Rating: 
Summary: Empty, Pointless and full of Errors
Review: Charles Fisher wrote in Newsweek that, “Dreaming permits each and everyone of us to be quietly and safely insane every night of our lives.” Gerry Spence’s book “Give Me Liberty” contains several of his so-called dreams that give credence to Fisher’s ideas of insanity, if not necessarily verifying his “quietly” clause. In fact, Spence does a good job of saying nothing at high volume. His book contains almost no substance, and is composed almost entirely of ... and empty rhetoric. Give Me Liberty is nothing more than puerile, pseudo-intellectual whimpering that life isn’t fair. While Spence does advance some interesting, if wholly unoriginal, ideas, they compose but a small fraction of his book. Actually, one of Spence’s biggest flaws is his lack of originality. He has chosen several ideas that while thought provoking, are totally incompatible. For example, Spence’s dream of eliminating elections runs counter to his plan to charge people ... each to finance campaigns. If we are to believe that Spence’s dreams represent his vision of ideal world, are we also to believe that in a Spencian utopia the citizens would each pay ...for elections that don’t occur? In the final analysis, the reader is left with a choice of sorts. They can gaze past the hypocrisy and short sightedness that Spence presents to seek the embryonic good ideas, or, the reader may accept that Gerry Spence’s dreams represent his vision of utopia. In the first case, we are left with the idea that perhaps our electoral system should be refined and maybe Americans should become more actively involved in their government. Looking beyond the fact these ideas are rather obvious and don’t require 341 pages of Spence’s arrogant, putrescent hyperbole, we must extend credit to the author for challenging the status quo and calling for action. In the second case, the dreams presented by Spence are actually nightmares. It is a nightmare world ruled by a people’s democracy where the people have become little more than voiceless cogs in the machinery of a powerless government. At best, Spence’s world is one in which the people truly are slaves, powerless to alter the government and unprotected by a social contract. In this case, Spence’s dreams are insane, but they are anything but safe and quiet.
Rating: 
Summary: Socialism not corporations is the enemy of labor
Review: Division of labor is the essence of a free market system. A corporation is a lifeless entity: it does not have a brain, a heart, or an living organ. Too say a corporation is a new master and the workers are the slaves is not rationale. The migration from an industrial based society too an knowledge based society means that individuals provide the labor for an organization and individuals create the networks to get work done and organizations are composed of networks of individuals that provide specialized labor. A corporation produces product from the efforts and skills of numerous divisons of specializations of labor. So the idea that an employee or a group of employees are indepensible to an organization is not practical. Exchange of money by a corporation is forced by the individual based on the agreement and terms of services rendered. A corporation can not breach the work agreement without penality. So, a contract of sorts is formed between the individual and corporations for the acquistion of labor skill and services, in exchange for money or profit. This free market transaction is not forced on the individual, it is a choice to labor in exchange for profit. The free exchange of business is the life of capitalism. Capitalism is the life of the free market system. An anomaly in the model is insurance companies. Insurance companies represent a break in the model. The relationship between the insurance company and its beneficiaries seems to be one exception in the labor equal profit model. Insurance companies acquire money and do not want to pay out benefits on claims without adversial compelling reasons. There is not realization of any labor service agreements and so the benefit payment seems difficult to access or measure. The contracts are not explicit and easy too execute. Insurance seems too defy the labor equals profit equation. So, organizations draw upon labor pools to accomplish specific tasks in the corporation. The process of identifying specific individuals capable of providing specific domains of knowledge becomes the competing factor between corporations on the free market. Companies must compete for labor. The marketing of knowledge labor jobs is too accomodate a sector of labor for the exchange of money or profit. Sectors provides the highest levels of profit attract labor. Making the megacorporation the enemy is a blanket discrimination. The real threat is socialism. Why did legislature support for slavery die? Because slavery was based on the idealogy of socialism. Socialism destroys the free market. The free market can always compete from efficiency, innovatively, and cheaper than any other market system. However, if the free market is burden under the idealogy of socialism, it oppressive doctrines and practices stiffle incentitive; workers have no profit motive too labor; the state supports an idle group of workers with welfare benefits; and the quality of life deterioates. The slave industry was destined to crumble. The founding fathers realized "cheap labor" provided by slavery would never last. Division of labor and the "invisible hand" drove individuals to gain specialized knowledge, the work for a profit, increasing both wealth and productivity. As long as socialistic idealogy does not destroy the workers belief they can labor for a profit, the knowledge worker will continue to think, innovate, design, and produce. The impact of the brain produces millions of fold of value. The human inguentity is the great producer of profit. Did large corporations force small farmers too sell their land? No. Division of labor for small farmers was so inefficient they could not compete against large corporations possessing capital giving them an agricultural advantage. The agricultural advantage being fertilizers, economy of scale discounts, improved planting and harvesting methodologies. The free market benefit from lower food prices and more abundant supply. The small farmer could not convince his sons that farm division was profitable enough to spend their lives on the farm, so they sought more profit divisions of labor. As long as demand exists for a labor division, resource pooling will be available; once demand decreases labors migrate too new labor divisions and create resource pools of availability. Large corporations represent a tax entity. Individuals within the corporation are responsible too invest, distribute, and utilize the resources of the corporation. Individual networks provide the specialization of labor and the resource pooling too keep the corporate tax entity profitable. If individuals support socialistic idealogy then labor productivity will cease because socialism prohibits profitable labor. Taxes reduce profits. Reductions in profits suffocate labor incentive.
Rating:
Summary: Socialism not corporations is the enemy of labor
Review: Division of labor is the essence of a free market system. A corporation is a lifeless entity: it does not have a brain, a heart, or an living organ. Too say a corporation is a new master and the workers are the slaves is not rationale. The migration from an industrial based society too an knowledge based society means that individuals provide the labor for an organization and individuals create the networks to get work done and organizations are composed of networks of individuals that provide specialized labor. A corporation produces product from the efforts and skills of numerous divisons of specializations of labor. So the idea that an employee or a group of employees are indepensible to an organization is not practical. Exchange of money by a corporation is forced by the individual based on the agreement and terms of services rendered. A corporation can not breach the work agreement without penality. So, a contract of sorts is formed between the individual and corporations for the acquistion of labor skill and services, in exchange for money or profit. This free market transaction is not forced on the individual, it is a choice to labor in exchange for profit. The free exchange of business is the life of capitalism. Capitalism is the life of the free market system. An anomaly in the model is insurance companies. Insurance companies represent a break in the model. The relationship between the insurance company and its beneficiaries seems to be one exception in the labor equal profit model. Insurance companies acquire money and do not want to pay out benefits on claims without adversial compelling reasons. There is not realization of any labor service agreements and so the benefit payment seems difficult to access or measure. The contracts are not explicit and easy too execute. Insurance seems too defy the labor equals profit equation. So, organizations draw upon labor pools to accomplish specific tasks in the corporation. The process of identifying specific individuals capable of providing specific domains of knowledge becomes the competing factor between corporations on the free market. Companies must compete for labor. The marketing of knowledge labor jobs is too accomodate a sector of labor for the exchange of money or profit. Sectors provides the highest levels of profit attract labor. Making the megacorporation the enemy is a blanket discrimination. The real threat is socialism. Why did legislature support for slavery die? Because slavery was based on the idealogy of socialism. Socialism destroys the free market. The free market can always compete from efficiency, innovatively, and cheaper than any other market system. However, if the free market is burden under the idealogy of socialism, it oppressive doctrines and practices stiffle incentitive; workers have no profit motive too labor; the state supports an idle group of workers with welfare benefits; and the quality of life deterioates. The slave industry was destined to crumble. The founding fathers realized "cheap labor" provided by slavery would never last. Division of labor and the "invisible hand" drove individuals to gain specialized knowledge, the work for a profit, increasing both wealth and productivity. As long as socialistic idealogy does not destroy the workers belief they can labor for a profit, the knowledge worker will continue to think, innovate, design, and produce. The impact of the brain produces millions of fold of value. The human inguentity is the great producer of profit. Did large corporations force small farmers too sell their land? No. Division of labor for small farmers was so inefficient they could not compete against large corporations possessing capital giving them an agricultural advantage. The agricultural advantage being fertilizers, economy of scale discounts, improved planting and harvesting methodologies. The free market benefit from lower food prices and more abundant supply. The small farmer could not convince his sons that farm division was profitable enough to spend their lives on the farm, so they sought more profit divisions of labor. As long as demand exists for a labor division, resource pooling will be available; once demand decreases labors migrate too new labor divisions and create resource pools of availability. Large corporations represent a tax entity. Individuals within the corporation are responsible too invest, distribute, and utilize the resources of the corporation. Individual networks provide the specialization of labor and the resource pooling too keep the corporate tax entity profitable. If individuals support socialistic idealogy then labor productivity will cease because socialism prohibits profitable labor. Taxes reduce profits. Reductions in profits suffocate labor incentive.
Rating:
Summary: Bad ideas, cleverly written
Review: Gery Spence's ideas would turn these united States into a socialist dystopia. His ideas are anathema to liberty. Example: That Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech is set in the First Amendment. We can be certain that the founders meant political speech. Spence's solution: Eliminate campaign contributions, so that only thos who control a TV network or newspaper chain can influence the outcome of an election. While he rails against the big corporation, this one proposal gives unprecedented power to a small sub-group of corporations. Whether you believe that socialists or social conservatives control the media, this effectively silences those with opposing views. Stalin and Hitler would be proud of such an idea - and to couch it in the name of freedom is obscene.
Rating:
Summary: Good Brain Food for those worried about current trends.
Review: I have read several of Gerry Spence's books, some of which I loved and some of which bored me to sleep at night. This one is definately a must buy!
I am a 39 year old US Citizen who returned to the USA just 2 years ago after living from age 18-26 in Soviet Occupied East Germany and age 29-35 in "Reunified" Germany with the in between years spent in Hungary, South Africa and The United Arab Emirates. Upon my return to this country I was floored by just how similar the US has become to many of those countries whose governments I viewed as "police states".
In this book, Gerry Spence responds to many of my concerns, points out many recent dangerous precedents and sounds the alarm that our freedoms and Rights really are in jeopardy! For the first time since my return to the USA I realize that my observations are in fact valid and that there are others out there who are well travelled, educated and/or observant enough to see what is really going on.
Gerry likes to be a poet and he likes to spin fine webs of utopian bliss but he is also a very observant and astute critic of American ideals and images VS the reality behind them. Give the book a read! What else can you get for $2.00 that might just change your perception of life in the USA?
Rating: 
Summary: Spence wants to buck the system
Review: Im a fan of Mr. Spence and have owned all but one of his books. This is an interesting book, but your showing your lack of resonableness if you go along with it whole-heartedly. In fact it's probably what Mcviegh read before making his bomb. We can't change the system overnight(nor would we want to if we had to replace it with Gerry's ideas). He's much like Nader(except anybody takes a better picture than Ralphy) in the sense that he could get alot farther if he only focused on changing part of the world at a time. Still it's worth reading just to think of it all in a different way.
Rating:
Summary: Let's Do The Changes Gerry Proposes
Review: Let's join together to do the changes Gerry proposes ... that would be happiness ... To get the rule making of the government in the hands of the people ... to get the rule making of the government out of the minds of the people ... we have to accomplish the radical systemic changes Gerry proposes ... don't see anything else working ... do you? We could start by doing initiative petitions in the states that can change their law/constitutions by initiative petitions. What do you say? Gerry's book is a call to action.
Rating:
Summary: Spence begins what should be a serious debate.
Review: No one says Gerry Spence is a great writer; his prose is overblown, more suited to the novelists' courtroom than a serious book, but his ideas will surely upset the status quo. Good. His statements that American workers who have less control over their own lives than ever before have become slaves to the--whatever, be it culture, government, corporation or all of the above is one that many Americans will agree with if they are brave enough to admit it. He advocates taking back that control we should have in a democracy through several methods--the first of which is to live simply so that the corporation/government handouts are less necessary for your livelihood, and the second is to seriously look at the way big money and government control everything in this country. We have a duty to overthrow a corrupt and onerous gov't according to the constitution, says Spence and he lays out his ideas about how to go about that. I particularly like his idea of a voting lottery (with a stick and a carrot to spur voters to take responsibility for themselves and their government.) Bravo to Spence for writing something that steps beyond what today's political leaders put forward as radical changes yet have the end result of maintaining the status quo. He really thinks we can CHANGE things and be powerful and independent again.
Rating:
Summary: free!
Review: One of the true originals of the 21st century to hit the book stores. With lyrical style, Gerry writes again with passion and fire to all those that still have that ever important question, are we free? This book has inspired me to open my eyes and to free the self. It's one of those rare books that can also change the intelligent mind...
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing Ideas, Poorly Explored & Incoherently Written
Review: Spence's writing style gives new meaning to the words "overblown" and "histrionic." His ideas ramble across the page in a seemingly random manner, skipping from era to era and topic to topic as the mood strikes him. There is no organization or consistency to the thoughts he presents--the chapter divisions are almost arbitrary. As soon as he seems to be building up to one point, he jerks you over to another unrelated issue. That said, he does present some intriguing suggestions toward the latter third of the book. Unfortunately, he presents them as "finished products" instead of the starting points they truly are. This short-circuits the serious consideration and discussion these ideas would otherwise deserve, and Spence evidently isn't aware enough of the loopholes and flaws in some of his ideas to address them. (For example, restricting candidate's campaign spending to a set amount sounds promising, but what do we do about "friends" of the candidate who choose to air their own commercials promoting the same guy? Apparently, such a dodge hasn't occurred to Spence.) In addition, his exuberant, over-the-top approach to a lot of complex problems leaves the reader with the impression that the author is just tossing off glib first impressions, rather than thoughtful and workable ideas. The fact that he seems to be advocating a system which combines the most bizarre elements of fascism and communism doesn't help matters, either--it's bound to turn off many people who would otherwise be open to realistic, reasonable reform of our government and societal system. A well-intentioned effort, but poorly thought out and badly presented.
| 
