Reading list from Rand Paul's book (A libertarian's dream come true)

[Hallamaat]

Neocon heads explode!

Yeah, same for this one:

* Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, Michael Scheuer

 

[sailingaway]

Beck and Scarborough seem to be more political choices than really additions to the discussion, to me.

 

[Mini-Me]

Does anybody else, sort of feel like Rand is bridging the gap between the beltway libertarian crowd and the Lewrockwell/Mises crowd?

Tracy

Yes, I actually do. Just like Ron Paul was able to unite most Libertarian Party and Constitution Party fans under a single ticket, Rand Paul's delivery and prioritization is allowing both libertarian camps to work together instead of fighting each other.

At the same time, our more "fringe" ideas like ending the Fed are now becoming taken more seriously, which gives the "honest" but "pragmatic" among the Beltway crowd less reason to distance themselves from us. The dishonest panderers and fake libertarians who like their corporate welfare will always be our enemies, so we still have to watch our backs, but...in terms of the two libertarian bases, I think they've begun to converge.

I'm surprised he didn't list Griffins The Creature from Jekyll Island.

According to gonegolfin/Brian Benton, our resident expert on the Fed, The Creature from Jekyll Island has some good historical discussion but a few factual errors/misconceptions about the Fed. It's still better than some of the grossly inaccurate and hysterical Youtube videos out there (which bring us under attack by "myth busters" like our dear friend dujac), but maybe Rand wants to be careful to maintain absolute credibility on a subject as important and treacherous as the Fed.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

Does anybody else, sort of feel like Rand is bridging the gap between the beltway libertarian crowd and the Lewrockwell/Mises crowd?

Tracy

yes

 

[hazek]

but a few factual errors/misconceptions about the Fed.

Like?

 

[Mini-Me]

Like?

I'm sorry, but I'm actually not familiar enough with either the text or the Fed to point them out myself. I have enough of a conceptual understanding to know what it's about and why it's insane/inherently and inevitably corrupt - certainly enough to take on trolls like dujac - but I could stand to do some more reading to fill in more of the specifics. I know Griffin tries to correct some of the most common myths, so that's good, but apparently some inaccuracies slipped through, according to gonegolfin. I'm just relaying what he said, since he knows a heck of a lot more than I do, and I believe he's shown himself to be honest, precise, and also a Fed opponent (Peter Schiff made two of his articles required reading for his reps). I know it's lazy to rely on someone else's word, but when their word is essentially "caution, and check the water depth before diving," I try to heed it by default. Anyway, I was just throwing it out there to explain why Rand's omission may be due to extra caution.

While we're on the subject though, I should mention something: If you want to really learn the monetary system inside and out - something I've been putting off for too long - I'd suggest reading gonegolfin's posts, articles (his name is Brian Benton), and the two documents he suggested to me:

• Modern Money Mechanics
• The Federal Reserve System - Purposes & Functions

The latter is a document written by the Federal Reserve...but it may have been one they would have preferred was never released into the wild. Neither actually make arguments against the Fed of course, but since you were posting in the other thread a lot, I thought they might interest you.

 

[Southron]

That's a nice list. If you can get people to read, you definitely have a chance at changing their minds.

 

[axiomata]

statist

 

[hazek]

I'm sorry, but I'm actually not familiar enough with either the text or the Fed to point them out myself. I have enough of a conceptual understanding to know what it's about and why it's insane/inherently and inevitably corrupt - certainly enough to take on trolls like dujac - but I could stand to do some more reading to fill in more of the specifics. I know Griffin tries to correct some of the most common myths, so that's good, but apparently some inaccuracies slipped through, according to gonegolfin. I'm just relaying what he said, since he knows a heck of a lot more than I do, and I believe he's shown himself to be honest, precise, and also a Fed opponent (Peter Schiff made two of his articles required reading for his reps). I know it's lazy to rely on someone else's word, but when their word is essentially "caution, and check the water depth before diving," I try to heed it by default. Anyway, I was just throwing it out there to explain why Rand's omission may be due to extra caution.

Interesting. Well I didn't read the book myself either but I did listen to his 2hour long presentation and nothing he said stroke me to be odd or non factional. Granted I also didn't do my own research and I'm relying on Griffins credibility, which I think he has, but still..

He even dispelled the often pronounced myth of the FED being a private bank which Griffin says is at best a half truth and is in fact a hybrid between a private bank and a government agency which makes sense if it is as he says a banking cartel in bed with the government.

But I guess he didn't go over everything he has in his book in that presentation so I could be way off too. I just thought in the grand scheme of things and his story telling which I think is pretty compelling it can't be a bad book.

 

[Mini-Me]

Interesting. Well I didn't read the book myself either but I did listen to his 2hour long presentation and nothing he said stroke me to be odd or non factional. Granted I also didn't do my own research and I'm relying on Griffins credibility, which I think he has, but still..

He even dispelled the often pronounced myth of the FED being a private bank which Griffin says is at best a half truth and is in fact a hybrid between a private bank and a government agency which makes sense if it is as he says a banking cartel in bed with the government.

But I guess he didn't go over everything he has in his book in that presentation so I could be way off too. I just thought in the grand scheme of things and his story telling which I think is pretty compelling it can't be a bad book.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you're right. Even gonegolfin recommended it for the historical detail and exposition I think, just with the aforementioned caveat. I was just speculating that if there are inaccuracies and Rand knows about them, he might be doing everything he can to avoid any missteps against possibly the most powerful enemies in the world.

 

[Matt Collins]

Remember that Jack Hunter had a big hand in the book

 

[amisspelledword]

...

. . . I'd suggest reading gonegolfin's posts, articles (his name is Brian Benton), and the two documents he suggested to me:

• Modern Money Mechanics
• The Federal Reserve System - Purposes & Functions

The latter is a document written by the Federal Reserve...but it may have been one they would have preferred was never released into the wild.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm is a link to a PDF of the Federal Reserve System - Purposes & Functions publication. however, one review on Amazon says "If you have a terminal illness, read this book - it will make each day seem like an eternity. This book is not a fun read. There are better ones out there."

 

[ronaldo23]

can someone aware me on the differences between the beltway libertarian crowd and the mises/rockwell faction?

 

[low preference guy]

can someone aware me on the differences between the beltway libertarian crowd and the mises/rockwell faction?

The beltway 'libertarian' crowd used to call the Mises people kooks because they wanted to abolish the Fed. But I think that after Ron Paul's presidential campaign, they are more open to discussing the idea.

 

[Brett85]

Amazon has been selling the book since 2/11.

This book feels like Ron Paul's The Revolution with a history of how Rand won his Senate seat. I know I'm biased towards Rand's views but it's hard to see how a conservative could read this book and argue with Rand's logic on foreign policy. He uses a lot of quotes from prominent conservatives to show that his (and Ron's) views are not and should not be outside the mainstream.

What does Rand say in the book regarding foreign policy issues?

 

[PermanentSleep]

Does anybody else, sort of feel like Rand is bridging the gap between the beltway libertarian crowd and the Lewrockwell/Mises crowd?

Tracy

I think he is. I also think that his new book is going to bridge the gap between the Ron Paul supporters and the rest of the Tea Party.

 

[PermanentSleep]

I posted this in the "Budget" thread but it probably should have been here.

Rand has been playing a nearly perfect strategic chess game against both the Democrats and the Republicans since the second the election results were in. With the recent release of his new book, the sound arguments it contains supporting the need for IMMEDIATE fiscal restraint (most importantly, why), the outright condemnation of empty Republican rhetoric involving this issue, and especially the suggested reading list at the end that places works of Ron Paul, Mises, Ayn Rand, Rothbard, Tom Woods, Hazlitt, etc. straight into the minds of the Tea Party as a whole (Rand has co-opted the co-opters and is now the media's de facto leader of the Tea Party, so it's safe to say the majority of self identified "Tea Partiers" will be reading this book), it's reasonable to assume that the Tea Party as a whole in the next month or two, especially within the next year, will admit their error in supporting any Republican for the most part just to spite and curb Democrat policy of big government when it's realized that neoconservatives (this term is explained and used throughout the book) are reaching the same big government end except employing different means. Instead of a fractured Tea Party (Paulites, Social Conserv, and those in between), the entire weight of the "Tea Party" influence could be pointed squarely at Republicans who have betrayed their rhetoric with such "pathetic"(Rand's word choice) cuts. The chapter "A Conservative Foreign Policy" is so on point that any reasonable limited government adherent who hasn't, or previously refused to hear any argument on foreign policy and "defense" cuts should have their jaw on the floor.

Now, this book will probably only be read by a small minority of Republicans who haven't identified with the Tea Party just out of genuine curiosity, but the Tea Party still remains mostly Republican. That would mean these arguments are going to be spread amongst the Republican base by many many many many more people than just us Paul supporters. Having a person not identified as a Ron Paul supporter spouting these ideas and making sense will finally allow us to bypass other people's preconceived Ron Paul bias and view the argument on its own merits.

And I don't even think I need to go into how big of an influence Woods' Rollback is going to have on the ability of us and the Tea Party as a whole to decisively win any debate with anybody.

This should all be overwhelmingly encouraging for both support of Rand's budget cut proposals (and the shaming of those Republicans who show they aren't taking this seriously) AND, most importantly, Ron Paul's 2012 Republican primary run!

This is maybe a little too optimistic, but if this movement could use anything it's the real possibility of drastic and immediate shift of political discourse in our direction.

 

[Dorfsmith]

Half way through the book and I am really enjoying it. If Ron does run for president, this book will be essential to winning the primary. If this actually is part of a big plan, it's brilliant.

 

[Mini-Me]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm is a link to a PDF of the Federal Reserve System - Purposes & Functions publication. however, one review on Amazon says "If you have a terminal illness, read this book - it will make each day seem like an eternity. This book is not a fun read. There are better ones out there."

There's a reason I've put it off. It's definitely not a fun read, for sure...but it'll keep you sharp on the exact mechanisms in place.

 

[doctor jones]

I'm sorry, but I'm actually not familiar enough with either the text or the Fed to point them out myself. I have enough of a conceptual understanding to know what it's about and why it's insane/inherently and inevitably corrupt - certainly enough to take on trolls like dujac - but I could stand to do some more reading to fill in more of the specifics. I know Griffin tries to correct some of the most common myths, so that's good, but apparently some inaccuracies slipped through, according to gonegolfin. I'm just relaying what he said, since he knows a heck of a lot more than I do, and I believe he's shown himself to be honest, precise, and also a Fed opponent (Peter Schiff made two of his articles required reading for his reps). I know it's lazy to rely on someone else's word, but when their word is essentially "caution, and check the water depth before diving," I try to heed it by default. Anyway, I was just throwing it out there to explain why Rand's omission may be due to extra caution.

While we're on the subject though, I should mention something: If you want to really learn the monetary system inside and out - something I've been putting off for too long - I'd suggest reading gonegolfin's posts, articles (his name is Brian Benton), and the two documents he suggested to me:

• Modern Money Mechanics
• The Federal Reserve System - Purposes & Functions

The latter is a document written by the Federal Reserve...but it may have been one they would have preferred was never released into the wild. Neither actually make arguments against the Fed of course, but since you were posting in the other thread a lot, I thought they might interest you.

I read the Creature From Jekyll Island, one of the most eye-opening books I've ever read. One of the reasons for it's epiphanies is the fact that it's very well documented. No facts are pushed forward without relatively mainstream sourcing. There is little speculation, the speculation is only suggestions of ways government could use certain scenarios to further control over the individual.

I also gained respect for the book when he debunked the Kennedy myth and actually looked into and read the executive orders he signed along with the corresponding ones in context.

Either way it really helped me understand money, where it came from and how it should be properly measured.

I too would like to hear the inaccuracies and misconceptions. I read the latest addition so maybe most of those had been corrected at this point, I don't know.