"Give Me Liberty" tells the story of young Martha Washington, a precocious african-american girl growing up inside of the horror of public housing - "The Green" (a hideous development of the "Carbrini Green" projects of Chicago). At the dawn of a new century, a fascist president helms an America that features everything evil we can expect of the "New World Order" - including domination by corporations and an insurmountable gap between rich and poor. Abolishing term-limits (with each succesiive inauguaration, the crowds of supproters seems to be inversely proportional to the armed guards) the President spends most of his time reminding us how happy we should be thanks to him. At first trapped in Cabrini, Martha's savage misfortunes provide her an odd escape - first institutionalization, then (because it will clean her record) enlistment with PAX, a sort of corporate backed citizen's army. As a soldier on every one of America's frontlines, Martha witnesses how America's new empire is born, even as its dying. The enemies of course are not the Russians, but competing corporations (mostly theme parks and fast-food companies). In case you haven't caught on, "Give Me Liberty" is all about an advanced American state slowly disintegrating under its own weight. The country is soon gripped in civil wars - rather than a single conflict, the fighting is disorganized, along state, muncipal and corporate lines, and further complicated by various non-aligned factions, like the amazon women of the "First Sex Confederacy" and tribes of Native Americans armed with their own missiles. Even the left-wing administration that (briefly) suceeds Rexall is overwhelmed by the evil that is the new century.

While the story of America is compelling, "Give Me Liberty" actually suceeds because it never abandons Martha. Rather than some empty-headed figure upon whom "Give Me" can stamp its story, Martha is strong-willed, convincingly intelligent and surprisingly sympathetic. We never pity Martha nor can we condemn her for the ends she must take (which are violent - there's a fair amount of gore in the story). The future landscape of America is compelling, yet the story appears heavy-handed in some spots (the orbiting laser cannons are overtly phallic; the fst-food wars are fought by robots styled after the avatars of many Fat-Boy restaurants; genetic engineering creates an army of hyper-intelligent mutants used as living computers - like the "Pre-Cogs" of "Minority Report"; other clones include an army of beautiful but super-strong blondes who manage to escape the billionaire who bred them; then there's a mysterious surgeon general who seems patterned on Darth Vader - always masked, speaking in short sentences and never leaving any doubt of his homicidal mania). Still, the story can rely on our being continually focused on Martha. In that respect, "Give Me Liberty" does not dissappoint.

Well, that's a Frank Miller's story. You know about Frank Miller, he's always a genius. In this particular book he had the help of Dave Gibbons (Watchmen's illustrator), that is always the warranty of a good drawing. But the book has troubles. It's not like "Dark knight returns" or "ronin", Frank Miller's classics. It's... softer. I mean, it's good, but do not expect classic Miller's type of stories. But worth the prize. You must buy it.

The book offers a different and intriguing take on the democratic peace controversy, arguing that much of the correlation between democracy and peace in international politics can be explained by peace facilitating democracy. For example, the oldest and most stable democracies, such as America, Britain, and Switzerland, were able to carve out a zone of relative peace and safety for themselves denied to most states situated in vulnerable positions on the plains of Europe and Asia. Vulnerable states were much more apt to succumb to authoritarianism in order to cope with their situation. After World War Two, stable democracy spread to many other states only because an American-led structure of security and trade (the "Pax Americana") came to dominate the international system.

The book is well-written and provides an effective critique of some ambitious contemporary claims that the spread of democracy will in itself end all war. Still, one wonders how powerful the author's central claim - that peace is a major factor in facilitating democracy - holds across the universe of cases in international politics. The author admits that the modern state of Israel is a significant exception to the rule, and there is little in the way of detailed examination of developing states and how they effect the thesis.

Overall, the book is very interesting, though possibly too ambitious. There is a chapter posted on the book's official website, if you'd like a sample before you buy it.

International Order and Individual Liberty offers a critical examination of one of the most popular ideas among contemporary political scientists: that "democracies do not go to war with one another." According to the school of the "democratic peace," the long peace between democratic states since 1945 has demonstrated that democratic norms and institutions help states in the international system transcend traditional concerns about power-seeking and security, allowing for the possibility of a "perpetual peace" between democratic states.
However, there is another explanation for the long peace between democracies: reverse causation. That is, the current peaceful international order (created by such factors as U.S. hegemony, the solidification of borders, economic growth, and the nuclear revolution) has made it possible for liberal democracy to flourish in many countries which have found it difficult or impossible to build and maintain free institutions in previous eras of international violence and instability. Only states which are relatively secure -- politically, militarily, economically -- can afford to have free, pluralistic societies; in the absence of this security, states are much more likely to adopt, maintain, or revert to centralized, coercive authority structures.
The book outlines in detail the alternative theoretical perspective of peace facilitating democracy, and applies this theoretical perspective to a number of historical case studies. The case studies include an examination of the American Revolution, French Revolution, the development of Germany in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries, and modern Israel. The book concludes with an overall analysis of the nature and causes of the contemporary peace between democracies, and the implications for U.S. foreign policy.

Okay, I have to admit that I went to high school with David Long, so I may be a bit biased. However, as a dedicated fiction reader who ventures into history, I must say that I learned a lot about not only the election, but Lincoln himself. David is an unadulterated Lincoln fan, and the book is written from a mid-western point of view, which I found refreshing, since we normally hear the Southern or the Yankee version of the war. The basic premise that Lincoln showed incredible courage in even holding the election in a time of crisis was most interesting, but the sections on the racial diatribes of Lincoln's opponents after the Emancipation Proclamation are fascinating. Well worth the read for even the modest history buff. This book is almost too well documented which is hardly a sin, and he rarely veers into personal opinion and speculation, and certainly never wildly. Definitely worth the time.

Those readers who hate unsupported assertions and enjoy copious citations--and I am one--will love this work.

Turns out that the history of a Liberty Ship can make for good, interesting reading. This book is both educational and satisfying.

All profits from the sale of this excellent book go to Project Liberty Ship, Inc. a nonprofit organization that is restoring and operating this oldest operating Liberty Ship in Baltimore. Your reduced price is not helping keep this National Historic Vessel steaming.

A very good book, marred (unfortunately) by a touch of ingratitude. Sullivan's work rests entirely on a foundation built by Leo Strauss forty years before. Yet she only mentions Strauss to upbraid him--for an error which he did not commit!

Still, this book leaves no doubt as to Machiavelli's fundamental judgement of Christianity, and explains the point well and in detail. And, unlike Strauss, it is fairly easy to understand.

A very good book, scarred (unfortunately) by a touch of ingratitude. Sullivan's work rests entirely on a foundation built by Leo Strauss forty years before. Yet she only mentions Strauss to upbraid him--for an error which he did not commit! Still, this book leaves no doubt as to Machiavelli's fundamental judgement of Christianity, and explains the point well and in detail. And, unlike Strauss, it is fairly easy to understand.

The crucial question facing any theory of political"rights" is: why should _I_ respect _yours_? And despite atremendous effort, I'm afraid Tara Smith hasn't yet answered this question.

I'm happy to see her declare that the deontology-vs.-consequentialism dichotomy is a false one, and I even agree with her that the right approach is "teleological" (though for somewhat different reasons from hers). But unfortunately her own "teleological" approach fails to tell us just why one person is _morally_ obliged not to violate the rights of another.

Her essential claim is that rights violations are _never_ in accordance with the "telos" of rights, which has to do with the securing and promotion of life. But there are two objections which Smith never adequately addresses:

(1) The transition from "my rights promote my telos" to "_respecting_ my rights promotes _your_ telos" is never made clear, either by Rand or by Smith; each passes without acknowledgement from one claim to the other.

(2) And by "respecting my rights" I mean respecting them _as_ rights. I'm not persuaded that Smith has given an adequate foundation for rights _as_ rights.

For her foundation, ultimately, is that my respect for _your_ rights promotes my _own_ life. But are your rights not morally binding against me even if I have decided to kill myself? (Even if I am in the very _act_ of killing myself? If I'm driving at ninety miles an hour toward a bridge abutment, am I not in some way obliged to avoid mowing down the little girl who wanders out in front of my car?) If so, then my obligation to respect your rights is founded, at least in part, on something other than my own "choice to live."

Smith, like Rand before her, is at least in the ballpark. But I continue to think that the "Objectivist ethic" needs to be re-thought from the ground up -- a task that Smith has not yet performed.

Prof. Smith does a wonderful job of giving a proper academic presentation of the Objectivist case for individual rights. She first presents a detailed moral teleological argument for why individuals should have rights. She then proceeds to argue against both deontological and consequentialist justifications for rights and makes the case that her teleological justification is the only proper one which has none of the weaknesses of the other attempts at justifying rights. Finally she takes on so-called "positive freedoms" or "welfare rights" and shows how recognizing such rights negates actual freedoms and thus that such positive rights are not proper rights and freedoms at all.

This book would be beneficially used in any political science or moral/political philosophy course.

This book is about a boy and it's his grandma's birthday. They go to see the Statue of Liberty. They have a picnic and a wonderful time. The boy hates the party. Anyway, it has the most beautiful pictures. I recommend this book to people who love the Statue of Liberty.

Tony cannot understand why every year his family has to lug picnic supplies and even a birthday cake to the Statue of Liberty. It seems silly to him to celebrate a statues' birthday. As the day progresses, Tony begins to understand what the statue represents to immigrant families such as his. This is a beautifully written and illustrated book. The text is touching and meaningful. The illustrations capture the emotions of the text perfectly. This would be an excellent book to introduce the concept of immigration or to present to a child taking a trip to the Statue of Liberty.

Msgr. Burke is a Irish canon lawyer, lately a member of the Roman Rota, the Catholic Church's highest judicial court. Writing in English, his work is free of the translation and nuance problems which affect many other European Church scholars' works. He draws upon Vatican II and natural law philosophy in studying these important topics.

Not that Mill was ever obscure or inaccessible, but while Prof Schneewind's Introduction adds little value, the notes and annotations by Dale E Miller certainly renders this compendium transparent, even to folks like me who have been dumbed down by years of television debates as primary intellectual nourishment. He enlightens each of Mill's chapters with a short and easily assimilated introductory overview. Complementing this with text annotations, collected at the back of the book. The annotations appear to be very well selected, as they are never too numerous to make flipping to the back of the book tedious, yet they manage to illuminate every aspect or item I might have found even remotely confusing, ambiguous or otherwise incomprehensible in the modern idiom.

This text is an excellent starting point for reading JS Mill, and is very well suited to the armchair philosopher who wishes to get into the material with ease and without encumbrance. However, there may be too little in the annotations in terms of external references, or cross references to Mill's other writings, or background information to satisfy the more academically inclined.

Of course anyone with even a nominal interest in what liberty is... NEEDS to read JS Mill. But then, you wouldn't be here if you didn't know that, right?

This anthology covers the American anarcho-individualists gathered around Benjamin Tucker in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The essays do a pretty good job covering different aspects of these figures, their acts and disagreements and so forth. Those with a particular interest in these individuals will want this book, but it lacks wider relevance. Anarchists of other stripes may also find it of interest.