What do you think?
Rate this book
The Revolution: A Manifesto #1
The Revolution: A Manifesto
This Much Is You Have Been Lied To.The government is expanding. Taxes are increasing. More senseless wars are being planned. Inflation is ballooning. Our basic freedoms are disappearing. The Founding Fathers didn't want any of this. In fact, they said so quite clearly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, that beautiful, ingenious, and revolutionary document is being ignored more and more in Washington. If we are to enjoy peace, freedom, and prosperity once again, we absolutely must return to the principles upon which America was founded. But finally, there is hope . . . In The Revolution, Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has exposed the core truths behind everything threatening America, from the real reasons behind the collapse of the dollar and the looming financial crisis, to terrorism and the loss of our precious civil liberties. In this book, Ron Paul provides answers to questions that few even dare to ask. Despite a media blackout, this septuagenarian physician-turned-congressman sparked a movement that has attracted a legion of young, dedicated, enthusiastic supporters . . . a phenomenon that has amazed veteran political observers and made more than one political rival envious. Candidates across America are already running as "Ron Paul Republicans." "Dr. Paul cured my apathy," says a popular campaign sign. The Revolution may cure yours as well.
188 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 30, 2008
371 people are currently reading
7948 people want to read
About the author
Ron Paul
102 books557 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 680 reviews
April 24, 2008
Whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul's views, this book serves as an important political primer on the real issues facing America today: civil liberties, the economy, the failing dollar, foreign policy.... issues mostly ignored by a national media obsessed with superficial catch-phrases and meaningless scandals. Primarily a concise collection of the views and ideas expressed during Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign, this book also contains an extended reading list for "a free and prosperous America."
Please read this book. It's short and sweet, informative and inspirational. Realize that there is a difference between the way things are and the way they could be.
Please read this book. It's short and sweet, informative and inspirational. Realize that there is a difference between the way things are and the way they could be.
November 6, 2012
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
The Revolution is what our founding fathers did. Give me liberty. Freedom isn't free. If you give it up it will not be yours by right any longer. The constitution was written in mind of those who would twist it to give themselves more power. Checks and balances. It was protection for the people against a government that would exist only to serve itself, defeating the sole purpose for its creation. That is not the country that the United States was in 2008 when Ron Paul wrote The Revolution: A Manifesto. It isn't the country in 2012 either. He was running for the presidential race that year. A story that I only heard because my mother was present at the GOP convention in Fla this year was that the party changed the rules at the last moment to keep Paul off of the ballot (cheating). We get to have Mitt Romney as the "option". Why didn't the media cover this? Free press? Nope. Regardless of which candidate one supports, it should send chills down anyone's spines that a political party would get away with cheating in this way. What more proof do people need that the ideal candidate who will be the kindly parent who will take care of all your concerns for you is not going to happen? (Voter fraud is not new [that it is not new should not take away from the importance] but the shooting down of the plane carrying the votes of the military this election scared me a great deal.) My sister related to me the idea that American politics was like voting for a sports team. The empty sports jersey to root for, regardless of ability to play the game, or the outcome. That's the only way I can reckon the absence of opposition for Obama where Bush was censured for the exact same things by the same people. The war became just over night. "Crippling sanctions" in Iran would have been evil under Bush, I suspect. Oh, politicians are evil. You can't expect any better so... Lesser of two evils (anyone else get told "lesser of two evils" by both Romney and Obama supporters?). The solution is to be scared shitless when President Obama says that HIS presidency won't abuse all of these new powers but you don't know about the NEXT guy... However you feel about Obama, if you are okay that the next president will have these same powers and you are willing to risk that they won't abuse them then you don't understand what the USA is supposed to be about. What you are hoping for is a benevolent despot. There is a constitution so this kind of shit does not happen. The federal government shouldn't be in control over everyone's lives. That means the rest of the world too. They are not supposed to own us. The government is only supposed to work for the people.
USA history is filled with law breaking. The draft that turned citizens into slaves. The Korean war when Truman acted without congress. Troops are still there. There are American troops in 130 countries around the world. Obama and Bush would follow in his law breaking footsteps. Ron Paul has a valid point that there should not still be American troops in Germany (!) and Korea. Whatever the "good intentions", a government that sets out to impose their will on another will end up a dictator. (I can't take seriously that governments that "disrespect women" should be bombed. Is the USA going to bomb all of the places in the world that disrespect women? Where will it end? Or is that just the countries that have oil and make the corporations very, very rich?)
I believe that constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald has identified a fatal contradiction in these claims. If it is true that the executive branch knew the locations of so many people with al Qaeda links, why were they seeking merely to eavesdrop on their conversations? Why were they not arresting them instead? This, after all, is an administration that has detained people indefinitely, without charges, on the basis of some shaky evidence of an al Qaeda connection. This time, we are supposed to believe that the administration had knowledge of countless al Qaeda figures and decided to let them remain free? Not plausible, and that is why it seems likely that the targets of this surveillance included many Americans who had no ties to al Qaeda or terrorism at all.
Did you know that the USA monitors all pharmaceutical use of every American? Why?! That's not covered in this book (it does get into the mandatory mental health screenings and subsequent mandatory prescription use for school children. I had not known about this. Why didn't I know about this if we have a free press... Oh, right). The hand holding of the people. Do people want the government to control this much of their lives? It isn't just the federal government, of course. Zoning restaurants out of poor neighborhoods because they aren't smart enough to make the right choices? The hell? I know everyone knows about the illegal big gulps in NYC. The revolution says that the government does not tell you what to eat. That is what freedom is.
The revolutionary ideas include that the federal reserve stop printing money. This makes everyone poorer by devaluing their money. I have deep concerns that the American people are nothing but a personal piggy bank and reserve of fleshly fodder for corporations to send out to fight their overseas interests. Pointless and endless wars over seas that cost trillions of dollars. More money is printed. Who is paying for it all? I know who is benefiting from it. Follow the money, as Lester Freamon on The Wire was fond of saying. Who got billions in campaign donations from Goldman Saks? Who gave the banks bail outs? The media turns a blind eye to what is going on. Who gave campaign donations to both candidates? Rupert Murdoch, who monopolizes the media. Hey, aren't monopolies supposed to be illegal? Not anymore. Ron Paul also illustrates how big business lobbys the government for restrictions they know their little competitors will not be able to meet. What happened to "job creating", anyway, and the "free market correcting itself"?
The job creating that appeared suddenly before this election time was because due to the Obama Care restrictions on employers to pay for health insurance after a certain number of full time employees. The full time hours were changed from 40 to 30. That means that a lot of employees were dropped down to 29 hours a week to keep them from being full time. More part time jobs. Could you live on 29 hours a week? If you aren't full time that means you are not getting health care. National health care, eh? No single payer plan was implemented. It is not national health care. Not to mention if you a preexisting condition [fat people are included in this, I don't know if many people know that] you cannot get covered. If you get sick you still get fired. If you get fired and lose health insurance you will be liable for what the insurance had paid before that point. America is a cruel country. Health costs go up first because of the printing money out of the Fed Reserve. It's comforting to know that the government has been spending the only program that had a surplus, social security. They tell the public that it is CHARITY when they had been paying into it out of their paychecks. Something that they are legally obligated to do! I wonder how long before "They are going to die anyway" is trotted out about the elderly. Why did government meddle in health care in the first place?! Why was this their job? It wasn't supposed to be.
It shouldn't be revolutionary that the Patriot act should not be. Americans should not be indefinitely detained for "terrorism" (and I will keep saying this because the media does not) and now gangs and drugs. The war on terror is now permanent. The loss of liberties occur during war time. Does that scare the shit out of you too? Torture is illegal, of course. Still happens. Remember when Obama said he was gonna get rid of Gitmo in 2008? National security, oh yeah. Somehow Americans are in danger and there are multiple wars raging that no one can afford. Is anyone defending the usa? (Because terrorism had nothing at all to do with the "crippling sanctions"? Blow-back? Do you feel safe because they can spy on us all? I don't.) By the way, my hometown is a drone site. Why?!
Ron Paul still had hope that America could pull out of this crisis in 2008. I wonder if he still feels that way. I haven't read it yet but will soon historian Tony Judt's Ill Fares the Land (it looks to be in a similar vein to this and Glenn Greenwald's With Liberty and Justice for Some that I highly recommend). He had had hope too. That was before the bail outs. No strings attached bail outs that everyone now knows were used to give out bonuses to the executives who caused the mess in the first place. Why were they given these bail outs with no restrictions? Why were bail outs given to Europe! (Two under the table without the knowledge of the American people, no less. The German president was vilified for actually asking for austerity measures for Greece. What happened? Everyone knows that they did what the American bankers did. Bonuses for the criminals. Bail outs shouldn't have happened in the first place. The media tells us that Obama is a hero to Europeans.)
This is a great book about asking the questions that Americans should be asking and their representatives are not going to talk about unless it is demanded that they talk about them. I'm pretty ignorant about economics (Paul suggests some places to start for beginners. There's even a reading list at the back of the book for those who want to become better informed). I don't know how I feel about the gold standard idea. I do know that printing more and more money is the worst thing to do. Gold can't be printed out of the whim of the administration so there is that.
I don't see eye to eye with Paul on abortion, exactly, but it does make me ever so sore when I hear people talk about abortion as if it is the ONLY issue that should ever come up during election time. See, that's a big problem. Why are the American people ignoring all of these issues that really and truly do effect their lives, and the lives of their children? I do think Paul has a point that people shouldn't cede rights from the states because they think some of them will make "the wrong choice". I can't tell you how much I don't agree that my state has the death penalty. I have voted against it every chance I have had. We still have it. Would I want it to be decided by the federal government and then get a president that feels as the current governor of Texas does (they've had 250 executions during his term)? Too much power to one person is bad is the idea, right? I do wonder about people who are okay with millions of deaths in war rather than using birth control (please don't take me the wrong way here. I find the idea that anyone should be forced to have a baby absolutely abhorrent). It drove me crazy when a favorite musician, John Darnielle of The Mountain Goats, twittered the other day that people should vote for the candidate least likely to overturn roe vs. wade (as if it was even an issue, as if they weren't more than one candidate, as if there wasn't any other possible factor to vote for!). I know this is a prevalent attitude from people I have talked to in my real life. I have to ask why?
If there was one issue that I saw eye to eye with Ron Paul on more than anything else it was ending the war on drugs. People should not be in prison for a health issue. Clinton went against the constitution when he prosecuted users of marijuana where it was legal to use it for medical reasons. I didn't know how the war on drugs began. A senator on the floor of the Texas senate said: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy." It became a federal tax act in 1937. It became against the law in 1970 instead of the tax charade (you could still call it an act, I suppose). The war on drugs has ruined communities, lives, imprisoned countless people.
If the history of American government teaches us anything, it is that the time to fight oppressive and absurd programs is before they are established, since once they are in place they are essentially impossible to dismantle. They need to be blocked before they have a chance to start. Otherwise, local programs with federal funding will grow larger and larger and be found in many more localities, until we finally have a mandatory federal screening program. This is how it always works.
One more thing: the loss of the right to protest. Why is this being allowed to be given up? Isn't that one of our fundamental rights? One of the things that made the usa what it was? How change happened? The revolution is don't give up what the usa is all about. Don't let anyone take it away from you. If the government doesn't have too much power you don't have to be terrified that the wrong guy could get elected into office.
The Revolution is what our founding fathers did. Give me liberty. Freedom isn't free. If you give it up it will not be yours by right any longer. The constitution was written in mind of those who would twist it to give themselves more power. Checks and balances. It was protection for the people against a government that would exist only to serve itself, defeating the sole purpose for its creation. That is not the country that the United States was in 2008 when Ron Paul wrote The Revolution: A Manifesto. It isn't the country in 2012 either. He was running for the presidential race that year. A story that I only heard because my mother was present at the GOP convention in Fla this year was that the party changed the rules at the last moment to keep Paul off of the ballot (cheating). We get to have Mitt Romney as the "option". Why didn't the media cover this? Free press? Nope. Regardless of which candidate one supports, it should send chills down anyone's spines that a political party would get away with cheating in this way. What more proof do people need that the ideal candidate who will be the kindly parent who will take care of all your concerns for you is not going to happen? (Voter fraud is not new [that it is not new should not take away from the importance] but the shooting down of the plane carrying the votes of the military this election scared me a great deal.) My sister related to me the idea that American politics was like voting for a sports team. The empty sports jersey to root for, regardless of ability to play the game, or the outcome. That's the only way I can reckon the absence of opposition for Obama where Bush was censured for the exact same things by the same people. The war became just over night. "Crippling sanctions" in Iran would have been evil under Bush, I suspect. Oh, politicians are evil. You can't expect any better so... Lesser of two evils (anyone else get told "lesser of two evils" by both Romney and Obama supporters?). The solution is to be scared shitless when President Obama says that HIS presidency won't abuse all of these new powers but you don't know about the NEXT guy... However you feel about Obama, if you are okay that the next president will have these same powers and you are willing to risk that they won't abuse them then you don't understand what the USA is supposed to be about. What you are hoping for is a benevolent despot. There is a constitution so this kind of shit does not happen. The federal government shouldn't be in control over everyone's lives. That means the rest of the world too. They are not supposed to own us. The government is only supposed to work for the people.
USA history is filled with law breaking. The draft that turned citizens into slaves. The Korean war when Truman acted without congress. Troops are still there. There are American troops in 130 countries around the world. Obama and Bush would follow in his law breaking footsteps. Ron Paul has a valid point that there should not still be American troops in Germany (!) and Korea. Whatever the "good intentions", a government that sets out to impose their will on another will end up a dictator. (I can't take seriously that governments that "disrespect women" should be bombed. Is the USA going to bomb all of the places in the world that disrespect women? Where will it end? Or is that just the countries that have oil and make the corporations very, very rich?)
I believe that constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald has identified a fatal contradiction in these claims. If it is true that the executive branch knew the locations of so many people with al Qaeda links, why were they seeking merely to eavesdrop on their conversations? Why were they not arresting them instead? This, after all, is an administration that has detained people indefinitely, without charges, on the basis of some shaky evidence of an al Qaeda connection. This time, we are supposed to believe that the administration had knowledge of countless al Qaeda figures and decided to let them remain free? Not plausible, and that is why it seems likely that the targets of this surveillance included many Americans who had no ties to al Qaeda or terrorism at all.
Did you know that the USA monitors all pharmaceutical use of every American? Why?! That's not covered in this book (it does get into the mandatory mental health screenings and subsequent mandatory prescription use for school children. I had not known about this. Why didn't I know about this if we have a free press... Oh, right). The hand holding of the people. Do people want the government to control this much of their lives? It isn't just the federal government, of course. Zoning restaurants out of poor neighborhoods because they aren't smart enough to make the right choices? The hell? I know everyone knows about the illegal big gulps in NYC. The revolution says that the government does not tell you what to eat. That is what freedom is.
The revolutionary ideas include that the federal reserve stop printing money. This makes everyone poorer by devaluing their money. I have deep concerns that the American people are nothing but a personal piggy bank and reserve of fleshly fodder for corporations to send out to fight their overseas interests. Pointless and endless wars over seas that cost trillions of dollars. More money is printed. Who is paying for it all? I know who is benefiting from it. Follow the money, as Lester Freamon on The Wire was fond of saying. Who got billions in campaign donations from Goldman Saks? Who gave the banks bail outs? The media turns a blind eye to what is going on. Who gave campaign donations to both candidates? Rupert Murdoch, who monopolizes the media. Hey, aren't monopolies supposed to be illegal? Not anymore. Ron Paul also illustrates how big business lobbys the government for restrictions they know their little competitors will not be able to meet. What happened to "job creating", anyway, and the "free market correcting itself"?
The job creating that appeared suddenly before this election time was because due to the Obama Care restrictions on employers to pay for health insurance after a certain number of full time employees. The full time hours were changed from 40 to 30. That means that a lot of employees were dropped down to 29 hours a week to keep them from being full time. More part time jobs. Could you live on 29 hours a week? If you aren't full time that means you are not getting health care. National health care, eh? No single payer plan was implemented. It is not national health care. Not to mention if you a preexisting condition [fat people are included in this, I don't know if many people know that] you cannot get covered. If you get sick you still get fired. If you get fired and lose health insurance you will be liable for what the insurance had paid before that point. America is a cruel country. Health costs go up first because of the printing money out of the Fed Reserve. It's comforting to know that the government has been spending the only program that had a surplus, social security. They tell the public that it is CHARITY when they had been paying into it out of their paychecks. Something that they are legally obligated to do! I wonder how long before "They are going to die anyway" is trotted out about the elderly. Why did government meddle in health care in the first place?! Why was this their job? It wasn't supposed to be.
It shouldn't be revolutionary that the Patriot act should not be. Americans should not be indefinitely detained for "terrorism" (and I will keep saying this because the media does not) and now gangs and drugs. The war on terror is now permanent. The loss of liberties occur during war time. Does that scare the shit out of you too? Torture is illegal, of course. Still happens. Remember when Obama said he was gonna get rid of Gitmo in 2008? National security, oh yeah. Somehow Americans are in danger and there are multiple wars raging that no one can afford. Is anyone defending the usa? (Because terrorism had nothing at all to do with the "crippling sanctions"? Blow-back? Do you feel safe because they can spy on us all? I don't.) By the way, my hometown is a drone site. Why?!
Ron Paul still had hope that America could pull out of this crisis in 2008. I wonder if he still feels that way. I haven't read it yet but will soon historian Tony Judt's Ill Fares the Land (it looks to be in a similar vein to this and Glenn Greenwald's With Liberty and Justice for Some that I highly recommend). He had had hope too. That was before the bail outs. No strings attached bail outs that everyone now knows were used to give out bonuses to the executives who caused the mess in the first place. Why were they given these bail outs with no restrictions? Why were bail outs given to Europe! (Two under the table without the knowledge of the American people, no less. The German president was vilified for actually asking for austerity measures for Greece. What happened? Everyone knows that they did what the American bankers did. Bonuses for the criminals. Bail outs shouldn't have happened in the first place. The media tells us that Obama is a hero to Europeans.)
This is a great book about asking the questions that Americans should be asking and their representatives are not going to talk about unless it is demanded that they talk about them. I'm pretty ignorant about economics (Paul suggests some places to start for beginners. There's even a reading list at the back of the book for those who want to become better informed). I don't know how I feel about the gold standard idea. I do know that printing more and more money is the worst thing to do. Gold can't be printed out of the whim of the administration so there is that.
I don't see eye to eye with Paul on abortion, exactly, but it does make me ever so sore when I hear people talk about abortion as if it is the ONLY issue that should ever come up during election time. See, that's a big problem. Why are the American people ignoring all of these issues that really and truly do effect their lives, and the lives of their children? I do think Paul has a point that people shouldn't cede rights from the states because they think some of them will make "the wrong choice". I can't tell you how much I don't agree that my state has the death penalty. I have voted against it every chance I have had. We still have it. Would I want it to be decided by the federal government and then get a president that feels as the current governor of Texas does (they've had 250 executions during his term)? Too much power to one person is bad is the idea, right? I do wonder about people who are okay with millions of deaths in war rather than using birth control (please don't take me the wrong way here. I find the idea that anyone should be forced to have a baby absolutely abhorrent). It drove me crazy when a favorite musician, John Darnielle of The Mountain Goats, twittered the other day that people should vote for the candidate least likely to overturn roe vs. wade (as if it was even an issue, as if they weren't more than one candidate, as if there wasn't any other possible factor to vote for!). I know this is a prevalent attitude from people I have talked to in my real life. I have to ask why?
If there was one issue that I saw eye to eye with Ron Paul on more than anything else it was ending the war on drugs. People should not be in prison for a health issue. Clinton went against the constitution when he prosecuted users of marijuana where it was legal to use it for medical reasons. I didn't know how the war on drugs began. A senator on the floor of the Texas senate said: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy." It became a federal tax act in 1937. It became against the law in 1970 instead of the tax charade (you could still call it an act, I suppose). The war on drugs has ruined communities, lives, imprisoned countless people.
If the history of American government teaches us anything, it is that the time to fight oppressive and absurd programs is before they are established, since once they are in place they are essentially impossible to dismantle. They need to be blocked before they have a chance to start. Otherwise, local programs with federal funding will grow larger and larger and be found in many more localities, until we finally have a mandatory federal screening program. This is how it always works.
One more thing: the loss of the right to protest. Why is this being allowed to be given up? Isn't that one of our fundamental rights? One of the things that made the usa what it was? How change happened? The revolution is don't give up what the usa is all about. Don't let anyone take it away from you. If the government doesn't have too much power you don't have to be terrified that the wrong guy could get elected into office.
August 28, 2008
I spoke too soon. I guess I should have trusted Ryan. This book was wonderful. I felt Ron Paul is a much better writer than speaker. I really enjoyed learning about the purpose of the constitution. I agree with the philosophy of smaller government and more liberty and independence for the people. His economics chapter was my favorite. Great reminder that we don't work for the government, the government works for us. Taxes- great reminder that if we completely got rid of taxes, the FED budget would have to be cut by 40%....crazy...no...because we would have the budget we had in 1997, a great time to live. Not so bad huh? All the info., about HMO's, Military draft, free market economy, taxes, illegal drugs, welfare, and so so much more was very interesting. It made me really think about the goals of our founding fathers and how I envision America. It puts the responsibility back on communities, families, and church's to guide the people..not the government. Perhaps I am a Libertarian afterall. This book made me passionate about politics and what I believe. We shall see. Now I need to do more research on politics and economics. Best read in a long time!
June 30, 2008
This book was a fascinating eye-opener for me. I started reading it because I was curious as to Ron Paul's core beliefs. He was ridiculed and pushed aside during the republican debates that I watched, so I became curious as to why they would not let him be heard. His ideas are in fact nothing new to the American tradition. It's just that we have gone so far astray from constitutional government that these ideas now seem revolutionary. Small government, non-interventionist foreign policy, fiscal responsibility and free trade are the heart of our nation. More and more of our personal rights and liberties have been taken away in the name of the "greater good" by the government, who should not pretend to be a moral authority. Mr. Paul outlines his ideas on how we can get back to basics and what needs to be done to reign it all in again. His examples are well researched, intelligent and inspired. This book has changed my views and given me hope for our future. I recommend it to all Americans. Even if you do not agree with all of the opinions expressed, there is much to be learned about the way our government works by reading this book.
January 26, 2010
LOVED it!!!
I admit, I thought Ron Paul was this||close to a loon during the 2008 election. His positions - and the shorter, more strident sound bytes from his supporters - just seemed so impractical. The staging of his ideas in ALL media simply reinforced my perception and convinced me that I didn't have to bother researching what he actually said, or why.
Wow. I was wrong - not just in my assessment of him, but in my lazy, dismissive, (and I might even say "sheeple-ish") approach to his candidacy, as well.
Thank goodness for a patient friend! I decided to check out what Congressman Paul actually *says* and *thinks*.
I learned the background and actual Congressional Record-type history behind the Fed, (about which I'm totally on board with him); the criminalization of marijuana possession/use, (about which I'm undecided); and more. Additionally, his explanation of the issues we have with our money supply was the first that actually sunk in for me; I'd heard the words before, but they honestly never really came together sensibly until reading his explanation.
This book is full of coherent, consistent facts and philosophies. Now I actually *understand* his positions, and it's a great feeling to be informed.
Please, if you have any interest in politics, economics, ethics, or security, give this book a read. Whether you agree with him or not, at least you'll know what you're talking about!
I admit, I thought Ron Paul was this||close to a loon during the 2008 election. His positions - and the shorter, more strident sound bytes from his supporters - just seemed so impractical. The staging of his ideas in ALL media simply reinforced my perception and convinced me that I didn't have to bother researching what he actually said, or why.
Wow. I was wrong - not just in my assessment of him, but in my lazy, dismissive, (and I might even say "sheeple-ish") approach to his candidacy, as well.
Thank goodness for a patient friend! I decided to check out what Congressman Paul actually *says* and *thinks*.
I learned the background and actual Congressional Record-type history behind the Fed, (about which I'm totally on board with him); the criminalization of marijuana possession/use, (about which I'm undecided); and more. Additionally, his explanation of the issues we have with our money supply was the first that actually sunk in for me; I'd heard the words before, but they honestly never really came together sensibly until reading his explanation.
This book is full of coherent, consistent facts and philosophies. Now I actually *understand* his positions, and it's a great feeling to be informed.
Please, if you have any interest in politics, economics, ethics, or security, give this book a read. Whether you agree with him or not, at least you'll know what you're talking about!
January 9, 2024
He does make good points, and I don't think his arguments are unintelligent, but the logic doesn't really work. While I respect his commitment to his beliefs, willingness to break from his party at times and his opposition to the war on terror and drugs, it's just hard to get over his flimsy logic that the answers to America's problems lie in a strict interruption of the Constitution and the ideas of the Founding Fathers, as well as other figures from the 1770s.
I agree that the Founding Fathers were brilliant men, and you can admire them without thinking they have the solutions to today's problems. It's not even their fault. It's just a lot that has changed since 1776. By Ron Paul's logic, I shouldn't be typing this review on a laptop but with a quill and pen instead, and instead of posting it online, I should find an old wall to post it on and publish a pamphlet like Thomas Paine with this review of the book. It's not that Thomas Paine wasn't a brilliant man. He absolutely was. It was that he lived in the 1770s. However, the idea a lot has changed since the 1770s can borrow the title from Thomas Paine's most famous pamphlet, which was "Common Sense."
Some of Ron Paul's ideas are awful, mostly on going back to the gold standard, getting rid of public education and replacing actual health care coverage with basically negotiating with a doctor one on one. I actually found I like Ron Paul and found him to be a thoughtful and interesting guy who really believed in his ideas, and as I said, I respect that, and despite what I felt was backwards logic at times, Ron Paul was good at explaining his point of view, and unlike today's GOP, he explained his point of view in a respectful way. Three stars.
I agree that the Founding Fathers were brilliant men, and you can admire them without thinking they have the solutions to today's problems. It's not even their fault. It's just a lot that has changed since 1776. By Ron Paul's logic, I shouldn't be typing this review on a laptop but with a quill and pen instead, and instead of posting it online, I should find an old wall to post it on and publish a pamphlet like Thomas Paine with this review of the book. It's not that Thomas Paine wasn't a brilliant man. He absolutely was. It was that he lived in the 1770s. However, the idea a lot has changed since the 1770s can borrow the title from Thomas Paine's most famous pamphlet, which was "Common Sense."
Some of Ron Paul's ideas are awful, mostly on going back to the gold standard, getting rid of public education and replacing actual health care coverage with basically negotiating with a doctor one on one. I actually found I like Ron Paul and found him to be a thoughtful and interesting guy who really believed in his ideas, and as I said, I respect that, and despite what I felt was backwards logic at times, Ron Paul was good at explaining his point of view, and unlike today's GOP, he explained his point of view in a respectful way. Three stars.
November 17, 2008
I think most conservatives are fans of Ron Paul that simply don't know it yet. As the Republican party has changed over the last several years we have lost sight of what it means to be a conservative. Conservative once meant being an advocate of small fed gov't, less intervention, with a reliance on sound fiscal policy. The new conservatives/Republicans have lost that tradition as they spend more than ever and seek to grow the power of the federal gov't.
I think the problem with Ron Paul is he has been labeled as an isolationist and an extremist. Everyone would do well to read this book and get a better insight into his beliefs and opinions. The more I read the more I realized that Paul is right on many accounts. I was a Ron Paul fan all along and simply didn't know it. As far as foreign policy goes he is a "noninterventionist", not isolationist. He believes we need to trade and interact with other nations but do so delicately. He believes we need to reduce the size of the fed gov't and cites the numerous problems that have resulted in gov't intrusion.
I definitely recommend this book and believe if we want to turn the gov't around the only revolution that will save us is a conservative revolution, a return to sound, conservative principles applied to an ever-changing world.
I think the problem with Ron Paul is he has been labeled as an isolationist and an extremist. Everyone would do well to read this book and get a better insight into his beliefs and opinions. The more I read the more I realized that Paul is right on many accounts. I was a Ron Paul fan all along and simply didn't know it. As far as foreign policy goes he is a "noninterventionist", not isolationist. He believes we need to trade and interact with other nations but do so delicately. He believes we need to reduce the size of the fed gov't and cites the numerous problems that have resulted in gov't intrusion.
I definitely recommend this book and believe if we want to turn the gov't around the only revolution that will save us is a conservative revolution, a return to sound, conservative principles applied to an ever-changing world.
Want to read
July 25, 2008Five minutes of reading this at random has, three or four times now, proved more informative about the economic workings of our country than any number of months keeping up with headline news. It's also remarkably sane and intelligent. Take this quote, for instance:
Abolishing the income tax on individuals would cut government revenue by about 40 percent. I have heard the breathless claims about how radical that is--and compared to the trivial changes we are accustomed to seeing in government, I suppose it is. But in absolute terms, is it really so radical? In order to imagine what it would be like to live in a country with a federal budget 40 percent lower than the federal budget of 2007, it would be necessary to go all the way back to...1997.
Would it be so hard to imagine living in 1997 again? In return, we would have an economy so robust and dynamic that it would doubtless shatter even my own optimistic expectations...
Abolishing the income tax on individuals would cut government revenue by about 40 percent. I have heard the breathless claims about how radical that is--and compared to the trivial changes we are accustomed to seeing in government, I suppose it is. But in absolute terms, is it really so radical? In order to imagine what it would be like to live in a country with a federal budget 40 percent lower than the federal budget of 2007, it would be necessary to go all the way back to...1997.
Would it be so hard to imagine living in 1997 again? In return, we would have an economy so robust and dynamic that it would doubtless shatter even my own optimistic expectations...
June 15, 2008
No. No no no. He has no suggestions, only complaints. It reads like a poor college history paper. He uses quotes like soundbites, depriving them of any context or meaning.
The best part of this book is his suggested reading list. Skip the book, copy the reading list.
The best part of this book is his suggested reading list. Skip the book, copy the reading list.
June 22, 2009
I read this book at my brother's request after he went to hear Ron Paul speak a while back. I agreed with almost all of the problems he presented in the book, but needless to say, my liberal leanings had some problems with some of the solutions he presented. Abolishing income tax, smaller government, more states rights are not the answers I don't think. While I agreed with most of the civil liberties chapter, I don't think that homeschooling is a "right" people have. He presented his arguments a bit strangely as well. Sometimes he credited his quotes to "a philosopher who once said..." and that bugged me. Then other times he mentioned people by name, but they were "famous" historians that I'd never heard of. Finally, there were times that he criticized policies of past politicians, esp. in the foreign policy section, and while he openly criticized the policies of the most recent Republican government he didn't name any names, whereas he had no trouble calling Clinton, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt out on their problems. He was clearly hedging his bets, not wanting to put blame on specific members of the Bush administration just in case he could lock up a Republican Presidentail nomination in the future.
February 22, 2010
I have always respected Ron Paul, but felt that I didn't agree with him on many issues. Now having read The Revolution, I realize that I didn't know what he believed, I only knew what people said he believed. I absolutely recommend this book to everyone--whether conservative or liberal or in the middle.
Reading the book has forced me to reconsider issues that I thought were closed in my opinion--in particular, the ineffectiveness of U.S. foreign policy and the debate about legalizing marijuana. As of now, I am not sure where we should go from here, but I am convinced that Americans need to explore these issues more fully, and at least discuss what Ron Paul has to say.
I loved what he had to say about Economic freedom, money, and the current health care debate, which is interesting because being written in 2008, his arguments are very current considering what is going on now. Besides mentioning a lot of facts that I had already been aware of, he goes into even greater detail (using examples from history, and things he has witnessed as a Washington insider) about the unintended (and intended) consequences of Government intervention.
Reading the book has forced me to reconsider issues that I thought were closed in my opinion--in particular, the ineffectiveness of U.S. foreign policy and the debate about legalizing marijuana. As of now, I am not sure where we should go from here, but I am convinced that Americans need to explore these issues more fully, and at least discuss what Ron Paul has to say.
I loved what he had to say about Economic freedom, money, and the current health care debate, which is interesting because being written in 2008, his arguments are very current considering what is going on now. Besides mentioning a lot of facts that I had already been aware of, he goes into even greater detail (using examples from history, and things he has witnessed as a Washington insider) about the unintended (and intended) consequences of Government intervention.
November 7, 2011
Superficial. Shallow. Lacking substance. Poorly argued. That's how I would describe this book. While I agree with some of the ideas in this book, almost none of them are Ron Paul's. It seems like half of the text is quotes from other people. I keep wondering, where are Ron Paul's own ideas? Where are his arguments?
Furthermore, Paul doesn't go into depth on any issue. He merely mentions an issue and what he thinks, without developing an argument. To give an example, at one point Paul says, "I have always had a deep personal admiration for Ludwig von Mises..." He then goes on to give a cursory timeline of von Mises life. It's great that Paul admires this economist, but he fails to explain, even a little, what theories of von Mises' that he likes and how these theories would benefit the current economic situation.
If you're interested in understanding the arguments for libertarian government, I wouldn't recommend this book. It's not worth your time.
Furthermore, Paul doesn't go into depth on any issue. He merely mentions an issue and what he thinks, without developing an argument. To give an example, at one point Paul says, "I have always had a deep personal admiration for Ludwig von Mises..." He then goes on to give a cursory timeline of von Mises life. It's great that Paul admires this economist, but he fails to explain, even a little, what theories of von Mises' that he likes and how these theories would benefit the current economic situation.
If you're interested in understanding the arguments for libertarian government, I wouldn't recommend this book. It's not worth your time.
April 15, 2009
I remember studying the U.S. Constitution for the first time in eighth grade and being perplexed by what it said and yet seeing very clearly that things were not the way they were intended by the founding fathers. Since then I have always yearned to see our government work the way it was intended to work. Yet at the same time I was firmly committed to the principles espoused by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. I enthusiastically voted for Bob Dole for President in 1996 when I was first eligible to vote.
I had been persuaded that if Republicans were in power in Washington that the government power would be restrained and we would thrive as a nation. I believed that the way things were was basically working. The Federal Reserve System was managing the economy well, we have freedoms many other nations yearn to possess, our economy was strong and showed no signs of mortality.
Though I still wished things were as the Constitutional framers had intended them to be, things were working, and I thought it wasn’t realistic to upset a functioning system. So I supported George W. Bush for president in 2000 and 2004, believing that he would govern fundamentally differently than Al Gore and John Kerry.
After 9/11 I too began to believe that we must take action against radical Islamic terrorists and part of that action must ultimately include dealing with Iraq, which I’d believed that George H. Bush and Bill Clinton had dealt with inadequately. I was enthusiastic about the prospect of overthrowing the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein and bringing peace and democracy to Iraq. I fiercely defended the war and had contempt for those that opposed the war and later worked to end it.
I was a strong proponent of the Patriot Act and believed it was a much needed piece of legislation that would protect America from Islamic terrorism. As for the massive budget deficits of the Bush administration I wished that he and the Congress would use restraint, but I still supported the president and much of the other policies he enforced. I kept thinking, if only Bush had restrained spending, what a great president he could have been. I honestly believed that George W. Bush would go down in history as one of our best presidents—going against the conventional wisdom of the day.
But these beliefs have undergone a radical transformation since Barack Obama took office in January. President Obama has continued many of the policies of his predecessor including bank bailouts, continuing in Iraq, and continued trust in the Federal Reserve System. While President Bush pushed the budget deficit into unprecedented heights, President Obama has already spent more than Bush ever did.
The likeness between the two men’s policies has given credence to the notion that the two parties have more in common than not. The two political parties have false disagreements—meaning they are arguing over the wrong questions, arguing with the wrong presuppositions.
Enter Ron Paul, Austrian Economic Theory, and Libertarianism. I was introduced to Austrian Economics through Peter Schiff, a financial pundit that is all over cable news shows. He predicted the economic collapse years ago, and was ridiculed for it. I wanted to know why he was so prescient, so I found that he was connected to the Austrian school of thought on economics. The more I read the more convinced I was that the current political and financial structure was inherently immoral, deceptive, and destructive. I found that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas had also been predicting economic collapse for years and had been actively opposed to most everything that Congress has done during his tenure in Washington. I’d known of Ron Paul during the 2008 Republican Primaries and I thought he was a naïve third party candidate with no hope of winning, and I didn’t even consider supporting him for these reasons.
I finally broke down and read Ron Paul’s book entitled The Revolution: A Manifesto. I thought that I might at least appreciate his stance on small government and sound money, but I thought I would be unconvinced about his opposition to the Iraq War and supporting Israel financially and militarily. To my surprise I found myself in complete agreement with everything he wrote in the book.
Ron Paul’s manifesto is precisely the desire of our founding fathers. I was delighted to see these issues are not Republican or Democrat issues—these are fundamentally American issues. All freedom loving Americans ought to resonate with Ron Paul’s message of peace, prosperity, and freedom.
In The Revolution Paul demonstrates that both major political parties have far more in common than not. The Democratic Party has the reputation (and deservedly so) of being the party of big government. They often say they want it to be “smarter” or “more efficient,” but it is always big. Republicans want “smaller” government, but their idea of small is clearly only relative to other national governments. Our federal government is massive—there can be no doubt about this. It is undeniable that both parties are for big government, they disagreement is merely concerning how much bigger or how much smaller. This is a false disagreement.
The framers sought to devise a system of states allied with one another through a small, central government. They gave limited rights to the central government bestowing all other rights unto the states. This is clearly not the way things currently stand. Over the years Washington has centralized the power given to the states, subordinating state’s rights. This power grab has had profound effects on our nation and has led toward what Ron Paul calls the “Imperial Presidency.” The “Imperial President” has taken upon himself powers not granted to the executive branch by the Constitution, and this has been accepted by both political parties. Congress has been complicit in this power grab, granting rights to the executive branch that only they can wield.
I am now fully persuaded that our nation will not have positive, meaningful change until either the Democratic or Republican parties embrace the kind of limited government that the framers intended. I do not believe that either party is capable of this right now. What is required is a fundamental change in governance. There must be a third party to overthrow the tyranny of the American government. The revolution must happen to save America from the certain ruin that both political parties are driving toward.
Read this book!
I had been persuaded that if Republicans were in power in Washington that the government power would be restrained and we would thrive as a nation. I believed that the way things were was basically working. The Federal Reserve System was managing the economy well, we have freedoms many other nations yearn to possess, our economy was strong and showed no signs of mortality.
Though I still wished things were as the Constitutional framers had intended them to be, things were working, and I thought it wasn’t realistic to upset a functioning system. So I supported George W. Bush for president in 2000 and 2004, believing that he would govern fundamentally differently than Al Gore and John Kerry.
After 9/11 I too began to believe that we must take action against radical Islamic terrorists and part of that action must ultimately include dealing with Iraq, which I’d believed that George H. Bush and Bill Clinton had dealt with inadequately. I was enthusiastic about the prospect of overthrowing the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein and bringing peace and democracy to Iraq. I fiercely defended the war and had contempt for those that opposed the war and later worked to end it.
I was a strong proponent of the Patriot Act and believed it was a much needed piece of legislation that would protect America from Islamic terrorism. As for the massive budget deficits of the Bush administration I wished that he and the Congress would use restraint, but I still supported the president and much of the other policies he enforced. I kept thinking, if only Bush had restrained spending, what a great president he could have been. I honestly believed that George W. Bush would go down in history as one of our best presidents—going against the conventional wisdom of the day.
But these beliefs have undergone a radical transformation since Barack Obama took office in January. President Obama has continued many of the policies of his predecessor including bank bailouts, continuing in Iraq, and continued trust in the Federal Reserve System. While President Bush pushed the budget deficit into unprecedented heights, President Obama has already spent more than Bush ever did.
The likeness between the two men’s policies has given credence to the notion that the two parties have more in common than not. The two political parties have false disagreements—meaning they are arguing over the wrong questions, arguing with the wrong presuppositions.
Enter Ron Paul, Austrian Economic Theory, and Libertarianism. I was introduced to Austrian Economics through Peter Schiff, a financial pundit that is all over cable news shows. He predicted the economic collapse years ago, and was ridiculed for it. I wanted to know why he was so prescient, so I found that he was connected to the Austrian school of thought on economics. The more I read the more convinced I was that the current political and financial structure was inherently immoral, deceptive, and destructive. I found that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas had also been predicting economic collapse for years and had been actively opposed to most everything that Congress has done during his tenure in Washington. I’d known of Ron Paul during the 2008 Republican Primaries and I thought he was a naïve third party candidate with no hope of winning, and I didn’t even consider supporting him for these reasons.
I finally broke down and read Ron Paul’s book entitled The Revolution: A Manifesto. I thought that I might at least appreciate his stance on small government and sound money, but I thought I would be unconvinced about his opposition to the Iraq War and supporting Israel financially and militarily. To my surprise I found myself in complete agreement with everything he wrote in the book.
Ron Paul’s manifesto is precisely the desire of our founding fathers. I was delighted to see these issues are not Republican or Democrat issues—these are fundamentally American issues. All freedom loving Americans ought to resonate with Ron Paul’s message of peace, prosperity, and freedom.
In The Revolution Paul demonstrates that both major political parties have far more in common than not. The Democratic Party has the reputation (and deservedly so) of being the party of big government. They often say they want it to be “smarter” or “more efficient,” but it is always big. Republicans want “smaller” government, but their idea of small is clearly only relative to other national governments. Our federal government is massive—there can be no doubt about this. It is undeniable that both parties are for big government, they disagreement is merely concerning how much bigger or how much smaller. This is a false disagreement.
The framers sought to devise a system of states allied with one another through a small, central government. They gave limited rights to the central government bestowing all other rights unto the states. This is clearly not the way things currently stand. Over the years Washington has centralized the power given to the states, subordinating state’s rights. This power grab has had profound effects on our nation and has led toward what Ron Paul calls the “Imperial Presidency.” The “Imperial President” has taken upon himself powers not granted to the executive branch by the Constitution, and this has been accepted by both political parties. Congress has been complicit in this power grab, granting rights to the executive branch that only they can wield.
I am now fully persuaded that our nation will not have positive, meaningful change until either the Democratic or Republican parties embrace the kind of limited government that the framers intended. I do not believe that either party is capable of this right now. What is required is a fundamental change in governance. There must be a third party to overthrow the tyranny of the American government. The revolution must happen to save America from the certain ruin that both political parties are driving toward.
Read this book!
November 21, 2008
I'm on page 36 and couldn't agree more with what Ron Paul has said so far about beomg an isolationist. War should be in self-defense and we need to stop supporting any other country with foreign aid. He espouses going back to the way that our Founding Fathers thought about foreign relations. That we do not impose ourselves on any other nation and seek to lead through the strength of our own country. Some of the best 36 pages I've ever read. Takes a lot of courage to call out one's own party to the carpet. But it must be done to show that we aren't all lock-step in line with a party. Some of have roots that go back to the founding of this great nation.
UPDATE: Finished book in two days. It was revolutionary. I have my doubts that his views would ever be popular again, however, although millions of people do share his views. One of the theories of physics is that everything is winding down. Nothing is expanding. The sun, our bodies, most everything is winding down. I don't see how we will ever go back. I personally think that it is God's plan that we are winding down to the final end described in the Bible.
I did not disagree much with Ron Paul's ideas except that he would displace tens of millions of people from gov't jobs and I don't see how that would happen. People are generally selfish and I don't see them voting themselves out of a job.
However, that aside, yes I do agree with much of Mr. Paul's ideas. Limited central gov't as described in the Constitution, more of an isolationist world view, state's rights preempt a more dominant federal gov't like we have. For people who can not make out a difference between people who call themselves democrats and republicans and don't like it, this book is for you. Although Ron Paul was able to put together a coalition of people from all walks of life, I think his ideas tend to be more in the conservative camp. He advocates that the gov't basically just gets out of the way of her people so that we can live in true freedom and not as slaves to our gov't.
UPDATE: Finished book in two days. It was revolutionary. I have my doubts that his views would ever be popular again, however, although millions of people do share his views. One of the theories of physics is that everything is winding down. Nothing is expanding. The sun, our bodies, most everything is winding down. I don't see how we will ever go back. I personally think that it is God's plan that we are winding down to the final end described in the Bible.
I did not disagree much with Ron Paul's ideas except that he would displace tens of millions of people from gov't jobs and I don't see how that would happen. People are generally selfish and I don't see them voting themselves out of a job.
However, that aside, yes I do agree with much of Mr. Paul's ideas. Limited central gov't as described in the Constitution, more of an isolationist world view, state's rights preempt a more dominant federal gov't like we have. For people who can not make out a difference between people who call themselves democrats and republicans and don't like it, this book is for you. Although Ron Paul was able to put together a coalition of people from all walks of life, I think his ideas tend to be more in the conservative camp. He advocates that the gov't basically just gets out of the way of her people so that we can live in true freedom and not as slaves to our gov't.
November 1, 2012
Yes, I just made my way through this book, and yes, it was a nightmare. Here's my brief synopsis. Mr. Paul is actually less crazy than his supporters. That much is clear in reading this book, and he even makes some solid points when it comes to foreign war policy. That being said, when he gets to talking about anything economic, whether from the gold standard garbage to foreign aid to domestic so-called "entitlement" programs, he is thoroughly despicable. I suppose that this is about as well-put the case for being a despicable Randroid of a human being and subjecting your policies on the rest of us could be presented, so I decided to be generous and give it two stars out of five for effort.
January 24, 2011
What I like about this book is not that it is the absolute best, most clear-cut argument for smaller government and many other ideals held by Libertarians. What I like about it is that it is a very readable book that I could recommend to friends of mine who want to get a better perspective about where I'm coming from. He uses enough current examples to take the book beyond the world of political theory and shows how a libertarian perspective can solve real problems confronting us now. He gets into enough "nuts and bolts" of the relevant economic theory to give the casual reader an understanding of economic concepts that have proven true time and again throughout the course of history.
I'd recommend this book to anyone who knows a "crazy Libertarian" because you might just learn a thing or two about where they're coming from as well as just how much you probably already agree with them.
I'd recommend this book to anyone who knows a "crazy Libertarian" because you might just learn a thing or two about where they're coming from as well as just how much you probably already agree with them.
Want to read
June 7, 2008"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous."
~Carl Sagan
~Carl Sagan
September 30, 2008
This is a short read that I highly recommend to anyone wanting a fresh take on what ails our country.
Ron Paul argues that, in practice, Republican and Democratic politicians aren't that different - they are both "Big Government" parties. The "changes" they propose are rarely dramatic (except for spending increases).
One recurring theme of this book is that the federal government has been trampling the Constitution so badly and for so long, that we've grown accustomed to it. We've learned to place blame on this party or that politician, or this special interest or that earmark.
We've grown accustomed to the idea that the government "owns" us. Oh, you thought you were free? Try refusing to pay taxes (why don't more people recognize taxation as theft?). Try refusing to register for the draft. Try telling the police to buzz off next time they question you about what you're smoking.
Paul contends that laws should exist primarily to protect people from direct harm. Any act that does not infringe on the rights of others should be legal, whether it is moral or not.
Paul reminds us that the Founders were extremely skeptical of government authority, and wrote powerful limitations on government into the Constitution, which both parties have ignored for generations.
According to George Washington, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
I've become a supporter of the Ron Paul Revolution and I hope to persuade others that there is another option. Neither of the standard two options presented to us are sustainable.
That's my short take on this book. Here's my lengthy chapter-by-chapter synopsis:
The first chapter is entitled "The False Choices of American Politics." In essence, he says that voters are usually faced with two choices about how to solve a problem, both of which are unconstitutional - impose this tax or that tax, invade this country or that country, ban this practice or that practice, infringe on this group's rights or that group's rights.
Chapter Two is called "The Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers." He quotes George Washington "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible...Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?" Paul advocates a policy of what he terms "non-intervention", not to be confused with "isolationism." Paul believes we should bring home all the troops - not just in Iraq, but the troops in Germany, Japan, and all over the world (except Afghanistan). We could save oodles of money by closing our 700 overseas bases. This country began as a Republic. It is now, without question, an Empire.
Chapter Three is entitled "The Constitution." Paul notes that the War on Terror has induced many Americans to rethink the scope of government's reach. What many still don't realize, is that this is not new, and that presidents back to FDR (remember the Japanese-American internment camps?) have been trampling the Constitution in the name of national security. National security is only one way in which the government has routinely violated the Constitution. Among others discussed in this chapter are the Drug War, national social policies of any kind, and, generally, the extension of federal government authority beyond the specific powers granted in Article I, section 8.
Chapter Four is entitled "Economic Freedom." Paul discusses the idea that has become so entrenched in our thinking that it is rarely questioned: the government's right to tax us. Why, if it is wrong for a mugger to steal your wallet (even if he promises to do good things with your money), is it okay for the government to do the same thing? A government with no individual income tax would still have 60% of its 2007 revenue (in other words, our 1997 level) and would resemble more closely the government envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Chapter Five is called "Civil Liberties and Personal Freedom." Paul overturns the notion that many (thanks to the War on Terror) are starting to question: that government has a legal right to meddle in our personal affairs. My favorite quote from this chapter is from Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Why should government agents spy on us? They work for us. How about we spy on them? On cops when they arrest and interrogate people or contemplate suspending freedom; on the prosecutors when they decide whom to prosecute and what evidence to use; on judges when they rationalize away our guaranteed rights; and on members of Congress whenever they meet with a lobbyist, mark up a piece of legislation, or conspire to assault our liberties or our pocketbooks." Paul contends that this is not a radical notion - it's how the Founders thought.
Chapter Six is called "Money: The Forbidden Issue in American Politics." Paul points to the monetary policy of this country - namely, that the Federal Reserve has the power to artificially declare interest rates (and in so doing, increase the money supply) as the root of all its financial woes. As long as the Fed can create more money out of thin air to finance a cash shortfall, the dollar will lose value, and real economic solutions will be pushed aside, increasing the likelihood and severity of future economic hardship. "Spend only what you have" is wise counsel for individuals as well as for government.
The final chapter is called "The Revolution." This chapter is devoted to a few reasonable (not necessarily easy) solutions suggested to whoever succeeds GWB as president. In essence, the United States can't afford to be the Great Provider from cradle to grave and it can't afford to be the World's Policeman. Both strategies are unsustainable. There is simply not enough money - not even close to enough. Paul specifically suggests gradually dismantling Social Security by first allowing young people to continue to pay in OR opt out. The budget shortfall this would create would be easily financed by closing overseas military bases and bringing the troops home. He also advocates allowing gold and silver to be used as legal tender in place of currency, if individuals so choose. Cash would not be abandoned, but this choice would offer Americans protection in the event of a monetary collapse. The next president can lift sanctions on Iran and Cuba and begin diplomatic relations, as sanctions tend to aid the targeted regime and harm its population. In the longer term, entitlement programs will have to be gradually shut down. Nobody will be thrown out on the streets, as those who have been taught to depend on these programs will continue to receive aid, but, as Paul points out, "If we do not begin a transition process funded by savings from our bloated overseas presence, everyone will be out in the street because the programs will simply collapse."
Thanks for reading!
Ron Paul argues that, in practice, Republican and Democratic politicians aren't that different - they are both "Big Government" parties. The "changes" they propose are rarely dramatic (except for spending increases).
One recurring theme of this book is that the federal government has been trampling the Constitution so badly and for so long, that we've grown accustomed to it. We've learned to place blame on this party or that politician, or this special interest or that earmark.
We've grown accustomed to the idea that the government "owns" us. Oh, you thought you were free? Try refusing to pay taxes (why don't more people recognize taxation as theft?). Try refusing to register for the draft. Try telling the police to buzz off next time they question you about what you're smoking.
Paul contends that laws should exist primarily to protect people from direct harm. Any act that does not infringe on the rights of others should be legal, whether it is moral or not.
Paul reminds us that the Founders were extremely skeptical of government authority, and wrote powerful limitations on government into the Constitution, which both parties have ignored for generations.
According to George Washington, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
I've become a supporter of the Ron Paul Revolution and I hope to persuade others that there is another option. Neither of the standard two options presented to us are sustainable.
That's my short take on this book. Here's my lengthy chapter-by-chapter synopsis:
The first chapter is entitled "The False Choices of American Politics." In essence, he says that voters are usually faced with two choices about how to solve a problem, both of which are unconstitutional - impose this tax or that tax, invade this country or that country, ban this practice or that practice, infringe on this group's rights or that group's rights.
Chapter Two is called "The Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers." He quotes George Washington "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible...Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?" Paul advocates a policy of what he terms "non-intervention", not to be confused with "isolationism." Paul believes we should bring home all the troops - not just in Iraq, but the troops in Germany, Japan, and all over the world (except Afghanistan). We could save oodles of money by closing our 700 overseas bases. This country began as a Republic. It is now, without question, an Empire.
Chapter Three is entitled "The Constitution." Paul notes that the War on Terror has induced many Americans to rethink the scope of government's reach. What many still don't realize, is that this is not new, and that presidents back to FDR (remember the Japanese-American internment camps?) have been trampling the Constitution in the name of national security. National security is only one way in which the government has routinely violated the Constitution. Among others discussed in this chapter are the Drug War, national social policies of any kind, and, generally, the extension of federal government authority beyond the specific powers granted in Article I, section 8.
Chapter Four is entitled "Economic Freedom." Paul discusses the idea that has become so entrenched in our thinking that it is rarely questioned: the government's right to tax us. Why, if it is wrong for a mugger to steal your wallet (even if he promises to do good things with your money), is it okay for the government to do the same thing? A government with no individual income tax would still have 60% of its 2007 revenue (in other words, our 1997 level) and would resemble more closely the government envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Chapter Five is called "Civil Liberties and Personal Freedom." Paul overturns the notion that many (thanks to the War on Terror) are starting to question: that government has a legal right to meddle in our personal affairs. My favorite quote from this chapter is from Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Why should government agents spy on us? They work for us. How about we spy on them? On cops when they arrest and interrogate people or contemplate suspending freedom; on the prosecutors when they decide whom to prosecute and what evidence to use; on judges when they rationalize away our guaranteed rights; and on members of Congress whenever they meet with a lobbyist, mark up a piece of legislation, or conspire to assault our liberties or our pocketbooks." Paul contends that this is not a radical notion - it's how the Founders thought.
Chapter Six is called "Money: The Forbidden Issue in American Politics." Paul points to the monetary policy of this country - namely, that the Federal Reserve has the power to artificially declare interest rates (and in so doing, increase the money supply) as the root of all its financial woes. As long as the Fed can create more money out of thin air to finance a cash shortfall, the dollar will lose value, and real economic solutions will be pushed aside, increasing the likelihood and severity of future economic hardship. "Spend only what you have" is wise counsel for individuals as well as for government.
The final chapter is called "The Revolution." This chapter is devoted to a few reasonable (not necessarily easy) solutions suggested to whoever succeeds GWB as president. In essence, the United States can't afford to be the Great Provider from cradle to grave and it can't afford to be the World's Policeman. Both strategies are unsustainable. There is simply not enough money - not even close to enough. Paul specifically suggests gradually dismantling Social Security by first allowing young people to continue to pay in OR opt out. The budget shortfall this would create would be easily financed by closing overseas military bases and bringing the troops home. He also advocates allowing gold and silver to be used as legal tender in place of currency, if individuals so choose. Cash would not be abandoned, but this choice would offer Americans protection in the event of a monetary collapse. The next president can lift sanctions on Iran and Cuba and begin diplomatic relations, as sanctions tend to aid the targeted regime and harm its population. In the longer term, entitlement programs will have to be gradually shut down. Nobody will be thrown out on the streets, as those who have been taught to depend on these programs will continue to receive aid, but, as Paul points out, "If we do not begin a transition process funded by savings from our bloated overseas presence, everyone will be out in the street because the programs will simply collapse."
Thanks for reading!
November 25, 2024
Listening to this has been interesting with the current political climate. Several things Ron wrote about didn't seem likely or possible back when he ran almost 2 decades ago. But now Trump is seriously talking about eliminating the income tax. Time will tell I suppose.
But all in all I think I like Ron Paul and most of what he thinks here. He calls for education of the American masses in and understanding of economics and American history so that they aren't so easily duped by political promises. Much of my own worldview was shaped by my father teaching me through Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics and Hillsdale Colleges American founding material in late high school. I've often thought since then that a basic understanding of Sowell's key principles and a small amount of original source reading from our founding era would clear up most of the political tom foolery in our nation. While that still may be true I have grown to be more and more convinced of the spiritual war going on in the realm of politics, as Doug Wilson is prone to say "it is Christ or chaos." And our nation does not want Christ yet... But I have hope that it might soon.
And then perhaps we can all read the constitution and learn some Austrian economics and get back to building great things.
Good book.
But all in all I think I like Ron Paul and most of what he thinks here. He calls for education of the American masses in and understanding of economics and American history so that they aren't so easily duped by political promises. Much of my own worldview was shaped by my father teaching me through Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics and Hillsdale Colleges American founding material in late high school. I've often thought since then that a basic understanding of Sowell's key principles and a small amount of original source reading from our founding era would clear up most of the political tom foolery in our nation. While that still may be true I have grown to be more and more convinced of the spiritual war going on in the realm of politics, as Doug Wilson is prone to say "it is Christ or chaos." And our nation does not want Christ yet... But I have hope that it might soon.
And then perhaps we can all read the constitution and learn some Austrian economics and get back to building great things.
Good book.
December 10, 2009
You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.” - John Lennon
My newly Republican brother Doug gave me this book for my birthday and the fact that I am now just getting to it in October gives you a sense of how far behind I am on my reading. The book presents the revolution as suggested by Representative Ron Paul. Paul is a long-time Congressman and frequent also-ran Presidential candidate who raised some eyebrows with a short-lived flurry of Internet donations. We learn late in the book the reason for the interest among younger, Internet-savvy donators; Paul advocates the repeal of at least some of U.S. drug law (at least marijuana although he may have meant other banned substances as well). Obviously, we know now that his bid for the Republican nomination never gained widespread interest. Was this a massive squandered opportunity on a national scale where one man’s ground-breaking thinking was overlooked by an overly cautious media and populace?
Here are his ideas:
A Paul is an isolationist, er, I mean non-interventionist. I’m not sure why I keep confusing the two especially since Paul takes great pains to explain the difference and why it is not just hair-splitting. Ultimately he bemoans why people don’t seem to get the distinction. In a Paul U.S. we would avoid giving foreign aid (sorry Sudan), trade with any nation without regard to politics (I am gonna play Sun City) and scrupulously avoid trade organizations (just look at how badly the whole EU thing is going). Thomas Friedman would say globalization and being involved in affairs not within our borders is as much as a choice as whether to use technology but he must be wrong because he writes for the New York Times (Paul claims the NYT has never printed anything truthful – he doesn’t say whether that includes movie times or not).
Paul favors a return to a strict interpretation of the U.S. constitution, as written, straight, no chaser. Dr. Paul’s is strictly against the “living (odd for a doctor) constitution” idea - a viewpoint that argues that the constitution must be interpreted to deal with modern questions. He sites as evidence the recent abuses by the executive branch of the government including the increasing elasticity of the reasons to use eminent domain, the rescinding of habeas corpus and the use of presidential signing statements. I think these are more circumventions rather than reinterpretations of the constitution but I see his point.
Paul seems to favor an end to health insurance. Rather you could just negotiate to pay your doctor in cash and then have catastrophic insurance for the big stuff; essentially the opposite of universal health care. I was left wondering when does catastrophic kick in? After all you can bleed to death either by cutting your carotid artery in two or by losing drop by drop in you intestines. Also, I wasn’t sure how this would help those currently unable to afford health insurance – aren’t they in the same predicament under either system?
Paul favors a return to the gold standard or making U.S. currency again redeemable into gold on demand. The concept is essentially to backstop the currency with a tangible resource, an idea the world abandoned with the Nixon administration. The advantage is stability but the disadvantage is solid restrictions on economic growth. I just wonder about the practical concern of where we would get 11 trillion dollars worth of gold.
The writing is plain and passable. Paul alludes to great thinkers of the past but never delves too deeply into their ideas. None of what he says seems particularly revolutionary unless you believe the U.S. has strayed so far from its founding ideals that a return to them is revolutionary. In general, I felt Dr. Paul’s diagnoses were on the mark particularly on executive branch overreach, the Iraqi misadventure and the movement aware from founding ideals. I just felt his old-time remedies may not be sophisticated enough for a modern U.S.
My newly Republican brother Doug gave me this book for my birthday and the fact that I am now just getting to it in October gives you a sense of how far behind I am on my reading. The book presents the revolution as suggested by Representative Ron Paul. Paul is a long-time Congressman and frequent also-ran Presidential candidate who raised some eyebrows with a short-lived flurry of Internet donations. We learn late in the book the reason for the interest among younger, Internet-savvy donators; Paul advocates the repeal of at least some of U.S. drug law (at least marijuana although he may have meant other banned substances as well). Obviously, we know now that his bid for the Republican nomination never gained widespread interest. Was this a massive squandered opportunity on a national scale where one man’s ground-breaking thinking was overlooked by an overly cautious media and populace?
Here are his ideas:
A Paul is an isolationist, er, I mean non-interventionist. I’m not sure why I keep confusing the two especially since Paul takes great pains to explain the difference and why it is not just hair-splitting. Ultimately he bemoans why people don’t seem to get the distinction. In a Paul U.S. we would avoid giving foreign aid (sorry Sudan), trade with any nation without regard to politics (I am gonna play Sun City) and scrupulously avoid trade organizations (just look at how badly the whole EU thing is going). Thomas Friedman would say globalization and being involved in affairs not within our borders is as much as a choice as whether to use technology but he must be wrong because he writes for the New York Times (Paul claims the NYT has never printed anything truthful – he doesn’t say whether that includes movie times or not).
Paul favors a return to a strict interpretation of the U.S. constitution, as written, straight, no chaser. Dr. Paul’s is strictly against the “living (odd for a doctor) constitution” idea - a viewpoint that argues that the constitution must be interpreted to deal with modern questions. He sites as evidence the recent abuses by the executive branch of the government including the increasing elasticity of the reasons to use eminent domain, the rescinding of habeas corpus and the use of presidential signing statements. I think these are more circumventions rather than reinterpretations of the constitution but I see his point.
Paul seems to favor an end to health insurance. Rather you could just negotiate to pay your doctor in cash and then have catastrophic insurance for the big stuff; essentially the opposite of universal health care. I was left wondering when does catastrophic kick in? After all you can bleed to death either by cutting your carotid artery in two or by losing drop by drop in you intestines. Also, I wasn’t sure how this would help those currently unable to afford health insurance – aren’t they in the same predicament under either system?
Paul favors a return to the gold standard or making U.S. currency again redeemable into gold on demand. The concept is essentially to backstop the currency with a tangible resource, an idea the world abandoned with the Nixon administration. The advantage is stability but the disadvantage is solid restrictions on economic growth. I just wonder about the practical concern of where we would get 11 trillion dollars worth of gold.
The writing is plain and passable. Paul alludes to great thinkers of the past but never delves too deeply into their ideas. None of what he says seems particularly revolutionary unless you believe the U.S. has strayed so far from its founding ideals that a return to them is revolutionary. In general, I felt Dr. Paul’s diagnoses were on the mark particularly on executive branch overreach, the Iraqi misadventure and the movement aware from founding ideals. I just felt his old-time remedies may not be sophisticated enough for a modern U.S.
September 6, 2016
"A little learning is a dangerous thing"
- Alexander Pope
Ron Paul's book The Revolution: A Manifesto is the most dangerous text I have so far encountered. It is rife with every method of political machination, written not to edify the reader, but to convert a potential voter.
The Revolution's weapon of choice appears to be the use of over-simplification. Incredibly nuanced issues are summarily dismissed with just a few words. For instance, concerning U.S. involvement in the Middle East and abroad, Paul writes:
As if the effects of this hypothetical scenario could be summarized in a single sentence. Who is to say that Saddam Hussein would not have attempted another Gulf War style take-over, or increased anti-Kurdish aggression? I unequivocally opposed the invasion of Iraq, but Paul does not even acknowledge the existence of negative ramifications of his proposed policies.
In the instances where alternative viewpoints are alluded to, Paul mentions only the most foolish opposing arguments - and then promptly calls all opponents fools and socialists, even drawing comparisons to Hitler (p. 24-25). This method of putting words in others' mouths and then calling them names is insidious since it severely stifles debate of policies, which is ironic considering how he calls for greater debate. Another ubiquitous irony is that most of the issues Paul brings up are handled by Congress, which he would not be able to address as President.
Considering the wealth of knowledge which Paul chooses to ignore, it becomes impossible to take any of his writing at face value. What information is he hiding because it would inconvenience his views? Furthermore, while avoiding any detailed analyses on his proposals, Paul finds the space to include such irrelevant tidbits such as the life story of economist Ludwig von Mises (p. 103).
Given how one-sided the book is, The Revolution is not primarily driven by substance or information. Rather, Paul relies on the contrived emotions of indignance and frustration created by the aforementioned methods to keep his readers interested. The writing style is curt, and largely unremarkable.
With each morsel of information drenched in the taint of political agenda, I would strongly recommend avoiding this book, as I myself will not be returning to it or Ron Paul as an author or politician.
Overall: 3/10
- Alexander Pope
Ron Paul's book The Revolution: A Manifesto is the most dangerous text I have so far encountered. It is rife with every method of political machination, written not to edify the reader, but to convert a potential voter.
The Revolution's weapon of choice appears to be the use of over-simplification. Incredibly nuanced issues are summarily dismissed with just a few words. For instance, concerning U.S. involvement in the Middle East and abroad, Paul writes:
Where is the exposure for those who favor a non-interventionist foreign policy? These individuals would have avoided the Iraq fiasco altogether. America would be trillions richer over the long term, Iraqi society would not be in shambles, and countless Americans and Iraqis alike would still be alive" (p. 29)
As if the effects of this hypothetical scenario could be summarized in a single sentence. Who is to say that Saddam Hussein would not have attempted another Gulf War style take-over, or increased anti-Kurdish aggression? I unequivocally opposed the invasion of Iraq, but Paul does not even acknowledge the existence of negative ramifications of his proposed policies.
In the instances where alternative viewpoints are alluded to, Paul mentions only the most foolish opposing arguments - and then promptly calls all opponents fools and socialists, even drawing comparisons to Hitler (p. 24-25). This method of putting words in others' mouths and then calling them names is insidious since it severely stifles debate of policies, which is ironic considering how he calls for greater debate. Another ubiquitous irony is that most of the issues Paul brings up are handled by Congress, which he would not be able to address as President.
Considering the wealth of knowledge which Paul chooses to ignore, it becomes impossible to take any of his writing at face value. What information is he hiding because it would inconvenience his views? Furthermore, while avoiding any detailed analyses on his proposals, Paul finds the space to include such irrelevant tidbits such as the life story of economist Ludwig von Mises (p. 103).
Given how one-sided the book is, The Revolution is not primarily driven by substance or information. Rather, Paul relies on the contrived emotions of indignance and frustration created by the aforementioned methods to keep his readers interested. The writing style is curt, and largely unremarkable.
With each morsel of information drenched in the taint of political agenda, I would strongly recommend avoiding this book, as I myself will not be returning to it or Ron Paul as an author or politician.
Overall: 3/10
October 20, 2008
Before I read this book I would have said Ron Paul is one politician that I think I can identify most with, so this was not by any means a book that was difficult for me to read. I often found myself nodding in agreement - one of the few actions you can take while reading by yourself without looking like a "doofus."
There is a good exert from Ron Paul's call to action chapter (also titled "The Revolution") that I think sums up my view of this book (and what it represents) pretty well. It goes like this:
"The fact is, liberty is not given a fair chance in our society, neither in the media, nor in politics, nor (especially) in education. I have spoken to many young people during my career, some of whom had never heard my ideas before. but as soon as I explained the philosophy of liberty and told them a little American history in light of that philosphy, their eyes lit up. here was something they'd never heard before, but something that was compelling and moving, and which appealed to their sense of idealism. Liberty had simply never been presented to them as a choice."
I guess I am not as unique as my mommy always told me.
Anyway, there are certainly parts of this book that I am skeptical about - returning to the gold standard, for one. However, overall I felt this book did a nice job of simplifying some very complex ideas and backing them up with historical support.
Ron makes a lot of assumptions regarding the outcomes of policies and actions he feel are necessary; nevertheless, these assumptions and the conclusions he projects seem sensible to me. Would a similar book written by a more typical Republican member of Congress seem as sensible to me? I don't know.
All in all, a good book for re-affirming the basic principles of liberty and how these can be applied to today's complex political/societal/global environment. (I especially enjoyed his thoughts on foreign policy).
There is a good exert from Ron Paul's call to action chapter (also titled "The Revolution") that I think sums up my view of this book (and what it represents) pretty well. It goes like this:
"The fact is, liberty is not given a fair chance in our society, neither in the media, nor in politics, nor (especially) in education. I have spoken to many young people during my career, some of whom had never heard my ideas before. but as soon as I explained the philosophy of liberty and told them a little American history in light of that philosphy, their eyes lit up. here was something they'd never heard before, but something that was compelling and moving, and which appealed to their sense of idealism. Liberty had simply never been presented to them as a choice."
I guess I am not as unique as my mommy always told me.
Anyway, there are certainly parts of this book that I am skeptical about - returning to the gold standard, for one. However, overall I felt this book did a nice job of simplifying some very complex ideas and backing them up with historical support.
Ron makes a lot of assumptions regarding the outcomes of policies and actions he feel are necessary; nevertheless, these assumptions and the conclusions he projects seem sensible to me. Would a similar book written by a more typical Republican member of Congress seem as sensible to me? I don't know.
All in all, a good book for re-affirming the basic principles of liberty and how these can be applied to today's complex political/societal/global environment. (I especially enjoyed his thoughts on foreign policy).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 27, 2010
Yes I think I really have become one of those Ron Paul people. I like it. The thing about Ron Paul that is so great is he is actually an honest person. Very hard to find in politics today, it is evident that his opinions are his own formed from personal study and research, rather than crafted by a group of political consultants. Thats why even if you don't agree with him on everything, you can trust him because you know where he really stands. I found out about him while doing some research on the internet for a paper about the war in Afghanistan. His message concerning a non-interventionist foreign policy, really made sense to me. I was also impressed that he was really the only Republican candidate for president who openly and strongly opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on constitutional and moral grounds. Congressman Paul has started a real movement with his emphasis on civil liberties and he's excited people from very different political ideologies, because his message makes sense.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand what is going on in our country from the point of view of an honest politician.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand what is going on in our country from the point of view of an honest politician.
July 4, 2010
This book was excellent. It really helped me to understand the views that Ron Paul has on government.
In the most recent presidential race I feel I didn't give Ron Paul a fair chance. Many had labeled him as an "extremist" and "unelectable." I hope he is electable, but I'm not really sure. But that's not because he is an extremist, only because America has strayed so far from her roots.
This book is filled with Ron Paul's views on government. Those views are essentially derived from two places. The first is the constitution. He believes in following the original intent of the founders. He believes that government should not overstep the constraints that the constitution places on it. The second place he derives his beliefs from is simple common sense. He looks at issues like the economy and simply pays attention to what has worked in the past and what hasn't. The constitution and common sense don't seem too extreme to me, but I think they are actually pretty far from where our society sits today.
I think every conservative should read this book. You may not agree with every idea that he has, but it's hard to disagree with the principles he stands on.
In the most recent presidential race I feel I didn't give Ron Paul a fair chance. Many had labeled him as an "extremist" and "unelectable." I hope he is electable, but I'm not really sure. But that's not because he is an extremist, only because America has strayed so far from her roots.
This book is filled with Ron Paul's views on government. Those views are essentially derived from two places. The first is the constitution. He believes in following the original intent of the founders. He believes that government should not overstep the constraints that the constitution places on it. The second place he derives his beliefs from is simple common sense. He looks at issues like the economy and simply pays attention to what has worked in the past and what hasn't. The constitution and common sense don't seem too extreme to me, but I think they are actually pretty far from where our society sits today.
I think every conservative should read this book. You may not agree with every idea that he has, but it's hard to disagree with the principles he stands on.
January 19, 2019
As Jon Stewart said, one of the few (or the only )"ideologically consistent" 2008 candidates for president, Ron Paul, provided this primer on how our constitutional government has become a system of norms and popular trends, rather than a government truly based on its original framework.
He provides an outline to get the United States back on a track of true freedom and demonstrates the burgeoning prosperity (for people in all sub-categories) that has always been the result of that commitment to freedom as set up in the Constitution.
It is surprisingly simple and readable considering the subject's legal, historic and economic roots. Thanks to his willingness to depart from mainstream Republican views, The Revolution should be palatable for readers on both the Left and the Right. As a reader of economic and social policy, I found it eye opening and inspiring. Fortunately, in the back he also provides a fantastic list of his most formative books on political thought, economics and policy.
He provides an outline to get the United States back on a track of true freedom and demonstrates the burgeoning prosperity (for people in all sub-categories) that has always been the result of that commitment to freedom as set up in the Constitution.
It is surprisingly simple and readable considering the subject's legal, historic and economic roots. Thanks to his willingness to depart from mainstream Republican views, The Revolution should be palatable for readers on both the Left and the Right. As a reader of economic and social policy, I found it eye opening and inspiring. Fortunately, in the back he also provides a fantastic list of his most formative books on political thought, economics and policy.
March 22, 2012
I really enjoyed reading this book. I understand now why Ron Paul and his advocates boast that you never hear anything about an ex-Ron Paul fan. He writes in a more structured way than he debates, but his thinking is still very keen on sticking to the constitution as the nation's authority. It's refreshing when one comes across a congressman like this, especially one running for president.
In this book, Paul gives an overview of what American government is currently versus what it should look like. He touches on foreign policy, economics, civil liberties, and the constitution. It's an engaging read and truly makes me want to join the revolution...to Restore America Now (his campaign slogan).
In this book, Paul gives an overview of what American government is currently versus what it should look like. He touches on foreign policy, economics, civil liberties, and the constitution. It's an engaging read and truly makes me want to join the revolution...to Restore America Now (his campaign slogan).
August 25, 2008
This book is what ever aspiring politician should be discussing and what every voter should demand answers for. As it stands today, all the politicians, the campaign helpers, and the media all spout out a bunch of hot air devoid of any meaningful information. When most speak of change, they mean a little bit more of the same (which was bad enough the first time).
Ron Paul's book and his life goals are to bring the national discussion back to core principles and natural laws that freedom and liberty can thrive in.
Why is this so censored from our schools and media?!
No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, reading this book will be worthwhile.
Ron Paul's book and his life goals are to bring the national discussion back to core principles and natural laws that freedom and liberty can thrive in.
Why is this so censored from our schools and media?!
No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, reading this book will be worthwhile.
April 29, 2019
While I may not agree with everything Ron Paul says, I do support a lot of it. I think he is exactly right when he says that we have been drifting away from many of the core principles in our Constitution upon which our country was founded. He strongly suggests we return to those ideas and presents in this book some of the ways to make that happen. At a minimum, reading this book should make you think (or re-think) about some of your long-held beliefs with respect to America as a country and as an idea! What occurred to me while reading this book was how much of what Ron Paul believes in is just old fashioned common sense, to many of us.
March 18, 2021
I'm not sure what I expected but it wasn't what I found. I often liked what I periodically heard or read from Ron Paul over the years but never really took the time to learn more or take him very seriously.
I found this book to be refreshingly brilliant. I wish I had learned more about Ron Paul when I could have supported and voted for him.
Don't assume that what you may have heard about Ron Paul from the media or self-serving Democrat and Republican politicians has been accurate until you read this book. You will be surprised if you take the time to read it.
I found this book to be refreshingly brilliant. I wish I had learned more about Ron Paul when I could have supported and voted for him.
Don't assume that what you may have heard about Ron Paul from the media or self-serving Democrat and Republican politicians has been accurate until you read this book. You will be surprised if you take the time to read it.
July 19, 2008
I would highly recommend this book to anyone. He does a good job of explaining how the main issues everyone complains about with the government have come about, and he does it in a way that is easy to understand. The section on the Federal Reserve was extremely fascinating and really explained a lot about our economy. He'd have my vote if he were still running...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 680 reviews