It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom

Napolitano contrasts our natural rights, those given to us by God, with the rights detailed in the Declaration of Independence. Then he shows us how a big governemnt out of control slowly legislates away our rights.
The conclusion of each chapter sums up what we can do, if anything, about it. I recommend it for everyone who wishes to know what has happened to his rights.

I've never read anything by Napolitano before and I didn't really know what to expect. I knew he was something of a TV commentator so I wasn't really expecting that much. The title stinks.

However, I was quite surprised at the very intelligent and principled defense of liberty contained in this book. I think the judge did an excellent job of showing just how far off track we have let our government go in this country, founded as it was on the principle of limited government. He did an exceptional job of explaining natural rights and the ideals of limited government.

This book was not a passionate call to action, but that is OK. It was an intellectual call to action and we need those as well. Some people respond to emotion and some people respond to intellectual arguments. This is not the best Libertarian book I've read but it doesn't have to be to accomplish its purpose. I'm well versed in the subject and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can happily recommend this book to anyone who cares about freedom and liberty as well as those who need to care but don't.

My opinion of this book started high and continued to rise throughout, ending with the realization that I truly am a classic liberal and should register as a Libertarian. As the current discussion of Ron Paul as a candidate for President indicates, both my Republican and Democratic partisan friends disagree with much that the founders of our country believed, but might feel differently if they better understood our founders' ideas.

The key point raised by this book is that Natural Law is as real and unavoidable as gravity, based on the fundamental nature of the Universe. Natural law works out the implications of individuals being inherently free, and the legitimate limits of their freedom, and the legitimate role of government in protecting freedom.

The alternative, called Positive law, in which law is whatever the powerful say it is, values individuals less than society, and oppresses minorities. It is ever-popular, at least among those on top, but was specifically what our Constitution and Representative Democracy were designed to limit.

The book also serves as a very readable and interesting introduction to our entire legal system, including such current topics as "jury nullification". It also cuts right through many of the excuses for big government. (One example from page 228: America gives 1.3 billion a year of military assistance to Eqypt, despite it's poor human rights record - enough that we could instead have given $867 to every homeless child in America.)

After reading this book, I finally understand many of the "crazy" ideas of folks like Ron Paul, and why they are not crazy after all. I highly recommend this to both Tea Partiers and Occupiers as a good way to understand both our current troubles and how they could be overcome, leaving a strong, healthy, and free America to our grandchildren.

Since I'm interested in any type of political book, I was really excited to see It's Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom, by Judge Andrew Napolitano available through Thomas Nelson's BookSneeze bloggers program. I am familiar with Judge Napolitano from his commentary on Fox News Channel, so I was really interested to read what his thoughts were on freedom within the United States of America.

The book is divided into 15 chapters and is a little under 300 pages. Although it took me a pretty long time to read this book, and I don't agree with all of the Judge's viewpoints, I did enjoy the overall focus on constitutional rights. There were various facts included within this book, which makes it resonate much more with me than just if he were to fill the entirety of the book with his opinions. Some of the rights discussed in the book are self-defense, travel, speech, privacy, fairness from the Government, money, and other topics. Overall, as I said before, the main focus is that of natural rights and how government is infringing on these rights. I think only those who are interested in politics will truly be interested in this book. I could not imagine my family members, who are no involved in the political process, wanting to read this book.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255 : "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements

I purchased this book from a discount bookseller, but I’m sure that Amazon will not consider it a “verified purchase” so although the book is excellent, I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this review, although I made over 75 notes on the most salient points in the book.

I envy brilliant people who have the ability to view issues broadly and in depth, as does Judge Napolitano. As a constitutional attorney he certainly has an in depth knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, as well as a very dim view of the government charged with defending them. While I disagree with some of the things the Judge says in this book, I have to agree that; constitutionally, theoretically, and legally, he’s absolutely correct.

I have had 23 years of formal, albeit liberal university, education not counting kindergarten, and no time during those 23 years did I ever learn the bulk of the stuff that is in this book. This guy is a reincarnation of one of our founding fathers.

Judge Napolitano takes us step by step through the Bill of Rights and demonstrates how governments, federal, state and local, are routinely in violation of each and every one of them.

Judge Napolitano begins by defining “Rights” as truths or “natural laws”, “Natural Rights”, “Human Law”, and “Positivism”. He then goes into the Declaration of Independence, and goes on to demonstrate quite succinctly how the through our history, the Natural Laws which the Declaration of Independence sought to secure, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence have been trod upon time and time again.

His topics include the right to own property and how the government can take your property away from you with or without fair compensation for public or private use, through eminent domain, regulations, permits (both of which violate property rights in one way or another), taxes, rent control, and other government intrusions.

This brilliant man then takes an in depth look at freedom of speech pointing out than no one has the “right” not to be “offended”, but we do have the right to speak out mind without being controlled by “political correctness”. Where did that right go? I can tell you that after spending 2-1/2 years working for a toxically liberal university; that right is gonzo.

The judge shows that, “government, whether it be the legislative, executive, or judicial branch, has regularly suppressed free speech of political opposition, so long as it could produce an argument that the speech might cause harm.”

In the chapter appropriately titled, “I left My Rights in San Francisco” Judge Napolitano argues,
That as Americans, “we have the right to discriminate. Ignoring these freedoms, the government chooses to circumvent our natural rights all the time, combating discrimination in the form of anti-discrimination laws at the local, state, and federal levels. As a result of these regulations, free individuals are required to associate with everyone. Again, we call this forced association, and forced association is unnatural and unconstitutional.” “The government cannot pick and choose with whom it associates; and it cannot pick and choose with whom others associate either. These are not the concerns of the government. Rather the government exists to protect our rights; the right to associate and the right to discriminate.” “Jim Crow is a clear demonstration that we simply cannot trust the government to decide what discriminating is acceptable and what discrimination is deplorable.” “People have the right to be racist”. He then goes into labor unions and the denial of the right to associate, stating, “The authors of the Constitution would have considered the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) unconstitutional on its face.”

In chapter 5 Judge Napolitano talks about our freedom to travel and how the TSA and government immigration policy has infringe on our rights, stating, “restrictions on the right to travel connote that the government is the individual’s master, and not his servant.” “Freedom subject to the government’s whim is no freedom at all.”

While I strongly disagree with the Judge’s position on immigration and immigration policy in this chapter, he is; constitutionally, theoretically, and legally, correct, but only if you subscribe to the premise that natural rights (Constitutional) for united states citizens apply to non-citizens, illegal immigrants, and terrorists that want to enter the United States to kill us and destroy our country. I love this guy to death, but I ain’t buying this one. Democrats, left wing liberals, socialists, and communists should love this chapter. To cut Judge Napolitano a little slack, this book was published in 2011 and he may, and hopefully has, changed his view on this today, as the data he has presented is questionable in today’s world.

In chapter 6 Judge Napolitano talks about our right to privacy and how the Patriot Act has romped and stomped in combat boots over that right. He states, “As Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”” “It (the Patriot Act) is an all-out assault on the right to privacy. More specifically, it directly violates the Fourth Amendment right against “unreasonable search and seizures” and facilitates the issuance without “probable cause.”” I was in favor of the Patriot Act when Bush put it in place, but after reading this, I’ve change my view of it. Judge Napolitano wisely quotes, “The philosopher Ayn Rand argued that when government destroys your privacy, it destroys your dignity and your uniqueness. And then, by regulating your privacy, it controls you.”

In Chapter 7 Judge Napolitano argues the government’s constitutional authority over the control of our very bodies. He talks about the victimless crime of prostitution and the government’s control over prescription drugs through the Food and Drug Administration, and questions, “Does it (the government) have the (Constitutional) authority?”

Chapter 8 is devoted to the Second Amendment and our right to self-defense and it’s a zinger of a chapter. Judge Napolitano correctly points out, “The constitution does not allow the government to experiment with your constitutional rights.” “Yet the government today tells us when we can purchase a gun, what guns we can purchase, where we must register the guns, how we can use the guns, and in what areas the guns are prohibited. What the government ignores is that our right to keep and bear arms is a natural or fundamental right. The judge reiterates the second amendment which states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” He then goes on to demonstrate that, “despite the unconstitutionally of their action and the clarity of the Founder’s vision, progressives in American governments have continuously attempted to create controversy over the true meaning of the Second Amendment and used this controversy to disarm the nation’s individuals to seize more power for government.” He discusses how blacks were disarmed so that they could be controlled by the government and how many totalitarian governments throughout history have established control over their citizens by first disarming them and then slaughtering them. If you don’t think it can happen in the United States, does Wounded Knee ring a bell?

Judge Napolitano provides statistics that clearly show, “More guns (In the hands of responsible gun owners) means less crime.” “Year after year, the statistics prove the number of gun crimes committed lessens as prohibitions on guns are weakened.” And “statistics do show criminals refrain from crimes when they know the victim may be armed.” Judge Napolitano talks about the dangers of “Gun Free Zones” and prohibitions against commercial airline piolets carrying firearms.

He concludes by saying, “the government’s claim that it is only trying to protest you is clearly false. The government’s regulations do not change criminal’s attitudes on guns or where they carry their guns, but only how and where they get their guns. By enabling criminals to arm themselves and preventing potential victims from defending themselves, we are bound to repeat history’s tragedies.” Like the Holocaust for example, where the Germans disarmed the Jews, before annihilating millions of them, who were rendered defenseless.

In Chapter 9 Judge Napolitano discusses our right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and how that right has been completely ignored, and has slipped into oblivion. He states, “the culprit has been a push for larger government and unconstitutional legislation. Only when our rights, especially the right to petition, have been cut down, can government gain complete control of our lives and fully sate its thirst for power.” “The alternative to the right to petition was violent regime change. When grievances go unanswered, history demonstrates that the aggrieved will inevitably seek to overthrow those in power.” I have another twelve notes on this chapter, but let me just leave it with the thought that this is a very powerful chapter, albeit very troubling, and you need to read it for yourself.

Chapter 10 talks about our right to enjoy peace and our government’s propensity for war. The Judge has an interesting take on the attack on Pearl Harbor in that it was provoked by the White House (FDR) and expected. It was only a surprise attack to the 2,403 Americans that died on December 7, 1942, and the 405,399 Americans that subsequently died in the ensuing war. Judge Napolitano says, “The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor made war inevitable. But the attack was not Roosevelt’s reason for going to war, it was his excuse.” According to Judge Napolitano, “the government uses war as the ultimate means to expand its own power, size, and scope.” “The dire result: The state intentionally exploits war to circumvent the Rule of Law – The United States Constitution.” “Civil and economic liberties always suffer when it comes to the lengthening list of laws, regulations, and agencies implemented during times of war.” “unnecessary agencies are created during wars. Typically, they grow in size and lengthen the list of regulations under which we live. After war, some disappear, while others magically morph into the “solutions” of other government problems.” He goes on to discuss how wars provide opportunity to increase taxes on the population and businesses.

In Chapter 11 Judge Napolitano talks about what happens when our own government turns on us and how “Government is in essence, the negation of liberty. It’s scary. Read it.

Chapter 12 is worth the price of the book and I hope Judge Napolitano writes a whole book on this subject. Chapter 12 talks about the central bank (the Fed) and how the government has and still does manipulate our currency. He shows where the government and the central bank are responsible for the great depression and the boom and bust periods since the central bank’s creation.

I think the essence of the chapter can be summed up in one quote from the book. “Every day the federal budget grows, every person loses more and more freedom. The bigger the government, the smaller the amount of individual liberties. The bigger the government the more it can regulate every aspect of our lives which strips us of our rights and liberties. Each day the Federal Reserve System exists is one more day that government can fund is growing budget, increase its size, and deplete our savings and pass them on to its friends. Each day of Big Government is one more day of assaults on our liberties.”

Chapter 13 discusses the unconstitutional yet legalized governmental theft through taxation. Judge Napolitano states, “That taxes are all justified by some subjective public necessity is an outright lie, which we quite literally can no longer afford to believe.” “Does government exist to protect our freedoms or do we exist to serve the government?” “We cannot restore traditional American freedom unless we limit the government's power to tax. No tinkering with this, that or other law will stop the trend towards socialism.”

He goes on to say, “This scheme is one of the fundamental legal precepts of socialism: The government decides what it will take from you and what you may keep from it.” “If the government can say when our natural rights protect us from aggression and when they do not, then there can be no such thing as natural rights. That this system of taxation simply functions as another instrument of factionalism and wealth transfer, should be clear.” “President Obama's explanation of the failure of spending to correct the economy? “We simply haven't spent enough yet!” Perhaps he should have read the words spoken by Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR Secretary of the Treasury, in 1939: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work… [We] have just as much unemployment as her only started… and an enormous debt to boot!” Judge Napolitano states, “Taxation of self as inherently evil in that it is nothing more than institutional theft.”

Chapter 14, titled “A Ride on Dr. Feinberg’s Bus gives some interesting, albeit some disgusting examples of offensive speech that is protected under the First Amendment, and while offensive, they are not illegal. Political correctness anybody? Very interesting examples.

In Chapter 15 Judge Napolitano talks about our right to reject our government. Yea right, like I’m going to jail because our government is unjust? Sorry, not at this point in my life.

Judge Napolitano states, “Government in America today is not logic or reason, it is not fidelity to the Constitution, and it is not compliance with the Rule of Law: Rather it is force. Government today steals Liberty and property in the name of safety. It restricts your ability to express yourself, to defend yourself, to be yourself: and it uses fear to keep the people submissive. Government rejects its moral and legal obligations, insulates itself from litigation, break his own laws, makes its own rules, declares worthless paper to be money, and then devalues even that. Government will not hesitate to use Force upon those who challenge it. Government has made it unlawful to resist its use of force even when those uses are patently and unconditionally wrong.”

This is a book that should be read carefully by everyone who is interested in preserving the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as we watch them slip away, one by one, on our slow but steady and relentless march toward socialism. The Judge is 100% correct, the more rights we relinquish to the government, the bigger the government gets and the more we will live to be the government’s servants rather than the government being the people’s servant, as our founding fathers intended. Are we beyond the tipping point? I pray I’m wrong, but I think so. I fear the socialist world our kids and grandchildren, and in my case great grandchildren, will have to grow up in. It ain’t going to be pretty for them.

I guess I spent too much time on this, huh? Sorry, but this book is an excellent work, and I’m passionate about the subject….. Ya think?

Former judge, Andrew Napolitano, is the Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News, but don't let that stop you from reading his new book. If you don't know him and only go by the fact that he works for Fox, you'd miss the fact that he strongly spoke out against George W. Bush just as he speaks out against President Obama. He speaks out against both administrations (and others) in this book.

You see, one of Andrew Napolitano's premises is that both parties are for big government and for suppressing Natural Rights in the name of safety and the good of the people.

This book is a legal, moral, and philosophical critique of the erosion of liberties in the United States. Napolitano starts out defining such terms as Natural Law and Positivism--which to some people might sound like a yawner, but Napolitano (for the most part) writes with clarity and wit.

Each chapter takes on a Natural Right that the people have, but has been eroded, taken away, and (for some) thoroughly crushed. He goes through the likely candidates like Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms. He also touches on a topic that I wish more people would acknowledge: the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Since petitioning the government is not a topic I stumble upon very often, this chapter was the most educational. In fact, the entire book contains a great amount of information and knowledge that would be difficult to come by in the classroom or mainstream media.

I also appreciated the chapter on sound money. Of course, this is a topic brought to the forefront by Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, but the term "sound money" is given lip service by the other candidates as well; I wonder if they even know what "sound money" is. If not, they should read Napolitano's book.

A couple nit-picks: (1) Chapter 11 starts out with an overly-convoluted hypothetical that could've been edited for clarity and (2) in the chapter on war, Napolitano uses the example of "neither a submarine in the sea nor bullet in a soldier's gun produces wealth", which is true, but those things could protect the freedoms of people who do produce wealth. I think a better and more consistent example (of his argument in the chapter) would have been of a detonated bomb, which destroys materials, wealth, and lives.

Whether you agree with him or not, Napolitano's new book is a well-written and enlightening treatise on the loss of liberty and why it's important to fight and take back our Natural Rights.

5 out of 5 stars for liberty-minded folks

4 out of 5 stars for those people in another camp

AJP

The short thought is that just because it's a law doesn't make it right or ethical. Our government has a long track record of violating its own laws (think of anti-discrimination laws) ranging from the creation of the IRS, to printing bogus money to spying on its own citizens. Laws such as asset seizure, no-knock warrants, warrantless wiretapping, etc., all violate the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the essence of what our country was founded upon. The judge is tireless in his exposure of such laws and actions.

This one too is disappointing. Lacks the clarity and direction in it's message that Napolitano has shown elsewhere.

Anything that Napolitano writes can be taken to the bank! People have know idea, nor do they care about how corrupt and illegal the American system of law and government is, and for the most part, those who do know, or have an understanding of the judicial, and legislated corruption are too damn coward to speak up and voice an issue.

If a person already knows about the illuminating plans that the government may or may not have about us nothing in this book may seem surprising to you.On the other hand if you have been unaware and have never even seen.. oh say the movie V for Vendetta, then this book may come as a radical paranoid rant.

At times a little dry, but factual with well written proof this book is a very interesting read for those that want to hear another opinion about the "State" of things in the U.S and actually worldwide.