Libertarian Philosophy

[333]

Peace,

I just finished Mr. Duffy's Article on the history of BHM, and his journey that brought this fine publication to the position it is in today. The list of folks he found help from along the way, and the friends come and gone. The triumphs and tribulations great and small, were and are inspirations to those who wish to be and are at this very moment pursuing the freedom and self reliance that is to this American, uniquely American.

This is not to say that Americans corner the market on the principles and philosophy of human beings that desire sovereignty, self reliance, and all other notions that make a person believe and feel they are truly FREE. In fact if one were to look at America as a whole today it would be very difficult to interpret such liberty from the policy and behavior of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Duffy set out to define himself, and in this way he set a goal to find out what he alone was made of before he reached an age in his life where repose holds a great value. His story can be found as it was by this reader in the volumes of the anthologies BHM has assembled over the years. It is a wonderful read, akin to watching a good series of stories unfold, it will make you laugh, and cry. It will bring as it was intended, the reader to his or her own moments of truth and repose.

The philosophy behind this motivation for folks to be individuals, self reliant, and sovereign is best defined as Libertarian. Mr Duffy defines Libertarian as : A person is limited by nothing and no one and is ultimately free to do and pursue anything that they wish to do and be. The catch here is however, you are RESPONSIBLE for all your actions and dispositions. In other words ultimate self reliance (freedom), ultimate responsibility (accountability). Simple? Yes in theory but most arduous in reality. The saying goes that " no man is an island unto himself " and its truth resonates just as well today for the existence of "society" as it did in centuries past.

Can a person survive with out the assistance of society, family, friends, and good neighbors?

Yes, but then the quality of that life would ultimately depend on the desires/ requirements of the individual and for sure their environment. The point here is to posit a philosophy that sets all humans free, individually, first and fore most, they must do for themselves that which they can in spirit, mind and body to perpetuate their free and independent existence, then, they can CHOOSE to participate in society on their own terms. A society of mutual benefit. A society of free folks choosing to come together for the benefit of their posterity. A society where all individuals doing their absolute best for themselves bring to the table, if you will, the rewards of freeholders, in free exchange. Leaving the table with the satisfaction of giving as well as receiving all the fruits of life that are good and fulfilling.

Mr. Duffy set out on his own, made his best efforts to succeed, found success in himself, individually, and then those of like mind and philosophy congealed together to form the small little society that is BHM today. This in my opinion is libertarian. This in my opinion is a prime example on a small scale of how America came to be defined. This in my opinion is the philosophy of those who wish to be and remain free. Sovereign and Responsible.

333

[flatwater]

333
I can agree with you on most all your points, and the key to all of this is the responsibility part. Who holds the person who feels free to use drugs/alcahol and drive impaired. We just had a young mother and her baby killed by a man that had over nine convictions of DUI. His lawyer has seen fit at least 8 times to hold him not responsible and our legal system has went along with it. I know a lawyer that for five thousand dollars will guarentee you he can change that DUI over to a reckless driving charge. Maybe money is the answer. The rich man goes free and the poor man goes to jail. Until we get the responsibility part right, there will be no libertarian.

[Pokeberry Mary]

I see that responsibility and rights go hand in hand. If a person won't be responsible they forfeit their rights. Such as if a person kills someone because he/she is driving impared--that person ought to lose the liberty to walk about a free man in society.

I don't think libertarianism is anti-responsibility or consequences. I do think it is anti--over regulation.

An example is--what on earth do we need hate crime laws for?

Is it worse to kill someone for one reason than another? Killing is still wrong period. I don't get how its more wrong to kill someone because they are a certain orientation or color-- killings is the wrong--not what you felt or thought when you did it.

I guess that's my thought on it-- as a person with Libertarian leanings I am not against jailing criminals--in fact I think violent criminals and sex offenders should be KEPT in jail permanently. It drives me nuts when I hear things like that a little child has been brutalized and there were 150 registered sex offenders in the neighborhood at the time-- Why weren't they all still in jail?

Build more jails--that should be a good stimulus to the economy> hire guards.

Anyhow--my original point-- of course you must be responsible to be free--but you should be FREE if you are responsible too.

[333]

Peace,

Yes, unfortunately folks who choose to be irresponsible, are enabled by the compassion of the indifferent, or those who have not suffered the wrath of another s irresponsible behavior. This is to say the compassion granted to the offender for financial gain, super cedes the compassion for the victim, and their loss. This is not responsible behavior from the courts, and or juries involved. It is a prime example of difference of responsibility, or sparing the switch and spoiling the child.

I am not a fan of capitol punishment, there must be a better way, for children and/ or adult children. I am inclined to believe that greater skills in critical thinking would reduce the need for capitol punishment. Ergo educate the children early in critical thought with truth, and reduce the chance of poor choices. It seems how ever society has become the enabler of perpetual adolescence, in my opinion, where all the trouble originates.

A society of semi adults with goals, only to collect the most toys, have the most fun, and watch the most TV is not a free thinking society. There must be more to a full rich life?

Hypothetically ,the prospect of life with out a safety net, or ultimate self reliance, (there will be no help waiting or available) would for certain influence the choices people make in regards to all facets of life's choice, would prudence not reign supreme if there were no chance of help for your mistake or irresponsible behavior?

Would people not think twice or thrice if they were to DWI, and hurt, kill or destroy another, with the punishment being servitude or equal to the crime, no safety net?

When do we trade, reason, logic, responsibility and or truth for compassion? Why?

Hard choices are the privilege of responsible free people.

333

[flatwater]

You made a point about critical thinking 333 that was spot on. Parents and the schools have not taught our kids any critical thinking for a long time now. Everyone wants the easy way out now. It's called dumbing down America.

[cinok]

Many of our forum members could not live a libertarian society. Conservatives would have a harder time in my opinion then liberals. The basic principle of live and let live can not be computed by many unless it fits into a religious based set of morals which does not fit many of our forum members. I agree with both Daves and John Silveras articles about the direction our country is going along with many of the suggestions that they make. One thing they do is offer a logical and realistic approach to problems of today. Hers a link to Johns article in the current issue. I think if many read it they will find they don't subscribe to basic philosophy of the owners of the magazine and the web site but are more right wing conservatives
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira120lw.html

[333]

Many of our forum members could not live a libertarian society. Conservatives would have a harder time in my opinion then liberals.The basic principle of live and let live can not be computed by many unless it fits into a religious based set of morals which does not fit many of our forum members.

The purpose of our discourse here is not to speak for/ to and of others, but instead to pursue truth, in and for ourselves, in the hopes of revealing the truth out right. Divisionary labels of politics and religion are not qualifiers in philosophical discourse as they only create disharmony and derail the topic of discussion.

I agree with both Daves and John Silveras articles about the direction our country is going along with many of the suggestions that they make. One thing they do is offer a logical and realistic approach to problems of today.

I agree as well, since they do approach with a no nonsense/ common sense position on their issues, something in my opinion sorely lacking in society today.

Hers a link to Johns article in the current issue.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira120lw.html

Thank you for the link, those who have not read it or own it, it is a good article.

I think if many read it they will find they don't subscribe to basic philosophy of the owners of the magazine and the web site but are more right wing conservatives

I again, can not, will not, presume to speak for others, stance, or opinion, it is not the purpose of "doing" philosophy.


The question stands as such, open to all, for discourse.......

Hypothetically ,the prospect of life with out a safety net, or ultimate self reliance, (there will be no help waiting or available) (society)would for certain influence the choices people make in regards to all facets of life's choice, would prudence not reign supreme if there were no chance of help for your mistake or irresponsible behavior?

Would people not think twice or thrice if before, they were to DWI, and hurt, kill or destroy another, with the punishment being servitude or equal to the crime, no safety net?

When do we trade, reason, logic, responsibility and or truth for compassion? Why?

Hard choices are the privilege of responsible free people.

333

[cinok]

So we can discuss only we have the same ideals as someone else.

[flatwater]

Cinok
I think you missed 333's point but you did make one point that hit home. As a right wing conservative it is easier for me to except more of the constitution party then the libatarian party but with that said as I put in my first post, if anyone could fix the accountibility issue I would have no problem with any party. Because when there is real accountibility people tend to act more responcibly.

[cinok]

Flat,
I think what you said makes what I was trying to say more to the point. No matter what party is in control everyone is not going to be happy. Each party has its platform and thier are always some who will have differnces with anyone but thier own.

[333]

Peace,


Philosophy of notions such as sovereignty, individualism, and the responsibility that comes with these principles truly has nothing to do with parties or affiliations, they stand alone as simple truths, they (philosophical dispositions) do how ever influence the individual that holds them to be true, and these align those individuals with others of like minds or parties and or affiliations.

Political principles or directives are ubiquitous to the individual who holds them as truth. Left , right, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat....etc are not philosophical ends, they are descriptive s of an affiliations purported agenda/ cause/ political stance. These descriptive s do and have changed through out history as the need arises to further dilute truth in politics.

Unity in truth, is in simple questions such as for example: individualist vs collectivist, which is to exactly state, the Individual is sovereign and supreme,(individualist) or the State is sovereign and supreme.(collectivist), Or Republic vs Monarchy, Simple and concise, rather than left vs right, or liberal vs conservative etc etc, which are not as easily defined especially when you ask many different people, unlike the former which is self explanatory.

Political persuasions aside, the question still stands, Would people behave or choose more prudently if there were no safety net of society to aid them in the event of an irresponsible choice?

It was stated quite truthfully and frankly before that "no matter which party is in control not everyone will be happy", ....What if the people were in control instead of any given party? What if the gov was truly a reflection of the people and truly a servant to the people, would they find happiness then?

333

[flatwater]

333 No because in my time on this earth I have found that some people are never happy but with that said , I do believe we can do a whole lot better then we are now. We had a wheel that turned true and easy and the more we try and re-invent that wheel to make it better, the worse off it gets. Don't fix something that is working just fine. One can fix a flat and balance a wheel but the wheel in and of itself has not been improved apon.

[cinok]

Peace,




Political persuasions aside, the question still stands, Would people behave or choose more prudently if there were no safety net of society to aid them in the event of an irresponsible choice?
Over a period of time those that currently rely on a safety net would be eliminated from natural selection. If the all safety nets were removed their would would be turmoil and destruction beyond ones imagination while society adjusted.

It was stated quite truthfully and frankly before that "no matter which party is in control not everyone will be happy", ....What if the people were in control instead of any given party? What if the gov was truly a reflection of the people and truly a servant to the people, would they find happiness then?

333
This is the dilemma that has faced Americans since the beginning and has evolved into the current disaster. A true reflection would require a underlying culture that does not exist in this country. Culture is part of politics and government, the culture in this country is diverse so that expands into personal beliefs and desired outcomes of government.

[333]

Peace,

Over a period of time those that currently rely on a safety net would be eliminated from natural selection. If the all safety nets were removed their would would be turmoil and destruction beyond ones imagination while society adjusted.

Well stated and for certain true, to the unknown degree. How ever this event has taken place many times through out history, the "purging" of society and the change of systems of government are by no means a new experience in the human history, but still always it "seems" humans choose to wait for calamity rather than due diligence through out each generation.

It is written right into the Declaration Of Independence...., "mankind is more disposed to suffer abuses and usurpation's while evils are suffer able, than he is to right the forms into which he is accustomed....."

Why? Are we that lazy? Or are the despots that charming? Is life to complicated and difficult enough that we do not have time to attend our civic duty? Is our civic duty not taught to us loud and clear in our education system, the how and where, the what and why of controlling our local and regional gov?

This is the dilemma that has faced Americans since the beginning and has evolved into the current disaster. A true reflection would require a underlying culture that does not exist in this country. Culture is part of politics and government, the culture in this country is diverse so that expands into personal beliefs and desired outcomes of government.

Culture or cultural relativism is about your environment, where and how you were raised, and then, where and how one eventually chooses to live. It is relevant to the individual only, and of course, those of like disposition. Unfortunately it is myopic as there are many many many cultures in the world different from ones own. Culture has very little to due with politics per se, other than the notions or truths of Liberty vs Servitude, individualism versus collectivism. This is not to say that the political persuasion of any given nation does not influence the culture, in some, a great extent, in others very little, in the end our culture is what we choose to create, based on our education and motivation.

We could all get together in our neighbor hoods with our neighbors every Friday night/ every other Friday night, and barbecue or pot luck, associating and talking simple politics, bonding, and growing together for the best results in our little neighborhood OR We could sit home isolated and rely on the TV to tell us what to think and do.....We choose our culture by our actions or in this case our non action of isolating ourselves from each other.
Politics has little to do with this choice other than perhaps the fear of conflict with our neighbors over said political persuasion.

So .....society would be in for a very rough time if the safety nets of socialism were removed, a truth, we have arrived at here. I think we all would agree it would be bad before it got better.

Would the American people over come and see through, recreating that which is truly American, sovereign, independent, responsible citizens?

333

[cinok]

Peace,



Well stated and for certain true, to the unknown degree. How ever this event has taken place many times through out history, the "purging" of society and the change of systems of government.

There needs to be many changes but IMO they need to be be made on a time table. Our system of government is not one to work on any kind of long term plan.(be thankful for that with our current POTUS) If the POTUS and members of congress came up with a plan today for a lets call it a 20 yr plan to develop an exit strategy that every citizen agrees on today that would be 5 POTUS elections. It would be changed by the next POTUS.
If all programs that assist are ended rapidly the purging would make Somalia look like paradise. Never mind allowing foreign nations to capitalize on the turmoil. Unlike a third world nation with not resources this country has many assets. The end of the USSR was and still is a disaster and those countries had oppression not freedoms that we enjoy as AMERICANS.

This is a classic case of the glass is half full/half empty.

[333]

Peace,

LOL I had not even finished my reply and you replied, to funny, I hope you read the finished version,......

333

[cinok]

Culture or cultural relativism is about your environment, where and how you were raised, and then, where and how one eventually chooses to live. It is relevant to the individual only, and of course, those of like disposition. Unfortunately it is myopic as there are many many many cultures in the world different from ones own. Culture has very little to due with politics per se, other than the notions or truths of Liberty vs Servitude, individualism versus collectivism. This is not to say that the political persuasion of any given nation does not influence the culture, in some, a great extent, in others very little, in the end our culture is what we choose to create, based on our education and motivation..
I have to disagree about the relativity of culture and politics. Look at some of the divisive issues of the day abortion, gay rights,freedom of speech those topics divide many and also define their current political views. even with in the 2 major parties there is division among their own members. Liberation philosophy is to let everyone to live their own live as long as it does not harm others. In theory the party platform is friendly to all, but in reality it goes against the "morale" beliefs of many based upon their religion.
In this country no matter how it is argued the culture is based on the BIBLE and while some see it as Gods Law and this is how one should act and conduct their lives. Many interpret it to fit their choices just as many have interpreted the rights given to Americans by the Founding Fathers. The problem comes from the interpretation of both being melded into a general belief system.


We could all get together in our neighbor hoods with our neighbors every Friday night/ every other Friday night, and barbecue or pot luck, associating and talking simple politics, bonding, and growing together for the best results in our little neighborhood OR We could sit home isolated and rely on the TV to tell us what to think and do.....We choose our culture by our actions or in this case our non action of isolating ourselves from each other.
Politics has little to do with this choice other than perhaps the fear of conflict with our neighbors over said political persuasion.


One of the most destructive tools in this country has been the isolationist lifestyle that many have chosen to live to protect ourselves. To some it could be to protect their true beliefs or in some cases their lifestyle to prevent ostracization from their peers and neighbors.

So .....society would be in for a very rough time if the safety nets of socialism were removed, a truth, we have arrived at here. I think we all would agree it would be bad before it got better.

Would the American people over come and see through, recreating that which is truly American, sovereign, independent, responsible citizens?

333

My fear would be that a "rapid" approach to a turn around would cause the opposite to happen. The current power that be in both major parties would quash any resistance that tried to rock the boat and the outcome would be either a country that becomes unmanageable by any power except by brute force. That brute force could very well be a foreign nation.


I just wanted to add this link:
http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party

[WRTN]

With great liberty and freedoms come tremendous responsibility. Sadly, so few understand, comprehend, and properly carry the awesome burden of responsibility.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz4RkSjw9ro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93yn0O35Cw&NR=1

[333]

Peace,

I have to disagree about the relativity of culture and politics. Look at some of the divisive issues of the day abortion, gay rights,freedom of speech those topics divide many and also define their current political views. even with in the 2 major parties there is division among their own members. Liberation philosophy is to let everyone to live their own live as long as it does not harm others. In theory the party platform is friendly to all, but in reality it goes against the "morale" beliefs of many based upon their religion.
In this country no matter how it is argued the culture is based on the BIBLE and while some see it as Gods Law and this is how one should act and conduct their lives. Many interpret it to fit their choices just as many have interpreted the rights given to Americans by the Founding Fathers. The problem comes from the interpretation of both being melded into a general belief system.

This is a good conversation, we have gone through, in philosophical terms, Individualism, Cultural Relativism, and now into Moral Relativism....good practice and no fighting, thank you all, sincerely, thank you.

First there is no need to disagree about the relativity of culture to politics, nor would there be, a need to disagree, of the relevance of, morality to religion and or culture, and or politics. They are all intertwined. Unfortunately this does obscure truth, and creates the type of society that we have today, divided by race, creed, and political disposition. "United we stand Divided we fall."

Philosophy or the love of wisdom is meant to transcend these diluted and diversionary tactics of the despots. UNITY of humans. It is wisdom and truth that will set us and keep us free. All of this depends on one facet only, TRUTH TELLING, Society can not exist in the "good" life with out it as we see today. Lies, spins and half truths are the marque of the day.

In the realm of philosophy, please do not interpret this any other way, the rules of philosophy, and in its practice, truth is truth, regardless of RACE (culture), CREED (religion) or the "moral imperatives" derived from either.

In reality this is not the case because we are all not educated early, IMHO, on purpose, in federal school system, to the avenues of truth through philosophy. This is to say, one does not need "any source", other than experience in life, and thought, to come to the conclusion that "treason" or "lies" are not good.

A moral imperative does not need to come from any source other than the truth, this does not mean that they can not come from a wise source, but like the constitution and the declaration of the united States of America, the truths they expound are "inherent" or understood to be "plain truth" across the borders of politics, race and creed, and that they are unalienable or granted by no one and nothing other than the fact that a person exists and can comprehend them, or that they "the life form" have been created.

My fear would be that a "rapid" approach to a turn around would cause the opposite to happen. The current power that be in both major parties would quash any resistance that tried to rock the boat and the outcome would be either a country that becomes unmanageable by any power except by brute force. That brute force could very well be a foreign nation.

Unfortunately I believe you are most likely correct, history is on the side of your assessment. ".....convulsions from within and invasion from with out...." the people "we" choose to protect us are supposed to be diligent in their duties to watch guard for these events and avoid them.

333

[333]

Peace,

Here are the text book definitions to the premises we have been discussing, for arriving at truth. There is no right or wrong when attempting to compile the truth, only the practice and repetition along the path of life. Truth is inherent and knows no boundaries, political, spiritual, or cultural IMHO.

Morality

The Declaration of Independence asserts that all human beings possess certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These rights are supposed to apply to all people no matter what society they live in. Many Americans today, however, would no longer agree that there are such universal rights.
In their view, morality is relative to individuals, to cultures, or to religions.

Subjective Absolutism

The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it.

According to this view, morality is a matter of personal preference. When we say that an action is right, we are merely saying that we approve of it. Although this view may help explain the plethora of moral opinions, it can not possible be correct because it leads to a logical contradiction.

Subjective Relativism

The doctrine that what makes an action right for some one is that it is approved by that person-- claims that moral judgments are always relative to the individual.

When ever someone says an action is right, what she means is that it is right for her. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong, just as nothing is absolutely big or small. To understand a moral judgment, then, you have to know who made it.

Although subjective relativism may seem admirably egalitarian in that it considers everyone's moral judgments to be as good as everyone else's it has some rather bizzare consequences. For one thing, it implies that each of us is morally infallible.

Emotivism

The doctrine that moral utterances are expression of emotions.

In defense of the notion that morality is subjective some have gone as far as to claim that moral utterances are neither true or false. Some things we say do not have a truth value.
Consider these utterances, Hooray!, Bravo!, Boo!, Hiss!.
These are exclamations rather than statements. They serve to express emotions rather than to make claims. As a result, none of them is true or false.

According to Emotivism, all moral utterances (utterances that use the term "right" and "wrong" are expression of emotion. If we say, for example, that abortion is right, what we are saying, in effect, is "Abortion Hooray!" Moral discourse is more than just cheering and jeering, however. It follows, then that emotivism can not be correct. Words like "good" and "bad" do not stand for properties or features of anything.

Cultural Relativism

The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it is approved by one's culture.

Unlike subjective relativism, cultural relativism does not imply that individuals are morally infallible. But it does imply that cultures are morally infallible. Cultures make moral law, so cultures can do no wrong.
If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to disagree with ones culture and be right.
If a society approves of slavery, for example, then slavery is right. These are some of the problems people face when determining what is the Moral Truth.

333

[333]

Peace,

Morality

The Declaration of Independence asserts that all human beings possess certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These rights are supposed to apply to all people no matter what society they live in. Many Americans today, however, would no longer agree that there are such universal rights.
In their view, morality is relative to individuals, to cultures, or to religions.

Subjective Absolutism

The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it.

According to this view, morality is a matter of personal preference. When we say that an action is right, we are merely saying that we approve of it. Although this view may help explain the plethora of moral opinions, it can not possible be correct because it leads to a logical contradiction.

Subjective Relativism

The doctrine that what makes an action right for some one is that it is approved by that person-- claims that moral judgments are always relative to the individual.

When ever someone says an action is right, what she means is that it is right for her. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong, just as nothing is absolutely big or small. To understand a moral judgment, then, you have to know who made it.

Although subjective relativism may seem admirably egalitarian in that it considers everyone's moral judgments to be as good as everyone else's it has some rather bizzare consequences. For one thing, it implies that each of us is morally infallible.

Emotivism

The doctrine that moral utterances are expression of emotions.

In defense of the notion that morality is subjective some have gone as far as to claim that moral utterances are neither true or false. Some things we say do not have a truth value.
Consider these utterances, Hooray!, Bravo!, Boo!, Hiss!.
These are exclamations rather than statements. They serve to express emotions rather than to make claims. As a result, none of them is true or false.

According to Emotivism, all moral utterances (utterances that use the term "right" and "wrong&quot are expression of emotion. If we say, for example, that abortion is right, what we are saying, in effect, is "Abortion Hooray!" Moral discourse is more than just cheering and jeering, however. It follows, then that emotivism can not be correct. Words like "good" and "bad" do not stand for properties or features of anything.

Cultural Relativism

The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it is approved by one's culture.

Unlike subjective relativism, cultural relativism does not imply that individuals are morally infallible. But it does imply that cultures are morally infallible. Cultures make moral law, so cultures can do no wrong.
If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to disagree with ones culture and be right.
If a society approves of slavery, for example, then slavery is right. These are some of the problems people face when determining what is the Moral Truth.

[333]

Peace,

Two very good illustrations, short and precise, yet still very powerful, thank you WRTN all should watch.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz4RkSjw9ro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93yn0O35Cw&NR=1

333

[martinemyers]

'Harry Browne / How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World' -- HE was libertarian that wrote the previous book even ran for president under the libertarian party. the book was written in the 70's but it's even more relavent today, he talks alot about corrupt govt and all their rules and regulation and getting around them, worth reading particularly now that we heading down the road of socialist/communist/fascist.

'L. E. Modesitt Jr.' -- a science fiction writer deals with philosophy, freedom ,liberty, personal responsibility, etc. is best novels about those topics are 'Haze' and 'Adiamante'

[333]

Peace,

Ohhhhh, New books to read, Thank you very much. I had been wondering what to read next, and here I find some intriguing suggestions. Are they on any bookstore shelf or special order?

Thanks

333

[cinok]

Peace,

Ohhhhh, New books to read, Thank you very much. I had been wondering what to read next, and here I find some intriguing suggestions. Are they on any bookstore shelf or special order?

Thanks

333
http://www.harrybrowne.org/

http://www.amazon.com/How-Found-Freedom-Unfree-World/dp/0965603679


Havent got into either but i bookmarded these the other night