Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[Travlyr]

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
September 23, 2004​

Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.

The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.

Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.

We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Our leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty, and our republican form of government.

Today the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, creates legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their districts, thus qualifying themselves for automatic re-election.

The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty. It's not the Constitution that gives us our freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check.

But our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing, and regulating. The complacent electorate, who are led to believe their interests and needs are best cared for by a huge bureaucratic welfare state, convince themselves that enormous federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with another day.

The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain confidence in the benefits of liberty -- and demand it from their elected leaders -- Congress will act appropriately.

The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly, and return our nation to its proper republican origins. The results would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, and a work made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire.

No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside the restraints placed on government by the Constitution.

The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it's understandable that abuse occurs. But it shouldn't be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace and the Constitution loses all meaning.

Unfortunately that is where we are today. This nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document, taught as gospel in our government schools, must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document -- but they correctly made the process tedious, and thus difficult.

Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever, and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve a partisan victory. The real question is will we once again accept the clear restraints placed on the power of the national government by the Constitution.

Obviously the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important "election" of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it's worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant Constitution with which we have been so blessed."

 

[helmuth_hubener]

What kind of man does things that eventually prove himself wrong, you ask? A man who understands self sacrifice.

Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further. What do you mean by self-sacrifice? What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further. What do you mean by self-sacrifice? What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?

Pertinent:

Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political
career. The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
prefer my personal freedom to coercion. Fortunately, I don’t need to
make a choice. Austrian economics upholds the market’s efficiency,
and that reinforces my overwhelming desire and right to be free.
If no adequate intellectual explanation existed as to the efficiency
of the free market, no political activism of any sort would be possible
for any pro-freedom person. Our position would only be a theoretical
pipe dream.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

to
live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
prefer my personal freedom to coercion.

THAT - right there - is the heart of it all. WE ARE BORN FREE, and no amount of efficiency nor utility can overrule that fundamental, basic, essential truth.

Voluntaryism is as observable, recognizable, and natural as water finding it's own elevation. It is as God (according to my belief) created man to live.

Thank you, Ron. You are the reason I have seen the light.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

THAT - right there - is the heart of it all. WE ARE BORN FREE, and no amount of efficiency nor utility can overrule that fundamental, basic, essential truth.

Voluntaryism is as observable, recognizable, and natural as water finding it's own elevation. It is as God (according to my belief) created man to live.

Thank you, Ron. You are the reason I have seen the light.

Precisely. I always wonder if Ron finds it uncomfortable when people look to him as some sort of a savior, when what he's really trying to tell people is a message of self-empowerment. There most certainly is a cult of personality surrounding him precisely because he does give people glimpses of liberty and they latch on to him as they begin to "see the light". But he obviously doesn't want to and doesn't profess to be "Dear Leader", he doesn't want to run your life, he wants to show you that you can run your own and that is precisely what liberty is all about. He emphasizes that it's about the ideas, not the man.

But, yeah, I'll be forever grateful for what he's shown me, and the manner in which he conducts himself. He is someone the world could learn so much from, especially when it comes to attitudes, tolerance, and behavior.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Precisely. I always wonder if Ron finds it uncomfortable when people look to him as some sort of a savior, when what he's really trying to tell people is a message of self-empowerment. There most certainly is a cult of personality surrounding him precisely because he does give people glimpses of liberty and they latch on to him as they begin to "see the light". But he obviously doesn't want to and doesn't profess to be "Dear Leader", he doesn't want to run your life, he wants to show you that you can run your own and that is precisely what liberty is all about. He emphasizes that it's about the ideas, not the man.

But, yeah, I'll be forever grateful for what he's shown me, and the manner in which he conducts himself. He is someone the world could learn so much from, especially when it comes to attitudes, tolerance, and behavior.

Cheers.

Couldn't agree more - Ron has shown exposed me to the idea that I not only don't need him - I don't need anybody.

I've heard the concern about the cult-of-personality with Ron. My simple response has always been that if Ron would ever so much as step out of line with the ideals, I'd drop him like a dirty dish towel. No need to worry about that, of course.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Cheers.

Couldn't agree more - Ron has shown exposed me to the idea that I not only don't need him - I don't need anybody.

I've heard the concern about the cult-of-personality with Ron. My simple response has always been that if Ron would ever so much as step out of line with the ideals, I'd drop him like a dirty dish towel. No need to worry about that, of course.

As far as a cult of personality goes, I'd say it also comes from the fact that he's a vehicle for changing the political system via the politically correct channels. He promotes change outside those channels (civil disobedience for instance), but most people see him as the only hope of changing the system via the system because that's what's considered socially acceptable and legitimate. And he's a diamond in a sea of garbage as far as that goes so that puts even more pressure on him as a "savior" figure.

My guess is that if he doesn't win, a lot of people are going to get even more disenfranchised by the political system (and of course there will always be a movement to work within it as well). Look how the blatantly the MSM has shown their true colors throughout his campaigns. More and more people turn to alternatives.

 

[Wesker1982]

We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul

Now aside from the rest of the mountains of evidence, the odds would have to be close to 0% that a radical libertarian would use a word like Voluntarism accidentally without realizing the relationship the word has specifically with his radical philosophy. You would have to argue that when Ron Paul uses the word, he is totally ignorant of Voluntarism in specifically libertarian context. I know some people like to try, but that would be an argument impossible to make.

Or try to argue that he advocates the private production of all defense services, advocates the NAP from a Rothbardian viewpoint, endorses the ideas of Lysander Spooner.... but somehow is using Voluntarism to mean something other than what would be consistent with everything else. Yeah right.

Quote from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekjnCtR_O0Q

To expand on this point a bit...

I was reading Man, Economy, and State in the bathroom (what else would you do there?), and came across:

For if someone contends that the majority in Country X should govern that country, then it could be argued with equal validity that the majority of a certain district within Country X should be allowed to govern itself and secede from the larger country, and this subdividing process can logically proceed down to the village block, the apartment house, and, finally, each individual, thus marking the end of all democratic government through reduction to individual self-government.

Why is this important? Because some people here pretend that in a Rothbardian or radical libertarian context, self-government might actually mean something besides individual secession (thus Voluntaryism).

What we have here is a clear explanation of what exactly self-governance is to someone speaking from a Rothbardian influence. It is secession down to the individual level, i.e. there is no monopoly imposed by force.

So given that Ron Paul repeatedly points people to the work of Rothbard, and given that Ron is highly influenced by Rothbard, and given that this is probably the first person who exposed Ron Paul to the concept of self-governance...

The odds would have to be close to 0% that a radical libertarian would use a word like self-governance accidentally without realizing the relationship the word has specifically with his radical and Rothbardian influenced philosophy. You would have to argue that when Ron Paul uses the word, he is totally ignorant of self-governance in specifically Rotbardian context.

You would have to argue that Ron Paul leads you to Rothbard, just to intentionally confuse you with a phrase such as self-governance.

Of course, as this thread and the other one prove, this is only a fraction of the evidence to support the claim that Ron Paul is, in any meaningful modern day definition of the term, a Voluntaryist.

 

[newbitech]

Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further. What do you mean by self-sacrifice? What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?

Giving up something you want so others can get what they want. Here is an interesting question. Does Ron Paul want to be a politician? I'd say, not really. However, I think he is a politician out of self sacrifice. Other people believe in him and want his personality and character to draw attention and possibly move things in their own interest. Out of self sacrifice because he cares for those people and because he believes in those people, regardless if he completely agrees with their cause, he does so. Of course his own interests are also served, indirectly, but he can also use his position and clout that he gains by his self sacrifice to serve his own interest and causes. So there doesn't have to be 100% agreement and lock step movement among his family and friends. There does have to be the understanding that Ron Paul is willing to give up his own interest for the people he cares about. It is the art of building relationships and the fundamental principle is self sacrifice.

When we practice self sacrifice and surround ourselves with others who believe in and act on this principle, the relationships cannot be penetrated from outside forces, violent or not. This web of relationships forms the family and the tribe and cannot exist with out each person acting out of self sacrifice. It is not even necessary to understand that you are giving up something you want so that others can benefit. It only requires the action to form the relationships.

Ron Paul opens up his life to relationship building on massive scale. I believe this is because at his core he finds his liberty in his ability to serve the needs and wants of others, again requiring self sacrifice. Yes he was born free. He was also born with a purpose in life. I believe Ron Paul finds his purpose in the happiness of those around him. I believe he is motivated by seeing everyone happy and free to live their lives how they please. I believe it is not even necessary for Ron Paul to put his freedom first. I believe he puts the freedom and happiness of his relationships first. I believe his happiness and his confirmation of freedom comes from seeing those around him free and happy.

Self sacrifice is at the core of any man who will take on a challenge or handle adversity for the sake of helping his family and friends achieve their goals before he realizes his own. In fact, any man who practices self sacrifice on a daily basis understands that most of the challenges and adversity he takes on will probably be unsuccessful, but actually being a part of doing something about another human beings plights regardless of the outcome is far more rewarding for the man who practices self sacrifice than being successful in everything he does. This is because compassion is a close neighbor of self sacrifice. The fact that a person who stands with someone who is suffering against all odds and put themselves in a position to suffer even when they don't have to brings happiness and freedom in the mind and spirit. It is what unifies us as human beings. It's message is fundamental. It is why I believe human beings are able to accomplish great feats against all odds.

Simply put, self sacrifice is the good side of human nature. When embraced, it brings out the best in all of us.

 

[newbitech]

just a quick follow up. I am reading this now. Here is the chapter that talks about self sacrifice. Maybe Ron Paul wasn't "influenced" by this person (never heard Ron Paul mention his name), but ideas are what matter according Ron Paul. Not really the "people" who bring them (aka politicians). So maybe you have never heard of George Herbert Palmer, but that doesn't mean the idea and importance of self sacrifice are foreign to Ron Paul.

It is self-sacrifice that calls forth from all mankind, as nothing else does, the distinctively moral response of reverence. Intelligence, skill, beauty, learning–we admire them all; but when we see an act of self-sacrifice, however small, an awe falls on us; we bow our heads, fearful that we might not have been capable of anything so glorious. We thus acknowledge self-sacrifice to be the very culmination of the moral life. He who understand it has comprehended all righteousness, human and divine.

http://www.authorama.com/nature-of-goodness-7.html

 

[Xerographica]

newbitech, but is there any possible objective way of differentiating between sacrifice and self-sacrifice? If you make a donation to the Ron Paul campaign...is that sacrifice or self-sacrifice? What's the difference between sacrificing and maximizing utility? You give up one thing you value in exchange for another thing that you value even more. Isn't this just Econ 101?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

To expand on this point a bit...

I was reading Man, Economy, and State in the bathroom (what else would you do there?), and came across:

For if someone contends that the majority in Country X should govern that country, then it could be argued with equal validity that the majority of a certain district within Country X should be allowed to govern itself and secede from the larger country, and this subdividing process can logically proceed down to the village block, the apartment house, and, finally, each individual, thus marking the end of all democratic government through reduction to individual self-government.

Why is this important? Because some people here pretend that in a Rothbardian or radical libertarian context, self-government might actually mean something besides individual secession (thus Voluntaryism).

What we have here is a clear explanation of what exactly self-governance is to someone speaking from a Rothbardian influence. It is secession down to the individual level, i.e. there is no monopoly imposed by force.

So given that Ron Paul repeatedly points people to the work of Rothbard, and given that Ron is highly influenced by Rothbard, and given that this is probably the first person who exposed Ron Paul to the concept of self-governance...

The odds would have to be close to 0% that a radical libertarian would use a word like self-governance accidentally without realizing the relationship the word has specifically with his radical and Rothbardian influenced philosophy. You would have to argue that when Ron Paul uses the word, he is totally ignorant of self-governance in specifically Rotbardian context.

You would have to argue that Ron Paul leads you to Rothbard, just to intentionally confuse you with a phrase such as self-governance.

Of course, as this thread and the other one prove, this is only a fraction of the evidence to support the claim that Ron Paul is, in any meaningful modern day definition of the term, a Voluntaryist.

Mises came to the same conclusion here (micro-secession), but wasn't quite so radical as Murray. Just FWIW.

 

[newbitech]

newbitech, but is there any possible objective way of differentiating between sacrifice and self-sacrifice? If you make a donation to the Ron Paul campaign...is that sacrifice or self-sacrifice? What's the difference between sacrificing and maximizing utility? You give up one thing you value in exchange for another thing that you value even more. Isn't this just Econ 101?

sacrificing the self according to the author I posted about is psychologically impossible. To answer your first question. In my own mind, it is far easier to practice sacrifice of something you have no interest in than it is to sacrifice something you are intimately connected to. Be is YOUR money, YOUR time, YOUR beliefs, YOUR wishes. It is far easier to sacrifice the "sacred cow". Which is what I believe the media does to Ron Paul constantly.

Your second question, if you don't care about your money, it's not a self sacrifice. If you believe your money is devalued and worthless, it's not a self sacrifice. If you sweat your ass off for 10k a year, maxing out IS a self sacrifice. What does your money mean to you? That is the question we should answer.

Your third question, sacrificing is not self sacrificing. Maximizing utility is not a sacrifice either if we understand the difference between self sacrifice and sacrifice to be giving up something. When you maximize utility, you aren't giving up something that you don't care about so others can gain. Not self sacrifice. Sacrifice, is not efficient because it's value is not quantifiable. Neither sacrifice or self sacrifice are marketable.

No, this is not economics. Economics is constrained by quantifiable values. Sacrifice and self sacrifice are priceless.

 

[Xerographica]

newbitech, what about the opportunity cost concept? That says nothing about quantifiable values. For example, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Clearly you can't put a price on sacrificing your own child to save the world...but clearly there is the opportunity cost concept.

Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice". The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently. Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs. - Wikpedia

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No, this is not economics. Economics is constrained by quantifiable values. Sacrifice and self sacrifice are priceless.

Not all values in correct economics are, nor should be, quantities -- some are ordinal values.

Austrians will know what I mean.

 

[newbitech]

Not all values in correct economics are, nor should be, quantities -- some are ordinal values.

Austrians will know what I mean.

the question was economics 101.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

As official trasnlator/liason betwixt Xerographica and the rest of the world, I will say that what he's trying to prod you into is the idea that self-sacrifice is actually impossible. And if you define things a certain way, that's true: it is. There's a Mises.org lecture for everything, so here's how Robert LeFevre put it:

http://mises.org/media/1138/Sacrifice-and-Molestation

Essentially, under LeFevre's and Xerographica's definition, sacrifice is to give up something valuable for either nothing or for something less valuable. And I have to admit, logically I think this is probably the best definition. So under that definition it's impossible for a person to voluntarily make a sacrifice -- if they are acting voluntarily, making choices freely, they will always make those choices which they judge at the time will best realize their own highest values (again, at the time). One can sacrifice the values of others to achieve his own ends (having decided his own values are more correct and good than the other guy's), but absolutely cannot sacrifice his own values, because no matter what he does, even if he commits suicide, he is by definition acting out his own values.

You are using a different definition, basically that of having values beyond the end of your own nose -- of placing a high value on things outside your own self and on the well-being of other humans in particular. Your way of looking at it is useful too, I thought, and I found your post thought-provoking.

Xerographica's difference with you is really just a semantic one. What you're calling self-sacrifice isn't technically self-sacrifice. OK, so we can come up with something else to call it and move on. Perhaps "others-valuing."

A previous post I wrote on the subject of sacrifice:

Look, the type of "sacrifice" Jesus would look upon favorably and promote would be to give up something good for something even better. I'm not sure that can properly be called a sacrifice, but whatever you want to call it, there it is.

The kind of sacrifice you have somehow determined I should make is the kind where I give up something good for something ugly and lousy. Like I should sacrifice a beautiful painting that I spent a year of my life making to donate it to The People's Park in Berkeley for the express purpose of them using it to spit on and wipe their dirty hands. Now that is a real sacrifice. It's also a horrifyingly evil notion.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

the question was economics 101.

Yes, the ordinal thing is relevant though, because that's where Xerographica is going with this. Values/preferences are ordinal. So there's no Utils, we can't say Mr. X values thing A at a level of 43.58 Utils, but we can say Mr. X prefers thing A to thing B.

In Ron Paul's case, his value scale might look like:

1. Fight for Freedom!
2. Enjoy time with family
3. Stay in good physical shape
4. Read economic text books
5. Eat Carol's chocolate chip cookies

etc.

If 1. and 2. were switched, he may indeed have stayed out of politics and refused to run for President. These are of course not all mutually exclusive most of the time. He can bring Carol with him on the campaign trail, ride his bike in the early mornings, etc. The point is that if "Fight for freedom!" was not something that Ron valued, he would not do it. And he spends so much time doing it, we can tell from his demonstrated preferences that it is a very high value to him. So in one sense, Ron is just being selfish, following his own selfish desires, when promoting liberty, not being self-less at all. To be self-less would be to not promote liberty, even though he would value doing so very much.

Ayn Rand talked a lot about this, how great selfishness is, in The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and (I imagine, though I've never read it) The Virtue of Selfishness. Perhaps a better term than selfishness would be "enlightened self-interest".

 

[Xerographica]

helmuth_hubener, LOL. It's just too tricky. You declared yourself to be my official translator/liaison. But...I didn't agree to that. You imposed your will over my own. In your mind you predicted that I wouldn't mind...even though your prediction was accurate...there's just no way you could have known that. That's the thing...it's just impossible to avoid paternalism.

Clearly the large majority of people do not appreciate Ron Paul's efforts on their behalf. Clearly, as my rep indicates, the large majority of members here do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Should that minor detail stop us?

Here's a comment on my post...the Economics of Threesomes over at the Stefan Molyneux forum...

My bros have usually been critical but accepting. For instance, in a drunken stupur, I began to sprint tward a lady boy who walked by on the sidewalk some 30 feet away (we were inside a pool hall) because (s)he was wearing one of those cute pink anime wigs that was popular in the 90's club scene and I found to be urotsukidoji hot. I was saved as my bro grabbed my arm and said "no dude, penis alert" or something to that effect. - Chisleu

It's hard for me to articulate exactly what my concern is with getting rid of taxes. It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be obliged to watch each other's backs. How long can a civilization possibly last if people aren't required to look out for each other?

Thanks for the link to Robert LeFevre...I had never considered his work before. His essay on Sacrifice and Molestation would have been totally relevant to the discussion that I had with Matt Zwolinski....Fallibilism vs Fairness. LeFevre's essay...In Gods We Trust?: Social Security Among the Ancient Incas...would have been totally relevant to my post on the Divine Disparity.

This makes total sense to me...

Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

To summarize...it's just too much of a leap of faith for me to argue against taxes...but it requires a huge leap of faith to allow 538 congresspeople to allocate 150 million people's taxes. Which of course leaves me with tax choice.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

helmuth_hubener, LOL. It's just too tricky. You declared yourself to be my official translator/liaison. But...I didn't agree to that. You imposed your will over my own.

Yes, you are right, of course! I apologize for my molestation. I pray you can someday forgive me.

In your mind you predicted that I wouldn't mind...even though your prediction was accurate...there's just no way you could have known that. That's the thing...it's just impossible to avoid paternalism.

Or perhaps we could say we choose between paternalism and subservience. Either we think we're smarter than the other guy and act in accordance, or we think he's smarter and so defer to him.

Clearly the large majority of people do not appreciate Ron Paul's efforts on their behalf. Clearly, as my rep indicates, the large majority of members here do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Should that minor detail stop us?

No, never!

It's hard for me to articulate exactly what my concern is with getting rid of taxes. It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be obliged to watch each other's backs. How long can a civilization possibly last if people aren't required to look out for each other?

And that's cool. You just have to read voluminously enough until you agree with me. Then everything will be fine. Here, read all this:

http://cot.gbcnv.edu/~tenney/AnarchoCapitalismTopic.htm

Seriously, though, if you're going to devote your life to crusading for a cause, you should make real sure that you are as knowledgeable as possible on all aspects of it, so that you really are on the side of the good and slashing at the wicked.

Thanks for the link to Robert LeFevre...I had never considered his work before.

Yes, good for long car trips, going to sleep, or other situations where you can listen to audio. I quite enjoy him, I think he's a bit of a neglected figure. Very methodical and logical, and not afraid to be original.

PS: Because he's methodical, it's best to listen to them in order, I think. Mises.org now has them in reverse order; the series starts with Communication About Freedom, then Yes, You Do Have a Philosophy, etc. Especially on certain topics such as property (Ownership, Property and Ownership, How We Become Owners, Collective Ownership, and Who Owns What), each one builds on the last.