What do you think?
Rate this book
Uncle Eric #4
Are You... Liberal? Conservative? Or Confused?
Political philosophies, what do they mean? What are their economic and legal policies? How do they affect your business, career, and investments?
143 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
21 people are currently reading
501 people want to read
About the author
Richard J. Maybury
35 books106 followersRichard Maybury, also known as Uncle Eric, is the publisher of U.S. & World Early Warning Report for Investors. He has written several entry level books on United States economics, law, and history from a libertarian perspective. He writes the books in epistolary form, usually as an uncle writing to his nephew, answering questions.
Maybury was a high school economics teacher. After failing to find a book which would give a clear explanation on his view of economics he wrote one himself. Some of his books include Uncle Eric Talks About Personal, Career & Financial Security, Higher Law, Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? and Whatever Happened to Justice? .
Maybury was a high school economics teacher. After failing to find a book which would give a clear explanation on his view of economics he wrote one himself. Some of his books include Uncle Eric Talks About Personal, Career & Financial Security, Higher Law, Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? and Whatever Happened to Justice? .
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
March 21, 2017
Oh my God, what a silly little book - pushing a right-wing libertarian agenda of laissez-faire capitalism (mostly in line with Ayn Rand's idiotic "Objectivism") in the guise of promoting the "original ideas of the founding fathers of America". Abolish government, let people do what they want, and everything will turn out hunky-dory.
The amount of five-star ratings this book has got on this site has really got me worried about America.
My suggestion to potential readers of the book who are novices on politics and and economics, and who are likely to be taken in by the author's arguments which seem dangerously plausible: have a look at The Political Compass, read their excellent FAQ, and take their test to see where you stand. Their reading list on all four quadrants of the compass are also excellent.
The amount of five-star ratings this book has got on this site has really got me worried about America.
My suggestion to potential readers of the book who are novices on politics and and economics, and who are likely to be taken in by the author's arguments which seem dangerously plausible: have a look at The Political Compass, read their excellent FAQ, and take their test to see where you stand. Their reading list on all four quadrants of the compass are also excellent.
October 10, 2012
"Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused?" discusses political labels. What do they mean? Liberal, conservative, left, right, democrat, republican, moderate, socialist, libertarian, communist. Maybury examines each party’s social and economic agendas, and also discusses to how the party philosophies fit with the principles of America’s founders. Maybury accomplishes all this with his clear, concise style making the whole book easy to read in a few hours, though you will be thinking about it long after.
If you read the title and answered “Confused!” this book is definitely for you. Even if you could answer confidently “Liberal!” or “Conservative!” it is still worth a look. I was fascinated to learn more about parties I thought I understood well. It was refreshing to examine the roots of America’s more prominent parties, rather than the buzzy “hot button” issues that seem to dominate the media especially around election-time, as well as to learn more about other political labels that are bandied about, often without clear definition. I tried to read this with an open mind, reading about each party with as little judgment as possible and trying understand what might attract people to each political party. I also tried to consider why government leaders might favor certain parties—be it for altruistic means or to increase their own political power. Maybury’s focus on each party’s economic agendas is also fascinating, especially given the economy’s dominance in this current election.
Highly recommended! (Especially during the election year!) If you are “Confused”, hopefully this book will help you gain better understanding of how your beliefs fit with a certain party. If you already align yourself staunchly to one party or another, perhaps Maybury will help you better understand those from opposing parties and be better able to articulate why you believe what you believe.
This would also be a great book to give a high school student so he/she can better understand the elections as they are happening now, and be a more informed voter when they are able to vote in the next elections. I think for young people especially it is easy to be caught up in the media buzz or to follow a party simply because it is what one’s family follows (or, perhaps, to choose the opposite simply because it is *not* what one’s family follows!) and this book will provide them with important information and could help them take time to do some inward reflection to see what truly resonates with them as an individual.
If you read the title and answered “Confused!” this book is definitely for you. Even if you could answer confidently “Liberal!” or “Conservative!” it is still worth a look. I was fascinated to learn more about parties I thought I understood well. It was refreshing to examine the roots of America’s more prominent parties, rather than the buzzy “hot button” issues that seem to dominate the media especially around election-time, as well as to learn more about other political labels that are bandied about, often without clear definition. I tried to read this with an open mind, reading about each party with as little judgment as possible and trying understand what might attract people to each political party. I also tried to consider why government leaders might favor certain parties—be it for altruistic means or to increase their own political power. Maybury’s focus on each party’s economic agendas is also fascinating, especially given the economy’s dominance in this current election.
Highly recommended! (Especially during the election year!) If you are “Confused”, hopefully this book will help you gain better understanding of how your beliefs fit with a certain party. If you already align yourself staunchly to one party or another, perhaps Maybury will help you better understand those from opposing parties and be better able to articulate why you believe what you believe.
This would also be a great book to give a high school student so he/she can better understand the elections as they are happening now, and be a more informed voter when they are able to vote in the next elections. I think for young people especially it is easy to be caught up in the media buzz or to follow a party simply because it is what one’s family follows (or, perhaps, to choose the opposite simply because it is *not* what one’s family follows!) and this book will provide them with important information and could help them take time to do some inward reflection to see what truly resonates with them as an individual.
October 27, 2023
oh, gosh. poorly-constructed arguments, rife with grammatical errors and fear tactics to defend maybury’s point of view. im so glad im done
May 24, 2011
This book is well-written, enlightening, and sensible. I've learned so much from this tiny little thing! If you have already picked political parties, it can make you feel uncomfortable. I have always leaned toward the left, though I never really knew why. As this book outlines, generally liberals advocate social freedom and economic control, whereas conservatives advocate social control and economic freedom. Because social issues were the only ones I could wrap my head around, I found myself siding with the freedom that liberals want in their social lives, issues such as gay marriage.
Now that I've started learning more about economics, I realized that economic controls were causing the majority of issues in America. Why is the government up in our business? This is generally a conservative viewpoint, so I thought, perhaps I'm a conservative. But no, conservatives want to get their hands dirty in social issues like banning books, gay marriage and drugs.
So what am I? As far as I can tell, the only label that makes sense for both my reasonable and emotional sides is the party of juris naturalism. Richard J. Maybury is a juris naturalist - a juris naturalist advocates liberty in society and economics. The Founding Fathers were juris naturalists (according to Maybury - I'm on my way to reading the Founding Father's own writings...).
Anyway, I recommend this book to everyone - but especially those who are open-minded, who want to improve themselves, who are unafraid of questioning everything.
Now that I've started learning more about economics, I realized that economic controls were causing the majority of issues in America. Why is the government up in our business? This is generally a conservative viewpoint, so I thought, perhaps I'm a conservative. But no, conservatives want to get their hands dirty in social issues like banning books, gay marriage and drugs.
So what am I? As far as I can tell, the only label that makes sense for both my reasonable and emotional sides is the party of juris naturalism. Richard J. Maybury is a juris naturalist - a juris naturalist advocates liberty in society and economics. The Founding Fathers were juris naturalists (according to Maybury - I'm on my way to reading the Founding Father's own writings...).
Anyway, I recommend this book to everyone - but especially those who are open-minded, who want to improve themselves, who are unafraid of questioning everything.
February 18, 2021
I read this in 1996, and it’s still so good. I was a very new Christian then and I hated the feeling I must join the Religious Right. It felt like a cult to me. Maybury’s books have been a huge help to me,providing me with a good vocabulary and definitions for political and economic ideas I was embracing. I feel like I can argue for Austrian economics and for the Two Laws, and now, as an adult, I can argue using Scripture as well.
February 3, 2021
i thought it was pretty conservatively biased, but he does put a disclaimer at the beginning of the book. otherwise, i think everyone should read it because it talks about so many eyeopening ideas that are never taught in traditional school programs. I used this for my freshman year first semester government book.
February 12, 2024
4.5 stars
August 13, 2020
I thought this was an excellent overview of basic political parties/theories, and gave a viewpoint rarely seen elsewhere. It was easy to read and presented in bite-size chapters, and I felt like I learned a lot and gained a new perspective on certain words and their definitions. More people should read this, and not just students or kids--I think many adults (such as myself) would benefit from it as well!
March 29, 2019
This has to be one of my all-time favorite books!
I've read this before, but even reading it a second time I'm astounded by how clear, easy, and actually *fun* it is to read! Who knew that a book on political philosophies would be a page turner!? But it is.
I love is how informative this book is, how it answers all my "but what about" questions without ever feeling cumbersome or overwhelming, that it never talks down to the reader, and that it never demeans or vilifies people who identify with different political philosophies (a very welcome attitude and approach in this day and age).
The book does not have a dull, depressing, or angry feel to it. It is honest. And it doesn't look at history or the modern world with rose-colored lenses. But "Uncle Eric" is so warm and wise, that there's a sense of hope and positivity infused throughout.
Whether you are liberal, conservative or confused, this book is a must read! Honestly, I would love it if everyone read this book.
I've read this before, but even reading it a second time I'm astounded by how clear, easy, and actually *fun* it is to read! Who knew that a book on political philosophies would be a page turner!? But it is.
I love is how informative this book is, how it answers all my "but what about" questions without ever feeling cumbersome or overwhelming, that it never talks down to the reader, and that it never demeans or vilifies people who identify with different political philosophies (a very welcome attitude and approach in this day and age).
The book does not have a dull, depressing, or angry feel to it. It is honest. And it doesn't look at history or the modern world with rose-colored lenses. But "Uncle Eric" is so warm and wise, that there's a sense of hope and positivity infused throughout.
Whether you are liberal, conservative or confused, this book is a must read! Honestly, I would love it if everyone read this book.
January 25, 2025
Not good. Not good at all. Will make you dumber.
May 21, 2016
Like other Maybury books I've read, this is a clear and easy-to-understand introduction to some complicated topics. This particular book focuses on political parties. It answers questions such as: How do various political parties view the role of government? How have they changed over time? How did the founding fathers view government? What is a juris naturalist? What government is best for liberty? For safety? In terms of its effects on your money? How should we evaluate governments or political candidates?
As usual, Maybury references several other books, some of which are his own (and some of which I've read and ought to remember better than I do, sigh). I find myself intrigued and wanting to read more.
Some quotes:
"Without good models [what I grew up hearing called paradigms], children have no way to know which facts are important and which are not" (7).
"...true objectivity is as unlikely for a writer as it is for a court that has only a prosecuting attorney... the writer selects what's important based on the basis of his or her own opinion. There is no other way" (20-21).
"The hidden costs of government are legion" (33).
"When you are trying to discover a person's political beliefs, listen for opinions on a wide range of issues" (44).
"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" (57). [quote from George Washington's farewell address]
"In truth, the United States is a one-party country. The party has two branches, the republicans and democrats, and both branches have the same goal, to increase their scope and power; this has the net effect of increasing the scope and power of the government... no matter which of the two main parties you vote for, the government will grow more powerful" (59).
"Fascism is anti-intellectual. Its basic premise is that all truth is a matter of opinion and there's no sense discussing it; what counts is action. The fascist worships power.... Fascism is a second type of socialism -- socialism of the right" (68).
"Perhaps the best-kept secret of the twentieth century is that although Hitler's army was defeated and he died, the basic principle he was fighting for has swept the world" (71).
"Germans were educated, but they fell into the habit of doing whatever appeared necessary" (72).
"A single bad idea can corrupt and kill millions" (87).
"Taking sides with the lesser of two evils is simply a way to strengthen the lesser evil so that it becomes the greater" (87).
"The child's mind is a political football, fought over by everyone who wants to control children's minds" (108).
"Rarely mentioned is the fact that many public issues simply go away once people are free to choose.... Liberty solves many problems" (108).
"[Patrick] Henry and Madison were both mortally afraid of political power. Neither believed any human or group of humans could be trusted with it" (113).
As usual, Maybury references several other books, some of which are his own (and some of which I've read and ought to remember better than I do, sigh). I find myself intrigued and wanting to read more.
Some quotes:
"Without good models [what I grew up hearing called paradigms], children have no way to know which facts are important and which are not" (7).
"...true objectivity is as unlikely for a writer as it is for a court that has only a prosecuting attorney... the writer selects what's important based on the basis of his or her own opinion. There is no other way" (20-21).
"The hidden costs of government are legion" (33).
"When you are trying to discover a person's political beliefs, listen for opinions on a wide range of issues" (44).
"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" (57). [quote from George Washington's farewell address]
"In truth, the United States is a one-party country. The party has two branches, the republicans and democrats, and both branches have the same goal, to increase their scope and power; this has the net effect of increasing the scope and power of the government... no matter which of the two main parties you vote for, the government will grow more powerful" (59).
"Fascism is anti-intellectual. Its basic premise is that all truth is a matter of opinion and there's no sense discussing it; what counts is action. The fascist worships power.... Fascism is a second type of socialism -- socialism of the right" (68).
"Perhaps the best-kept secret of the twentieth century is that although Hitler's army was defeated and he died, the basic principle he was fighting for has swept the world" (71).
"Germans were educated, but they fell into the habit of doing whatever appeared necessary" (72).
"A single bad idea can corrupt and kill millions" (87).
"Taking sides with the lesser of two evils is simply a way to strengthen the lesser evil so that it becomes the greater" (87).
"The child's mind is a political football, fought over by everyone who wants to control children's minds" (108).
"Rarely mentioned is the fact that many public issues simply go away once people are free to choose.... Liberty solves many problems" (108).
"[Patrick] Henry and Madison were both mortally afraid of political power. Neither believed any human or group of humans could be trusted with it" (113).
July 15, 2021
I had high hopes for this book. I agreed with the things the author said in chapters 1-3. But then he started "confusing" me with his viewpoints.
There were a few parts in the book that he said he's juris naturalist and federalist and yet, in that same breath, he also agrees with the value of government and what it does to balance liberty and laws.
At this point in time, everyone needs to make a stand and this author, albeit he makes great points, feels like he wants to be an outsider looking in. I was waiting for him to give practical advice on how individuals can help "better" the situation. But he never really did. All he did was complain about both liberals and conservatives.
So with that, I don't recommend this book. Especially if you want your kids to read this, make sure to read it first because you'd be surprised at the confusing message it gives.
There were a few parts in the book that he said he's juris naturalist and federalist and yet, in that same breath, he also agrees with the value of government and what it does to balance liberty and laws.
At this point in time, everyone needs to make a stand and this author, albeit he makes great points, feels like he wants to be an outsider looking in. I was waiting for him to give practical advice on how individuals can help "better" the situation. But he never really did. All he did was complain about both liberals and conservatives.
So with that, I don't recommend this book. Especially if you want your kids to read this, make sure to read it first because you'd be surprised at the confusing message it gives.
September 1, 2020
AmblesideOnline year 9 book. Overall he makes some interesting arguments. Lots of very interesting historical information. I like that he tells you what his bias is and doesn’t try to make you believe he’s impartial like so many people do.
Read
December 17, 2023read when I was a young teen. I don't remember very much except he really wants you to be conservative. there are better ways to teach kids about politics.
December 6, 2024
Lovely. A courteous roast.
July 11, 2021
Brilliantly written. Although, the author is very much opinionated, but who isn’t? He explains how politics really is not that hard to understand once someone explains it to you. Recommend this to anyone who wants some basic ideas on our government and their benefits and drawbacks.
March 12, 2017
Review to come.
October 22, 2017
From the declaration of bias, to the footnotes, recommendations on additional research and a thorough index, there is a lot to like in Richard Maybury's letter formatted style. Of the 11 books in the Uncle Eric series, I have read 2 previously and I wasn't planning on reading this selection next. However, my incredible frustration with the 2016 election cycle in general and the conventions in particular lead me to this 26 letter, 120ish page book.
I'm glad it did.
The clear explanations contained in each chapter provided a sort of detox from the news reporting. Uncle Eric promotes the Juris naturalism (meaning a belief in a natural law that is higher than government law) he espouses while covering the breadth of American political terminology in an engaging epistolary style. With the exception of Chapter 14 "What are they really?" which contains Uncle Eric's Test for Capital Investment, I found the book an elucidating tonic to today's political climate. The Chapters "The Effects on Business" and "Who Gets the Children" were particularly compelling.
As with other titles, I don't find myself agreeing with everything, but I find Uncle Eric's writing challenging and valuable at furthering understanding. Come into it willing to think and you will not be disappointed.
While previous titles I've read (See WWI and WWII) apply Uncle Eric's principles to the twentieth-century world conflicts, this book is a more concrete endeavor to provide a common basis for terminology in the increasingly murky waters of political discussion. As such, it is a good fit for curious middle schoolers or even high schoolers requiring government study. Of course, reading it as an adult, I benefited as well!
I'm glad it did.
The clear explanations contained in each chapter provided a sort of detox from the news reporting. Uncle Eric promotes the Juris naturalism (meaning a belief in a natural law that is higher than government law) he espouses while covering the breadth of American political terminology in an engaging epistolary style. With the exception of Chapter 14 "What are they really?" which contains Uncle Eric's Test for Capital Investment, I found the book an elucidating tonic to today's political climate. The Chapters "The Effects on Business" and "Who Gets the Children" were particularly compelling.
As with other titles, I don't find myself agreeing with everything, but I find Uncle Eric's writing challenging and valuable at furthering understanding. Come into it willing to think and you will not be disappointed.
While previous titles I've read (See WWI and WWII) apply Uncle Eric's principles to the twentieth-century world conflicts, this book is a more concrete endeavor to provide a common basis for terminology in the increasingly murky waters of political discussion. As such, it is a good fit for curious middle schoolers or even high schoolers requiring government study. Of course, reading it as an adult, I benefited as well!
January 25, 2018
It gives a very biased opinion of the American government.
The book promotes the idea that government and politics are evil, and the world would be better if we eliminated government and followed two basic rules. "Do all you have agreed to do," and "Do not encroach on persons and their property." If we follow those rules, America would become a utopia of liberty and peace...
Which is all great. Everyone wants that. It's a wonderful idea. But people are human, and just like people try to abuse government laws, people would abuse those two new laws. Which is where we'd need a government to be able to keep those people in line.
The American government is probably pretty flawed, but I don't think that this book's premise is super flawless either. Since the entire book is written through the lens of turning the government into that new system, if you don't agree with that, it'll be a pretty useless book for you.
The book promotes the idea that government and politics are evil, and the world would be better if we eliminated government and followed two basic rules. "Do all you have agreed to do," and "Do not encroach on persons and their property." If we follow those rules, America would become a utopia of liberty and peace...
Which is all great. Everyone wants that. It's a wonderful idea. But people are human, and just like people try to abuse government laws, people would abuse those two new laws. Which is where we'd need a government to be able to keep those people in line.
The American government is probably pretty flawed, but I don't think that this book's premise is super flawless either. Since the entire book is written through the lens of turning the government into that new system, if you don't agree with that, it'll be a pretty useless book for you.
July 15, 2012
I love reading books that are anti-statist. Richard Maybury does an excellent job breaking down political viewpoints in an understandable way, but from a truly liberty-oriented point of view.
There's so much clarity and precision in how he describes political perspectives, but what I most appreciate is that he readily admits his bias upfront. I love his articulation of the notion that there is no such thing as objective writing/reporting. Journalists who believe themselves to be objective are really just deceiving themselves. Same goes for anyone who claims the "objective" label. Maybury admits his bias up-front and then proceeds. What's truly awesome is that his bias is the best bias.
There's so much clarity and precision in how he describes political perspectives, but what I most appreciate is that he readily admits his bias upfront. I love his articulation of the notion that there is no such thing as objective writing/reporting. Journalists who believe themselves to be objective are really just deceiving themselves. Same goes for anyone who claims the "objective" label. Maybury admits his bias up-front and then proceeds. What's truly awesome is that his bias is the best bias.
Read
April 10, 2019 Are You Liberal? Conservative? Or Confused? is a facinating and informative book, written in a very matter-of-fact way. Richard Maybury is trying to teach the reader something, of course, but he's not doing any manipulating. He's very clear about what he believes, which I find refreshing.
The way the ideas are presented is very concise and easy-to-understand, and the ideas themselves are thought-provoking.
The way the ideas are presented is very concise and easy-to-understand, and the ideas themselves are thought-provoking.
February 22, 2025
A friendly primer on political ideologies and labels, written as a series of letters to a young relative. This is the fourth in a series of nine books about the author's model of how the world works, with topics ranging from economics and law, to histories of Rome and the Middle East. I think I've only ever read the second, on economics, Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?, although I remember having the third, on justice, Whatever Happened to Justice?
In this book, the author talks about the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, drawing a linear spectrum going in the usual way from liberal on the left to conservative on the right. He defines liberal as someone who wants social freedom but economic control, and a conservative as the opposite. Interestingly, he also describes a moderate as someone who wants control in both sectors. (He thus views, in the 1995 copy I'm reading, the United States as a one-party country, where both parties want to expand government reach, and he is cordial toward former President Ronald Reagan, whom he describes as anti-government.)
There is a fourth option, juris naturalist (Latin for "Natural Law"), which the author identifies as and which he describes as the "original American Philosophy." (It's a lot like a libertarian, a term the author avoids because of its similarity to civil libertarian, which he sees as having an emphasis on the Bill of Rights in particular.) He draws this fourth option as tearing a hole in the middle of the linear gradient, but it might be easier to picture as quadrants, since the juris naturalis wants liberty (not freedom, which can be taken away) on both social and economic axes, provided the following Two Laws are satisfied:
1. Do all you have agreed to do
2. Do not encroach on others or their property
The author seems to me to be an avid student of history (especially American), as well as a fervent believer in American ideals. I think his views are stated most eloquently when he says:
Although one might be tempted to think otherwise if they misconstrue some of the more strongly worded quotes in here on:
Political power - Described as evil and satanic, compared to crime, addictive drugs, the institution of slavery, and the Mafia
Law - Viewed as a way to keep bad situations from escalating or getting worse, but which has its limitations ("The more laws, the less justice"):
American Governance - Viewed as a way to trip up the power-hungry:
(While I can see where he's coming from, I disagree with the last one in particular. I marvel at the Constitution and often wonder how its authors would have done in designing software. To me, the Constitution is like a 300-year-old software program, the Bill of Rights like the last major bug fix or Constitution 2.0, later Amendments like hotfixes or minor patches, etc.)
The author's idea of government is that it is a brute force method for enforcing the Two Laws, with contract law and tort law, respectively. While being skeptical of government, saying the Founding Fathers put one in place to prevent someone from putting in a stricter one, he does indicate government is necessary when discussing communism, where he says "If the old Soviet Union had been genuinely communist, with no government, it would have been the least threatening nation on earth." His description of communism was brief but thorough, going into detail on dialectical materialism. In contrast, his thoughts on fascism were focused more on political expediency and lawlessness, not other qualities I identify with fascism like high nationalism. As to how the juris naturalist, who would like liberty in all things, keeps from turning fascist, who believes anything can be necessary, I think the author would say that the juris naturalist believes in Higher Law, which tells him that "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial; everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive."
I first read this book in high school. (It might be on my transcript. Mom assigned, I think.) My education till then had been largely apolitical, in the sense that, while I knew a thing or two about American history, I had little formal education on politics or the American political system. (I remember being maybe 10 or 11 and seeing "Rep" on TV and not knowing if it meant Representative or Republican or what the difference was.) I had recently gotten into conservative literature and news sources, but was still forming a political identity -- I might still be, now that I think of it. (This book's somewhat cynical take might be why I later registered as Independent.) We had moved to near DC, and while I remember visiting monuments, museums, and battlefields, I only remember us taking a picture outside the White House -- the first time I was reading this, I don't think I knew what the three branches of government were, although I knew about the President and the Supreme Court. So I think a lot of what's in this book went over my head.
A little while after, I got a more formal introduction to politics from a Political Science class at a nearby community college. Since this happened while former President Barack Obama was on the campaign trail, I would follow along with the papers from the Metro on my way to school. (I wish I had kept more than some comic strip clippings.) Excited from my class about The Federalist Papers and how it might explain why things are the way they are, I got a copy (which I still need to finish) and took it with me to college. In response, my roommate checked out a copy of The Anti-Federalist Papers, which I didn't realize existed, even though it's referenced in this book. So I can see what the author means when he talks about the statist slant of textbooks.
If I had remembered more about this book, I might have mentioned it to my roommate; if he hadn't read it, I think he might have liked it. I remember him watching congressional hearings on the bank bailouts, I think it was. Revisiting this book after more education and having been out in the world, I feel it has many ideas worth consideration. An issue of the day as I write this is COVID, and this book has raised for me many questions about it. Is government intervention in this issue doing more harm than good? I understand people's frustration with politicization in particular: People didn't use to care about your vaccination status. Why is it so controversial, so public now? Is this a topic that should be in the political arena at all? In my view, politics has done a very good job of raising awareness, and government in organizing and executing a response. But I also feel I have an understanding of what the author means when he talks about the poisonous, corrupting touch of politics.
It's a quick read, with a unique and refreshing viewpoint and catchy title.
In this book, the author talks about the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, drawing a linear spectrum going in the usual way from liberal on the left to conservative on the right. He defines liberal as someone who wants social freedom but economic control, and a conservative as the opposite. Interestingly, he also describes a moderate as someone who wants control in both sectors. (He thus views, in the 1995 copy I'm reading, the United States as a one-party country, where both parties want to expand government reach, and he is cordial toward former President Ronald Reagan, whom he describes as anti-government.)
There is a fourth option, juris naturalist (Latin for "Natural Law"), which the author identifies as and which he describes as the "original American Philosophy." (It's a lot like a libertarian, a term the author avoids because of its similarity to civil libertarian, which he sees as having an emphasis on the Bill of Rights in particular.) He draws this fourth option as tearing a hole in the middle of the linear gradient, but it might be easier to picture as quadrants, since the juris naturalis wants liberty (not freedom, which can be taken away) on both social and economic axes, provided the following Two Laws are satisfied:
1. Do all you have agreed to do
2. Do not encroach on others or their property
The author seems to me to be an avid student of history (especially American), as well as a fervent believer in American ideals. I think his views are stated most eloquently when he says:
If the people are gentle and honorable, controls will not be necessary; if they are not gentle and honorable, controls will be useless. In fact, if they are not gentle and honorable, controls will be dangerous; the cruel and corrupt will grab the reigns of power and create more tyranny and poverty.
Although one might be tempted to think otherwise if they misconstrue some of the more strongly worded quotes in here on:
Political power - Described as evil and satanic, compared to crime, addictive drugs, the institution of slavery, and the Mafia
Law - Viewed as a way to keep bad situations from escalating or getting worse, but which has its limitations ("The more laws, the less justice"):
Law involves force, it is costly, clumsy and usually damaging, and best used only in cases of serious harm to others. Law is a last resort...
American Governance - Viewed as a way to trip up the power-hungry:
They [America's Founding Fathers] invented a system that is so clumsy, disorganized and inherently stupid that even the most intelligent powerseekers who have gotten control over it have had a terrible time forcing their schemes onto us.
(While I can see where he's coming from, I disagree with the last one in particular. I marvel at the Constitution and often wonder how its authors would have done in designing software. To me, the Constitution is like a 300-year-old software program, the Bill of Rights like the last major bug fix or Constitution 2.0, later Amendments like hotfixes or minor patches, etc.)
The author's idea of government is that it is a brute force method for enforcing the Two Laws, with contract law and tort law, respectively. While being skeptical of government, saying the Founding Fathers put one in place to prevent someone from putting in a stricter one, he does indicate government is necessary when discussing communism, where he says "If the old Soviet Union had been genuinely communist, with no government, it would have been the least threatening nation on earth." His description of communism was brief but thorough, going into detail on dialectical materialism. In contrast, his thoughts on fascism were focused more on political expediency and lawlessness, not other qualities I identify with fascism like high nationalism. As to how the juris naturalist, who would like liberty in all things, keeps from turning fascist, who believes anything can be necessary, I think the author would say that the juris naturalist believes in Higher Law, which tells him that "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial; everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive."
I first read this book in high school. (It might be on my transcript. Mom assigned, I think.) My education till then had been largely apolitical, in the sense that, while I knew a thing or two about American history, I had little formal education on politics or the American political system. (I remember being maybe 10 or 11 and seeing "Rep" on TV and not knowing if it meant Representative or Republican or what the difference was.) I had recently gotten into conservative literature and news sources, but was still forming a political identity -- I might still be, now that I think of it. (This book's somewhat cynical take might be why I later registered as Independent.) We had moved to near DC, and while I remember visiting monuments, museums, and battlefields, I only remember us taking a picture outside the White House -- the first time I was reading this, I don't think I knew what the three branches of government were, although I knew about the President and the Supreme Court. So I think a lot of what's in this book went over my head.
A little while after, I got a more formal introduction to politics from a Political Science class at a nearby community college. Since this happened while former President Barack Obama was on the campaign trail, I would follow along with the papers from the Metro on my way to school. (I wish I had kept more than some comic strip clippings.) Excited from my class about The Federalist Papers and how it might explain why things are the way they are, I got a copy (which I still need to finish) and took it with me to college. In response, my roommate checked out a copy of The Anti-Federalist Papers, which I didn't realize existed, even though it's referenced in this book. So I can see what the author means when he talks about the statist slant of textbooks.
If I had remembered more about this book, I might have mentioned it to my roommate; if he hadn't read it, I think he might have liked it. I remember him watching congressional hearings on the bank bailouts, I think it was. Revisiting this book after more education and having been out in the world, I feel it has many ideas worth consideration. An issue of the day as I write this is COVID, and this book has raised for me many questions about it. Is government intervention in this issue doing more harm than good? I understand people's frustration with politicization in particular: People didn't use to care about your vaccination status. Why is it so controversial, so public now? Is this a topic that should be in the political arena at all? In my view, politics has done a very good job of raising awareness, and government in organizing and executing a response. But I also feel I have an understanding of what the author means when he talks about the poisonous, corrupting touch of politics.
It's a quick read, with a unique and refreshing viewpoint and catchy title.
April 27, 2022
I tore through this short book pretty quickly. It really was not what I was expecting! I’m sure that’s partially on me, as it’s the fourth in a series and I started here instead of at the beginning.
I came in I think expecting a 10,000-foot and as-unbiased-as-it-can-be description of the political party philosophical differences in America, but that’s not what the author is giving - and kudos to him, he’s not hiding it.
“For reasons I do not understand,” he begins, “writers today are supposed to be objective…. I do not adhere to this standard and make no pretense of being objective” (p. 17). The author holds to a viewpoint he calls Juris Naturalism, “the belief in a natural law that is higher than any government’s law,” in which he asserts he follows in the footsteps of America’s Founders.
His assessment of the vast majority of political positions in the United States is blunt and unflattering: “Liberals want to control your economic conduct. Conservatives want to control your social conduct. Moderates are a compromise, they want to control both.” (p. 118) Juris naturalists, on the other hand, want the government to abide by the same rules everyone else should and not impose itself on people who haven’t done anything wrong.
It’s an intriguing model of political thought and a perspective with which I quite honestly haven’t been familiar prior to reading this. It’s definitely not an unbiased or generic guide to political philosophies, but it offers an unashamed alternate perspective to what most Americans see as run of the mill politics and would make a thought-provoking addition to a government class or personal learning.
I really appreciate the author’s concept of “models,” which seems a bit like “worldviews” - an organizing system in our minds which we use to arrange and make sense of information that comes in. This resonates with me as an INFJ (the consummate model-makers, along with INTJ) and feels comfortably reminiscent of Kant’s noumena, though clearly a distinct concept, dealing with information and data rather than sense impressions.
I will go back and read the previous books in this series and look forward to it.
I came in I think expecting a 10,000-foot and as-unbiased-as-it-can-be description of the political party philosophical differences in America, but that’s not what the author is giving - and kudos to him, he’s not hiding it.
“For reasons I do not understand,” he begins, “writers today are supposed to be objective…. I do not adhere to this standard and make no pretense of being objective” (p. 17). The author holds to a viewpoint he calls Juris Naturalism, “the belief in a natural law that is higher than any government’s law,” in which he asserts he follows in the footsteps of America’s Founders.
His assessment of the vast majority of political positions in the United States is blunt and unflattering: “Liberals want to control your economic conduct. Conservatives want to control your social conduct. Moderates are a compromise, they want to control both.” (p. 118) Juris naturalists, on the other hand, want the government to abide by the same rules everyone else should and not impose itself on people who haven’t done anything wrong.
It’s an intriguing model of political thought and a perspective with which I quite honestly haven’t been familiar prior to reading this. It’s definitely not an unbiased or generic guide to political philosophies, but it offers an unashamed alternate perspective to what most Americans see as run of the mill politics and would make a thought-provoking addition to a government class or personal learning.
I really appreciate the author’s concept of “models,” which seems a bit like “worldviews” - an organizing system in our minds which we use to arrange and make sense of information that comes in. This resonates with me as an INFJ (the consummate model-makers, along with INTJ) and feels comfortably reminiscent of Kant’s noumena, though clearly a distinct concept, dealing with information and data rather than sense impressions.
I will go back and read the previous books in this series and look forward to it.
November 7, 2023
I love Uncle Eric books. Their content is so good, easy to understand and thorough. So much was articulated clearly and concisely in this book that I would have struggled to communicate to my kids. We could have done this as a read aloud with my elementary and middle schooler, but instead, I shared what I was learning. I imagine my middle schooler will read it on her own soon.
I loved the way he
- took ownership as his position as a juris naturalist and his articulation of why every author should immediately proclaim his/her stance so we can understand the inherent bias in anyone's writing (either blatant or in what they choose to or not to include).
-discussed that both Democrats and Republicans want governmental control and freedom but what differs is the areas in which they want them
-descriptions and examples of different types of governments, how they've changed over the years, what words used to mean and do now
What I didn't care for:
I thought his treatment of racism was oversimplified. His posits that his parents' generation were dealing with some very racist attitudes but knew they were morally wrong (not sure those who were protesting MLK and civil rights' leaders "knew they were wrong") but that his generation was doing fine, the schools were integrated and he had friends of all races. I think that shows progress, but I highly doubt that non-whites would characterize sitting together at the cafeteria as all is right with the world. According to Marbury, affirmative action was the nail in the coffin for the progress on that front. I'm not arguing in favor of or against affirmative action, but I just think it fails to consider the issue from the perspectives of people who were intimately touched by it.
Even still, my own political convictions became clearer while reading this book as presentation of the material was fresh and as simple as it needed to be. I highly recommend to adults and students alike.
I loved the way he
- took ownership as his position as a juris naturalist and his articulation of why every author should immediately proclaim his/her stance so we can understand the inherent bias in anyone's writing (either blatant or in what they choose to or not to include).
-discussed that both Democrats and Republicans want governmental control and freedom but what differs is the areas in which they want them
-descriptions and examples of different types of governments, how they've changed over the years, what words used to mean and do now
What I didn't care for:
I thought his treatment of racism was oversimplified. His posits that his parents' generation were dealing with some very racist attitudes but knew they were morally wrong (not sure those who were protesting MLK and civil rights' leaders "knew they were wrong") but that his generation was doing fine, the schools were integrated and he had friends of all races. I think that shows progress, but I highly doubt that non-whites would characterize sitting together at the cafeteria as all is right with the world. According to Marbury, affirmative action was the nail in the coffin for the progress on that front. I'm not arguing in favor of or against affirmative action, but I just think it fails to consider the issue from the perspectives of people who were intimately touched by it.
Even still, my own political convictions became clearer while reading this book as presentation of the material was fresh and as simple as it needed to be. I highly recommend to adults and students alike.
Read
February 19, 2025I’ve been using Richard Maybury’s books for my economics/government course as a homeschooled senior in high school, and I think they’ve all been very helpful so far. I’m still learning about these things, and mostly, I agree with a lot of what the author has to say, however, I think his push for Juris Naturalism is naive and idealist. Simply unrealistic. For most things, I could side with Juris Naturalism, but it’s not realistic in the modern world to attempt to abandon government controls. As the author states repeatedly, majority rule dictates our nation, and it would be impossible to advocate Juris Naturalism, especially given the epidemic of political power, which the author preaches about incessantly. How would Juris Naturalism benefit those in positions of political power? Exactly, it wouldn’t, and I understand that is the point, however, that brings me back to MY point being that it is an unrealistic idealist mindset, because it would be impossible to shift the government’s current policies to favor the Juris Naturalist ideologies because it does not benefit the government (aka those in power within the government), and they would never allow that to happen.
October 18, 2021
Another in the Uncle Eric series by Richard Maybury. This one discusses the history of and the deeper underlying beliefs held by the American political parties. I found it pretty interesting and accurate to a point.
Maybury argues that democrats and republicans have a fair amount in common in that both want to limit and control some aspect of your life they ought not to have any say in controlling. They wish to implement these controls by use of government i.e. political power, the thing Maybury sees as the murderer of Justice and the ultimate enemy of Truth.
Because both parties, as well as the moderates who simply make a compromise but still make demands on your freedoms, violate the Two Laws which Maybury advocates as being central to the ideals of a prosperous society, ultimately it doesn’t matter which a person ascribes to follow, as both (all three) are antagonistic against the individual human, freedom, and society at-large.
Maybury argues that democrats and republicans have a fair amount in common in that both want to limit and control some aspect of your life they ought not to have any say in controlling. They wish to implement these controls by use of government i.e. political power, the thing Maybury sees as the murderer of Justice and the ultimate enemy of Truth.
Because both parties, as well as the moderates who simply make a compromise but still make demands on your freedoms, violate the Two Laws which Maybury advocates as being central to the ideals of a prosperous society, ultimately it doesn’t matter which a person ascribes to follow, as both (all three) are antagonistic against the individual human, freedom, and society at-large.
February 4, 2021
I appreciated the upfront disclosure of the author’s view. I think the author had a clear understanding of the current political spectrum. I found much of what the author said to be oversimplified but not inaccurate. I also think it is due for another update. So much has happened politically in our country since it’s second edition on 2005. I would love to read the authors commentary on current events. Overall, I think the author did a good job informing the reader for the need to define terms and be aware of the many areas of confusion within the political spectrum.
December 19, 2024
This is fourth in the Uncle Eric series. It’s good. It introduces the argument that there is really not that much difference between a modern “conservative” and “liberal” as we might think. They are both statists, just of a different degree. So, it’s a defense of classic libertarianism, which “Uncle Eric” says was probably best demonstrated (in the entirety of human history) by the US between its founding and the Civil War, with the obvious caveat that the country protected the horror of slavery.
July 12, 2025
Pre-read for Ambleside Online Year 9. I was a little wary going into this, based on some of the reviews, but I rather enjoyed this book. I definitely am not in agreement with Maybury on everything, but I appreciated how his assertions and declared bias made me think. When I disagreed, I needed to think through why, and what specifically I found weak about his arguments. I am planning on finding a few essays to read that would provide different viewpoints to give some balance, but overall, I'm looking forward to the discussion this will inevitably bring out with my son this fall.
September 18, 2022
I was pre-reading this, along with the workbook, before assigning it in our homeschool. Very good!! I’ll be using it as a portion of my son’s government credit.
My first Uncle Eric book was “Whatever Happened to Penny Candy,” which is about economics. It impressed me so much that I looked to see what else the author had written. This is my second Uncle Eric book to read and I’m not disappointed. I read it in 2 days.
My first Uncle Eric book was “Whatever Happened to Penny Candy,” which is about economics. It impressed me so much that I looked to see what else the author had written. This is my second Uncle Eric book to read and I’m not disappointed. I read it in 2 days.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews