expected of government is to protect that liberty. That authority, gained by the explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. Consenting to a greater role for government violates the moral defense of freedom."
"This impossible notion that government can guarantee freedom from want and fear destroys the concept of liberty. Instead, it is the exact opposite. It claims that all individuals and groups have a right to whatever they want or need and it can be obtained by robbing from those who produce...Wants are endless and are unrelated to the definition of freedom...Since government never produces anything, its only option is to steal from one group and pass what it has stolen on to the next. Most people believe the people have a "right" to food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, and jobs. This misguided school of thought...is responsible for the poverty and economic suffering and wars that we are forced to live with...Any attempt to achieve the goal of "freedom from want" can only be done by the use of government force and at the sacrifice of personal liberty."
"The organic process of markets is the source of economic development. It's a loss of both confidence and understanding of how markets work that causes so many people to accept the need for government to provide us with goods and services. There should be no difference between the distribution of cell phones, computers, TVs, medical care or energy. It's amazing that people don't understand that the more the market is involved and the smaller the government, the lower the price, the better the distribution, and the higher the quality."
(with comments of my own...) "True deregulation of the insurance industry would legalize various options that would appeal to individuals who don't want to pay for care they do not need (like mandatory mental health insurance in WA!!??)...adjusting coverage to the wishes of the individuals would drive costs down. Rating smokers and motorcyclists and overweight hypertensives makes economic sense. Why should those who have better health habits pay more to take care of those who don't? (THANK YOU!)"
"...the worldwide failure of Keynesian-type central economic planning (spend, spend, spend!) is staring us in the face. They have but one card left to play: the argument that anyone who doesn't go along with their bailout programs, which are nothing more than rehashes of the programs that created the crisis, doesn't care about people and is devoid of all compassion. Instead of debating the underlying economic policies, they resort to demagoguing the issues with innuendos and false charges regarding compassion."
"What moral system should government follow? The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. Do not foster vice. If governments would merely follow the moral law that all religions recognize, we would live in a world of peace, prosperity, and freedom. The system is called classic liberalism. Liberty is not complicated."
August 17, 2019
I became republican because of Ike, and then Nixon and every dang one of them after BETRAYED AMERICA, so I went Democrat, but they were near useless, doling out crumbs with one hand and receiving corporate checks with the other, so I went Libertarian, but they got no where. Still I had a residual respect for Ron Paul, but only now am I reading his ideas, after having read Sanders book.
OMG the man tries to define every issue based on liberty, but he can't keep it straight. He puts out excellent, logically derived arguments, then he puts out falacious arguments, and I swear he can't tell the difference.
He starts off on abortion by presenting a murder, are you kidding me?! A child pre birth is the same value as a child post birth he says, but what is he implying? That abortion rights would let you kill that child, and he rejects that. But what of Liberty Mr. Paul? My wallet in my pocket has the same value if I then drop it on the street, but you dare not search my pockets and seize it, however, on the street it's finders keepers. Nor was my wallet the same value 9 months ago btw. So a child in my body is inviolate from your search and seizure, it's MY property, property being a topic of which he is very definite on. However, a child born can be raised by anyone if I so choose to surrender it. Liberty demands that we support abortion rights, it DEMANDS IT. He implies that abortion is easy and women who have an abortion go on to have more, however, they also go on to have children. He missed that. He implies that abortion is EASY. It is never easy. Maybe to a man killing becomes easy, but I believe a woman always feels what she has done, but she is driven to it. We don't have a perfect world, where adoption is popular, men always take responsibility, contraceptives are cheap and easy and effective, pay equity and child care and......you know, all the things that would make abortion a last resort, but our society won't do the work. Everything is "Just say no.", which has never worked in all of human history. Priests rape, and they have God saying no, so good luck with the rest of us. Later on slavery and conscription he is clear that we own our own bodies and ourselves, not so much on abortion. The Liberty derived answer is that a woman's body is her nation and we cannot go in and effect regime change, or make her a baby producing slave. We use market solutions to maintain her income, affordable services, male responsibility, contraception, adoption, absolutely everything to avoid pregnancy by accident, and encourage full term to adoption or parenting. We can't stop abortion, but we can damn well make it rare, if we do the work. Saying no is soooo satisfying to so many judgemental non Liberty loving people though.
Ok, so Mr. Paul started out a true and great disappointment, but later he actually sticks to his principles and the arguments are worth reading. I felt the same way with Ayn Rand, she made some good arguments, then did contortions to keep going, and ruined herself, as well as being a hypocrite in real life.
On free speech he says we all have that right, and we don't lose it by going through an entity like a company or a union, so we should allow them to have free speech as well. Nah uh buddy. Every man has the same free speech, but a union takes from all it's members to pay for an amplified voice. So if we can't all pay for abortion, how do all union members, even those that don't agree, gonna pay for an amplified speech? Then comes a CEO who takes from all his workers and customers to amplify his single voice loudest of all! No, these efforts are a perverion of free speech, therefore a denial of liberty, but he can't see that.
I see Mr. Paul being a Corporatist, under a veneer of Libertarianism. Then on Civil Disobedience he shines. He says that those who get it right on the economics tend to fail on war, those who are correct on war tend to fail on economics, but he gets them both right because he is consistent on peace and freedom. Yet I see him flailing across the map from one topic to the next.
He can be consistent, but he will also fudge it for his personal preference, and refuse to admit that. There is a point in that, which many political theorist miss, that PURE SYSTEMS FAIL. He almost gets it. He says that small systems work regardless of the theory, but large systems fail. I say that pure systems fail regardless of size. Yin and Yang are an ancient global philosophy for a reason. BALANCE the FORCE Luke! Take from Conservatism, from Liberalism, from Libertarianism, take the virtues of Selfishness, ....and fashion a balanced approach so that none spin out of control, that they are constanly in checks and balances, (Now where have I heard that before?). Guaranteed a politician will always game the system, so the house must be vigilant and well defended.
He says Liberty will have us work it all out for ourselves, and it comes to mind the old "Mountain Man" movies showed real Liberty, but then they all had to go back to some society to meet their needs. There is NO PURITY. There never was, never will be. It's naieve.
"The American Empire is the enemy of American Freedom. It is every bit as much the enemy of American Citizens, as it is of it's victims around the world." Since we are living the "1984"playbook, he nails that. I absolutely agree with him sometimes, and I rag on him here because he has potential, and his ideas usually are worth hearing out, and then....he believes there is a "justly rich" class. No way, because while there may be a few benevolent well earned rich, as a rule they are sociopathic. They have been described as dragons sitting on hoarded wealth. They are Vampires sucking money out of the economy to store off shore, and leave us anemic. We literally have less money because it's in the Caymans, so we print more. If you look at the ratio of base employees compensation vs CEO from the 50s to now, it is a dramatic leap in disparity. We know American workers have increased productivity, NOT THE CEOs. It's wage theft plain and simple. Workers have no power to get their share of their production. Anything else is a BS cover up. Mr. Paul thinks "taxing the wealthy makes them think twice about pursuing wealth." In what Universe? Wealth feeds their inner need to accumulate and gain power/validation. Nothing stops that. I am not a conservative robot to believe that ridiculous statement. Taxes will always be avoided, they are for the poor suckers.
Mr. Paul thinks there is no effort to establish a state religion, lol. Many think we did that at the founding, and others are actively securing the Theocracy. Wake up!
Mr. Paul thinks that economic protests will eliminate bigotry, but bigotry must be endemic before you get protests. laws are to catch it early, before many have suffered loss of their liberties. Mr. Paul later rails against racism as a denial of Liberty, but he is showing his "white privilege" by thinking laws are not needed special to everyone who is not a straight christian white male, who have eaten scheise for so long, and now has a voice to protest. Chickens are coming home to roost.
Mr. Paul conflates physical evolution with social injustice, c'mon, that's so rookie. This is where I lose respect for his arguments. Is he 5?
If Mr. Paul is so against taking taxes from the rich as against their Liberty, I can fix that. PAY THE WORKERS! Bring back Unions. Let all America prosper like in the 50s, and the rich can't have taken what THEY NEVER EARNED. As he says "everyones life is his own and the fruits of labor should be his as well." Mr. Paul sometimes misses that he contradicts himself, or does not properly apply his love of liberty to every topic of his 50.
I want to smack him on Global Warming. He is an idiot. He thinks it is all radical environmentalists. Ooohh, you'd have to cover Conn. with windmills, so windmills are a failure. First off, have you seen the North Sea, Denmark, EUROPE? Also, it's not just windmills, they are but a component, and there are many designs. have you seen a vertical wind turbine, a river turbine, heat pumps, .... . Get with the tech. There are solid reasons to hate ICEs, pesticides, etc....and "Drill baby drill" is SUICIDE. Leave some oil for the classic cars at the car shows, to run the tanks and jeeps for re-enactors. We still want ICEs, but electric will do most driving just fine.
He tries to scare us that "hysterical resistance to nuclear cost us 10 trillion dollars and pushed us to worse systems." No and BS. We have better systems that won't Chernobyl on us and leave waste for thousands of years. Old white men gotta catch up. I'm 62 and I know better. Stop subsidies to oil, and solar will beat it, wind will beat it, and we won't have endless spills.
Oh dear god, no, Facism was never an acceptable form of socialism. Facism is NOT socialism. The National Socialists became facist, but that is not in their Sosi, they were against corporations, and for the worker and the intellectual. Facism was an infection. You would not say that the Republican party is Socialist, but you can now say it is Facist, Theocratic, Oligarchic, and Suicidal. Facism was taking root in America before WW2, and we thought we inoculated ourselves with our victory over it, so we were not vigilant, and now the republican party is Facist, and the Democrats kinda wanna be too. Corporate money buys principles, souls, hearts and minds.
Mr. Paul wants a totally free market to solve all issues, but what of the inevitable monopolies, are they a free market? Again I say PURE SYSTEMS FAIL. They always go flying off to an extreme. They are no inherrent checks that cannot be gamed. You must throw another ideology at them. I wonder why Libertarians caucus with the republicans, they don't support Liberty at all.
As for gun control, I own guns, and you can absolutely trust me, I was VETTED, but I don't trust any of you. America is filled with sociopaths, or haven't you noticed? The statement that a Tyrant will first disarm the people is useless nowadays. A tyrant will ARM the people because it shuts them up like a baby binky. Tell you what, take 10 AR-15s and I'll do 1 Abrams, go for it. Our military can kick the butts of any militia, and the Militias actually support a Tyranical Military and a heavily armed Police State. We are too sick, poor, and desperate not to lose our 3 jobs. There will be NO ARMED RESISTANCE. It is a fantasy. They took over a Bird Sanctuary and forgot food. OMG, do not depend on home Militias. Mr. paul is fighting WW2, never fight "the last war", you will not be ready for the next war.
I love that his definition of marriage is a self defined civil contract. Marriage should be contract law. We go into marriage like idiots, so we should get educated by a contract at least, and the rest of you have no business in anyone else's marriage, at all, no matter your god. LIBERTY!
"Conditions are ripe for some form of Dictatorship to emerge." NAILED THAT ONE!
"We all need to become agitators for Liberty, else we end up in a permanent state of slavery." Preach it brother Paul! In the end all Dictatorships fall. We will suffer greatly though, and have deserved it for our complaceny and self serving stupidity.
"Government control of health care paid for by taxpayers has not been successful, and yet the American people are demanding more of the same." Are you kidding me with that statement? This is a joke? Mr. Paul has been under government healthcare paid for by the tax payer, is he complaining, cause he could leave it and get his own Plan at any time. There are Senators at 84 years of doing fine on my dime. No country with national healthcare is up in arms and going back. NONE! Our system is not serving us, but it is bankrupting us. Mr. Pauls statement is so agressively wrong, it angers me, truly. We pay for HIS healthcare, and he never had to accept it. Pharma CEOs laugh as they jack up cheap drugs to outrageous prices, because they bought Congress, and we CAN'T NEGOTIATE! 'MURIKA!
Terrorism is an enemy from the "1984" playbook. You must have an endless war, and the ability to shift the target, so people think they are winning. Mr. Paul also speaks truth to power, but then Mr. Paul sometimes shows his own demogogury, or a schizophrenic mentality, a cognitive dissonance, and then he also gets it absolutey right and consistent with his avowed LIBERTY. "To be an American Patriot means to love Liberty." This book made me crazy with it's inconsistency, and sometimes ignorance and falsehood, but It's a worthy read, for a critical thinker.
OMG the man tries to define every issue based on liberty, but he can't keep it straight. He puts out excellent, logically derived arguments, then he puts out falacious arguments, and I swear he can't tell the difference.
He starts off on abortion by presenting a murder, are you kidding me?! A child pre birth is the same value as a child post birth he says, but what is he implying? That abortion rights would let you kill that child, and he rejects that. But what of Liberty Mr. Paul? My wallet in my pocket has the same value if I then drop it on the street, but you dare not search my pockets and seize it, however, on the street it's finders keepers. Nor was my wallet the same value 9 months ago btw. So a child in my body is inviolate from your search and seizure, it's MY property, property being a topic of which he is very definite on. However, a child born can be raised by anyone if I so choose to surrender it. Liberty demands that we support abortion rights, it DEMANDS IT. He implies that abortion is easy and women who have an abortion go on to have more, however, they also go on to have children. He missed that. He implies that abortion is EASY. It is never easy. Maybe to a man killing becomes easy, but I believe a woman always feels what she has done, but she is driven to it. We don't have a perfect world, where adoption is popular, men always take responsibility, contraceptives are cheap and easy and effective, pay equity and child care and......you know, all the things that would make abortion a last resort, but our society won't do the work. Everything is "Just say no.", which has never worked in all of human history. Priests rape, and they have God saying no, so good luck with the rest of us. Later on slavery and conscription he is clear that we own our own bodies and ourselves, not so much on abortion. The Liberty derived answer is that a woman's body is her nation and we cannot go in and effect regime change, or make her a baby producing slave. We use market solutions to maintain her income, affordable services, male responsibility, contraception, adoption, absolutely everything to avoid pregnancy by accident, and encourage full term to adoption or parenting. We can't stop abortion, but we can damn well make it rare, if we do the work. Saying no is soooo satisfying to so many judgemental non Liberty loving people though.
Ok, so Mr. Paul started out a true and great disappointment, but later he actually sticks to his principles and the arguments are worth reading. I felt the same way with Ayn Rand, she made some good arguments, then did contortions to keep going, and ruined herself, as well as being a hypocrite in real life.
On free speech he says we all have that right, and we don't lose it by going through an entity like a company or a union, so we should allow them to have free speech as well. Nah uh buddy. Every man has the same free speech, but a union takes from all it's members to pay for an amplified voice. So if we can't all pay for abortion, how do all union members, even those that don't agree, gonna pay for an amplified speech? Then comes a CEO who takes from all his workers and customers to amplify his single voice loudest of all! No, these efforts are a perverion of free speech, therefore a denial of liberty, but he can't see that.
I see Mr. Paul being a Corporatist, under a veneer of Libertarianism. Then on Civil Disobedience he shines. He says that those who get it right on the economics tend to fail on war, those who are correct on war tend to fail on economics, but he gets them both right because he is consistent on peace and freedom. Yet I see him flailing across the map from one topic to the next.
He can be consistent, but he will also fudge it for his personal preference, and refuse to admit that. There is a point in that, which many political theorist miss, that PURE SYSTEMS FAIL. He almost gets it. He says that small systems work regardless of the theory, but large systems fail. I say that pure systems fail regardless of size. Yin and Yang are an ancient global philosophy for a reason. BALANCE the FORCE Luke! Take from Conservatism, from Liberalism, from Libertarianism, take the virtues of Selfishness, ....and fashion a balanced approach so that none spin out of control, that they are constanly in checks and balances, (Now where have I heard that before?). Guaranteed a politician will always game the system, so the house must be vigilant and well defended.
He says Liberty will have us work it all out for ourselves, and it comes to mind the old "Mountain Man" movies showed real Liberty, but then they all had to go back to some society to meet their needs. There is NO PURITY. There never was, never will be. It's naieve.
"The American Empire is the enemy of American Freedom. It is every bit as much the enemy of American Citizens, as it is of it's victims around the world." Since we are living the "1984"playbook, he nails that. I absolutely agree with him sometimes, and I rag on him here because he has potential, and his ideas usually are worth hearing out, and then....he believes there is a "justly rich" class. No way, because while there may be a few benevolent well earned rich, as a rule they are sociopathic. They have been described as dragons sitting on hoarded wealth. They are Vampires sucking money out of the economy to store off shore, and leave us anemic. We literally have less money because it's in the Caymans, so we print more. If you look at the ratio of base employees compensation vs CEO from the 50s to now, it is a dramatic leap in disparity. We know American workers have increased productivity, NOT THE CEOs. It's wage theft plain and simple. Workers have no power to get their share of their production. Anything else is a BS cover up. Mr. Paul thinks "taxing the wealthy makes them think twice about pursuing wealth." In what Universe? Wealth feeds their inner need to accumulate and gain power/validation. Nothing stops that. I am not a conservative robot to believe that ridiculous statement. Taxes will always be avoided, they are for the poor suckers.
Mr. Paul thinks there is no effort to establish a state religion, lol. Many think we did that at the founding, and others are actively securing the Theocracy. Wake up!
Mr. Paul thinks that economic protests will eliminate bigotry, but bigotry must be endemic before you get protests. laws are to catch it early, before many have suffered loss of their liberties. Mr. Paul later rails against racism as a denial of Liberty, but he is showing his "white privilege" by thinking laws are not needed special to everyone who is not a straight christian white male, who have eaten scheise for so long, and now has a voice to protest. Chickens are coming home to roost.
Mr. Paul conflates physical evolution with social injustice, c'mon, that's so rookie. This is where I lose respect for his arguments. Is he 5?
If Mr. Paul is so against taking taxes from the rich as against their Liberty, I can fix that. PAY THE WORKERS! Bring back Unions. Let all America prosper like in the 50s, and the rich can't have taken what THEY NEVER EARNED. As he says "everyones life is his own and the fruits of labor should be his as well." Mr. Paul sometimes misses that he contradicts himself, or does not properly apply his love of liberty to every topic of his 50.
I want to smack him on Global Warming. He is an idiot. He thinks it is all radical environmentalists. Ooohh, you'd have to cover Conn. with windmills, so windmills are a failure. First off, have you seen the North Sea, Denmark, EUROPE? Also, it's not just windmills, they are but a component, and there are many designs. have you seen a vertical wind turbine, a river turbine, heat pumps, .... . Get with the tech. There are solid reasons to hate ICEs, pesticides, etc....and "Drill baby drill" is SUICIDE. Leave some oil for the classic cars at the car shows, to run the tanks and jeeps for re-enactors. We still want ICEs, but electric will do most driving just fine.
He tries to scare us that "hysterical resistance to nuclear cost us 10 trillion dollars and pushed us to worse systems." No and BS. We have better systems that won't Chernobyl on us and leave waste for thousands of years. Old white men gotta catch up. I'm 62 and I know better. Stop subsidies to oil, and solar will beat it, wind will beat it, and we won't have endless spills.
Oh dear god, no, Facism was never an acceptable form of socialism. Facism is NOT socialism. The National Socialists became facist, but that is not in their Sosi, they were against corporations, and for the worker and the intellectual. Facism was an infection. You would not say that the Republican party is Socialist, but you can now say it is Facist, Theocratic, Oligarchic, and Suicidal. Facism was taking root in America before WW2, and we thought we inoculated ourselves with our victory over it, so we were not vigilant, and now the republican party is Facist, and the Democrats kinda wanna be too. Corporate money buys principles, souls, hearts and minds.
Mr. Paul wants a totally free market to solve all issues, but what of the inevitable monopolies, are they a free market? Again I say PURE SYSTEMS FAIL. They always go flying off to an extreme. They are no inherrent checks that cannot be gamed. You must throw another ideology at them. I wonder why Libertarians caucus with the republicans, they don't support Liberty at all.
As for gun control, I own guns, and you can absolutely trust me, I was VETTED, but I don't trust any of you. America is filled with sociopaths, or haven't you noticed? The statement that a Tyrant will first disarm the people is useless nowadays. A tyrant will ARM the people because it shuts them up like a baby binky. Tell you what, take 10 AR-15s and I'll do 1 Abrams, go for it. Our military can kick the butts of any militia, and the Militias actually support a Tyranical Military and a heavily armed Police State. We are too sick, poor, and desperate not to lose our 3 jobs. There will be NO ARMED RESISTANCE. It is a fantasy. They took over a Bird Sanctuary and forgot food. OMG, do not depend on home Militias. Mr. paul is fighting WW2, never fight "the last war", you will not be ready for the next war.
I love that his definition of marriage is a self defined civil contract. Marriage should be contract law. We go into marriage like idiots, so we should get educated by a contract at least, and the rest of you have no business in anyone else's marriage, at all, no matter your god. LIBERTY!
"Conditions are ripe for some form of Dictatorship to emerge." NAILED THAT ONE!
"We all need to become agitators for Liberty, else we end up in a permanent state of slavery." Preach it brother Paul! In the end all Dictatorships fall. We will suffer greatly though, and have deserved it for our complaceny and self serving stupidity.
"Government control of health care paid for by taxpayers has not been successful, and yet the American people are demanding more of the same." Are you kidding me with that statement? This is a joke? Mr. Paul has been under government healthcare paid for by the tax payer, is he complaining, cause he could leave it and get his own Plan at any time. There are Senators at 84 years of doing fine on my dime. No country with national healthcare is up in arms and going back. NONE! Our system is not serving us, but it is bankrupting us. Mr. Pauls statement is so agressively wrong, it angers me, truly. We pay for HIS healthcare, and he never had to accept it. Pharma CEOs laugh as they jack up cheap drugs to outrageous prices, because they bought Congress, and we CAN'T NEGOTIATE! 'MURIKA!
Terrorism is an enemy from the "1984" playbook. You must have an endless war, and the ability to shift the target, so people think they are winning. Mr. Paul also speaks truth to power, but then Mr. Paul sometimes shows his own demogogury, or a schizophrenic mentality, a cognitive dissonance, and then he also gets it absolutey right and consistent with his avowed LIBERTY. "To be an American Patriot means to love Liberty." This book made me crazy with it's inconsistency, and sometimes ignorance and falsehood, but It's a worthy read, for a critical thinker.
June 19, 2019
This book came out in 2011, right in the midst of another run Dr. Paul was making at the US presidency. It's a good primer of his position on many things, and is wasted on an American public that despises reading or critical thinking, but is good for anyone interested in either, especially within the heuristic of American constitutional governance. I found confirmation that I did agree with Dr. Paul on a number of issues, but also that I had a couple surprising disagreements, but all his positions do seem to flow from an instinctively libertarian set of principles, which is an intellectual system I can't agree with (or say that I respect). But I can at least acknowledge these principles to consistency in his thought process.
"I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right." (p. 1)
"Almost all regulations by the federal government to protect us from ourselves (laws against smoking, bans on narcotics, and mandatory seat belts, for example) are readily supported by the left/liberals who demand 'choice'" (p. 2-3)
"So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not change that." (p. 5)
"Just about everyone knows that the Hippocratic oath includes the pledge not to do abortions. In the 1960s, most medical schools, rather than face the issue, just dropped the tradition of medical-school graduating seniors repeating the oath. My class of 1961 ignored the oath at graduation. Just think, the oath survived for so many years and then ended right before the drug and Vietnam War culture, when it was most desperately needed." (p. 8)
"If two parties with two sets of bad ideas cooperate, the result is not good policy but policy that is extremely bad. What we really need are correct economic and political ideas, regardless of the party that pushes them." (p. 20)
"It is not unusual for the United States to preach democratic elections to others. When they occur, if we are unhappy with the outcome, we refuse to recognize the winners and continue to support the losers." (p. 66)
"It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution." (p. 67)
"How can we 'spread our goodness' around the world through occupation and violence when here at home we have squandered our liberties and wealth?" (p. 67)
"Voluntary associations are better, are more authentic, and are longer lasting, than associations fored by legislation and imposed by bureaucrats." (p. 74)
"No, they never say thank you for 'defending the empire'; it's much more decent - it's thank you for defending our freedoms, our Constitution, and for fighting 'them' over there so we don't have to fight them here at home. Though the wars we fight are now unconstitutional, the military is endlessly praised for defending our liberties and Constitution." (p. 91)
"...instead of getting a 'peace dividend,' we were introduced to a new enemy, militant Islam, and anew place for building the American empire throughout the Middle East." (p. 91)
"Demagoguing, lying, or denying that no unintentional consequences or blowback result from our invasion, occupation, and bombing of other nations, especially Arab and Muslim countries, presents the greatest danger to our security, freedom, and prosperity." (p. 95)
"Author Elie Wiesel tells the story of the one righteous man of Sodom, who walked the streets protesting against the injustice of this city. People made fun of him, derided him. Finally, a young person asked: 'Why do you continue your protest against evil; can't you see no one is paying attention to you?' He answered, "I'll tell you why I continue. In the beginning I thought I would change people. Today, I know I cannot. Yet, if I continue my protest, at least I will prevent others from changing me." (p. 98)
"The odds are slim that that (giving up empire) will occur without a bloody reaction from those who wiled the power over the military-industrial complex, our political process, the media, our economy, our monetary system, and our personal lives. But regardless, since the principles of liberty are based on morally correct ideas, anything we do to preserve them will benefit mankind." (p. 99)
"The American Empire is the enemy of American freedom. It is every bit as much the enemy of American citizens as it is of its victims around the world." (p. 100)
"Since World War II, all our wars have been fought without a congressional declaration of war. It's the President who decides and the Congress that submits by appropriating the funds demanded. This presidential authority was never intended by the Constitution. (p. 111)
"Any effort to mandate or enforce the goal of making everyone free from want and fear through government action will guarantee the destruction of the concept of personal liberty." (p. 126)
"The real message that underlies the goal of the radical environmentalists is to blame modern man for every change in nature." (p. 136-137)
"The drug war is deadly and allows drug lords to make a lot more money than legalized drugs ever would. The drug war and the illegal immigration across our southern borders cannot be separated." (p. 156)
"We face zero threat from any country invading the United States, yet we never stop the massive spending on weapons. The military culture has made us the largest arms merchant of the world, and of all history." (p. 175)
"I would like to see a dollar as good as gold. I would like to see the banking system operating as it would under free enterprise, meaning no central bank. I would like to see competitive currencies emerge on the market and be permitted to thrive." (p. 201)
"We live in an age when the majority believes the government is the ultimate protector, not only from all outside risks but also from our own unwise behavior." (p. 204)
"But should we not at least ask how the US government can charge an Australian citizen with treason for publishing US secret information that he himself did not steal?" (p. 216)
"The arrogance and manipulation of naming a piece of legislation that severely undermines the Fourth Amendment and calling it the Patriot Act says it all." (p. 219)
"Total federal ownership is more than one third of the land mass of the fifty states." (p. 232)
"Fees from the people who use the parks would be a fairer way to finance parks than by taxing the 90 or so percent of citizens who never get to enjoy them." (p. 233)
"In 2009, world military expenditures were $1.531 trillion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook of 2010. Fully 46.5 percent of that was spent by the United States!" (p. 257)
"The Civil War was fought to keep all states under the thumb of a powerful central government." (p. 270)
"Sanctions and blockades are extremely dangerous and should be considered acts of war." (p. 296)
"Sanctions and protectionist measures are always a catastrophe." (p. 297)
"Stopping all flow of oil to Japan in early 1941 was a significant factor in the attack on Pearl Harbor later that year - something most Americans are not interested in hearing." (p. 299)
"This taking of land from one group for the benefit of another has been criticized by most Muslims, many Christians, and Jews as well. The entitlement argument that this new arrangement was orderd by God and reflects ancient ownership by the Jews is not an easy case to make. This belief inspires those who support the use of force to achieve an expanding geographic presence for a greater Israel, including most of the Middle East." (p. 315)
"The UN can labor tirelessly in "controlling" one nuclear weapon (in Iran) that doesn't exist while the international community does not put pressure on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." (p. 317)
"I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right." (p. 1)
"Almost all regulations by the federal government to protect us from ourselves (laws against smoking, bans on narcotics, and mandatory seat belts, for example) are readily supported by the left/liberals who demand 'choice'" (p. 2-3)
"So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not change that." (p. 5)
"Just about everyone knows that the Hippocratic oath includes the pledge not to do abortions. In the 1960s, most medical schools, rather than face the issue, just dropped the tradition of medical-school graduating seniors repeating the oath. My class of 1961 ignored the oath at graduation. Just think, the oath survived for so many years and then ended right before the drug and Vietnam War culture, when it was most desperately needed." (p. 8)
"If two parties with two sets of bad ideas cooperate, the result is not good policy but policy that is extremely bad. What we really need are correct economic and political ideas, regardless of the party that pushes them." (p. 20)
"It is not unusual for the United States to preach democratic elections to others. When they occur, if we are unhappy with the outcome, we refuse to recognize the winners and continue to support the losers." (p. 66)
"It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution." (p. 67)
"How can we 'spread our goodness' around the world through occupation and violence when here at home we have squandered our liberties and wealth?" (p. 67)
"Voluntary associations are better, are more authentic, and are longer lasting, than associations fored by legislation and imposed by bureaucrats." (p. 74)
"No, they never say thank you for 'defending the empire'; it's much more decent - it's thank you for defending our freedoms, our Constitution, and for fighting 'them' over there so we don't have to fight them here at home. Though the wars we fight are now unconstitutional, the military is endlessly praised for defending our liberties and Constitution." (p. 91)
"...instead of getting a 'peace dividend,' we were introduced to a new enemy, militant Islam, and anew place for building the American empire throughout the Middle East." (p. 91)
"Demagoguing, lying, or denying that no unintentional consequences or blowback result from our invasion, occupation, and bombing of other nations, especially Arab and Muslim countries, presents the greatest danger to our security, freedom, and prosperity." (p. 95)
"Author Elie Wiesel tells the story of the one righteous man of Sodom, who walked the streets protesting against the injustice of this city. People made fun of him, derided him. Finally, a young person asked: 'Why do you continue your protest against evil; can't you see no one is paying attention to you?' He answered, "I'll tell you why I continue. In the beginning I thought I would change people. Today, I know I cannot. Yet, if I continue my protest, at least I will prevent others from changing me." (p. 98)
"The odds are slim that that (giving up empire) will occur without a bloody reaction from those who wiled the power over the military-industrial complex, our political process, the media, our economy, our monetary system, and our personal lives. But regardless, since the principles of liberty are based on morally correct ideas, anything we do to preserve them will benefit mankind." (p. 99)
"The American Empire is the enemy of American freedom. It is every bit as much the enemy of American citizens as it is of its victims around the world." (p. 100)
"Since World War II, all our wars have been fought without a congressional declaration of war. It's the President who decides and the Congress that submits by appropriating the funds demanded. This presidential authority was never intended by the Constitution. (p. 111)
"Any effort to mandate or enforce the goal of making everyone free from want and fear through government action will guarantee the destruction of the concept of personal liberty." (p. 126)
"The real message that underlies the goal of the radical environmentalists is to blame modern man for every change in nature." (p. 136-137)
"The drug war is deadly and allows drug lords to make a lot more money than legalized drugs ever would. The drug war and the illegal immigration across our southern borders cannot be separated." (p. 156)
"We face zero threat from any country invading the United States, yet we never stop the massive spending on weapons. The military culture has made us the largest arms merchant of the world, and of all history." (p. 175)
"I would like to see a dollar as good as gold. I would like to see the banking system operating as it would under free enterprise, meaning no central bank. I would like to see competitive currencies emerge on the market and be permitted to thrive." (p. 201)
"We live in an age when the majority believes the government is the ultimate protector, not only from all outside risks but also from our own unwise behavior." (p. 204)
"But should we not at least ask how the US government can charge an Australian citizen with treason for publishing US secret information that he himself did not steal?" (p. 216)
"The arrogance and manipulation of naming a piece of legislation that severely undermines the Fourth Amendment and calling it the Patriot Act says it all." (p. 219)
"Total federal ownership is more than one third of the land mass of the fifty states." (p. 232)
"Fees from the people who use the parks would be a fairer way to finance parks than by taxing the 90 or so percent of citizens who never get to enjoy them." (p. 233)
"In 2009, world military expenditures were $1.531 trillion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook of 2010. Fully 46.5 percent of that was spent by the United States!" (p. 257)
"The Civil War was fought to keep all states under the thumb of a powerful central government." (p. 270)
"Sanctions and blockades are extremely dangerous and should be considered acts of war." (p. 296)
"Sanctions and protectionist measures are always a catastrophe." (p. 297)
"Stopping all flow of oil to Japan in early 1941 was a significant factor in the attack on Pearl Harbor later that year - something most Americans are not interested in hearing." (p. 299)
"This taking of land from one group for the benefit of another has been criticized by most Muslims, many Christians, and Jews as well. The entitlement argument that this new arrangement was orderd by God and reflects ancient ownership by the Jews is not an easy case to make. This belief inspires those who support the use of force to achieve an expanding geographic presence for a greater Israel, including most of the Middle East." (p. 315)
"The UN can labor tirelessly in "controlling" one nuclear weapon (in Iran) that doesn't exist while the international community does not put pressure on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." (p. 317)
May 26, 2014
ILLUMINATING AND INSIGHTFUL
"Ideas are very important to the shaping of society. In fact, they are more powerful than bombings or armies or guns. And this is because ideas are capable of spreading without limit. They are behind all the choices we make. They can transform the world in a way that governments and armies cannot. Fighting for liberty with ideas makes more sense to me than fighting with guns or politics or political power. With ideas, we can make real change that lasts.”
I'm so very glad to see that someone bright and reasonable still cares about individual liberty and responsibility—although there almost hardly seems to be much of a point anymore. Ron Paul's LIBERTY DEFINED: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom offers a well constructed, illuminating, insightful. and reasoned discussion of liberty from a 'mostly' libertarian perspective. A tad bit of right-wing demagoguery tries to sneak in occasionally, though.
Recommendation: An essential read/listen for all who hold liberty dear.
“And yet even among the friends of liberty, many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior. If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that power is always abused. Every single time.”
MP3 audio book edition, 8 hours, 58 minutes
"Ideas are very important to the shaping of society. In fact, they are more powerful than bombings or armies or guns. And this is because ideas are capable of spreading without limit. They are behind all the choices we make. They can transform the world in a way that governments and armies cannot. Fighting for liberty with ideas makes more sense to me than fighting with guns or politics or political power. With ideas, we can make real change that lasts.”
I'm so very glad to see that someone bright and reasonable still cares about individual liberty and responsibility—although there almost hardly seems to be much of a point anymore. Ron Paul's LIBERTY DEFINED: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom offers a well constructed, illuminating, insightful. and reasoned discussion of liberty from a 'mostly' libertarian perspective. A tad bit of right-wing demagoguery tries to sneak in occasionally, though.
Recommendation: An essential read/listen for all who hold liberty dear.
“And yet even among the friends of liberty, many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior. If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that power is always abused. Every single time.”
MP3 audio book edition, 8 hours, 58 minutes
January 21, 2012
Half good, half bullshit. I like some of his ideas, especially those regarding ending the wars overseas, reducing American militarism, ending prohibition, and reducing the size and scope of government. He's way off the mark on global warming, and the chapter in this book shows it. Other topics like abortion don't really affect me directly, but his position in this book isn't as hardline as the one described on his website.
I did especially like that he is as critical, if not more so, on the Bush administration and neoconservatives than he is on those not in his party for the state of the nation. He even goes back as far as Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. It is refreshing to see a candidate that realizes the position we're in is mostly our fault, and a result of 80 years of bad decisions and mistaken policies that never get corrected due to partisanship and never admitting mistakes.
I'm independent, but I've never voted Republican due to lack of good options since I've started voting. Out of the field of Republican candidates, he's the only one that interested me at all, which is why I read this book. Don't yet know if I'd vote for him, but I don't think I'll get the chance to.
I did especially like that he is as critical, if not more so, on the Bush administration and neoconservatives than he is on those not in his party for the state of the nation. He even goes back as far as Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. It is refreshing to see a candidate that realizes the position we're in is mostly our fault, and a result of 80 years of bad decisions and mistaken policies that never get corrected due to partisanship and never admitting mistakes.
I'm independent, but I've never voted Republican due to lack of good options since I've started voting. Out of the field of Republican candidates, he's the only one that interested me at all, which is why I read this book. Don't yet know if I'd vote for him, but I don't think I'll get the chance to.
January 25, 2019
En Liberty Defined, Ron Paul presenta su posición sobre 50 temas que afectan a la libertad en Estados Unidos.
La realidad es que los temas que plantea no sólo aplican a USA sino a cualquier democracia moderna... Aborto, demagogia, esclavitud, seguridad, racismo, matrimonio, sionismo, patriotismo, sindicatos, economía y muchos ítems más son abordados de una manera muy clara en la que Paul expone lo que realmente piensa. El libro no parece estar escrito por un ghost writer, ya que la manera de escribir no es muy diferente a la manera en que Ron Paul habla. Eso es algo que me resultó muy valioso en una era donde nada (del género no-ficción) parece ser escrito por el nombre de la portada.
Considero que es un libro para cualquiera que quiera conocer más sobre un republicano poco convencional. Pero también que es una buena recomendación para cualquiera que quiera aprender algo nuevo sobre otra cultura, con problemas diferentes.
Este ensayo de es un ejemplo de lo que debería ser una plataforma política perfecta, y sería un buen ejercicio que todos los políticos que nos representan (sean del país que sean).
La realidad es que los temas que plantea no sólo aplican a USA sino a cualquier democracia moderna... Aborto, demagogia, esclavitud, seguridad, racismo, matrimonio, sionismo, patriotismo, sindicatos, economía y muchos ítems más son abordados de una manera muy clara en la que Paul expone lo que realmente piensa. El libro no parece estar escrito por un ghost writer, ya que la manera de escribir no es muy diferente a la manera en que Ron Paul habla. Eso es algo que me resultó muy valioso en una era donde nada (del género no-ficción) parece ser escrito por el nombre de la portada.
Considero que es un libro para cualquiera que quiera conocer más sobre un republicano poco convencional. Pero también que es una buena recomendación para cualquiera que quiera aprender algo nuevo sobre otra cultura, con problemas diferentes.
Este ensayo de es un ejemplo de lo que debería ser una plataforma política perfecta, y sería un buen ejercicio que todos los políticos que nos representan (sean del país que sean).
November 7, 2012
With today's issues in our country, 12 Term Texas Congressman Ron Paul compiles 50 of the largest issues that affect us, the US citizen in Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. From Abortion to Assassination, to Foreign Policy to Zionism, Dr. Paul makes outstanding points on all issues, claiming that down our current path our country is bound to fail. He is also disappointed on how we as a country have forgotten our civil liberties and allow the federal government to step all over them with laws that affect the rights given to us in the Constitution.
This book kept me interested even in topics I had no knowledge of before reading, Dr. Paul knew this. It is written in a clear understandable language and is centered around the idea of common sense and the golden rule (especially when discussing foreign policy and war). I highly recommend this book to anyone, not just those who follow politics, but for anyone else out there who sees that we as a country is not heading in the right direction and sees disastrous things in our future if we continue down it.
This book kept me interested even in topics I had no knowledge of before reading, Dr. Paul knew this. It is written in a clear understandable language and is centered around the idea of common sense and the golden rule (especially when discussing foreign policy and war). I highly recommend this book to anyone, not just those who follow politics, but for anyone else out there who sees that we as a country is not heading in the right direction and sees disastrous things in our future if we continue down it.
May 4, 2016
I admit that I liked this book more than I anticipated, and Paul has changed a couple of my perspectives. He's still wrong on the whole anti-war points, since he seems to always assign a motive for people. Still, he's spot on for his economic and cultural points as he shows the logic of his positions and leaves the accusation of motive out of the discussion. Progressives are just dead wrong when it comes to Keynesian economics, and we've had 8 decades of proof of its destructive policies on our economy. And the neo-cons are just as wrong on these points as the progressives are. We will have to have a collapsed economy for politicians and the general public to comes to grips with reality. Capitalism is not the problem, its the Keynesian managed economy that's the problem. Bernie is dead wrong on his economics - but then I don't expect a bunch of kids in college to know any better. But the adults should.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 265 reviews