Governments

Every Tarheel, or any non-Tarheel who has an interest in one of the most important political figures in the South, Terry Sanford, should read this book. Senator in the NC General Assembly, Governor, President of Duke University, and US Senator, this book covers it all. It provides an interesting look at Southern politics, and how our past still effects us to this day. There should be a "Six Degrees of Terry Sanford" game, as he can be linked to practically anybody in the field of NC or National politics. Kerr Scott, Lauch Faircloth, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, The George Bushes, Al Gore, Jesse Helms, Jesse Jackson, Richard Nixon, Elizabeth Dole & Erskine Bowles (both front runners from their respective parties in the 2002 Senate race) and the list goes on. Terry Sanford witnessed great movements in history. The race issue in the South, a political atmospheric change, the wheeling and dealing of politicians. Throughout he kept his values and goals, which helped him become a symbol of Progressive policies, and helped place Duke University into national prominence. This should be required reading!

Anyone who lives in North Carolina will learn much about the state's recent political history in this book. And anyone who is interested in progressive politics should read it too. Terry Sanford's forward-thinking approach to government is an inspiration, particularly in the areas of race and education.

Former North Carolina Governor and United States Senator Terry Sanford is one of this century's outstanding political leaders. While serving as Governor in the early sixties, Sanford became known nationwide for his commitment to improving education in North Carolina.

Covington and Ellis' biography of Sanford offers a great deal of insight into Sanford's formative years and his political career. The authors researched their subject thoroughly, and the reader gains a great deal of insight into North Carolina politics and into the historical forces shaping the country.

Many of Sanford's colleagues, family, and friends were interviewed for this book, and their stories and perspectives add depth to this book. Many of the characters in the book are still active in North Carolina politics, including "Jimmy Hunt" (as he is referred to in the book) who now serves as Governor of North Carolina.

People who still believe that our government can be a force for good, and that a political life can be synonomous with a life of public service, will be inspired by this book and by the life of this outstanding public servant.

It is my hope that _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_ comes back into print as soon as possible. It is simply one of the most important books on political economy ever written, and I think other reviewers have understated the importance of Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" as the ultimate defense of capitalism.

Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, calls Hans-Hermann Hoppe an "international treasure." Indeed he is. Professor Hoppe is political economist and philosopher devoted to extreme rationalism and Austrian (praxeological) economics whose his work over the years has been uncompromising and logically unassailable. This is no exception.

This book is an interdisciplinary study of the "economics, politics, and ethics" of capitalism and socialism. Hoppe's axiomatic-deductive methodology is his key advantage. His unfailing adherence to a priori theory provides the correct basis for analysis of complex phenomena. This treatise, while not very long (250 pages, about 50 of which is notes and references) is broad in its treatment and packed with value. In just a page Hoppe says more than many authors will in their entire book. He makes the case for the economic superiority of capitalism while addressing the alleged problems of monopoly and "public goods." Economically, he devastates the case for socialism, whether heavily interventionist social-democracy or public ownership of resources a la Soviet Russia. His analysis of the State as an institution of legalized coercion -- influenced by the likes of Rothbard, Oppenheimer, de Jouvenel, and de la Boetie -- is simply brilliant. He also argues for a priori theory as the proper basis for economic analysis, which is always welcome.

The entire book is excellent, but I think the most important chapter is "The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism is Morally Indefensible." Here, Hoppe presents a praxeological justification of the private property ethic. What Hoppe has done here is frankly groundbreaking -- his defense amounts to an impossibility proof that refutes any non-homesteading/socialist ethic, since the explicit act of arguing against it implicitly agrees with private property rights. Although influenced by Murray Rothbard (and part of Hoppe's argument uses Rothbard's property argumentum a contrario), Hoppe's defense has several advantages. Principally, it is a value-free ethical system and encounters none of the staple natural rights defender's stumbling blocks. And since this ethical formulation is grounded in the axiomatic status of action and argumentation, it gives an ethical basis for action itself. Until one examines this defense, it may seem fanciful and irrelevant (indeed, even among libertarians the response to this as been largely hostile). However, I believe it to be irrefutably true, and indeed this is the case.

This book is essential for students of politics and economics. Also, all serious philosophers anywhere should read Hoppe's defense of property rights. With standard bearers such as Hoppe leading the way, liberty has good prospects.

I agree with the previous reviewer's assessment. This book provides much of the theoretical foundation for Hoppe's later work, especially his new book "Democracy: The God that Failed", which I also highly recommend. Even though this book is out of print, the entire text is available in PDF format on the Mises Institute web site (mises.org) in the Online Books section.

Several years ago, I had the good fortune to actually take a class in Comparative Economic Systems from Professor Hoppe, and he used this book as his text. However, it is NOT a text book, and can be read by anyone with an interest in economic systems, political systems, East-West relations, and similar fields--and especially in the fundamental foundations of such topics. Hoppe has an interesting perspective on the field, since he grew up and was educated in West Germany, on the front lines of the Cold War. His advanced degrees (a Ph.D. and a post-Ph.D. degree called a Habilitation) in Philosophy, Economics, and Sociology, give him a broad view of the issues involved--unlike many other writers, who are overly specialized to the point that their work does not resemble reality.

Hoppe gives a careful definition of what he means by the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" and then proceeds to analyze many variants, including Russian-style Socialism, Social Democracy, Conservatism, and piecemeal Social Engineering. He also explores the provision of so-called "public goods" (i.e., national defense, justice, security), and the problems of monopolies in capitalist nations.

Make no mistake about it, though, Hoppe is a capitalist, and this book is a ringing critique of all sorts of interventions. He grounds his argument in the fundamental axiom of individual self-ownership. Each individual owns his or her own body, and all analysis flows from that starting point. Hoppe examines this theme and its variations: everyone owns everyone else (communism), some people own other people (slavery), and each person owns himself or herself (liberty). These various optional starting points are shown to be mutually exclusive, and exhastive. From there, Hoppe proceeds in a logic fashion to demonstrate that liberty is superior to the other alternatives, and then to show that the other alternatives are necessarily presupposed by all forms of socialism and interventionism.

I highly recommend thi! s book.

That's right. Even before reading this book I considered voting to be a pointless exercise that made minuscule, even nonexistent impact on the powers that be. The age old statist shibboleth of "if you don't vote, you can't complain," along with other similar (and absurd) contentions, are demolished quickly by the author's withering logical analysis of the monstrous, immoral and antihuman concepts of "government" and "authority." Along with exposing the fallacious nature of practices such as voting, the author systematically breaks down the core components of the statist's belief in "government" and destroys them with relatively simple logic, aided by examples of past conversations with "government" aficionados and accurate (often hilarious) analogies and comparisons.

I recommend this book to all living and breathing humans.

Although the sub-title of this book is "The Nonvoter's Manifesto" and discusses the nature of the illusion or delusion that is commonly called "government" its true target is the nature of moral decision making. Who, or what, is it that makes your moral decisions, those decisions that you are faced with every moment of every day? Even as you read this you are making moral decisions in that you could simply get up and attack, steal from or otherwise harm anyone else nearby, but you do not (I hope). The crux of the work, therefore, is how and why many people perpetrate acts of violence almost entirely without qualm simply because those decisions are apparently made on their behalf by "authority".

The magical and illusionary nature of "authority" is described using simple and often witty analogies and syllogisms. In my opinion the logic of the case made is quite unassailable; you really CAN'T grant a right, which you yourself do not have, to another. This makes "authority", "government" and "democracy" utterly illusory. The consequences of this simple, yet profound realisation? That all moral (and other) decisions are entirely yours to make. You cannot legitimately hide immoral behaviour behind the veil of "authority" since it is always YOU who makes your decisions and any attempt to claim otherwise is an attempt to obviate your own autonomy and a denial of your own moral responsibility.

The book itself is logically sound, witty and peppered throughout with actual dialogue from internet chat rooms which act to provide the arguments of the "authoritarian" and demolish them in no short order. Everything from "Who would build roads?" to "Government protects our rights" is considered and crushed beneath "Jackney's" unstoppable logic.

The ultimate conclusions may seem somewhat odd. The only political condition there is, or has ever been, is anarchy - armed gangs ordering people around through the threat of force. "Laws" are merely commands from the controlling gang, again backed by threats of force. Everyone is an anarchist; either that or many people are some kind of bizarre robot without free will who have their decisions made for them by some mysterious (and almost universally immoral) gang calling itself "authority" or "government" - a decidedly nauseating, anti-human idea.

In conclusion, read this book. It suffers slightly from a lack of continuous narrative but its informal and humorous approach will help you see past the delusions placed upon you by those in "authority".

The only government.....is self-government and "voting" in order to legitimise the immoral force masquerading as your government is simply wrong.

Actually, Jackney Sneeb didn't just crash the party; he exposed the hosts for what they were: crooks, cons and thieves.

In psychology there is a term referred to as 'conditioning' and along with it 'reinforcement.' A classic example of mental conditioning is the (in)famous experiment by Pavlov's Dogs. Briefly, in 1904 Dr. Ivan Pavlov trained a group of dogs to associate ringing of a bell with food so they would start salivating.

Contemporaneously, when words such as 'abortion,' 'taxation,' 'democracy,' or 'rights' are used, a trigger within the minds of many individuals turns on (or off) creating a ruckus of brow-beating, chest thumpers... similar to Guerilla's in the jungle.

This continuous training, indoctrination and brainwashing of unsuspecting individuals is continually done on a daily basis throughout the world. As he should, Mr. Sneeb takes the reader from the very basic concept of this delusion, this mindset of authoritarianism and meticulously breaks it apart into smaller digestible pieces.

I should warn readers; this is not a hunky dory feel-warm and fuzzy book about a particular realpolitik. No, what Mr. Sneeb does is show the phony belief that the 'authority' by which statism, government and coercive force presume to rule does not exist.

Taking no prisoners he is quite candid with the reader, treating the audience as a logical and rational creature. Yet, he does not insult their intelligent by suggesting how as a mortal, he is authorized to initiate force against you or anyone else.

Outrageous, dynamic, bold and even heroic; Mr. Sneeb truly fights for the little man: the individual human fighting for his life against the powers that be.

When this book catches hold of the American psyche (or anyone for that matter), it threatens to erode the very foundations of the world's last remaining superpower.

Some poignant quotes from the book (p. 9&10):

"So, from the authoritarian's conditioned response we see in his philosophy the absurd result that people who do the right thing should be locked up, and people doing the wrong thing should run free -- which is why that so often happens in politics."

"If the [money] is taken out of the taxes you paid without raising your taxes, then the general revenues will be [money] light. The difference must be made up somewhere, and it is: the revenue must come from those who checked "No," obviously. So, in a cynical way the lefties are using the IRS to steal money from the righties. If you don't want [money]of your money to pay for the president's election campaign, you must check "Yes.""

Ludwig's Third Paradigm brings much-needed conceptual insight and simplification to politics. The governments of past and present fit into one of three categories: monarchy, where an individual determines law (the codification of right and wrong), representative government (republics, democracies), where individuals collectively, through voting, make the law, and theocracy, where divinely revealed law is the standard of morality.

Anyone trying to think through the principles of human organization from a foundational viewpoint should read this book.

Mark A. Ludwig is a brilliant scientist who lends credibility to the word of God, and shows from an intellectual and historical perspective that biblical Christianity has not failed. It simply has never been tried. The book is logical and analytical, and shows how this world's perplexing problems will eventually be solved.

This great book is about how the first paradigm (divine monarchy, or god-kings) has failed, how the second paradigm (representative government, which we are currently using in America and other countries) is failing, and how the third paradigm (theocracy, or God's law) will work once implemented. Author, Ludwig, describes how a government truly under God will operate, how self government will be implemented, and more!

First, he gives you a brief history lesson on how the first paradigm operated, was implemented, and how it was finally discarded for the sake of the second paradigm. Then he shows how the second paradigm began, and where it is heading. Sooner or later people will lose respect for the second paradigm just like they did with the first paradigm, and will begin looking for something better. That's where the third paradigm comes in. Under the law of the Bible, criminals will be punished fairly according to their crimes. There will be no more need for jails, or even police. For example, a thief would have to repay the owner 4-5 times the item's value if the item has been sold or damaged, but if the item is found unharmed and still in his possession he will only have to restore double. This creates a strong deterrent against stealing something, and giving incentive both to take care of the item and to confess. But changes like this won't happen overnight. It will take a reformation of people's hearts and minds before it can truly be implemented.

I thought reading this was a very worthwhile use of my time. I learned some history that I didn't know before. It is really interesting how God's laws will work, and how, unlike some people think, His laws have not passed away. I would highly recommend it to someone who is tired with where representative government is leading us, and is wondering if there is anything better to be had. There is.

Should you wish to understand the politics that led to the wars, and to the present dominations or configurations of World Systems, this book gives a clear insight, for those who understand. It was I who was the 9th Panchen Lama. George V is now The Duke of Gloucester, and the Duke of Kent who is the father of The Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent and Alexandra-Lady Olgivy is now Prince Charles. Pu Yi is now my son, he was the first Dalai Lama, whom I appointed in my time as the Fifth Dalai Lama. Tsong Khapa is now my father, I was the 1st Dalai Lama.
Lord Maitreya Surya Vishnu

I find it interesting that this book though unavailable was listed against my homepage, I now notice the Dalai Lama has taken the place, the ways of the world, eh? Maitreya

Dear Friends, The issue in Tibet as you know is complex though simple, the Dalai Lama is a product of his past actions,[this goes back to Egypt and beyond] many problems may have been resolved, though as you know one needs to correlate this book with the Life Story of Guru Padmasambhava, I will write a sequel to the above book.Thank you Pashotam Meera

Panchen Lama Lord Maitreya

The tobacco industry is one of the most evil industries allowed to operate in America. From child labor to seductive advertising to distribution of a deadly product and ending in mountains of money in political bribes, The US Tobacco Industry has just about every imaginable negative attribute of corporate America, all rolled into one, neat package.

Tobacco War puts a face on a faceless industry, and it is not a very pretty face. From exposing the hidden truths of the seductive advertising schemes and the green blood that flows through the veins of America's political system in every level, Tobacco War doesn't simply archive news stories, lawsuits and events, but connects the dots and presents the reader with a realistic picture of how big tobacco operates.

Likewise, tomorrows activist are reading this book today to gain the edge in a climate of misinformation. Provides grass-roots information for activists to develop and deploy campaigns.

Think your cigarette maker cares about you? They have you hooked, and you are the least of their worries. They are working to reel the next generation of smokers in for the kill.

And so far, the catch is coming in... wallet and all.

"The Tobacco War" is part social and political history, part "how-to" manual. Not a dry catalogue of events, but written with a sense of the human drama surrounding each twist and turn of the tale. Co-author Stan Glantz, involved so deeply in the movement, offers the most incisive, comprehensive, and definitive perspective on the California anti-tobacco effort available. I was astounded to read of the intrigue and jaw-dropping audacity of the Tobacco Industry and its allies in the State government on one hand, and the incredible courage and tenacity of those fighting it in the most aggressive and effective way in history on the other. The growth in political savvy and will of the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society is catalogued in detail, as are the machinations of the State legislature, the governor's office, and lobbyists and pressure groups when money comes up for grabs. This is an outstanding text for the social or political scientist, activists of any type, and anyone in state local politics. It is a remarkable and practical instruction manual for anyone in tobacco use prevention today. These heroes have not left the field. Their enemy, the Tobacco Industry, is immortal.

I could hardly put this book down. The battle being fought is truly a life and death matter, alliances and strategies evolve on both sides, and the Tobacco Industry uses their multi-million war chests to mislead the public over and over and over again. Even when you think you can relax after a victory by the anti-tobacco forces, in the next chapter the Tobacco Industry is lurking behind yet another door with a butcher's cleaver, which ends up being wielded by tobacco funded politicians and the California Medical Association to cut tobacco education funds and to weaken the anti-tobacco media campaign. Really this book is about much more than California and its battle with the tobacco industry. It is the best book I've ever read about why we need campaign finance reform and effective sunshine laws. You are shown all the nitty-gritty details, the back room deals, the closed-door bargaining. You'll emerge from this book well-prepared to detect lies in future wars, and to read between-the-lines in daily newspaper coverage.

This book was written to get his side of the story. The U.S Gov't would like to portray him as a cold heartless Indian who deserves to be in jail. If 1000s of people worldwide , which include leaders of countries and celebrities.
If you thought all the "bad stuff" the government did to American Indians the last 300 years was over......read this.

Reading this book inspired me to somehow get involved in the movement for Leonard Peltier. This man was convicted of a crime there was no proof he committed and the situation has gone largely ignored by our government for 20 years!!! Read this book, learn the facts, and then get involved. Whether it be by talking about Leonard Peltier to other people and informing them, or by writing letters to your elected officials, DO SOMETHING! A fellow American has been unjustly imprisoned and it's our duty to help him.

Imagine for a moment. A political prisoner has been languishing in prison closing in on 20 years. Evidence has pointed to his innocence. His extradition from another country was based on false testimony. Even the agency that arrested him admitted to the strong possibility of his innocence. Where am I? Nazi Germany? Communist China? Russian Gulag? NOPE!! I'm right here in the GOOD OL' U.S.A.!! For close to 20 years Leonard Peltier has sat in Leavenworth. His charges of killing a federal agent has been proven false. Appeal after appeal has gone against him. So why is this injustice allowed to continue? BECAUSE WE ALLOW IT!!! If this book doesn't get you motivated to do something about this, then you are part of the problem, not the solution

This book about the 1940s-70s in Canada surprised me.I had seen the documentary "The Un-Canadians" about the way the RCMP persecuted left-wingers but the book takes it much much further. A powerful look at how things went awry after people got scared of views contrary to their own.

If you think Canada is a boring place, try this book. This is a good read- a book which contains over 50 fascinating interviews with people who were blacklisted for political beliefs-in labour, the entertainment industry, teaching- during the cold war in Canada.Historians and children of the blacklisted also offer their take on the events. Even an interview with those who took part in the blacklisting. An eye-opener about McCarthyism in Canada.

I loved this book. I was particularly touched by the stories of innocent Canadians whose lives were ruined by the Canadian version of the McCarthy era. Unbeknownst to many, the witchhunt was alive and well north of the 49th parallel.

The work presented in this book stands as a shining example of how social science research should be conducted. The authors' ability to set aside their preconceptions regarding gun control establishes their qualifications as preeminent researchers in the field and true professionals (as though this was necessary). Contemporary social science research is too often lacking in integrity; thankfully, these practitioners have made a contribution to the truth rather than some political ideology. The work cannot be classified as conservative or liberal. Rather, it represents a full and exhaustive exploration of the dynamics associated with the gun control debate as it is framed today. True students of the field should be grateful.

Interviewing felony prisoners in ten state correctional systems in 1981, Wright and Rossi found extensive information suggesting that gun control laws have relatively little effect on violent criminals. For example, only 12% of criminals, and only 7% of the criminals specializing in handgun crime, had acquired their last crime handgun at a gun store. Of those, about a quarter had stolen the gun from a store; a large number of the rest, Wright and Rossi suggested, had probably procured the gun through a legal surrogate buyer, such as a girlfriend with a clean record. Fifty-six percent of the prisoners said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that "One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." Thirty-nine percent of the felons had personally decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun, and eight percent said the experience had occurred "many times." Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried the most about armed victims. Despite the popular myth that criminals preferred small, inexpensive handguns (so-called "Saturday Night Specials" or "junk guns"), the felony prisoners preferred larger, more powerful handguns-equal to the guns which they expected the police would have. Although the criminals rarely bought guns in gun stores, the overwhelming majority stated that obtaining a gun after their release from prison would be a simple project, which might take a few hours to a few weeks. Armed and Dangerous has lost none of its importance. In the years since it was published, no-one has done any research on criminal gun use and acquisition that is even half as significant or detailed. Armed and Dangerous is also a great book to give a library. The new paperback includes an introduction by Jim Wright that discusses the reaction to Armed and Dangerous in the years since its first publication.

Intending to build the case for comprehensive federal gun restrictions, the Carter administration handed out a major gun control research grant to sociology Professor James D. Wright, and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. Wright was already on record as favoring much stricter controls, and he and his colleagues were recognized as among sociology's brightest stars. Rossi, a University of Massachusetts professor, would later become President of the American Sociology Association. Wright, who formerly served as Director of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, now teaches at Tulane. Daly was a relatively young scholar at the time, but she has since gone on to win the Hindelang Prize from the American Society of Criminology. The Hindelang Prize is awarded for the most significant contribution to criminology in a three-year period. Daly is the most recent winner, for her studies of women's issues. Anyway, Wright, Rossi, and Daly were asked to survey the state of research regarding the efficacy of gun control, presumably to show that gun control worked, and America needed more of it. But when Wright, Rossi, and Daly produced their report for the National Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write. Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America's 20,000 gun control laws had reduced criminal violence. For example, the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states. Washington, D.C.'s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns which had not already been registered in the District was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the District. Even Detroit's law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun crime patterns, in part because judges would often reduce the sentence for the underlying offense in order to balance out the mandatory two-year extra sentence for use of a gun. The Wright/Rossi/Daly team exploded scores of other gun control myths. They discussed the data showing that gun owners-rather then being a violent, aberrant group of nuts-were at least as psychologically stable and morally sound as the rest of the population. Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored "more gun control" were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are. As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun control advocates, and had been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence. Review by Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, http://i2i.org.

In Unguarded Gates Professor Graham provides a much needed corrective to what passes as the history of immigration restrictions from the 1880s to the present. Any suggestion in the current debate that perhaps the lifeboat of immigration is nearing capacity is sure to be greeted by a reminder that the Statue of Liberty stands as a permanent testament to our historic invitation to the world's "huddled masses yearning to be free."
In truth, in the view of the generation which placed the statue in New York harbor it was seen "as a symbol of America as a model to inspire other lovers of freedom," rather than some sort of illuminated welcome mat. It was not until the 1930s, Professor Graham informs us, that journalists and history text book writers began to link the statue not with liberty but with immigration.
Such distinctions are particularly relevant as the nation again comes to come to grip with the consequences of virtually unchecked immigration amidst emotionally laden charges that any suggestion to moderate the flow is akin to racist exclusion policies of the past. Indeed, the book shows that there was much more than racist exclusion to account for immigration limitations in the past and that the authors of the 1960s immigration reforms got much more than they bargained for on this account.
The book is a must read for anyone interested in where we came from, and, more importantly perhaps, where we are going as a nation of immigrants if the discussion is not properly addressed.

This is a very interesting book, particularly on the early restrictionists. It gave me a new perspective on why Americans restricted immigration in the early 20th century, and gave me historical insight into today's immigration policy crisis.

Brilliantly new! An historical perspective that you don't get in history classes, and it explains and probes the present mess we are in. Also musical to read.