#64 in Reference books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom

Sentiment score: 8
Reddit mentions: 18

We found 18 Reddit mentions of Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. Here are the top ones.

Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Collectors edition 2 disc set containing over 3 hours
  • See "No Filter Paul", Stalker Patty, Photoshopmike, Eastside Dave and Lenay D
  • The Last interview with the late Gail O, in Paul O'Callaghan's, soon to be cult hit
  • Ron and Fez Fans, Opie and Anthony Fans, see the characters you have heard about for years
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.75 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateApril 2011
Weight0.95239697184 Pounds
Width1.25 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 18 comments on Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom:

u/DTown13 · 16 pointsr/ronpaul

Hello,

I found myself in a similar situation as you not too long ago. As a former democrat smitten with the idea of making things "fair" for everyone, reading Ron Paul's books and ideology really got me thinking. I have never put more time, thought, and effort into politics and social structure before, but after this much-needed reflection after my introduction to RP's very... different points of view, I find that his are the only true "fair" policies.

To address your concern over wealth eventually and inevitably consolidating into the hands of the few at expense of the many, I would stop short of declaring such a Malthusian outcome. Do situations such as you described with the cash register machine occur in Capitalism? Absolutely, and like you said, they are a blessing for society. The world now needs less cashiers, this is true, but now the world needs more engineers to design the machines, mechanics to fix them when they break, computer programmers to code the software they use, and security guards and managers to make sure the machines are being used properly.

But, you say, the person who invented this machine is going to get RICH! That's not fair! However, the very essence of capitalism is that this is indeed the most fair outcome. The man had a brilliant idea and put in the work needed to realize his vision of completing the Cashier-tron 3000. Good for him. His reward in the form of economic success and material wealth is what will motivate the relatively poor college engineering student to start dreaming up plans and designs for the Cash-o-Matic 4000.

As technology progresses, the structure of the economy will inevitably change. It happened before in in the mid-20th century, from an agriculturally based economy to a manufacturing-based economy. Currently, the US economy is transitioning from a manufacturing base to a services based structure, and it is true that these transition periods can indeed be painful. But this is how the free market and economies have to work, and trying to interfere with the process through wealth redistribution, money printing, and corrupt regulatory agencies is not only unfair, but quite often counter-productive.

I do not claim to know everything, my friend, and I love to see people asking questions such as yours. I am merely giving you my perspective after pondering similar issues myself. As long as we keep asking these questions, and seeking these answers, I am confident that the right ideology will make it to the top.


edit: also, as for corporate person-hood, Ron Paul has stated many times in his books and in speeches that he firmly believes that rights belong to individuals, and not groups. The logical conclusion of this line of thought would lead me to believe he does not support corporate person-hood in any way, shape, or form.

edit2: I highly recommend that if you are interested in learning more about the intellectual foundation of Ron Paul's policy positions that you pick up a copy of his book Liberty Defined. It is a quick read and it is written expressly for the purpose of covering 50 fundamental issues and providing his rationale for thinking the way he does about it.

u/conn2005 · 6 pointsr/Libertarian

On OWS:

Ron Paul has said that there is some good in the OWS movement. But you are more likely to see him bite down on crony capitalism and Federal Reserve policy than redistribute wealth. The Fed and Legislators pick the winners and losers in the market with their subsidies, bailouts, tax breaks, government contracts, special land access (miss use of "right-of-way"), and other privileges granted to them by government.

On Social Programs:

Take social security for example. Even though Ron Paul doesn't support it, he has suggested to allow people 25 and younger to opt out of the program, but that the govt should still make good on their promises to the rest. You can bet that he wont increase the benefits though.

On war:

RP is the only candidate in both parties that actually wants to support the troops by bringing them home. He might not have a Nobel Peace prize but he would bring about peace.

In General:

Please read his most recent short book Liberty Defined. He describes 50 topics and how they affect freedom. If you have a question on any stance of his on any topic, its in there.

u/anarkhosy · 5 pointsr/ronpaul

The first place is definitely: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/

And if you want more indepth information, I recommend his book Liberty Defined

u/nickem · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

I would recommend his book Liberty Defined. They're listed in the table of contents.

u/rancemo · 2 pointsr/Marijuana

That's not entirely true. Read the first chapter of his latest book. He makes it clear that he's against abortion, but he also makes it clear that government prohibition of abortion doesn't work.

u/newhoa · 2 pointsr/politics

Sure, sorry about that. I knew I should have sourced everything, but I was in a bit of a hurry. Here we go:

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security

> "I would start with military operations overseas ... but you don't have to go and cut health care and Social Security to get our house in order. ... I think the most popular place to cut is all this spending overseas and the corporate welfare in this country because most of the money we spend here that is supposed to help the poor really helps the large corporations, like the housing bubble. Who got helped? See the rich got bailed out both by the congress and the federal reserve, and they were making all the profits. So it's the corporatism that is so bad. ... that is the welfare that is huge compared to the welfare of foodstamps."

  • PBS Interview 2011

    > "I never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. So I’m the one that has saved it. I say take that money -- and I say this constantly -- don’t turn anybody out on the streets ... The only way you can do that is cut spending. If we don’t, they’re all going to be out in the street. Because right now Social Security beneficiaries are getting 2% raises, but their cost of living is going up 10%. A dollar crisis is going to wipe them all out."

  • Meet the Press 2007

    Here is is budget plan - Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are intact. Here is a longer post I made about this a while back, with a little more info on his views of the inflation that is actually reducing the purchasing power people who are on these programs have (making the poor and those on SS poorer even though they have the same dollar amount). And how the government is changing their measurements so they don't have to follow through with their obligations on these programs.

    Abortion

    >It is not a national issue, this is a state issue. ... I still think there are some times when the law doesn't solve the problem. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem.

  • Republican Debate 9-22-2011

    > My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one. In the 1960s, when I was in my OB/GYN residency training, abortions were being done in defiance of the law. Society had changed and the majority agreed the laws should be changed as well. The Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade caught up with the changes in moral standards.
    So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion.

    >...

    >Strangely, given that my moral views are akin to theirs, various national pro-life groups have been hostile to my position on this issue. But I also believe in the Constitution, and therefore, I consider it a state-level responsibility ... I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states.

    >...

    >The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic. Demanding a national and only a national solution, as some do, gives credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent. Ending nationally legalized abortions by federal court order is neither a practical answer to the problem nor a constitutionally sound argument.

  • His Book, Liberty Defined, Chapter titled "Abortion"

    Here is another video of him discussing abortion. He views it as an act of violence, but Constitutionally the Federal Government has no right to intervene. But they also have no right to force people to support it through taxation.

    Competing Currencies vs Gold Standard

    As much as he likes gold, and hates the Federal Reserve, he doesn't want the dollar itself to be backed by gold, or the Federal Reserve ended immediately. He wants to allow competing currencies, and hopes that people will voluntarily choose commodity-based money over paper fiat currency. I know there are better sources on this, but this is all I could find right now (sorry, running low on time - if you need some more feel free to msg me or respond to this later).

    Financial Plan (EPA)

    Here is a link to his Financial Plan which lists the departments he'd like to get rid of (note: All aspects of the departments would not be abolished... some of their major duties would be folded into other departments), and then it shows the remaining departments with their 2006 budgets, including the EPA.

    ------------

    Hopefully this helped! I hastily put this together, so let me know if you need any more sources, clarification or anything!
u/tjh5012 · 2 pointsr/ronpaul

It's alright. That's why you need to educate yourself and be able to stand up for him. If you choose to defend him on facts rather than emotion you will convince people.

A general comment, read his books revolution, end the fed, and liberty defined. You can even buy them in a bundle.


another great book from a great thinker, andrew napolitano

You don't have to agree with everything these people say to support them. If you understand the core principles and believe in the constitution and free, unalienable rights, then we can at least have educated discussions about these ideas and how to deploy them. And I am writing in generalities... I'm using "you" in a very broad, non-descriptive sense.

u/noodlez222 · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/radioscott · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Ron Paul's got a brand spanking new book out today that looks like a great overview of how his views on liberty apply to a whole host of current issues. Could be a good place to start (my copy is in the mail!).

u/freshchill · 1 pointr/ronpaul

This is just my speculation, but I think it would depend of the severity and type of pollution/damages involved. I believe this would mostly be addressed in civil suits. However, for public land this would become a more complicated problem as there is no definable victim and criminal penalties would probably be involved. While on the subject, this is a reason Ron Paul is mostly against public land, it tends to complicate matters. I recommend his book Liberty Defined, he goes into much more detail on the matter. (http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322091684&sr=8-1)

u/nanowerx · 1 pointr/ronpaul

Tell your friend to read this and STFU.

u/MarcoVincenzo · 1 pointr/atheism

There's plenty of truth in what you wrote, but the whole problem can ultimately be traced back to a government that's too big and too powerful. Thus, the first step in any recovery is going to have to be reducing the size of government and its ability to influence so many aspects of our lives, not just our economy.

Since this thread started with a critique of Ron Paul here's a couple quotes from his latest book Liberty Defined.

  • Speaking of special interests influencing campaigns and, in my words, buying politicians to do them favors later:

    >If there were less to buy through influencing campaigns, there would be a lot less incentive to invest so much in the process. [p. 29]

  • And, from the intro, the effect of special interests influencing elections and "buying" politicians from both parties:

    > Powerful special interests rule, and there seems to be no way to fight against them. While the middle class is being destroyed, the poor suffer, the justly rich are being looted, and the unjustly rich are getting richer. The wealth of the country has fallen into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. [p. xiv]

    Paul recognizes that there are both "justly" and "unjustly" rich and he is more than aware of special interests wanting to control the process for their own benefit. He also knows how they do it and he's more than prepared to fight them, which is more than I can say for any other major candidate.

    As I wrote initially, Paul is by no means perfect and in reading his books I've found much to disagree with, but he's honest and he can address the problems we fact as a nation. That has to be the priority right now.
u/US_Ranger · -1 pointsr/politics

First off, my apologies for my earlier posts as you have shown that you aren't another high school kid like I originally thought. I should have given the benefit of the doubt before coming off as a d-bag but after getting called a baby-killer, kidnapper, psychotic murderer and everything else by a bunch of basement dwellers on here, I start to automatically assume the people I disagree with are 16-18 years old. So yes, my apologies.


So, nowhere did I say I accept Ron Paul's definition of liberty as that's something hard to define. Obviously, as based on my posts here, I agree with most of his stances. I was recommending his book so you could get his personal opinion on matters of liberty instead of having me trying to explain it. I obviously understand he's not a judge either. However, when asked about drug use and why he wanted to legalize heroin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFcuAPjBpiA

He gave a pretty solid answer on why he defines it as liberty. The same would go for the civil rights issue we're arguing, child labor laws, contractual slavery, etc. People aren't going to use/not use a drug based on legality. People aren't going to have racist attitudes based on legality. People might try to exploit child labor laws on legality but the scorn of the community will always be there the same way it's there for heroin use. The federal government isn't preventing any of these problems and the states can do the job themselves. The individual can do the best job when it comes to their own personal choices, except in the cases of children which is why I was arguing the child labor in the first place.

I also understand what contractual slavery is and I understand our history of indentured servitude. I can't speak for Ron Paul but I would bet that his opinion would be that no one is going to do that anymore and if they did, communities would handle it in a heart-beat because no one wants to be associated with it. There are always going to be communes that do but we have that now, even with laws.

I'm also all for you running your private business how you want as that's in line with personal liberty. I'm also all for not using your business if you refuse to hire a black person and I'm sure the local newspaper would find thousands of other people ready to boycott your business for the same reason. Again, local communities can solve problems. When there is a breach of personal liberty, it can go to state courts.


I won't comment on the "We the People Act" because I obviously need to read up on it since I don't really know much about it. Thanks for the link and I'll see what I can find on that.


My apologies again for the initial d-bag approach.


http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X


Even if you don't want to read it, you can look at the top review for what it covers to get an idea.


Goodnight.

u/Toava · -3 pointsr/todayilearned

Exactly. You need someone well-read in political theory.

Ron Paul for example has written and published a number of books, mostly on monetary policy and foreign policy:

A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship

Pillars of Prosperity

The Case for Gold

Gold, Peace, and Prosperity

End the Fed

Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom

He provides READING LISTS to his political opponents, like Rudy Giuliani:

Educating Rudy: The Ron Paul reading list