Evaluating Books: What Would Thomas Jefferson Think About This? Guidelines for Selecting Books Consistent With the Principles of America's Founders (An Uncle Eric Book)

First of all, I have read most of Richard Maybury's books and find them very valuable and enlightening. "Whatever Happened to Justice," is an excellent eye opener on democracy verses liberty and common law verses political law. His books on the economy, "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy," "Personal Finance," (I haven't read the "Clipper Ship Strategy" as of yet) and his books on WWI and WWII are some of the best I have read, exposing the "other side of the stories." He really is an excellent writer in both bringing out significant points relatively unknown by the majority and doing so with lucid simplicity. I also enjoyed very much his book on Rome and imperialistic influences on Western civilization and the 1000 year war of the Middle East. His book entitled, "Are you a Liberal, a Conservative or Confused," is also excellent. And so I recommend all his books, every one.And now this book on Thomas Jefferson. This is also an excellent book and I think it's an accurate assessment on him and the founders and their political philosophy in forming the United States of America. I do not disagree here on their original intentions. However I am not an "enemy of Statism," as Jefferson and other founding fathers were. I do believe that such philosophy was of the times and must be contrasted in a country with a much higher population and secondly, subsequent the advent of the "corporation."So I am speaking here as a "statist," and a liberal one at that, but not a statist without compromises depending on the nature of the particular issue. Now I admire both Maybury and this book, despite my personal differences. And I say this because I am rather convinced that BOTH the extreme statist views and the extreme nonstatist views are dangerous political ideologies when carried out.Statism endorses large government which is deadly with burdens on free trade that destroy both the economy and the freedom and liberty rights of the individual, while nonstatism produces a "Wild West" free society with entrepreneur and corporate abuses that are abusively horrific.However, statism in moderation both restrains the abuse of liberty of the entrepreneur and corporation from severe and ugly domination and yet allow them the liberty and freedom of free trade (within limits - there must be boundaries!), ownership and rewards for hard work.Nonstatism in the extreme is privatization and this can be ugly in its radical form. I have a book at home on early America with a photo of a 19th century American factory, young children all squatting, sorting grains with a proud and assuming entrepreneur standing over them boldly and blatantly stating "As soon as their old enough to stand, they are ready to work," Another picture is of a small boy, face covered in dirt and drained from a hard days (12, 14, 18 hours work?). Thank God for statism and child labor laws! Thank the creator, or the higher wisdom or the insight of the Common Law to environmental protection, child labor protection, workers rights and so forth. And Maybury in mentioning some of this makes much to light of the severity of the issues. These are crucial and absolutely necessary protections, protections that need to be enforced through statism.Also, there are the lynchings of mobs from lack of security forces and people carrying guns. And while unlimited free trade and liberty sounds so fair it is not. Not when the players are unevenly matched, like a Little League Baseball team competing against the New York Yankees. And while it may be true that it was in reality the inflation created by the government to pay for WWII expenses, and not mainly the New Deal and Social Security Socialistic measures instituted by Roosevelt, I don't think, these can be simply written off as non beneficial. Balance consists in both socialism, capitalism and democracy, none swaying all in one direction. And yes, his foreign policy was brutal, but this is addressing the internal socialistic policies for the benefit of the "working" man the proletariat.Statism in the extreme is government ownership of all, communism. Communism without the "Bill of Rights," as found in the United States, is despotism and authoritarian and secondly, creates lazy parasitic conditions, which removes the initiative of free trade and the work ethics and (healthy) ambitions that coincide producing positive growth and utility and productivity for both the individual and the society as a whole.The Jurist Naturlist resembles the Libertarian, which are in reality are the old Classic Liberals - not the same as Liberals, but the inversion of the Moderates, that is, the moderate Conservatives and Liberals, those in between. (No controls verses limited controls in both social and economic areas) The moderates want in limited degrees that is, both social and economic government controls with moderation, while the Libertarian and Jurist Naturalist want the extreme in small portion, anotherwards very little controls at all. Now the liberal is against social controls and enforces economic - consumer protection, while the conservative want are against the economic controls, enforcing the social - morality codes and censorship. Again, the Jurist Naturalist - neither.

I love all of the Uncle Eric books. They are filled with amazing knowledge and a great understanding of economics and financial management. This one is basically about the views of Thomas Jefferson and how his views would go along with the United States political system. It's an educating book, however, I didn't like it as well as the others. Still, 5 stars though!

I love this whole series. It would be something that everyone should read. The books are written so that young students can even understand economics and history.

I originally skipped buying this book when I purchased most of the Uncle Eric series, but I think it is one of the best. Maybury makes economics and economic history very understandable with his unique, non-statist view of the world.

Great book

Good read.

Excellent

The title of this book is perhaps a bit unfortunate given that the book is so much more than guidelines for selecting books, and also that many people today think (and criticize) more about Jefferson's personal life than they do about his principals regarding government and economics and his work in forming this country. The book is about so much more than that!!! It should be noted that Maybury actually mentions twelve of the most notable Founding Fathers and using their principles to present "the other side of the story" to the viewpoint that is most prevalent (whether explicitly stated or not) in most media today. Maybury feels that most news media, school books, etc. come from a "statist" point of view, meaning, stated simply, that they believe "political power is good and everyone should have lots of it. Its benefits are greater than its costs, and it can solve our problems." Contrast this with the Founding Fathers who "hated political power, were afraid of it, and believed it was fundamentally evil. They believed the only 'real world' solution was to keep power widely dispersed and so limited that no one had much interest in it --it was virtually irrelevant." When one assesses any issue with both viewpoints in mind, they must engage in critical thinking. That is what Maybury wants to see.Maybury provides tools for navigating through media that is largely from a statist point of view. He does not feel that most authors have formed some conspiracy to brainwash people, but rather that they do not know they are teaching concepts that are opposite of the original American philosophy. "They teach only what they were taught." He encourages parents and educators to explore both sides and enter into debates with their students, so that the students can come to understand both the statist and non-statist sides of a particular issue and come to be familiar with both. That will help the students understand better how to analyze the media they are met with on a daily basis. He does not oppose students being introduced to the statist perspective (though it is one that he personally does not believe in) but he feels they should be equipped with the analytical tools to understand that it, like all others, is a perspective, not an objective truth, and that our sources of knowledge should be viewed critically, not with mere acquiesce.And this includes his own work.Maybury begins his book with an Author's Disclosure, "For reasons I do not understand, writers today are supposed to be objective. Few disclose the viewpoints or opinions that they use to decide what information is important and what is not, or what shall be presented or omitted." He proceeds to outline his own bias, the one which influences his work, "I am biased in favor of liberty, free markets, and international neutrality." While I think it stands to reason that those who agree with Maybury here will find more to appreciate in his work, I think that the very fact he outlines his own bias is great and should, rather than turn-off those who don't agree, invite them into his work, because they know where he comes from. Naturally, most of the other sources he includes also support his perspective. But, that's just it: it is a perspective. Readers equipped with the critical thinking skills Maybury promotes here will be able to evaluate his work just as they do others. We all come to current events, politics, etc. with our values in place. What helps us grow and mature as human beings is to be able to look at other perspectives--as well as our own!--with critical thinking skills, trying to understand the other person's side of the argument not just ignore it in unyielding favor of our own.Maybury explains that the danger in our current society is that most mainstream media never gives another side to the issue. His purpose in writing this book is to awaken students (and adults) to engage in critical thinking and research skills to be able to more keenly assess the information provided to them and to seek out less mainstream sources for an opposing viewpoint so that students can make the most informed and well-rounded choices about what they choose to believe and support.I would recommend this heartily to high school students, especially those nearing graduation and voting age, as well as to adults who would find benefit in the material for themselves or for sharing with younger kids thorough dialogue.