30 votes

Guess whose name graces the first page of the introduction to my Political Science 115 textbook?

Ron Paul is specifically mentioned at the closing of the second paragraph in the introduction of the textbook, 'Understanding American Government' by Susan Welch, John Gruhl, John Comer and Susan M. Rigdon:


The introduction is restricted on Google books,

but I found it here:

After the 'About the Authors' section under, 'Introduction: The Role of Government in America,' the book states:

"Very few people argue that we need no government at all. Even those who call for minimalist government, like Libertarians such as Ron Paul, argue that we need a military to protect our nation and police forces to enforce our laws."

On the same page as Ron you will find a cartoon that basically says Somalia is the place for you if you hate taxes and government.

This is going to be a fun class!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Asclepius's picture

How did google censor it?

If you go to the google link and use the search box with "Ron Paul" those pages come up. For example, page 11:


Am I missing something? For many books on google, they limit the number of pages previewed and if you exceed that number the preview ends, but that is very different than censoring books. I enjoy finding old books on google books and I have found some real treasures most of which are free to download. If Google was into censoring on a grand scale, a lot of these books would not be available. I have found more evidence for selective omission of content on academic pay for search databases like "web of science." If anything, google seems more interested in breaking down barriers to information.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

I'm sorry I shouldn't have

I'm sorry I shouldn't have used the word censored.
The introduction on page 4 is restricted, not censored:

Preview this book »
From inside the book

Results 1-5 of 5
Page 4
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.


Glad that Ron's in college textbooks but..

Glad that Ron's in college textbooks, but I kind of thought that the book was a bit biased towards the Democratic view. At least the book didn't paint Ron in a negative light though!

Found a typo. On Page 7

Found a typo. On Page 7 "Reasons for Government Expansion" it states that Thoms Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Purchase from Spain. We purchased it from France.

From Wikipedia

France controlled this vast area from 1699 until 1762, the year it gave the territory to its ally Spain. Under Napoleon Bonaparte, France took back the territory in 1800 in the hope of building an empire in North America. A slave revolt in Haiti and an impending war with Britain, however, led France to abandon these plans and sell the entire territory to the United States, which had originally intended only to seek the purchase of New Orleans and its adjacent lands.

Other than that typo, I'm pretty impressed. I was a political science major myself and this book seems good, besides saying anarchy will look like Somalia.

Yes, I almost chose political

Yes, I almost chose political science but I went with history for a major. I'm surprised they haven't fixed that one by now. I have the thirteenth edition too.

You should eat this whale

in tiny pieces

Socratic Method



Another funny thing about

Another funny thing about Somalia is it's another British colonial cluster****. The Brits have been there for well over one-hundred years 'on and off' with a little Italian assistance.

Ron and Rand are on page

Ron and Rand are on page eleven:

'The Libertarian Party, founded in the early 1970s, is
probably the most consistent current party in members’
attitudes about big government. Libertarians oppose most
government activity. In their vision, government would consist
largely of a military and police force that would protect
the lives and property of the citizens. Most everything else would be run by private enterprise. Like most Democrats,
they are opposed to government intervention in personal
decisions like abortion and sexual orientation. But like most
Republicans, they also oppose government’s regulation of
the economy. The Libertarians often run candidates for public
offi ce, including in 2008, when Ron Paul, a Republican
member of Congress from Texas, ran for the Republican
nomination for president. Although he did not receive many
votes, his campaign won new publicity for the Libertarian
cause. In 2010, his son Rand Paul was nominated for a
Senate seat in Kentucky.'

Ron's 2008 campaign is mentioned in one sentence on page 222 and then he is mentioned one last time on page 300 where they tie Ron Paul's committee seat on monetary policy and a return to the gold standard to his shares in gold-mining companies worth $1.5 million.

"Very few people argue that

"Very few people argue that we need no government at all. Even those who call for minimalist government, like Libertarians such as Ron Paul, argue that we need a military to protect our nation and police forces to enforce our laws."

So enjoy following rules you did not agree to that limit your choices and experiences, inhibit human progress and freedom, and are enforced by a nightmarish display of organized violence and corruption.

I imagine RP, and thus libertarianism, is discussed often in college courses these days. It is my experience that an increasing number of people are interested in more freedom and less whatever we have now. College curriculum, professor, and system is designed to create obedient workers who must work in their system or starve, not autonomous creative freedom loving individuals who can exist without dependence on systems held together by violence. The meme of voluntary association is just dying to get out there.

My 2 cents are in tor encrypted bitcoin.

I think we need to get back to Constitutional government before

we talk about no government. Your asking for everyone to teleport when it is easier to walk and run.

Mambo-ing is my preferred method of transportation

and it's only a suggestion. I wholeheartedly agree that constitutional government is a pragmatic and logical political step to take and I support it. It is a very challenging goal to say the least. I was only saying what I felt, as I tend to do in the early morning hours. At work, not so much.

You should read David

You should read David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom" and Murry Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" and bring lots of quotes to annoy your professor, lol.

I was moving to Somalia....WTF?...

...Till this hit piece came out.

Damn if I'm joking, just a bit...hahah :)


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

The problem with Somalia

is the constant state of transition. There's a big difference between anarchy that results from transitional battles for who will rule people and an intentional anarchy where the people are committed to resisting the upstart of a government.

Defend Liberty!

Can we send most of our politicians to Somalia??

Only problem is the Somalian people might get very angry at us if we do that,lol

"How did the government get so medium sized?"

This is the question posed on the first page:

Although the United States clearly has a big government, it is not as big, compared with the governments of modern democracies, as most Americans assume. Ours is in the middle in the number of government workers relative to all workers, and ours is lower than most European nations in tax levels and public spending. Most other democracies tax more and spend more, and their social programs are more ambitious, often providing paid maternity leave, subsidized day care, comprehensive health care, longer unemployment benefits, more generous pension benefits (than our Social Security), and, in some countries, longer and paid vacations. Their governments own and operate major industries, such as telecommunications, transportation, and utilities, whereas ours restricts itself more to providing services the private sector finds unprofitable, such as Amtrak. Their bureaucracies regulate more stringently the businesses that remain in private hands. Americans’ antipathy toward government, and especially toward taxes, has prevented equally ambitious programs from being adopted in the United States.

How did the United States develop the size government that we have?

Is something missing?

No mention of the Military Industrial Complex?

Or the fact that our government officials are

funded by (beholden to) corporations and lobbies.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I caught that also, I've been

I caught that also, I've been reading to get ahead of the conversation at school. Like one of the lines you posted above, "Their governments own and operate major industries, such as telecommunications, transportation, and utilities,"
I believe that is called extreme corporatism.


its called fascism.

Same coin, different side

There, the government runs the major industries.
Here, the industries run the government.
Tail wagging the dog.
Doesn't matter how you phrase it, it's corporatocracy either way.