Reddit mentions: The best democracy books

I'll bite.

First and foremost, there are many different breeds of libertarians (or people that call themselves libertarians). For instance, Glenn Beck has even used the word to describe himself as such--however, I don't think many libertarians really take him seriously on that claim.

More seriously, libertarians tend to be divided into two camps: those that want small government providing basic protection of individual rights (called minarchy) and those that want no government at all (usually labeled as anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, agorists, etc.). I consider myself a voluntaryist, which in addition to being an anarcho-capitalist, also qualifies me as someone who does not wish to participate in electoral politics and views it as an approach that really cannot help--and also means that I only prefer voluntary means through which to achieve a voluntary society.

To make matters more complicated, the anarchists of us have two different ways to speak of a free market: a David Friedman approach which concentrates on how free markets solve problems more efficiently than States, and a more deontological approach made famous by Murray Rothbard. Usually, you'll see us taking both angles--sometimes it helps to show how a free market is ipso facto better than a State, and sometimes it's better to show that we have the ethical high ground. (And some of us can be absolute in this sense--some might even recognize a failing of a free market but say that it still doesn't justify violating the ethics of libertarianism.)

There is, however a hurdle that needs to be jumped, I think, to truly grasp the libertarian position: familiarization with Austrian Economics. Austrian Economics is usually regarded as a fringe school of economics, and not taken seriously--it is taught in only a few of the colleges around the United States. In spite of that, Austrian business cycle theory, which puts the blame on fractional reserve banking, and specifically, the Federal Reserve, for the ebb and flow of today's marketplace, has proven itself time and time again. Frederick Hayek, the pioneer of this theory (and a winner of a Nobel Prize because of it), predicted the 1929 stock market crash, and more recently, Peter Schiff used it to predict the current recession. (It also explains bubbles that have inflated and popped in the past, when applied.) The best layman's explanation and the theory's real world applications that I can give you is the recent book Meltdown by Thomas Woods. It's not too long and does a great job at explaining Austrian business cycle theory.

There are many differences between Austrian Economics and the more mainstream schools, but I highlighted Austrian business cycle theory because that is the really important one. To emphasize this even more, I can say that if I could change one thing about the current State (sans abolishing it), it would be to abolish the Federal Reserve by establishing a free market currency. Unhesitatingly.

I personally arrived to my conclusion through a deontological perspective, and later familiarized myself with how free markets can provide services that most people widely regard as services that only States can provide. The deontological perspective essentially leads up to the non-aggression principle (NAP): aggression, which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. (I can hammer out the details of the NAP's justification if you like, but I've chosen to omit it here in the interest of brevity.) The most important thing to realize about the NAP is that it is proportional: if you violate my property, I don't have the right to kill you (i.e., the idea that I can shoot a little boy that trespasses onto my yard to collect his baseball). As once I have quelled your aggression, any further aggression on my part is an over-abundance, and therefore an initiation of aggression--and that is illegitimate.

So with this in light, you can see that libertarians (at least, my style, anyway) are a bit of a mix: we simultaneously believe that libertarianism is the only ethical stance consistent with the idea of liberty, and its natural conclusion, a free market, is an inherently better solution to the problem of "infinite wants" and "scare resources" then centralized control through a State. That is, the State is both illegitimate and inefficient.

So the key to the free market, or capitalism, is to understand its most fundamental truth: two individuals voluntarily committing a transaction. What does it mean to commit a transaction? It means that I am giving you X in return for Y because I value Y more than X, AND because you value X more than Y. It's a win-win scenario, and not zero-sum: we both get something we desire.

For example, if my toilet is clogged, and despite my best attempts, I cannot unclog it, I probably need to call a professional. When the plummer comes over, he tells me that it will be $100 to fix my toilet. Immediately, his actions indicate, "I value $100 more than the value of my services as a plummer." When I agree to his proposal, my action indicates, "I value your services as a plummer more than I value $100." At this most basic level, we can see the Subjective Theory of Value in action brilliantly. That is, things don't have intrinsic value, only the value that each individual assigns.

Now, with that background, I think I can answer your questions:

(Wow, I went over the character limit for comments... yikes...)

Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America is a good book. In summary he looks at the history of partisan politics and the roots of current political ideology in America and points out that traditionally parties were not ideologically based but typically determined by your social network and community-- simply a coalition to elect candidates. He shows that contemporary political ideology started to solidify in the 50s and 60s, which later shifted parties as people began to "sort" themselves into the two major parties based on ideology.

In the 50s American political scientists were actually complaining that the party platforms were too similar. Anthony Downs Economic Theory of Democracy stated that two-party systems would lead to nearly identical party platforms in their attempts to appeal to the largest number of voters. This thesis also tended to assume that the effect would skew the platforms to be more centrist, which national elections tend to do.

Also in Anthony Down's analysis though was a cost-benefit equation for voting. He argued the impact and thus benefit of voting was exceptionally low and the cost of voting--informing yourself about candidate's platforms and physically going to vote was high. Ideologically distinct parties help to address this paradox of voting by reducing the cost of voting as you have a pretty good idea of general policy stance based on party affiliation alone. Also, individual candidates then have more of an opportunity to point out the flaws/risks of their opponents, as well as highlighting the benefits of their own policies--helping the other side of the equation as well.

Also, while I'm not very knowledgeable about the UK government, your parliament is many times the size of our legislative branch while simultaneously representing a smaller populace. This could allow for more distinct parties and platforms to form and get enough backing to impact government.

> This is the point - it is a rational decision, not something that does not matter.

You still don't understand. It has nothing to do with whether you think it "matters". That is entirely subjective. But from an individual utility payoff standpoint, an individual faces a choice in which they bear an immediate cost (the time and effort of voting) in the face of no payoff (the end result is the same regardless of an individual's actions). That has important implications in political science.

At which number precisely do votes stop mattering? There's no number, there are only probabilities that your vote will effect the election. As the election includes more and more people or more complex systems of choosing a winner, the probability that any individual voter will affect the outcome goes down. For the presidential election, this number is infinitesimally small, for all practical decision making and statistical purposes 0%.

Posted here is an excerpt from this blog.

"In a game-theory sense, your vote matters only when it is pivotal. The proof follows from a thought experiment. If the election was hypothetically decided by two or more votes, then you could have safely abstained from voting without affecting the majority rule. In other words, your vote was not needed.

How often will your vote be pivotal? A mathematical approach is to calculate the odds that all the other voters will be tied. The approach treats each voter as having some probability of voting for one candidate or the other. The odds of a tie are maximized when each voter is equally likely to vote for one candidate or the other. Here are some estimates from this methodology. At 1,000 voters, the optimistic odds of a tie, making you pivotal, are less than 3 percent. At 100 million voters, the optimistic odds are less than 0.01 percent (roughly 1 in 10,000).

In fact, the true odds are lower because candidates are not equally favored. Small preferences among voters can lead to margins of victory that make your vote irrelevant. The odds can be estimated in an empirical approach that examines at the history of elections. This exercise was done by economists Casey Mulligan and Charles Hunter, and here are their results as summarized in the New York Times:

Even in the closest elections, it is almost never the case that a single vote is pivotal. Of the more than 40,000 elections for state legislator that Mulligan and Hunter analyzed, comprising nearly 1 billion votes, only 7 elections were decided by a single vote, with 2 others tied. Of the more than 16,000 Congressional elections, in which many more people vote, only one election in the past 100 years – a 1910 race in Buffalo – was decided by a single vote. (source)

The conclusion is that your vote is very, very unlikely to affect the outcome. An economic argument extends the logic to say “voting doesn’t pay.” This is because voting has little expected benefit but costs time and effort. This view holds voting in the same light as buying a lottery ticket: a losing bet."


I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but it's a decent cursory explanation.

> Do the votes of the individual senators in the house of representatives matter?

It depends what you mean. For the most part, votes in the house do not impact the outcome. This is why congressmen from both the senate and the house skip an enormous amount of votes. For most congressmen, votes are important for two reasons. Firstly, on a small select array of hot button issues, constituents pay attention to the votes of their elected officials. Congressmen fear 'bad' votes will be seized upon by their opponents and result in trouble back home for them. Secondly, most of a congressman's job is not casting a vote. It's working with their party and other members of congress to push legislation onto the agenda and garner support for it. If you've ever seen any television, movies or documentaries about Congress you might notice that the characters or politicians often work far harder for votes in the Senate than in the House. For instance, during one of the biggest legislative fights in recent history, Obama heavily lobbied Senator Ben Nelson and made several concessions JUST to get his one vote. In contrast, Obama conducted his political operations in the house largely through Nancy Pelosi. Devoting resources to individuals in the House is much less effective -- each vote in the House is worth much less than a vote in the Senate. Controlling House votes is better left to the Speaker of the House and other leadership who can work to get large numbers of their members to support their agenda.

(by the way, individuals in the house of representatives are called congressmen)

> If we believe that "Your vote will not impact the election" holds true for each individual in a voting body, aren't we suggesting that voting itself has no use or merit as a decision-making system?

That's a fair question, and its answer is subjective. Clearly, it is impossible to create a system in which each individual vote can matter in a country of over 300 million people. It's not that the government is necessarily "unrepresentative" though, at least not for this reason -- after all, the election is decided by votes whether each individual changes the outcome or not. It may be that you decide that this fact delegitimizes the government -- and again, that's a subjective opinion. There are some people who hold that view, though as I stated this is a simply a reality of large democracies. I would also tell you that in my opinion, voting isn't what makes democracies special. It's the free exchange of ideas, the independent watchdog press and the constant debate over values & policy that makes democracy what it is.

Whether or not you think it 'matters', the fact is that no individual will change the outcome of an election through their vote alone. Again, what conclusions you draw from that reality are your own. And by the way, people make irrational decisions all the time. When you buy a lottery ticket, you're making an irrational decision. And your chances of winning are still better than the chances of your vote deciding an election (your chance of deciding a state is roughly 1 in 10 million, which is incredibly low but the chance of that state deciding an election adds a whole different layer and makes it much more unlikely than it already is)

If you're looking for further reading, I would direct you to any of these:

https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Theory-Democracy-Anthony-Downs/dp/0060417501?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Collective-Action-printing-appendix/dp/0674537513?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/196farber.pdf

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

I would highly recommend Anthony Downs and Olson, the two books off of Amazon

It might help to have a little more information on what you are hoping to acheive. Do you want to be able to understand the news? Have in depth conversations about policy? Understand the jokes in political comedy shows like Last Week Tonight or the Daily Show?

All of those things can be achieved in different ways. I'm going to assume you have the first goal in mind, being able to understand the news. Great. That's awesome! Here is my advice.

Read the news everyday. Just start simple. Get news updates from simple wire services like Reuters and AP. Maybe listen to NPR's hourly news update at the end of each day. This should only eat up five or ten minutes of your time.

There you go. You can discuss some of the basics of the news now. But perhaps you want to go a little further than that? Awesome! That shouldn't be hard! All it will take is a month (or less!) of reading. Don't waste your time reading anything overly dense or complicated. You don't need college level textbooks to discuss politics. I'd suggest America's New Democracy. Its only 300-400 pages (the rest is fluff) and it is well written, easy to understand, and full of examples and stories that clarify confusing concepts. As you read, you will slowly begin to make connects between the information in the book and events in the news.

At this point you have basically reached your goal. You should be able to discuss contemporary political news with ease. If you wanna take it further consider reading some of the books in Oxfords Very Short Introduction series. These are brief (100-150 pgs) and will give you a surface level understanding of most political topics. Just make sure to read the reviews before you buy. Some (i'm looking at you A Very Short Introduction to International Relations) are not as helpful as you might hope.

At this point, you might consider reading longer articles from some of these outlets.

Edit: Totally forgot to mention! r/ask_politics has a fantastic list of books you can read if you wanna take it even further! Check it out! Its pretty good!

>Most these benefits have nothing to do with the government providing money or goods or services to the couple in question. If anything the biggest benefit is the tax break, which involve the government taking less money.

That's just not true. Marriage privileges afford a long list, and many of the items are how private institutions are forced to acknowledge the spouse, whether it's a hospital, insurance company, employers, etc. This is the bite, this is why it's such a big deal, not because of a tax break. BUT that tax break is still a benefit, it's a subsidization of a family unit. There's no way in hell you can say that you're for a shrinking government and then for an expanding one. I'm not against gay marriage, I'm just honest about what it entails.

>Even ignoring that, I've never seen a Libertarian candidate oppose gay marriage rights. They might preempt that by saying they think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all

This is code for being against gay marriage, in case you haven't picked up on that.

>BUT if its going to be, it needs to be involved equally for everyone.

Why? We have disparate treatment in tons of laws, why does this one have to be clean cut for everyone? I think it's the right thing to do, and I think the government should do it because it seems that there's a quorum supporting it. But I don't see why a government is required to do this. And that's sort of a big deal for libertarians, they only want government action that can be justified AND (this part is very important) falls within the proper scope of government.

>Libertarians aren't federalists. The two concepts often overlap as libertarians generally prefer that when government involvement is necessary, it be as small and local as possible. But when it comes to the restrictions of individual liberties libertarians don't suddenly approve of it if its a state or local government doing it.

Dude, you're gonna lose this battle 100% of the time. Federalism is the biggest point of contention for libertarian politicians at the federal level. It's the method by which we get a diverse and robust freedom. Honestly, it's like you don't even know what libertarianism is. We're all federalists, literally every single person in this country is a strong federalists, and it's not even a competing political position.

>But when it comes to the restrictions of individual liberties libertarians don't suddenly approve of it if its a state or local government doing it.

What is political liberty? It's the ability for a group to have a large degree of self-determination. The smaller and more localized you can make that group without infringing on the rights of others, the better. This happens in our government structure vis-a-vis federalism. Come on man, what the fuck are you talking about with this nonsense against federalism?

>No, they hold the core scope of proper government to be providing for common defense.

That is ONLY enabled through a monopoly of force. That's how one holds that position. I'm sorry you're uneducated on what this all is. You should go read a book on libertarianism.

>Allowing the government to have a monopoly of power is not the same thing

It's ABSOLUTELY required. And being a dominant protective agency very much hinges on having a monopoly of force.

> and very much clashes with the entire concept of libertarianism which holds that government shouldn't have a monopoly on anything.

I'm sorry, you're 100% wrong. This matter is well established, and uncontested.

>The Manchin-Toomey universal background check bill that stalled in the Senate last year.

You're bitching about a law that died on the floor. Got it.

>Libertarianism is a fundamentally liberal ideology.

Oh my god, are you serious?! They are opposing position on a political spectrum. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You need to go read a book BEFORE you start talking about this. I suggest you read Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia. But a lighter read, such as this Charles Murray's What It Means to Be a Libertarian would also work.

>And these things are just other examples of government overstepping its authority and encroaching on individual liberty.

See that part about overstepping its authority? That's a common libertarian sentiment and it couches a huge driving concept that is essential to the libertarian ideology: government has a proper role, and it is inherently limited. The proper scope is the extent to which a government can perform its natural function, tax people collectively to afford this function, without infringing on rights. Anything beyond that scope will, necessarily infringe on some natural rights. This is in direct opposition to a liberal conception of government, which holds that the government can be used to enforce equity wherever society fails to do so: justice as fairness demands.

Modern libertarianism was literally conceived of as a counter-argument to a Rawlsian liberal government. The fact that you don't know this means I'm wasting my time reading what you have to say on the matter.

i'll begin by saying: you shouldn't be thinking about this in terms of how it affects you personally because there's 300+ million other people you may be fucking over by having such a myopic view of this issue.

next, i want to state clearly that conservatives are not united on the question of borders. there are some people who call themselves conservative who are for open borders, while others want varying levels of border enforcement.

conflicting with american values: replacing our culture with their shitty culture

we should think about the effects of LEGAL immigration on the country. why should we even care about the border at all? if you're someone who cares about american culture, and believes that some cultures are superior to others, then border enforcement is but one aspect of the immigration process that you care about.

to me, our culture IS superior to many of the others around the world. i want immigrants who want to be AMERICANS to come here. i don't want hondurans who want to simply be hondurans in america coming here. i believe in what e. d. hirsch calls the american religion, as enshrined in our declaration of independence and our constitution.

the effects of not assimilating immigrants are being seen in europe at the moment. i don't want that here. but will that affect you directly? maybe not for a long time.

a drain on public services

another nice aspect of maintaining a border and actually having a say in who comes in is that you can determine whether the people coming in can actually make a contribution to the nation's economy or will become a net drag on our economy. consider what illegals cost the US.

look at that caravan. those people are likely unskilled laborers. once here, they will likely either bring their families in or send money home. their kids will go to public schools, for free. they will receive medical care, for free (hospitals in the US cannot decline treatment, whether the person can pay).

these are nice things, don't get me wrong, but they come at a cost. if we just let everyone in, we can't sustain our welfare state. the result is the same number of people working to pay for a growing number of lower class aliens.

how does this affect you? i don't know. given that CA is a sanctuary state, and given that newsome wants to give free health care to illegals, i imagine your taxes will go up, the economy will slow down, more illegals will come, and citizens who need services will find themselves competing with illegals.

more murders

immigrants, as a group, commit crimes less frequently than native born people. however, when you disaggregate immigrants into legal and illegal, illegal immigrants commit murder at a much higher rate than US citizens.

i hope this one never affects you. but CA is a sanctuary state, unfortunately.

the resurgence of third-world diseases in the first-world

finally, there are public health issues to consider. the people in the caravan are poor. they come from third-world countries with third-world medical care. they bring diseases with them that we haven't seen in our country for a long time.

conclusion

these are some of the ways that illegal immigration specifically can affect you.

there's no need to demonize the people coming up through mexico or make up talking points. there's enough evidence to show that unregulated border crossing is an issue we as americans should be concerned about.

knowing who is coming into the country and what they are bringing with them -- their resources, their skills, their desire to become truly american, their families, their health status, their intentions -- makes sense for the health of the nation as a whole.

(edited for paragraph breaks and headings.)

Too true. Since the late 70's the media arm of the GOP has done an excellent job at demonizing the words Democrat and Liberal. They're literally used as general derogatory descriptors in Texas.

EDIT: For those saying or insinuating that the left is equally guilty of this, not by a long shot. Of course Democrats will take any opportunity to disparage all Republicans even if it's only some of them behaving badly - but that's not what I'm talking about. The GOP has honed this craft to a fine art through talk radio and various propaganda outlets which masquerade as "news." It was a brilliant strategy, really:

Step 1) Portray "government" as the problem to everything

Step 2) Drive home the message that Democrats/left are the party of government

Step 3) Ensure that government cannot actually function in order to fulfill Step #1

Step 4) Win elections by pointing to #1 and #2

The dysfunctional, hyper-polarized political environment that we find ourselves in now is not equally the fault of both parties and one party has clearly done a better job at whipping it's base into a frothing fury over the last 30 years.

Two good books (one from a long time ex-Republican strategist) if anyone is interested in learning more about how we got here and what can be done to change it:

The Party is Over

It's Even Worse Than it Looks

> Marxism did inspire some retards -

Um, dude...

Are you just trolling or what?

> yes, the "primitive culture struggling against imperialist culture" nonsense leftist spout these days.

Not sure what you're referring to. The well-known imperialism of the United States [1] [2] [3]?

> But Marx himself laid out a complex critique of capitalism.

Indeed.

> And you can use said critique to do all kinds of crap and misinterpret it as a simplistic "underdog vs. big guy" or you could use it as Marx intended to - as a way to understand how to reach a more favorable state for humanity.

... Okay?

> Marx was the kind of guy who praised the liberal-bourgeoisie because they brought progress, he called the USA the most developed country at his time.

...

> He was interested in progress for humanity, to reach a state of economy in which all of us could live life to the fullest.

... ...

> Marx was the kind of guy who saw positive aspects in the colonization of India as it brought technology and progress.

... ... ...

> No leftist today would ever praise the West for anything, they would rather worship indigenous barbarians and eat vegan food than be interested in progress for humanity.

Cool story bro.

> Republicans unfairly benefit from it,

They really don't. In fact, you will normally find the pre-election pump-up-the-democrats news stories to say the opposite - that it favors the DNC because they start with 240 or so EC votes every election for the last few decades... I'll find you an example of that article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-2016-race-an-electoral-college-edge-for-democrats/2015/03/15/855f2792-cb3c-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html

>In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

Ok that one says 212. I guess they slippin.

We also saw that story in 2012 and 2008 and 2004 and 2000... And it was the backbone of that "We are now permanently in charge" narrative that started in 2008 when Democrats won in such a landslide.

>It doesn't make the EC good

The EC is good because it takes into account both the state's locality as important (Giving it 2 EC votes for just being a state) and it takes into account the state's population. (Giving one or more for every 720,000 per person on average, although it varies from state to state.)

That's just like we do it in congress, 2 senators and one or more representatives based on pop.

So yes - that small state that gets 3 EC votes is getting 2 for just being a state, and one for their small population. That is still only 3/270 EC votes or 1/90th the number needed to be president. And there are other small states with a million+ populations that also only get 1 extra EC vote. And so all those small states average somewhere around the same 720,000 per as CA and the big states do.

It's not a dramatic advantage over CA's 55 EC votes.

Whatsmore - the EC is over-weighted in it's ratios. It needs to do that to have a total pool of EC votes to draw from that is 1 less than 270 doubled. EDIT: 2 less - 538 total.

For example, California has 55/270 EC votes or a little more than 1/5th the EC votes needed to win.

With a population of 40 million/320million - or 1/8th of the population... the 20% of votes needed to win the EC is a lot more than their 12% of population. That doesn't even account for the fact that only 9 million in CA voted Hillary, not 40 million.

The EC makes sure the suburban areas have some say, not an unfair amount.

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Right-Went-Wrong-Conservatism/dp/1476763801

https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X

These are 3 examples of significant literary works on American politics written in recent times. And although I only own one, I'm probably going to buy "It's even worse than it looks" I'm pretty sure they attest the asymmetrical polarization of American politics today, that allows extremists to thrive, whereas they couldn't have in previous decades.

The problem with Fox News, is for a major news organization, even they have a mixed record on reporting actual "facts". Edit: To be fair, CNN and MSNBC also sometimes misinform their viewers as well, but not nearly as bad as Fox does.



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

A study was done that found that people who don't watch news at all, were better informed on factually correct information, than people who religiously watched Fox News. One of our biggest media outlets in the nation, is routinely misinforming it's viewers on matters of national significance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#443b3c5b12ab

Most the Right Wing media sources, play on stereotypes and emotionally driven headlines rather than factually reporting the news.

This is why now, in a country that has always honored Freedom of Speech, is now taking issue with "Fake News" making it's way into peoples facebook streams. Because a lot of media sites are now regularly failing to report factually correct information, and it's causing the electorate to vote for candidates who are consistently factually incorrect in what they say. And a major country like the United States, who leaders consistently believe in and base policy off of factually incorrect information, I don't see how that can possibly be good for my country, or the world for that matter.

It is no mere coincidence that for a Conservative party, globally speaking, only in America is the Republicans the only major Conservative party in a Western Democracy, that outright denies the realities of Climate Change.

I listen to his shows all the time and overall I like him. He is pushing a very important conversation in a very public way.

His positions are similar or parallel with [Anarcho_Capitalism] (http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/) or [volunteerism] (http://www.reddit.com/r/voluntarism/).

These lines of thought are the blistering center of libertarian thought. If you want to take a serious study of libertarianism this area must be explored.

These books are great and will change the way you look at the world forever. I consider these to be the Red pill. I know it sounds corny but I am serious.

• For a New Liberty
  
  • [Free PDF] (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp)
    
    
  • [Physical Book] (http://www.amazon.com/For-New-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/1610162641/ref=sr_1_3? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331654993&sr=1-3)
    
    
• The Ethics of Liberty
  
  • [Free PDF] (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp)
    
    
  • [Physicall Book] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethics-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331654832&sr=8-1-spell)
    
    Read Rothbard it took me down a deep rabbit hole. There is so much to read and learn and most of it is out there either free or affordable.
    
    It seems that Ron Paul has drawn a lot of his ideology from this line of thought. So If you are a RP fan it will give you better context.
    

Yeah definitely, social choice theory shows that all electoral systems are pretty terrible and prone to manipulation (though some are better than others obviously). I tend to side with William Riker on this, particularly his book Liberalism Against Populism. The thrust of Riker's argument is that we should get rid of the idea that 'the will of the people' (this is what he means by populism in his title) confers any moral legitimacy because, as I said in the earlier comment, there really is no such thing as 'the will of the people'. Riker still thinks (and so do I) that electoral democracy is the least worst method of choosing a government because it allows for the provision of kicking them out on a regular basis and choosing a new one, but much like classical liberals, he thinks we need pretty strong restrictions on what they're actually allowed to do.

Direct democracy is more prone to some of the problems of social choice precisely because it separates issues out. Representative democracy on the other hand has to bundle lots of issues together, which creates political parties, which creates stability in voting patterns within legislatures (which overcomes the problem of vote cycling in practice - see things like Tullock's 'Why so much stability?' for this sort of thing).

Not to be a stickler, but you could easily argue that abstaining from voting is as sensible as going vegan, since it's all about supporting the status quo of a system that's based on unscientific nonsense. I've taken quiet an interest in democracy the past few years and the more I learn about it, the dumber it seems, kinda like animal agriculture.


If you're curious about the subject I'd highly recommend both Against Elections and Against Democracy. Democracy For Realists is pretty enlightening so far as well, but I'm not done with it yet.

Don't push yourself beyond your own boundaries. There's a story about the first lion tamer who used a chair. She was immensely successful compared to her colleagues, who all tended to die in the ring. She, on the other hand, retired. Why? Because the lion would see the four legs of the chair, all equal targets, confused about which one to go after.

My favorite source is Lew Rockwell yours may be different. Explore the options, Rothbard is great at explaining things simply. For A New Liberty I think is the best introduction that fully covers every subject you can think of. It's well explained and isn't overly complicated.

While tips are helpful, your path is your path. :) Hope this helps.

If your a 'recovering republican' I recommend this book:
What it means to be a Libertarian It really explains the core of what libertarianism is from the perspective of a former mainstream republican.

Then start reading some classical Libertarian works like:
The Road To Surfdom by FA Hayek, where you will be amazed to learn that Big Corporations are the best friend the far left socialists ever had and know that they are full of crap whenever they say bad things about big business. I really like Hayek's writings quite a bit. Hayek is my favourite libertarian economist. The things he predicted right after world war 2 have happened amazingly like his predictions. This book is so popular its even been made into a comic book version.


/And don't forget all the links on the right hand side of this reddit. Lots of good stuff in those links.

>What's wrong with hoping (and striving) for a better future where people can live happily together regardless of their skin color?

 

Nothing wrong with it. In fact, it sounds great on paper. Just like freedom and democracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Deadliest-Export-Democracy-Everything/dp/1783601671/

 

Re-read the frog / scorpion parable because you don't get it.

One would be free to ignoring a judgement of a private court, but the consequences would be severe. One might be social ostracism, the vast majority of people would be unwilling to do business with a man who had ignored the judgement of a well respected private court, for both reasons of ethics and more importantly reasons of liability. Another possibility is a writ of outlawry, that is the man in question's legal rights and protections will have been considered forfeited leaving him vulnerable to theft, mob justice, and other undesirable outcomes. There are many intricacies in a system of polycentric law, and I do not pretend to be familiar with all of them. Books like The Machinery of Freedom and For a New Liberty as well as The Ludwig von Mises Institute provide some good information on the topic. If you're curious about historical precedents early Iceland provides a fascinating albeit imperfect example.

No. The situation right now is something of a repeat of the worst excesses of the Nixon administration, yet for a lot of people paying attention to politics now they never lived through the Nixon scandals. This, along with a series of long-term trends, combine to make a 'new normal' that I don't think a lot of people understand.

I'm not sure how far back to go with this but I'll start with the ultra partisanship that exploded around Obama's time in office. Mann and Ornstein had been warning for years that political extremism was starting to harm good governance, and we saw quite a bit of evidence in that with the no holds barred, scorched earth policy of Newt Gingrich's new GOP in the '90s, which forswear any compromise. This by itself was not really an issue until the American electorate turned more and more partisan over the 2000s, and most especially during the Tea Party movement under Obama. The displacement of traditionally conservative or otherwise 'moderate' Republicans by Tea Partiers happened in a wave that unseated, most ironically, Eric Cantor...yet Cantor, Ryan, and Marco Rubio themselves emboldened the Tea Party out of the realization that this clearly partisan movement could get them votes. So Cantor then losing to a Tea Partier (David Brat) for being a 'RINO' probably should have been the first warning sign that things were getting out of control (Anybody listening to conservative AM radio around tea party time knows what I'm talking about).

Despite what excuses people may make for the government shutdown during Obama's term and certain obstructionist efforts, they still had a deleterious effect on Congressmen and Senators solely because they proved that a partisan position for the sake of appearing extreme could actually enhance one's standing with the electorate. The GOP waves during the Obama administration and into state-level elections was largely the result of simply radicalizing the base against Obama and the Democrats. In turn, Democrats turned more partisan as well. This would itself not have been an issue until Trump was elected, and has thoroughly ruined political discourse in the country by completely dividing Americans into 'loyalists' versus 'The Enemy.' The issue is getting exacerbated, not cured, mostly because the system has changed to favor extremist pandering and none of the political compromise that is actually necessary for good governance or confidence in political institutions. Consider the divide in media consumption based on one's political preference. Probably the most striking part of America society and its politics is how absolutely delusional each side is about one another. There's little to no understanding about how the other end feels. Coming out of a Democrat administration, the right-wing forces that propelled Trump (Breitbart, internet personalities, Bannon, Yiannopoulos) were especially bad (YET EFFECTIVE, can't deny that) about portraying a cartoonish idea about 'the Left' and perpetuating cultural grievances/race-baiting. The polarization has gotten so bad that the most radical, poisonous elements of the right-wing spectrum are not being sufficiently recognized by those who just consider themselves Trump supporters or typical Republicans. To illustrate this, consider the tragedy at Charlottesville, where the endless feedback loop of cultural grievance and moral relativism led to a murderer's mother not even being aware her son was in a white supremacist organization versus a regular Trump rally. The more extreme organizations are always seeking normalization, and there's pretty good evidence they're going to get somewhere under this administration if things don't change soon.

The shoe could well be on the other foot come next election. But this is the new normal. It's less likely Trump's man-child antics disappear and get replaced by someone more presidential, and more likely someone savvy to 'the game' like Senator Tom Cotton will step in to replace him. The Trump administration is a whole new level of incompetence compared to past administrations, but this itself is not really noteworthy if it wasn't coupled with the extreme polarization of the electorate, making endless excuses for it. The scandals of the Trump administration have been normalized by one side and absolutely outrage the other, even though under any other administration there would be far more diligence and scrutiny over such issues by the majority of Americans and the media, not just one side. My particular specialty is in foreign policy. I won't go into details but the near-comic bumbling of Trump officials when it comes to dealing with other countries and their envoys is already legendary. Virtually nobody else would make these mistakes. Yet the American public is divided on a sports-team-esque basis, and thus simple questions like 'Should someone like Tom Price have ever been approved for his job?' go ignored in favor of cheerleading.

So, no, this isn't normal. The politicization of the Special Counsel, by its nature Independent, out of fear it will cost one party votes or face should never be considered normal. But it's going to be. This is not some aberration in American history: this is just how it's going to be. For a while, at least. Likely through the next administration, too.

Hope this helps!

One book I'd recommend that you check out is William Riker's Liberalism Against Populism. It uses public choice theory (but isn't too technical by any means) to show how popular democracy can actively work against liberal democratic values, and why democracy should be seen as a system of rewards and incentives to constrain power, not as a means of implementing popular majority will.

Incidentally, the book also tipped the scales for me regarding electoral reform (I used to advocate PR, now I'm quite skeptical).

1. The structure of the house and senate were explicitly set up by the founders each with separate roles.
   The House is the populist body. The Senate was the counterbalance to this and the representative of states rights.
   Having both House and Senate be populist loses this counterbalance, significantly weakens the power of the states, and doesn't really gain you much.
   (All legislation has to go through the House anyway- so there is a populist voice in any decision)
   
   It also forces the Senators to campaign- This forces them into short term election cycle thinking, increases the power of lobbiests and special interest
   groups, and self selects for "electable polititians" rather than strong legislative organizers who could be selected by the state legislatures.
   
   Look at the makup of each body- House terms are 2 years promoting high turnover. This is intentional. The house members are populist representatives and need to answer to their constituents frequently. The Senate terms are 6 years and they were originally freed from the election cycle- allowing them to focus on the longer term trade-offs. (Note also that the House is weighted toward population and the Senate equal membership for each state- again the difference between the populist body and the state's representatives)
   
   
2. It might not- but "more representative" is not necessarily the goal. Remember that the US is a both representative democracy and a confederation of states- it is not and was never intended to be a populist democracy.
   
   More democracy (i.e. direct election of everything) is not always necessarily better. There are checks and balances throughout the government. There are many political topics where the populist vote is generally not a good idea. Populists tend to do a poor job with minority rights, they tend not to handle calculating tradeoffs very well, and at the extreme they tend to give rise to fascist dictatorships.
   
   Fareed Zakaria did a good coverage of this topic in his book "Future of Freedom"
   http://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Abroad/dp/0393047644
   
   His thesis is that civil liberties are more important than than pure democratic principles and that the United States traditionally confuses the two to its detriment. Very much worth reading.

I would encourage you to consider the work of Sam Wang at Princeton. Also, nonpartisan experts like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein wrote in 2012 about the issue of Republicans changing the rules to protect partisan Republican advantages in legislatures. This research is not conclusive, but there is ample evidence to support my contention that the benefits of incumbency and redrawing of district boundaries gave Republicans advantages in the 2012 Congressional election.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

http://election.princeton.edu/2013/02/03/slaying-the-gerrymander/

http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

I could offer you a reading list to elucidate my points about Russia and the negatives of imperialism within burgeoning industrialist society. Right now however, I'm actually very stretched thin. I'm on a business trip that looks like will now be extended. I'm working just under 100 hours per week now that I've inherited two more projects that were supposed to be assigned to others. It's kind of a cop-out to not further expand on my earlier statements. But since I don't perceive you as being particularly close-minded (if anything you seem appropriately honest about what you do and do not know) it might actually be beneficial to simply provide you with the data as it was presented to me, and then let you draw your own conclusions.

For starters I'd recommend reading about the history:

http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Russians-History-Geoffrey-Hosking/dp/0674011147

This book gives a very wide-angle approach to Russia, Russians, and their governments.

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forever-Until-More-Formation/dp/0691121176/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

This book offers a bit more of an intimate perspective about perhaps the most relevant generation of Post-Soviet influence.

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805075593

This book offers some insight into America's foreign policy during the 20th century. In particular the negative impact of crafting foreign policy through an aggressive campaign of global occupation. The latter chapters talk about China and the former Soviet Union and draws many disturbing parallels with the United States defense spending habits in the last decade.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/B004HZ6XWS/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861749&sr=1-2

This book will perhaps be the most controversial read out of the list. It deals with the very unfortunate relationship between corporatism and American politics as well as the various stages of civil rights and labor movements. There is also a great deal of additional facts about imperialism in America which expands many of the points made by Chalmers Johnson.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861920&sr=1-1

There are several areas of agreement in this book between the views expressed by Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn. While the principles certainly come from different places, there is a well-reasoned, and thoughtful common ground. It is challenging from any perspective to completely agree or disagree with these narratives, but the contrast is most refreshing.

http://www.amazon.com/Pig-That-Wants-Eaten-Experiments/dp/0452287448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300862132&sr=1-1

This book is basically a breath mint. The subjects being tackled in the rest of these books can often be somewhat troubling. This book will offer you short thought experiments that will prove entertaining as well as provocative. They will also help provide some lightheartedness to the mix.

WOW... I think /r/conservative really might be the actual closest thing to an actual circlejerk as reddit has ever seen. The entire GOP suffers from extreme confirmation bias to the most extreme levels it's absolutely astounding. Since FOX took serious steps to go extremely right wing (I am talking about 2006'ish, to the point of extreme hyperbole) that party has drifted further and further from reality. The so called "Republican base" has shifted off a cliff to the right, so far that right that they refuse to consider people like McCain and Romney true conservatives. They force their candidates to pander to the "conservative base" meaning they have to pick up people like Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin, people with views so far from reality independent voters are scared off. They continue to pigeon hole themselves into smaller and smaller corners with more narrowly defined extreme views while including less and less Americans under their umbrella. They probably didn't stand much of chance of winning in 2008 but given the state of the country right now and the electorate's complete lack of ability to actually follow issues, it shouldn't have been too hard to trot up any candidate against Obama and win. But yet again, republicans are tripping all over themselves to point out all Romney's flaws and say he's not a "true conservative" .......

I'ts looking like another blood bath is headed our way in early November and I am beginning to believe in James Carville's 40 More Years prophecy.

You are incorrect. The Republicans have become radicalized. Democrats have not. R is the party that deserves 80% of the blame. You can read it here:

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465074731 AND here

https://www.amazon.com/Broken-Branch-Congress-Institutions-Democracy/dp/0195368711

Recall that Obama reached out to them early in his term and was rebuffed. Also, recall that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell had a meeting to plan out tactics deliberately designed to obstruct.

Recall that my argument was about USSC obstructionism not any of the lesser courts. Stick to the topic, please.

It has nothing to do with being "fiscally responsible", it has everything to do with obstructionism and radicalism. Being fiscally responsible is a cheap codeword that means "cut govt programs" and "make America weak".

Indeed, if that was the case then why are the Rs OK with spending 58 Billion more on the military BUT not spending on domestic programs such as healthcare?

I do agree that a Market oriented approach, like the kind that was modeled on RomneyCare, is the better approach.

Edit: words

Honestly, Chomsky's endless publication of one book after another -- so many books, all of them (outside his linguistics work) monotonously harping on the same narrow range of subjects -- make me think that monetization is exactly what's going on. If you really care about an audience rather than making money, stick that shit online for free.

In high school I owned all four of the books in this omnibus volume (reissue, repackage, repackage) and I'm delighted by the sheer self-righteousness in some of the reviews on that page. "The comfortable lies spread by the media!"

For those who respect the Founding Fathers:

Thomas Jefferson:
>Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on.

Thomas "Common Sense" Paine: (Agrarian Justice)
>Paine proposed a detailed plan to tax property owners to pay for the needs of the poor, which could be considered as the precursor of the modern idea of citizen's income or basic income. The money would be raised by taxing all direct inheritances at 10%, and "indirect" inheritances - those not going to close relations - at a somewhat higher rate;

I should add that Thom Hartmann has written an excellent book which refers to one of the men who conservatives like to quote so much:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-Jefferson-Thom-Hartmann/dp/1400052084

I'm sure you are aware of the public choice literature on this subject, so I will skip that. But on the issue of jurisprudence, there is very little.

The classic text in political science is Riker's "Liberalism Against Populism." Also, if you want to spring for the law text book, there is this one. But I cannot attest to its quality.

A good article on the implications of Arrow, which it seems you want, is "Congress Is a 'They,' Not an 'It': Legislative Intent as Oxymoron."

I was researching this topic a couple months back in the context of public interest, the animating theory behind a number of government agencies. So, if you find anything else, do let me know.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

Have a look at this book and who the authors/co-authors are or were.

It's not unreasonable to assume that a majority Conservative government would move away from the NHS as we know it. Ideologically they don't believe in it. There are pros and cons to doing so, but I'm not personally convinced that the Conservatives, particularly cabinet ministers, are sufficiently honest about their position in a public fourm.

It's also not unreasonable to believe that American based firms would benefit from such a transition away from the current national health service model.

I do not understand what you mean by short term?

This debate has been going on since the inception of the Argentinean country and well before either of us were born. While short term is relative you are using in it in quite an unusual way.

"Spurious"
Which specific argument are you referring to here?

My suggestion undermines the social contract?
Only suggestion I made was to offer the citizens of Falkland large sums of money and a home in England in return for whatever holdings they have in the Falklands. You may have a point your trying to make but you need think it through and get it in writing.

Extend my argument.. What use is Hull...
Again see what i wrote above. But also I never advocated that it would be compulsory, you did that in your own head. However the CPOs do exist.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11487/147639.pdf

The government can take your land and compensate you for it. Happens when railways, roads, etc are built.

Public services..
Again this is an argument that you are making, not me. But a number of Tories including the Jeremy Hunt advocate a denationalisation of the NHS and introducing an insurance market system.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801
I disagree with this but you can take it up with the Tories that co authored the book

Defending the interests of British citizens
Unless we discuss what their interests are how can we defend them? It may well be in their interest to move to England with large sums of money. But crucially it may well be in the interests of the British citizens who live in Britain.

Bowing to diplomatic pressure
We don't really have a great deal of diplomatic pressure here so clearly I am not advocating that. What we do have is a great deal of ill will in the Americas.

It does however paint Britain as weak that we do not have the ability to end a blockade on our overseas territory. It highlights our lack of perceived strength in the USA, when we let our soldiers die for the USA, we let our image be tarnished by our unwavering support for the USA. That the USA then does not feel the need to at least support our sovereignty shows that we are not the world power we once were. Even China defies our right to sovereignty over the Falklands on paper at least, supporting the Argentinean claim.

By allowing the Falklands issue to remain unresolved we are allowing are international standing to diminish.

Have another attempt at explaining your views. This time think it through a bit more.

sure thing. where are you from?
i recommend this book: https://www.amazon.de/gp/aw/d/1847924220/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅZÕÑ&qid=1495112323&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=david+van+reybrouck&dpPl=1&dpID=41Q2zt5ze9L&ref=plSrch

i'm just reading it now :)

Aggression for self-defense is acceptable whenever someone fears their life or safety is in danger. Someone pulling a gun on you certainly fits that bill. If a man draws down on you you can only assume that he intends to harm you physically and you are perfectly within your rights to respond appropriately. Verbal threats are much of an excuse for attacking someone. Now, verbal threats such as "I'm going to kill you" and menacing movements towards you are entirely different. It just depends on the context of the situation.

As for homesteading you'll see different opinions on this, but my take on it is whenever you've put the land to some use. I don't think clearing a bunch of rocks is enough to justify ownership of it, but it does show intent to occupy. Now, say you were to build a house and till up a section of land for planting crops I could safely say that what you have appropriated is justly yours (provided no one else holds a legitimate claim to said property).

If you want to get more information on these topics I'd suggest reading [The Ethics of Liberty] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethics-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369188520&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ethics+of+liberty) and [For a New Liberty] (http://www.amazon.com/For-New-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/1610162641/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369188520&sr=8-2&keywords=the+ethics+of+liberty) by Murray Rothbard. Those are great starting points and should keep you busy for a little while. You can also find these two books for free on Mises.org [here] (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp) and [here.] (http://mises.org/document/1010/For-a-New-Liberty-The-Libertarian-Manifesto)

You're doing nothing more than parsing words here. A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. This notion of a democratic tradition ignores the fact that the fundamental issue here is the people's right to vote. They elect whoever they want that best represents the majority in regards to the issues involved and move forward. Hell, it's as if you're ignoring the fact that the UK has a constitutional monarchy, where the people elect the people in parliament to govern over them.

The fundamental issue here is that everyone is given a right to vote and elect who will be the govern. That is a fact. Right now, there are 167 different democracies in the world with various ways of the electors (voters) having the power of choosing who they want through a democratic process. My view here is rather consistent. What the US is not is a direct democracy which James Madison talked about in FP #10. What he came to change his mind on was how the US was a modern democracy

>In particular, talk show hosts and authors often use this argument, quoting the Founders who explicitly were not trying to create the "mob rule" of "pure democracy" but the "rule of law" in a constitutionally limited democratic republic. In this, they are technically correct, although the suggestion made to Republicans in the 1980s that it would be wise to stop referring to "democracy" in America because it sounds too much like "Democrat" is probably closer to why some are so fond of the term "republic" which sounds like "Republican"

> In a republic, elected representatives make the laws, and in a "pure" democracy there are no representatives: the people themselves vote on each issue. (California and other states' ballot initiatives are closer to pure democracy.) Nonetheless, the distinction between the terms has been lost on most of the world which defines a modern republic as a "modern democracy"

And that's been my point the entire time. You're ignoring the fact that most people believe in a representative democracy which is what the US is. Same as a constitutional monarchy or any other form of government where people elect representatives to be the face of their interests in what they do or do not want out of the government.

The entire point that I've been making that when you look at the nitty gritty details is that the basics have been consistent. We are not (yet) a fascist one party society. We aren't a feudalist society. We are a democracy that elects the people that want to represent us.

We just do not have the same things that have made other countries far more progressive such as Sweden and Norway because we are one of the first democratic experiments.

You want to ignore that, fantastic. But don't delude yourself about parsing the difference of dictatorships and democracies when you can't be arsed to understand the difference.

Are any of these claims...wrong?

For example, take:

> Anti-conservative sentence of the oped: " the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t." Hmm.


This isn't a hot take from Krugman. It's conventional wisdom in political science. See https://voteviewblog.com/2015/06/10/more-on-assymmetric-polarization-yes-the-republicans-did-it/ or https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

> I just want to know what all those lovely little 'intelligence' agencies did with the money or are they all invested in simply being stupid and inept?

Intelligence agencies are there to control you the public.

Democracy Americas deadliest export

Princeton study - does the state work for the public?

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Here are billions of dollars in energy subsidies, aka when politicians are saying social services need to be cut, they are speaking out both sides of their mouths because they know most people don't look at what companies are getting free handouts from subsidies.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Crisis of democracy

https://youtu.be/glHd_5-9PVs?t=1282

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

The rules were by no means unpopular at the time, but were simply disliked by the radical wing of the Republican Party that supported Reagan during his ultimately successful run in the 1980 President election. The guy was honestly an insurgent candidate who managed to win largely by appealing to folks in much the same way that Trump did last year. The similarities are actually rather striking although I would argue that Reagan was much more controlled and less volatile than Trump he was much more dangerous in terms of actually getting things done once in office.

His policies mostly focused in removing everything the Democrats and moderate Republicans had done since the Great Depression along with cutting taxes. Many New Deal social programs were eliminated and labor unions were absolutely crippled through having their negotiating position weakened to the point where striking laborers were often simply fired during his administration. I personally blame him for the collapse of American manufacturing and the near stagnant wages for American workers since the 1980s when adjusted for inflation. And for the federal debt getting out of control as it was a relatively small proportion of our GDP when he took office but had ballooned into the trillions by the end... but tax cuts as bribes certainly worked to keep getting Republicans elected until the economic downturn of the late George H.W. Bush administration.

As far as the Fairness Doctrine the Wikipedia article is pretty solid and has some good sources if you want to dig deeper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I feel like this reply is a bit of a mess but if you want to get deeper into the strategy behind the removal of the Fairness Doctrine and the establishment of right-wing talk radio in America I recommend The Right-Wing Noise Machine by David Brock. He was an insider in the fledgling industry that was right-wing agitprop during this period and eventually became sickened by the beast he helped create.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400048753/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

My go to reading list,

Killing Hope, by William Blum

America's Deadliest Export Democracy, by William Blum

Who is William Blum?

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner

Enemies: The History of the FBI, by Tim Wiener

Who is Tim Weiner?

The Secret History of the American Empire: The Truth about Economic Hitmen, Jackals, and How to Change the World by John Perkins

Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins

Who is John Perkins?

The Law - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594315/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1936594315

Economics in one lesson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0517548232

That which is seen and is not seen - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453857508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1453857508

Our enemy, the state - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E28SUM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001E28SUM

How capitalism save america - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400083311/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1400083311

New Deal or Raw Deal - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416592377/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1416592377

Lessons for the Young Economist - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550880/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550880

For a New Liberty - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610162641/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1610162641

What Has Government Done to Our Money? - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146997178X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146997178X

America's Great Depression - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146793481X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146793481X

Defending the Undefendable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550171/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550171

Metldown - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596985879

The Real Lincoln - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463

The Road to Serfdom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320553/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226320553

Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226264211

Radicals for Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586485725/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1586485725

Production Versus Plunder - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979987717/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0979987717

Atlas Shrugged - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452011876

The Myth of the Rational Voter - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691138737/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=0691138737

Foutainhead - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452273331/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452273331&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20

Anthem - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281253/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452281253&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20

There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!

>Link me to that strawman political behavior research please

Ok let's start with Downs once you've digested that we can move on to a more fruitful discussion of the median voter theorem and all the work on this since 1956.

Assuming you understand game theory and can compute an equilibrium outcome otherwise we've got a lot more work to do.

> oh totally well-educated and adjusted political expert.

You might want to make sure when trying to use this as sarcasm the person you're talking to is not indeed a political expert with a PhD in political science.

Also - I'd really take the time to figure out what the term strawman means before misusing it again.

This is a good start, though not all encompassing on this topic, obviously. Here is an interesting excerpt from his book Chomsky on Anarchism. I would really reccomend picking up a copy of How The World Works which is a short compilation of a broad range of his ideas and analysis. It's taken from interviews, so it's a quicker read then most of his stuff. If you need any more pointing, just ask!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy this would be a good place to start.

​

The idea that mob mentality and a tyranny of the majority would occur under direct democracy is incompatible with how the system actually works and did work in places like ancient Athens.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Elections-David-Van-Reybrouck/dp/1847924220 If you want a more thorough resource on what direct democracy is and why it's much more democratic than representative democracy.

Well check this book out.

http://www.amazon.com/For-New-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/1610162641/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375981593&sr=8-1&keywords=for+a+new+liberty

It's available online for free, too. This should fix the last vestiges of statism in your head.

It's just a load of bullshit that the Democrats ever had ANY political good will from the Republicans. A group of major Republican thinkers, including Mitch Mcconnell, met right before Obama was elected and stated publicly that their number one priority was to see that Obama was a one term president.

If you seriously think that the Republicans ever had any intention of helping Obama or the Democrats or that they had any ounce of support for bipartisanship you just weren't paying attention.

Edit : I suggest you check out the book by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann It's Even Worse Than it Looks They are a Democrat and a Republican, very well respected in Washington, who make the point that Republicans never had any intention of working in a bipartisan fashion.

The Median Voter Theorem is the principal concept. You can find a primer on Wikipedia or a variety of books on the concept.

Pretty much the only situations in which moving to the middle wouldn't be better would be:

Voters on the edges of the political spectrum are irrational. If they are unable to realize--Bernie bros who would rather vote for Trump than Clinton, for example. The issue is that actual voting behavior studies have found that this is more of a threat than an,actual observed behavior.

The edge voters decide they would rather not vote at all than support a moderate. Again, this is usually a threat. Most of the fringe voters are hyper-involved in politics and do not follow through on this threat.

The voting spectrum is not single peaked, but double peaked--as in voters cannot be accurately relented by a bell curve. The problem here is that it's very hard to actually determine when there genuinely are multiple peaks, and there's plenty of reason to suspect that it will not actually happen in a given population. Either way, you'd need an awful lot of confidence in a double peaked voter distribution before you start making political decisions based off of that.

EDIT: Here you can buy the original work that first proposed the Median Voter Theorem. It's obviously the best start and from here you can surely find plenty of more recent works that discuss the concept in more depth.

https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Theory-Democracy-Anthony-Downs/dp/0060417501

>this which of course means you disagree with democracy as a whole.

Please read this book. It will help you to re-evaluate your view of democracy and show you that the type of democracy that you speak of usually ends up in tyranny.

The United States was founded as a liberal (in the classical sense of the word, not leftist) country. The issue with the direct democracy that you are alluding to is that the rights of the minority will always be usurped by the will of the majority. Just because a majority of people may not want a book to be present in a library, does not give them the right to disallow the minority access to it.

Holy shit.. can we PLEASE start a "shitty book drive" for Kuhn??


How to Send Books and Magazines to Pennsylvania Inmates

Friends and family members of Pennsylvania inmates can send books, magazines, and newspapers to an inmate. All publications must be ordered directly from a reputable vendor like Amazon.com. No books, or magazines may contain nudity, maps, or describe the manufacture of drugs, alcohol, or weapons. All books should be new and paperback editions, hardcover books are prohibited. When ordering from Amazon be sure to mail to the inmate's name and ID number and send to the inmate's institutional mailing address. If you want to learn more about sending these items to an inmate read about it here.

Starting with this one because it's literal: https://www.amazon.com/Crash-Burn-Artie-Lange/dp/1476765596

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Phillip/dp/B000F3T9BS/

https://www.amazon.com/He-Talk-Like-White-Boy/dp/B000MKYKVI/

https://www.amazon.com/Darkest-Child-Novel-Delores-Phillips/dp/1569473455/

https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Your-Guts-Jim-Norton/dp/1416587853/

https://www.amazon.com/Happy-Endings-Tales-Meaty-Breasted-Zilch/dp/1416961054

https://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Awful-Except-Jim-Florentine/dp/0306825635

https://www.amazon.com/Wanna-Bet-Degenerate-Gamblers-Living/dp/1250121175

https://www.amazon.com/Too-Fat-Fish-Artie-Lange/dp/0385526571/

and somehow, searching for "Opie and Anthony" yields this... https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Theory-Democracy-Anthony-Downs/dp/0060417501/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522171298&sr=1-4&keywords=opie+and+anthony

It’s a very real possibility that in a 4 year election cycle we will have gone from a Democratic supermajority and presidency to Republican control of the White House, Senate, and House.

This book by James Carville, which was written only 2 years ago, seems like a joke today.

This has essentially been Noam Chomsky's point for decades now. If learning more about this interests you I recommend Media Control , Manufacturing Consent, How the World Works, and most especially Understanding Power. I have read them all and they helped me understand a lot about the world that didn't make sense.

>What books on politics do you recommend?

• The Republic by Plato.
  
• Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.
  
• Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy by Daron Acemoglu and Jim Robinson
  
• The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olson.
  
• The Calculus of Consent by Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan.
  
• The Strategy of Conflict by Tom Schelling.
  
• Principled Agents? by Timothy Besley.
  
• Social Choice and Individual Values by Ken Arrow. (Free, legal pdf here).
  
• Liberalism Against Populism by William Riker.
  
• Duck for President by Doreen Cronin.

A book I just finished reading for my AP Gov & Pol class seems to be relevant here. It outlines some key congressional issues, especially the overuse of filibusters and failed old tactics we keep trying to reuse. It was a pretty good read, especially for something so critical. I'll put up a pdf of my summary i had to write for it if you guys want.
EDIT: Added a few words.

They are not about reasonable, work together, get a functioning government.

They are about "oppose anything the Democrats suggest, all the time."

(Except for trade deals, of course.)

This is a pretty good book about it. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

Good next up:

http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409/

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Deadliest-Export-Democracy-Everything/dp/1783601671/

lol. As submitter I should have remembered. Long couple of days.

Source is
> David Brock's Republican Noise Machine

>My issue is that I don't understand why or how things got so polarized on this side.


I highly recommend It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. Two respected and moderate political scientists go into the specifics of why American politics have become so polarized. I think we're just seeing that polarization on an intra-party level on the Democrat side more recently, though.

Yes although it was a book not a pamphlet.

'book'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

To my knowledge he has only two books that are specifically about education:

• Chomsky on Democracy and Education (Social Theory, Education, and Cultural Change)
  
• Chomsky on Mis-Education
  
  Edit: I cracked open my copy of Class Warfare because I seemed to recall a lengthy section devoted to education in that book as well; you can read the relevant excerpt here. It differs from the above examples because he's talking about education as social indoctrination, not education in the sense of schooling.

Are you serious? I was of the idea that he is a lefty that was trying to work out the details of communism. The person who informed me about him was from the r/Anarchism101 subreddit. Can you link a source where he was transphobic? He mentioned in one of his videos that he is writing a book titled How the World Works which is the same title as this Chomsky book idk if they are even tangentially related, but I had a preconceived image of him that sounds like it’s not true based of your response.

It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

Brilliant book that takes a very serious look in to both sides over the last decade. It's written by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein who have spend decades studying congress and pride them selves on being as non partisan as they can.

Edit: Didn't read the part about not being too wordy and this most likely falls in to that category. Excerpt Going to leave this here for others though.

sure here it is,

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/B004HZ6XWS/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320800970&sr=1-10

I don't have any off the top of my head, but I own (have yet to do any substantial reading of) a book called Fight Club Politics that goes back to pre-Lewinsky era Gingrich and talks about how this poison has been seeping through Congress for a long time. There's also a similar book called It's Even Worse Than It Looks which I haven't read, but I'm lead to understand (by reviews and, among other things, the title) that despite the American electorate believing collectively that on some level all of this is just political theater, that this is actually really really bad partisanship.

Those might not be exactly what you're looking for, but they're surely in the right vein. The other thing when it comes to Obama to remember is that he's black. I'm not saying that everyone who opposes him is an old-fashioned, biological racist. Many are what's referred to sometimes in microaggression theory as "symbolic" racists (whereas when conservatives accuse liberals of being "the real racists" they're accusing them of being "aversive" racists. It's a different thing).

When Obama got elected, he ran on a platform of "hope and change". I think this scared a lot of white people, because for white people, they don't need much hope and they don't want change because things have been going pretty well for them. If you don't recall (I'm not sure how old you are), the rhetoric coming from the right was not far off the shaking in the boots that we're seeing Linsey Graham doing now over ISIS. Obama was going to come for your guns, and then give all your money to the (lazy) black people, and that's based on socialism. Etc. etc. etc... Worse, socialism takes away FREEDOM and, in modern practices has involved DICTATORS, which is likely how people came to a lot of these crazy conclusions.

I'm not sure exactly where in the last 25 or so years--I'm sure it talks about in the books that I mentioned--the word liberal became this weird pejorative. It's funny to me, because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty so I'm proud to call myself liberal and progressive, but whenever someone starts saying "The liberals" or better yet "those libs", I know they're about to spout some baller-level ignorance. My point is, somehow liberals became un-American to the true patriots.

In fact, watch Jon Stewart's clip from last week ripping Fox News for the latte-salute while followed immediately by the awful boobs-on-the-ground joke. "Fuck your false patriotism" he says. It's pretty powerful, and he doesn't pull any punches.

So yeah, I'm sure someone has done better research on it than me, but combine all those toxic elements and you've got the people convinced that Obama is the Antchrist.

> it's not something Jeremy Hunt made up on a spot.

Well, it's not as if he co-authored a book on privatising the NHS.... wait what?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

Revolt on teh Right

By far the most indepth, analytical insight into UKIPs support base. I reccomend anybody to read it. Guardian luvvies Goodwin and Ford have produced a worldy that is very well recommended by even the said paper as well as by BBC BookTalk. I am using their figures.

> NHS....

Evolving policies. I think they may lose a lot of that support if they went into 2015 with such policies, hence why they won;t. They tap into the anxiety of globalisation, something people scoff at and deem racist. Bizzarely.

> I'm not sure why you think it shields them or their supporters from criticism

I think you should be careful about mocking genuine economic concerns and labelling them merely racist, when they are on the whole normal people who observe the world around the, and perceive to know what is in their best interests. Mass influxes of cheap labour is not in their interests.

While you're right that both parties have done some terrible things, technically, the Republicans are demonstrably MORE culpable in this bullshit. I highly recommend this book. It's pretty damning.

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Whenever people make this false equivalency, it shows their lack of understanding of how Republicans have governed over the past 30 years.

The guy you want is William Blum.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Deadliest-Export-Democracy-Everything/dp/1783601671/

See also his books Killing Hope and Rogue State.

>It takes leadership and compromise to overcome differences in politics. Republicans are representing their constituents as well as the Democrat elected are doing the same.

>Get over it guys, this is normal. This is politics, this is the american way. Like it or leave it.

Actually, the filibuster has been used more during Obama's term than ever before. It is worse than it used to be.

David Brock documented this quite nicely in his book "The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy" - in 2004.

https://www.amazon.com/Conquest-History-Political-Social-Science/dp/0486478505

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_O3gnDbK18SCMD

"40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation" - James Carville, 2009

http://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/1416569898

https://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/1416569898

http://www.amazon.com/World-Works-Story-Skull-Press/dp/1593764278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368251410&sr=1-1&keywords=noam+chomsky+how+the+world+works

I seem to recall similar claims four years ago. James Carville talked about a permanent majority. I'll believe it when I see it.

From a bipartisan source (one expert from Brookings, another from the Heritage Foundation), actually it's true.

>When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

>“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

> But a number of Tories including the Jeremy Hunt advocate a denationalisation of the NHS and introducing an insurance market system. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801 I disagree with this but you can take it up with the Tories that co authored the book

shoehorn much? Irrelevant.

It's even worse than it looks By Tomas Mann and Norman Ornstien is all about Republican obstructionism and how polarized our political system has become. There's plenty of evidence and specific examples in there, especially the first chapter.

Also read Mann and Ornstein's It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism to understand why 'our political dysfunction is largely because of the transformation of the Republican Party into an extremist force that is “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”'



https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

I wanna give a shout out to one of my favorite books and the last book I read as a polisci undergrad before a graduated a few years back. It's Even Worse Than It Looks by Mann and Ornstein. It's a breakdown of congressional politics and asymmetric polarization, and how we've come to such a hellish political gridlock today.

It was the last polisci book I read in college and it really brought together a lot of ideas and trends I noticed and studied, and prepared me to identify the causes at the root of Trump's rise.

No, there isn't. The stated strategy of the house Republicans from the day Obama was elected was to not compromise and try to thwart the new administration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

No amount of wineing and dining was going to get the House Republicans to deal.

Look at the book "Its even worse than it looks" by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann. Goes thru in detail how every negotiation was blown up by the younger house leaders for political gain, not for the good of the country.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

There are a few ways the minority party can hold up change. This is because of the setup of the US system.

1. One party holds House, other party holds Senate, or vice-versa.
   
   Because the House and Senate have to agree on legislation to send it to the President, if both sides vote along party-lines on most issues (as is today) and suck at negotiating (as is today) then there is no way to get the bill into law. That's because the House can simply refuse to vote on a bill passed by the Senate, or vice-versa. This was originally implemented way back when the US Constitution was written, in a compromise. The more populous states wanted the House of Representatives to be the legislature's style, since it is based on the population size of each state (so, for example, California has far more members than most other states, since it's the most populous). Other states with smaller populations didn't want to be left out of the decision-making that could affect them, powerless to stop the majority-populous states who had different needs/wants, so they preferred a system like the Senate (each state has 2 Senators). They were combined to create the bicameral system you see today, with two houses elected differently (Senators statewide with longer terms, House members in their districts) to ensure that the "tyranny of the majority" did not take over. That means that a district's wants can still be heard through its House member, and not overruled by the rest of the state.
   
   
2. One party holds Presidency, House or Senate (or both) held by non-supermajority other party.
   
   In this case, the Presidency can stop laws being implemented that they do not like, though this isn't as easy or politically clean. If the House and Senate both pass laws, it gets sent to the President, who can veto the legislation. Initially this was used quite rarely, but over time it has changed from something that Presidents use to dispute the constitutionality of a proposed law or something like that, into something that Presidents use to not implement policies they think are bad (usually, really bad). The House and Senate can override a veto, because the US supports the idea of popular law overriding a single executive (aversion to tyrants and kings and all that), but they need a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate. This is incredibly hard to get on a party-line issue, though it can happen in other cases. Usually it never gets to that, because it would be far too embarrassing for a President, and they'd usually back down first, or the House/Senate wouldn't bother if they know they can't beat a veto.
   
   
3. One party holds at least 40 seats in the Senate, and the other holds whatever else.
   
   In this case, the Senate can be held up quite a lot through a procedure called "filibustering", which many people have heard of. Basically, it's a way of stopping the Senate from moving forward, by invoking the need for additional debate. It's been used quite famously by some, including for speeches that last upwards of 10 hours, meant to hold up legislation long enough that a recess has to be called, that legislators simply give up, etc. The filibuster can basically indefinitely hold a bill, and it requires 60 votes to invoke cloture, which means to allow the bill to move on. So basically debate can be extended however long, unless 60 Senators agree to shut it down. The filibuster wasn't used until 1837, a full 30+ years after the Constitution was written, though it was made possible by a rule change in 1806 when the US got rid of what it considered a redundant rule. Cloture was added much later, in the early 1900s, to combat the filibuster tactic, though it needed a 2/3 vote to invoke back then (not 60 as today, which is 3/5). Basically, neither side wants to give up their ability to use a filibuster, no matter how much they hate it.
   
   This is all very different from the system in the UK, you're right. The UK has a much more fluid system, where the ruling party gets to rule outright and just change things. Some have argued that the US needs to implement more parliamentary-style procedures if people will abuse the filibuster and other similar rules. Two authors (on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum) argued this point in a book that was quite interesting.
   
   We can get along this way, but the more polarized the US legislature gets, the more difficult it is to get along. It wasn't always like this. Legislators used to agree on more issues and only have one or two areas of big disagreement that they couldn't work out. It's not working that way anymore, for whatever reason. The system is quite difficult to work in, and the lack of bipartisanship is only making it harder. Not sure how it could be fixed besides playing nicer, unless the people in charge decide to change their own powers, which is quite unlikely. You could imagine the headlines now: "XXXX Party Seizing Power; Abolishing Filibuster/Veto/Other House".

There's a great book by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein that explains a lot of the problems we face today in terms of partisanship. There are a few factors that caused both parties, but especially the republicans, to move to the extremes starting in the 1970's. They include:

The "Reagan Revolution" which brought social and religious conservatives together with fiscal conservatives.

Newt Gingrich, who encouraged GOP Congress members to avoid talking with Democrats or face severe repercussions. He later led the 1994 Contract with America.

The election of Barack Obama, who the conservative movement hates for a variety of reasons. Politicians are feeding off that hate.

Money in politics has made Republicans at the whim of major corporations, which paralyzes progress.

That's my response for the moment. I'll upvote and mention anyone who has something better.

EDIT: formatting and grammar

it would have to be a tie between For A New Liberty and Skyrim Guide. before you ask i got it because i am to damn short tempered to find all the cool shit scattered al over the place, and i'm a sucker for the maps.

The same Jeremy Hunt who co-authored an instruction guide on privatising the NHS?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

Apparently he's also a fan of homepathy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9520269/Jeremy-Hunt-is-controversial-appointment-as-Health-Secretary.html

And should we also ignore this governments attempts to piss off as many people in the employ of the NHS as possible? To sabotage the growth of our nursing staff by cutting bursaries? To continue to discourage young doctors who are desperately needed in an understaffed and overworked health service, that still costs less per capita for a higher standard of care than many other countries in the world? To continue to make real-term cuts to frontline services?

Perhaps, but the average person also the sort of idiot who watches reality TV. That's the problem.

And it's frankly ridiculous to cast Democrats and Republicans as equally crazy. False equivalence. California is run by competent people who live in the real world, even if you disagree with their specific policy priorities. States like Kansas are run by people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and the way to stop teenage pregnancy is to not tell them how to avoid it.

Even if you think the deregulation of licensing organizations should be prioritized, for example, you can't possible see the Republicans as a rationally equivalent organization. They've gone off the deep end.

Don't take my word for it. Ask actual conservatives.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331