Reddit mentions: The best free enterprise books

Milton Friedman speaks fairly eloquently on the topic of trade and tariffs. I'll post a mixture of his statements on the issue of free-trade and the promotion of it, as well as his thoughts on tariffs as a matter of protecting industries to allow it to gain a temporary advantage over other countries, thus creating employment in the process.

> Today, as always, there is much support for tariffs–euphemistically labeled “protection,” a good label for a bad cause. Producers of steel and steelworkers' unions press for restrictions on steel imports from Japan. Producers of TV sets and their workers lobby for “voluntary agreements” to limit imports of TV sets or components from Japan, Taiwan, or Hong Kong. Producers of textiles, shoes, cattle, sugar–they and myriad others complain about “unfair” competition from abroad and demand that government do something to “protect” them. Of course, no group makes its claims on the basis of naked self-interest. Every group speaks of the “general interest,” of the need to preserve jobs or to promote national security. The need to strengthen the dollar vis-à-vis the deutsche mark or the yen has more recently joined the traditional rationalizations for restrictions on imports.

As stated, trade tariffs which are often lobbied for and advocated by certain groups of people commonly make the argument that it is in the self-interest of the general population. The contrary is true: it is in the interest of a select group of people to have tariffs raised or implemented or have subsidies granted under the guise of competitiveness and efficiency. If a U.S. manufacturer is 2x less effective than a Japanese manufacturer at creating a certain good, is it the right decision to subsidize this manufacturer in order to raise its level of competitiveness versus the Japanese one? I would say no. As will be discussed later, jobs lost in export industry are gained in import industry, which is a point often forgotten. Americans will still desire cars or televisions even if there are no American manufacturers to produce said products. New jobs and business in import will appear to fill this employment gap and to provide for the consumer what they desire.

> One voice that is hardly ever raised is the consumer’s. That voice is drowned out in the cacophony of the “interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers” and their employees. The result is a serious distortion of the issue. For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number–for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs–jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.

Countries should produce goods of which they have the comparative advantage in producing. This is low hanging fruit but a good example of this. Why should Canada outsource the production of postage boxes to Belgium when we could readily manufacture them in Canada? If it is inefficient for us to do so then we should not do so, if we can get the good for cheaper elsewhere then we should strive to do that and to produce goods at which we are more effective. If a lawyer is 10x more efficient than practicing law than his secretary and also 2x a faster typist, should the lawyer do both jobs? No, of course not. The lawyer should practice law as comparatively he has the advantage in doing so, and let his secretary do the typing. The argument should not be surrounding the "creation of jobs", but the creation of jobs that are meaningful and more productive and beneficial for our population to be employed in.

> Another fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.

Imports are not bad, and trade deficits are not (necessarily) bad. Nation A trades with Nation B, but Nation B also trades with Nation C, Nation C also trades with Nation A and thus Nation A's currency will return back to their country. Because of markets for foreign currency, it is desirable that we import goods and do not necessarily need large trade surpluses as an indicator of a strong performing economy. The worst case scenario in this example of three countries trading is that if Nation A's currency never returns back into the country. If you were to think of a country as a household, you would certainly wish to pay less to receive more than the other way around.

In fact, Friedman describes almost perfectly why people who believe that the reduction of tariffs will in fact hurt domestic industry are misguided:

> The fallacy in this argument is the loose use of the terms “high” wage and “low” wage. What do high and low wages mean? American workers are paid in dollars; Japanese workers are paid in yen. How do we compare wages in dollars with wages in yen? How many yen equal a dollar? What determines the exchange rate? Consider an extreme case. Suppose that, to begin with, 360 yen equal a dollar. At this exchange rate, the actual rate of exchange for many years, suppose that the Japanese can produce and sell everything for fewer dollars than we can in the United States–TV sets, automobiles, steel, and even soybeans, wheat, milk, and ice cream. If we had free international trade, we would try to buy all our goods from Japan. This would seem to be the extreme horror story of the kind depicted by the defenders of tariffs–we would be flooded with Japanese goods and could sell them nothing.

> Before throwing up your hands in horror, carry the analysis one step further. How would we pay the Japanese? We would offer them dollar bills. What would they do with the dollar bills? We have assumed that at 360 yen to the dollar everything is cheaper in Japan, so there is nothing in the U.S. market that they would want to buy. If the Japanese exporters were willing to burn or bury the dollar bills, that would be wonderful for us. We would get all kinds of goods for green pieces of paper that we can produce in great abundance and very cheaply. We would have the most marvelous export industry conceivable.

> Of course, the Japanese would not in fact sell us useful goods in order to get useless pieces of paper to bury or burn. Like us, they want to get something real in return for their work. If all goods were cheaper in Japan than in the United States at 360 yen to the dollar, the exporters would try to get rid of their dollars, would try to sell them for 360 yen to the dollar in order to buy the cheaper Japanese goods. But who would be willing to buy the dollars? What is true for the Japanese exporter is true for everyone in Japan. No one will be willing to give 360 yen in exchange for one dollar if 360 yen will buy more of everything in Japan than one dollar will buy in the United States. The exporters, on discovering that no one will buy their dollars at 360 yen, will offer to take fewer yen for a dollar. The price of the dollar in terms of the yen will go down–to 300 yen for a dollar or 250 yen or 200 yen. Put the other way around, it will take more and more dollars to buy a given number of Japanese yen. Japanese goods are priced in yen, so their price in dollars will go up. Conversely, U.S. goods are priced in dollars, so the more dollars the Japanese get for a given number of yen, the cheaper U.S. goods become to the Japanese in terms of yen.

> The price of the dollar in terms of yen would fall, until, on the average, the dollar value of goods that the Japanese buy from the United States roughly equaled the dollar value of goods that the United States buys from Japan. At that price everybody who wanted to buy yen for dollars would find someone who was willing to sell him yen for dollars.

The actual situation is much more complex than this overly simplified answer, but it gives a good explanation as to why free-trade and a reduction in tariffs is beneficial. We often ignore the presence and importance of currency exchange markets when it comes to trade.

Hey eggshellmoudling! I'm at work so I can't pull up many references, but I'll see if I can help with some of your questions here.

First, the question of income inequality being a threat, and how it relates to redistribution. I definitely agree with your assessment of the last answer. It was more of a condonement of wealth redistribution than an explanation of the problem we (saying that as a libertarian, but I don't speak for all of us) have with calling income inequality a threat. In and of itself, wealth inequality is simply a consequence of how society is working. I think that a good argument could be made that inequality IS a threat in a system like we find ourselves in now, because money is so closely tied with power and rich people can use their money to influence the government and get richer. However, a small percentage of a population being incredibly rich isn't inherently bad. As long as they have come across their money in a fair (loaded word) way, as in without coercing or tricking people, they have given enough to society to merit having that amount of wealth. The only potential threat, which is a pretty minor one really, is that they don't spend their money responsibly. If, for example, they use their money to pay every person in the world to stop working, they would disrupt every market and people would starve to death. A more realistic example might be hoarding it in a place where it isn't effectively invested. If they are using the money to invest in other industries or employ people for tasks that add wealth to the system, which almost every rich person does, they aren't hurting anyone by simply being rich.
As far as redistribution goes, we believe that the current amount of inequality is heavily aided by things like redistribution of wealth and government regulations. For an example of that, say a really poor person finds out that they have a knack for orthodontics (not sure how they found that out :p) and that they could help a lot of people and make a ton of money practicing it. It wouldn't matter at all in today's system because they would be restricted by the barriers of entry to that field established by the government. Like I said before, you can argue that wealth inequality is bad right now, IMO, because the rich are so easily able to use their wealth to keep the poor poor through government coersion, which is unfair to the poor.


Second, how do we address the problem of a tiny minority controlling the wealth and allow people like you to thrive? I don't think you'll like my answer to this one, but please understand that I'm trying to be respectful and if anything comes off as rude or condescending I apologize. One way to think of wealth is as a big pool. Production adds wealth to the pool, and by adding to the pool people are allocated a certain portion of the pool. It might help to say this simple truth: there is only as much wealth in the world as is produced. That sounds simple but has huge implications. Mainly, it means that if everyone is doing the thing that they do most effectively, society as a whole benefits from a bigger pool. Now, back to your question. I have addressed the first part already, but when it comes to people that are trying hard but aren't getting a big enough portion of the pool, the fundamental reason (in a market society) is that they aren't contributing enough to earn a bigger portion. They are contributing less to the wealth of the world so they don't get as much wealth themselves. The ways to fix that are to either (1) grow the entire pool or (2) find a new way to gain more of the pool, thereby contributing to (1). That being said, I would be willing to bet that your situation is entirely different from that. For example, I highly doubt that you would feel maxed out on effort, talent, and luck if there weren't so many boundaries set up in society today.

I rambled a bit there but hopefully it was helpful. Let me know if you have questions about anything. If you are interested in why we (or at least I) believe that our system would be the best for every individual on average, I would highly recommend reading Economics In One Lesson or Capitalism and Freedom (this one is a little more difficult). They lay everything out very logically and had a huge impact on my belief system.

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...)

>Everyone can work hard, put in absurd hours and absurd amounts of effort, but not everyone can be rewarded.

Not true. Everyone that provides something of value to society is rewarded. It's not about "working hard," you need to actually contribute something to society to get rewarded for it.

The point is that we require a functional economy. If everyone was rewarded based on "working hard," we could all step outside, dig a hole, and then fill the same hole with dirt from another hole that someone else was digging. Hard work, yes, but totally worthless economically.

>Capitalism necessitates a hierarchy

Not true again. Capitalism presupposes nothing except that individuals are allowed the free exchange of their goods and services amongst one another. Socialism is defined by a rigid hierarchy where a select few individuals at the top have the sole power of providing employment. Socialism is, in fact, much more elitist than Capitalism, because in Capitalism there are any number of job creators, while in socialism there is only one.

>And of course the practical implementation of it is a failure.

Oh really? The economic system we've had in place, that has succeeded in bringing us through centuries of mindboggling technological progress, that has brought the quality of life up for every single individual (even the poorest person today lives better than a king hundreds of years ago), is "of course" a failure? Why have capitalist economies flourished for hundreds of years when every single attempt at socialism has resulted in a worsening economy and eventual bankruptcy?

>The theoretical model presupposes a fully egalitarian society

Again, incorrect. I'm starting to think your distrust of capitalism is from a complete failure of comprehension. Capitalism presumes that individuals are self interested and offers them a mechanism with which to express that self interest in order to benefit society. It's actually a rather ingenious device and set up.

>But the beauty of the notion, if we can get past that hitch, is that no one is left behind, no one is left out.

No one is left out in capitalism either. The only difference is the reward structure. If you don't want to contribute anything to society, a capitalist society will force you to provide for your own needs by growing your own food and making your own clothes. You will not be able to participate in market actions because you are not providing anything to the market. In socialism, these people are rewarded for doing nothing at the expense of those who actually do contribute to the overall economic wellfare. This is why life in socialist societies becomes steadily worse- the economic drain of the unproductive does in every socialist society.

>A real, effective system would require a system of human checks

Something like the human checks that natural competition provides in Capitalism? Why not allow multiple competitors to provide alternative products and let the people decide which one is better by which one they purchase? You cannot have a centrally run system checking itself. Once you put all of the power of employ into one place, you negate the power that any other institutions have. Whoever controls the ability of people to provide food for and clothe their family de facto controls the society. In Socialism, this is the government. In Capitalism, it is the people themselves.

>the instillation of the belief in children that helping others for mutual benefit is better than scheming for personal profit

This is again a failure of comprehension. Personal profit is not a dirty thing. One can only achieve personal profit by providing something of "mutual benefit" to society in a capitalist society. Furthermore, you're asking that human nature of wanting to help oneself and one's family to go away. But why? We have already addressed this with capitalism.

>The modern failure of it was the internally capitalist and hierarchical structure

Again, you're deadset on the idea that capitalism is hierarchical and socialism is not. Centrally planned authority is by its nature hierarchical, and dispersed, decentralized power will be less so. Don't keep it in your mind that capitalism is hierarchical and socialism is not- the latter is far more prone to great discrepancies than the first, and this has been proven time and time again in practical applications of socialism.

>I can see the appeal of both ideals, but I feel one would be more rewarding both personally and socially.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that you can because your understanding of both is flawed. Again, you're doing what all socialists do, which is comparing your ideals of socialism to the practical applications of capitalism.

I suggest you read Capitalism and Freedom to understand a bit more about capitalism, because this is where your knowledge is truly lacking.

If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:

1. The Law - While over a century old this books stands as the perfect intro to the ideas of Classical Liberalism. When you understand the core message of this book you understand why people oppose so many aspects of government action.
   
2. Seeing Like A State - The idea that society can be rebuilt from the top down is well demolished in this dense but important read. The concept of Legibility was a game changer for my brain.
   
3. Stubborn Attachments - This books presents a compelling philosophical argument for the importance of economic growth. It's hard to overstate how important getting the balance of economic growth vs other considerations actually is.
   
4. The Breakdown of Nations - A classic text on why the trend toward "bigger" isn't a good thing. While various nits can be picked with this book I think its general thesis is holding up well in our increasingly bifurcated age.
   
5. The Joy of Freedom - Lots of books, many objectively better, could have gone here but this book was my personal pivot point which sent me away from Socialism and towards capitalism. This introduction to "Libertarian Capitalism" is a bit dated now but it was powerful.
   
   There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.
   
   Some honorable mentions:
   
   As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons
   
   The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.
   
   Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.
   
   The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.
   
   Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.
   
   You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.
   
   So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
   I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.

Link to the book, "Why Not Capitalism?": http://smile.amazon.com/Why-Not-Capitalism-Jason-Brennan/dp/0415732972/

Amazon Summary:
>Most economists believe capitalism is a compromise with selfish human nature. As Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Capitalism works better than socialism, according to this thinking, only because we are not kind and generous enough to make socialism work. If we were saints, we would be socialists.

>In Why Not Capitalism?, Jason Brennan attacks this widely held belief, arguing that capitalism would remain the best system even if we were morally perfect. Even in an ideal world, private property and free markets would be the best way to promote mutual cooperation, social justice, harmony, and prosperity. Socialists seek to capture the moral high ground by showing that ideal socialism is morally superior to realistic capitalism. But, Brennan responds, ideal capitalism is superior to ideal socialism, and so capitalism beats socialism at every level.

>Clearly, engagingly, and at times provocatively written, Why Not Capitalism? will cause readers of all political persuasions to re-evaluate where they stand vis-à-vis economic priorities and systems—as they exist now and as they might be improved in the future.

> I think you have trouble understanding that I know that Capitalism is a very effective way to drive innovation as long as it may generate profit.

Great, so now we agree on something... it's not much, but it's something.

> It is however a very bad driver for innovation when there is not much profit behind it.

I never said it was perfect! What I am saying is that overall, it's the most efficient way to drive innovation across the board. That is, overall, it will produce more innovative ideas than any other model out there.

> But even if it would be the most awesome innovation driver ever and have no downsides in that department, it is fatally flawed in its core. Now I could give you the work of Dr. Murray Low to read as well (https://www.amazon.com/Seventeen-Contradictions-Capitalism-David-Harvey/dp/1781251606/280-4905634-3720005)

If you're done trying to make the logical case for your position, then I'll start throwing books and videos your way too!

The fact is that good ideas stand on their own merits. I don't need to watch a 90 minute video from somebody with whom I can't have a discussion. If I don't agree with any of the premises he proposes, then I have no way to rebut them and get an answer.

> When a system is as flawed as Capitalism we must look out for alternatives. And that may be Communism (or for Marxists rather Socialism because that is the transition before Communism).

We already know which systems provides us with the fundamentals to consistently and efficiently produce the most good ideas and eliminate the bad ones:

• In science, it's the scientific method.
  
• In politics, it's democracy.
  
• In economics, it's capitalism.
  
  Are all of these system perfect? Far from it, but they're the most efficient ones we have available. Now, I'm all for the proposal and adoption of better ideas, but we've already tried the bad ones (religion, dictatorship, communism, etc.), so we don't need to try them again.
  
  > Also I am really interested in what "pure" Socialism is? There are multiple Socialist Systems: Anarchism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Planned Economy Socialism, and so on and on...
  
  We start with a fundamental concept: effort and reward. When I place my effort into something, which system will allow for the most efficient and largest yield of reward? If any of those forms of socialism do, and they do so more efficiently than capitalism, then let's adopt them. And if you're claiming that they do, then please bring forth the evidence that demonstrates it.

Thanks for posting, appreciate the post. I have been considering tech like others, I wanted to just put a few thoughts down, but there's easily so much, so this is messy.

If you go off of work like Beniger's "Control Revolution," technology can be seen almost entirely within a context of control, of separating access to information and displacing authority from those controlled by the outcomes; he seems to define it as a direct continuation of the industrial revolution and bureaucracy through a lens of control (organizing a group to work together for a common goal).

A few weeks ago I came to the conclusion that technology appropriates the spell from the spell-caster. While this is perhaps a strange metaphor, if I write a phrase on a piece of paper, and that phrase sparks thought from anyone that views it, than to take that paper and copy it and hand it out allows someone to contextualize the phrase within the parameters of whoever copies it. Then my "spell" (a symbol that creates energy in reaction) is out of my hands, and usable by anyone, for whatever purpose. That is, technological reproduction allows control of the representation of intent.

Another issue is that technology now caters to platform reliance ("platform capitalism") - of renting out use of a tool, with the understanding that information about how you use the tool will be scrutinized and likely sold to others as an image of you. This places a ready middle-man (beyond the others...) as an integral part of both commerce and communication, and promotes a circular system of defining self and others through the authority of the platform (which is primarily interested in commerce).

Moving a lot of traditional meatspace things into the realm of IT... If I sell Dave an apple in person, he sees the apple, he hands me the money and we're done. If I sell Dave an apple online, there is an entire apparatus of bureaucracy between us that can obfuscate and control information, one that is ultimately reliant on commerce and attention, and several layers of interspersed but connected entities that operate outside of our awareness but have full access to all the details of a communication.

That's not even touching that social media pushes to homogeny because of the complexity of language and the inherent problems with communication (simpler messages are required for propagation); and if people utilize opportunities to define themselves within these confines, and don't define themselves otherwise, then they are being conditioned to define themselves by as simple terms as possible, which I imagine displaces one from a real sense of self (and thus strong personal opinions). Panopticon stuff - give ideas of authority so people police and define themselves through given narratives.

While I'm at it - technology in my mind also does create dependance on the intangible, which makes individuals more capable of being manipulated (in some ways); and by "embodying our cognition" into our tools (utilizing technology as a means of organizing and externalizing our thoughts), we risk becoming dependent on the machine being a representation of our thoughts, not just a tool for the mind (I consider IT folks that are conditioned to think in terms applicable to computers, and then using that perspective to define human beings in terms that are failures in comparison to the perfection of the computer).

The problem with this, at least with "computers" in general, is that it's all encapsulated within a highly specialized and controlled environment (which is addicting on these terms alone). Often I worry about kids because this is the world they can control entirely, and many feel as though they are disinterested in a world they can't control so readily. Which may push people to be more apathetic toward the physical world, I suppose; that is, more susceptible to not thinking about (and preparing for) actual physical force being used against them.

> Moreover, is technology ultimately stripping us of our present, forcing us to live in the past and future? As the Buddha states,...

This makes me think of so called "techno-shamanism" and utilizing computers as means of attaining mental states defined by flow (like playing a video game and being in the "present" of the game, in the same way one might get swept up in a song). Obviously to look at a screen you've already displaced yourself from some reality; but I don't want to say that the power to create "presence" in a virtual reality is devoid of positive consequence, though it is certainly different. It seems if anything, it's a personal/augmented state of presence, but still presence, in a sense, to the user. Not to say the rest, vast majority of IT use, is not about controlling and refining information on a screen in conceptual ways, which is certainly not being present.

I guess what I'm saying points to technology acting as an active force of divorcing us from ourselves (through controlling methods of embodied cognition) and mediating our understanding of others, while necessitating elaborate and well documented control mechanisms in-between all parties. Techno-immortality seems, unfortunately, like a predicated point in the future on the line of "progress," and I don't think there's much that can stop that or turn people away from the convenience it gives, especially when technological progress and superiority is necessitated in regards to the competitive capitalist system we exist in.

The immediate response is to your last point.

> We are, as a rule, talking about corporate profits here, so the connection between profits and social good is tenuous at best.

First of all, many smaller enterprises, such as YouTubers and other smaller producers are hurt by infringements of copy right as well as corporations and 'The Man'. Additionally, when no third party is harmed by the creation or transaction (called an externality in economics e.g. burning oil is an externality because everyone's natural resources suffer), a profit means that you created a social benefit. Big companies don't get paid arbitrarily; they're paid because people saw merit in their creations and chose to view or purchase those creations, hence, a social good.

If companies, small businesses, and content creators were paid far less for their work, far less quality content will be produced. If Disney knew they would barely turn a profit with every new release, would they throw billions at each movie and really ensure that it is a quality production? While many people are motivated by their own sense of creativity and desire to contribute, a significant portion of creation is driven by the desire for profits (not necessarily a bad thing). Without that desire, there would be no content, no creations for the public to enjoy.

Sauces:
https://youtu.be/tk862BbjWx4

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211


PS: While I believe that copyright and defense of intellectual property is necessary, modern American copyright law is fucking insane. Don't get me started on the DMCA.

> But lawmakers and regulators are necessary (unless you are in favor of anarchy). If we as a people are not able to elect competent lawmakers how would you propose they be selected?

I actually am in favor of anarchy. Specifically, I'm an anarchocapitalist following the ideas of David Friedman. Ideally I would like to see systems of law develop in a competitive marketplace whereby to as large a degree as is practical, people get to pick the legal system that best meets their own idiosyncratic needs. (We already have that to some degree but I'd like to see more.)

> You at least admit that the laws do some good ("these laws do more harm than good") and yet call them "just plain evil". Which is it?

Both. The harm outweighs the good to such a degree - predictably and reliably so - that only somebody who is willfully blind to the negative side of the equation could favor these laws. Even the worst laws do some good and even the best laws do some bad, so I don't see a contradiction there.

> Before the era of labor regulation market participants had seemed to negotiate thousands of children into lives of hard and dangerous labor.

I think I am aware of the arguments for your position that child labor laws were necessary and good laws passed by good people with good intentions and producing a good outcome for the people who were affected by these laws. Are you aware of the arguments for my position that they weren't? If not, we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

Side note: I've actually worked in a factory that employed a lot of 16-year-old kids full-time. I think the lives of those kids and their families were enriched by the experience; narrowing their opportunity set by passing a law banning that work would not be doing them a favor. (I took this picture) So I find it easier than most people to extrapolate to the American situation and see some reason for concern.

> Our long term success as a society depends not on throwing out the system all together, but in learning what works and what doesn't.

The US was successful despite throwing out the system all together and starting fresh. Rand would like to return to something closer to that system - a constitutional democracy that was actually limited by its constitution instead of growing without bounds despite it. I'd actually go further and say that starting over fresh is a pretty good idea. Our ship of state has accumulated so many barnacles that it may be time to stop scraping and build a new ship.

No offense but your grasp of Hayek's work and its importance in economics is pretty superficial at best, and wildly off base at worst (e.g. "basically one idea", though I'm not sure how literally you meant that). And you don't have to take my word on it, several prominent Nobel prize winners-- working in diverse fields in economics-- were deeply influenced by his work, and notably the fields in which they were most prominent seem to have little if anything to do with business cycles or political polemics like RtS (for what it's worth, in my view RtS is Hayek's least interesting work by a fairly significant margin). Just off the top of the head: Douglass North, Elinor Ostrom, Vernon Smith, James Buchanan, and Ronald Coase.

North himself is on the record in saying Hayek was the greatest social scientist of the 20th century. That would be an astonishing claim for someone of North's stature to make if Hayek's important work was limited to business cycles (which, as you correctly note, hasn't found any kind of widespread acceptance in contemporary econ) or political polemics. It's at least slightly less astonishing if you drop that assumption and instead recognize that Hayek worked on a number of other projects, and that his work in particular on institutions and how they structure human behavior laid much of the groundwork for North's own later work.

It's probably also worth pointing out his influence hasn't been limited to economists, e.g. see political philosopher Jerry Gaus's work. I think John Tomasi is another, though I'm not as familiar with his work.

For secondary sources, you might find Bruce Caldwell's intellectual biography Hayek's Challenge to be a useful starting point, or perhaps Peter Boettke's FA Hayek. For primary sources, I'd recommend starting with the first volume of the Law, Legistlation, and Liberty series, Rules and Order.

> Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore do not have the Communist Party. Their willingness to do whatever it takes to maintain stability, which now means to continue their perfect 5%+ GDP growth means that tactics like these are not out of the question. While my knowledge of Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore are not as in-depth as it is for mainland China, I do no believe their governments can pressure them as much as this government here, which can and will, make sure a company that doesn't comply loses everything in a matter of weeks or months, and make sure that the bosses are scapegoated in a way that makes them sound like completely unsympathetic scoundrels, and then the company must appoint new leaders.

I am very familiar with Japan, South Korea and Singapore's development and their governments. All of them developed under a 1 party or authoritarian government. Growth in these countries have also continued with their perfect 5%+ GDP growth for over 3 to 4 decades. Things changed only after the became developed, not while developing, and definitely not when their economies were at present day China's GDP per capita.

>China did lose its culture in a sense, but it also has not because the one thing that has been constant throughout Chinese history have been the communities. These communities were the bastions of culture, and while the Red Guard did their best to ruin any kind institutes of knowledge, culture, and capitalism, remember that there were still some that were safe, some too remote, and a vast number of other reasons why in different places some things survived.

Yet you chose to pick and choose as you wish to suit your narrative. The "safe, some too remote, and a vast number of other reasons why in different places some things survived" thing tells us that it barely survived but you said earlier that this IS the Chinese culture that's deeply rooted within Chinese society, implying that it's common and widespread instead of being confined to some remote parts of China that hasn't been affected by the Red Guards.

>Simplified platitudes make it easy to label and learn, but I would say that it keeps you from seeing the beauty inherent in its complexity, no matter how much China wants you to believe its homogeneity.

Ironic considering how you just labeled their culture as a homogeneous one that has its culture of copying being deep rooted within the Han examinations even though few people ever made it to the examinations in the past.

>Germany, Britain, France, the US, etc. did not have rules in place where anyone who came to their country and built factories had to have a local in charge of the company and have basic control over everything that work there.

Actually they did, and they did things that were far more protectionist than China. I would recommend the book 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang to learn more about their protectionist policies and state sponsored espionage systems (including a bounty system to steal trade secrets from Europe by the US as ordered by Alexander Hamilton himself.)

Here's the link to the book. Buy it if you like it.

https://marcell.memoryoftheworld.org/Ha-Joon%20Chang/23%20Things%20They%20Don%27t%20Tell%20You%20About%20Capitalism%20(1550)/23%20Things%20They%20Don%27t%20Tell%20You%20About%20Capita%20-%20Ha-Joon%20Chang.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608193381/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

And excerpt from the book:

>Two basket cases

>Here are the profiles of two developing countries. You are an

economic analyst trying to assess their development

prospects. What would you say?

>Country A

Until a decade ago, the country was highly
protectionist, with an average industrial tariff rate well above
30 per cent. Despite the recent tariff reduction, important
visible and invisible trade restrictions remain. The country
has heavy restrictions on cross-border flows of capital, a
state-owned and highly regulated banking sector, and
numerous restrictions on foreign ownership
of financial
assets. Foreign firms producing in the country complain that
they are discriminated against through differential taxes and
regulations by local governments. The country has no
elections and is riddled with corruption. It has opaque and
complicated property rights. In particular, its protection of
intellectual property rights is weak, making it the pirate
capital of the world. The country has a large number of state-
owned enterprises, many of which make large losses but
are propped up by subsidies and government-granted
monopoly rights.


>Country B

The country’s trade policy has literally been the
most protectionist in the world for the last few decades, with
an average industrial tariff rate at 40–55 per cent. The
majority of the population cannot vote, and vote-buying and
electoral fraud are widespread. Corruption is rampant, with
political parties selling government jobs to their financial
backers. The country has never recruited a single civil
servant through an open, competitive process. Its public
finances are precarious, with records of government loan
defaults that worry foreign investors. Despite this, it
discriminates heavily against foreign investors. Especially in
the banking sector, foreigners are prohibited from becoming
directors while foreign shareholders cannot even exercise
their voting rights unless they are resident in the country. It
does not have a competition law, permitting cartels and
other forms of monopoly to grow unchecked. Its protection of
intellectual property rights is patchy, particularly marred by
its refusal to protect foreigners’ copyrights.


>Both these countries are up to their necks in things that
are supposed to hamper economic development – heavy
protectionism, discrimination against foreign investors,
weak protection of property rights, monopolies, lack of
democracy, corruption, lack of meritocracy, and so on. You
would think that they are both headed for developmental
disasters. But think again.

>Country A
is China today – some readers may have
guessed that. However, few readers would have guessed
that
Country B
is the USA – that is, around 1880, when it
was somewhat poorer than today’s China.
Despite all the supposedly anti-developmental policies
and institutions, China has been one of the world’s most
dynamic and successful economies over the last three
decades, while the USA in the 1880s was one of the fastest-
growing – and rapidly becoming one of the richest –
countries in the world. So the economic superstars of the
late nineteenth century (USA) and of today (China) have both
followed policy recipes that go almost totally against today’s
neo-liberal free-market orthodoxy.

--

>As far as Americans used to advertise for people to steal trade secrets, that's a difference in culture. That's something you find out after you take the job. They won't tell you beforehand. They'll wait until afterwards to let you know about the extra responsibilities outside of the contract.

No, it was literally a bounty system set up by one of the founding fathers of the United States (Alexander Hamilton) to go to Europe and steal trade secrets. The US government paid people to steal from Europe.

I've heard interesting arguments before about fixing healthcare by re-organizing it to actually be more truly free market (which we don't really have currently). For instance, not using a patent exclusion system for medicines, and instead encouraging a manufacturing licensure system instead. That is, a large pharmaceutical research company would make its money not by having exclusive rights to produce it for so many years (effectively a monopoly designed to ensure that they get their investment back), but instead would profit by licensing out their new medicines to separate manufacturers. In this sort of system, the medical research companies would profit most by selling as many licenses as possible, while the manufacturers would profit most by being competitive with other manufacturers. You would still probably need stringent FDA regulation to make sure this doesn't lead to a race to the bottom in quality and standards to get low prices (and thus compete more), but it would at least orient the industry back into a more free market system, thus reducing prices. (For reference, this approach came from the book "Towards a Truly Free Market").

Now, granted, I'm sure there's some aspect of the pharmaceutical industry that I'm not aware of that may make such an approach untenable, but it's at least a line of thinking that tries to fix the underlying problems, and not just gloss over it by focusing on how to pay for it. I also can't say for certain how you could apply similar principles to other aspects of the medical industry, but ultimately, if you can improve the currently inflating prices, the underlying payment system becomes less of a problem.

Jeremy Rifkin's book The Zero Marginal Cost Society goes into great detail about the loss of jobs due to automation and technological innovation. His contention is that traditional capitalism, who's goal is to produce the best product or service at the lowest cost, will eventually win. We're already seeing this in certain sectors that were once quite expensive but have plummeted as technology has improved.

His argument is that in time everything will become less and less expensive. He doesn't talk about or suggest UBI at all, but there will be a tipping point reached when the number of displaced workers will crash the system. It's a mathematical certainty, just as the point reached when the number of active workers paying into social security will fall until there's insufficient funds to pay current recipients.

In other words, we're inventing ourselves into the poorhouse.

Until we reach Rifkin's "Shared Society" a UBI will be an excellent transition. I've been following the efforts in Finland and Switzerland, but there are other countries as well. This idea has been bouncing around in the halls of power for well over a year now. It's not far-fetched at all.

Will agree though that giving everyone a mere $13,000 irregardless of state is untenable. There will have to be cost of living provisions. Someone living in rural Vermont won't have the same monetary needs as someone living in the San Francisco metro area.

Now let's get to one of the fundamentals of both capitalism and socialist policies. The type of statements as the ones below, you made, is clearly capitalist so lets use that one. When you speak of the consumer in that manner you ASSUME a whole lot of prerequisites, for that to be true. First of all, in reality most of these prerequisites are often not present or function differently. An example: decrease tax on the rich, they will have alot of money to spend, that will make them invest and that creates jobs right? However, in practise they don't necessarily reinvest all that money, also they might not reinvest in industries that offer an optimal increase of jobs. What if they invest in Van Gogh paintings? Hows that going to get you jobs? Its not, thus its better if the government keeps that tax intact, and decides itself where that money will have most positive influence on the economy. Throughout our current predominantly neo-liberal reading of the economy and government policy, the idea is that we should deregulate and let the market work freely. But thats all based on a whole lot of assumptions which have already been proven to be non-existent or functioning in a different way. That's problematic. If you're not aware of the assumptions that are made to argue certain policies than you cannot really understand their merit. One of the assumptions that I find incredibly problematic is that the market will respond to the needs of society right? However, the market really doesn't necessarily function that way. Mostly because then you assume the market is some allknowing system that can adapt to all societies needs. That's ofcourse not the case. Another problematic assumption is that businesses/corporations supposedly can be trusted to perform their activities in a moral, responsible, attentive matter. That's in my opinion so utterly wrong that I cannot fathom how one could demand less regulation. You will get fucked up badly if you remove regulations, unless ofcourse youre a billionaire, then youll be fine.

>What you can do is punish "misbehaving corporations" by taking your dollars (pounds, euros, etc.) elsewhere. That is freedom.

This for example does not work for the practical reason that many businesses are essential and of such a size that you cannot avoid them. Also, you cannot simply assume that everyone has an income that allows them to choose accordingly. Those are just practical objections to individual action. It is however much more complicated, because how are you going to find out that some corporation uses slavery? How will you as an individual find out that certain chemicals in products might be harmful to your health? How would you find out that the origins of what you consume are really from that region? Now you might say; why would a business make products harmful for your health? thats not in their interest right? But this is just an incorrect assumption of how corporations etc function. Cars and their fumes are very harmful to us humans. Its not the car producers who care about that whatsoever. Its the governments that research harmful effects and the course of actions and regulations that need to be put in place to avoid further harm. As we've found out, eventhough we have these regulations in place to protect our well-being, companies will corrupt their software’s and cars in such a way that they can fool the regulations in place. Why? Because it makes them more money. Good thing is we got governments who regulate the car industry so they could give them a big ass multibillion dollar fine. This is also true for food. ESPECIALLY for food. Do you have any idea how terrifying the food industry was before regulations? There's no intrinsic motivation for a company to spend money on making or researching how to make a product less harmful. The only way they would is if its essential to maintaining their customers and thus their profit. But the alcohol and tobacco industry are prime examples of why in practice this does not happen. What do they care if a smoker dies at his 50th year due to smoking? Theyve got a new 12 year old kid addicted. That's their only requirement. Why would a food corporation spend millions if not hundreds of millions on making their product less harmful. The loss of 20.000 dead consumers worldwide per year does not represent enough of a profit loss to justify spending millions upon millions on research and product development. Then you might say, yes but but but stop buying. Nope... youre not even aware that shit is killing you because you dont have the means or the time to research the product.

>when the consumer already has ultimate control in their spending decisions. I am not talking about regulation of natural monopolies, so please do not use that as an argument. It will be ignored. All socialism does is increase Government corruption (see former Soviet Union) and reduce your own individual freedoms. How is that better than just being a responsible consumer?

That's the problem, the consumer does not have the ultimate control in their spending decisions. Now you already want to remove regulation of monopolies as a valid argument. Eventhough the regulation put in place in respect to natural monopolies was for THE GREATER GOOD. Which is a recurrent factor. Just a sidenote, if you want to have a real debate, you cannot exclude valid arguments from the debate prior to the debate simply because you personally don't view them as valid. However, lets ignore them as you wish. So lets get to this idea that the customer has ultimate control and freedom. Thats utter crap. Ill tell you why, when you go to the stores. There's only so many products you can buy. SO you are per definition restricted by the products that the market as a whole offers you. You can ONLY choose from the products that are OFFERED to you. Now there's massive corporations such as nestlé, etc. which simply cannot be avoided, and if you do you're stuck with the products from a few other corporations who areprobably guilty of the same shit. Therefore you need governments to regulate those corporations. Seriously though, you DO NOT have much freedom OR control as a customer. You are incredibly restricted by the market. Also, for many alternative productrs which are made by a more moral company means the price is alot higher. However, you cannot pay it because wages are too low. Why are wages too low? Because theres no regulation....


Or this one:
>If you say "too many people are irresponsible", then I will say "who are you to say what someone's choices should be?"

Because as a society you can/could/should take care of one another. Or not, depending on how you view your place as a human on this world. Anyway, in reality most people say that we should take care of irresponsible people. Why? well.... look at the Heroin Epedimics... Drugs are theoretically perfectly legitimate products which are pretty much one of the best examples of capitalist ideology. However, most societies in the world have decided that those products are harmful to such an extent that we cannot let people decide for themselves on that matter. You do the same with denying children access to alcohol. Or denying children access to cars. Its not the corporations or producers who push for such regulations. Its the government/people.
Its the same with having a police which will ensure that your neighbour doesnt slit your throat and takes your car. What has this to do with capitalism and economics? Well, it does to serve as an example that in society we CONSTANTLY put laws and regulations in place to PROTECT the weak against the powerful. In our current world Corporations/businesses in general are among the most powerful entities. We thus need to be protected against them through governments. Some corporations are so incredibly powerful that nations need to COOPERATE to avoid too much harm.

And that in the end is the core to it, you attribute way way way too much influence to individuals. Even if a whole lot individuals come together they cannot create a strong enough force without interference of the government. Look at laborlaws etc. Look at the past and all these practises which look despicable and disgusting to you are removed by regulating abuses that comce from a capitalist system. Now the mistake is to interpret criticism of capitalism as 'thus capitalism fails entirely whoop whoop communism'. NO, the point is to identify where capitalism and the market can not be trusted to make the choices that are best for society/the commonm good. That's where we as a society THROUGH the government interfere.

Which brings me to my last point. Yes, the American government has many flaws which have for a great deal to do with legalised bribery through lobbying etc. However, there's plenty of societies in Europe where it does work a lot more effectively. In my country people do not hate government, nor regulation. Sure theyre oftne not satisfied, but thats inevitable. But pretty much everyone understands the necessity of the government. Because the government isn't the enemy. Its OUR means to influencing corporations and the economy. That's why Americans need to start understanding their own society/government/economy differently, so they can retake the government to make it function FOR the people as it is supposed to.

Also I would highly reccomend the following book: https://www.amazon.de/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/0141047976
Its very easy to read, its cheap, its compact and not long. No in depth knowledge of economics is required. Its also quite funny while giving very useful insights how many assumptions which are made of how the economy works are flawed and incorrect. Its not some "Libtard" attack on capitalism. It just shows very well how some of the systems of our economies work, and how the dominant reading of how the economy works is often inaccurate..

I am saying that bitcoin is a very successful system, and that it's working according to some rules. Now, everybody who bought bitcoin so far, bought it accepting those rules. What you are saying is that the majority should have the right to impose rule changes on everybody else. Changes SHOULD be difficult. If you want to try something new and exciting, there are a lot of altcoins, and you can easily find something that better fits your needs.


The rule changes you have in mind are beneficial. However, the easier it is to make beneficial changes, the easier it is to introduce malicious changes by special interests. Low consensus points set bad precedents. Someone offline some time ago decided that full consensus is too difficult so let's make it representative democracy, and 50% should be enough so as many awesome ideas as possible get implemented. If you're into bitcoin, chances are that you're using it because you don't like the end result of that process.

Almost nobody NOW believes into removing the 21m cap. But than, 1) I do recommend you read book by Murray Rothbard about how they abolished the gold standard. It makes a fascinating read https://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Banking-United-States/dp/0945466331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482860462&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+money+in+the+united+states . 2) People who believe that the money must be blessed by a central bank and a government haven’t joined us yet. In the future that is going to change

> its pretty universally acknowledged that free trade is a good thing.

Funny how no one ever asks "good for who and good for what?". Good for prices and good for international corporations bottom line sure. Easy to make that economic model. Unfortunately we don't live in mathematical economic models, we live in the real world.

Most would consider it better to have:

• Domestic employment, not third world pollute all you want, barely above slave labor.
  
  
• Domestic successful companies, not international corporations who only take money out of the local economy.
  
  > I would argue that protectionism in that time didn't help economic conditions at all.
  
  If you actually care about this topic I suggest: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/0141047976
  
  

Hey, for all interested. Read a great book ( a little dry though) called 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. Really great read. Really relevant to recent happenings in our economy, most specifically executive compensation and lower taxes for the rich. The author explains while technically the of idea lower taxes for the rich works on paper (as with most economic theories), but fails to pan out in reality. These executives are just as greedy as the next person, and if the investment isn't enticing enough, they'll never go through with it. By no means, are the rich investing their tax savings, just to promote economic growth. He provides many statistics to support this claim. Furthermore, he argues that instead of having tax breaks for the rich, having tax breaks as an incentive to promote investment. You wan't to keep all the fucking money you made last year in a bank or in gold? Good for you, TAXED. You want to invest that money and give back to the community that supported you? TAX BREAK.

TL;DR: Check out 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. Gives you lots of statistics to tell the rich to shut the fuck up and raise their taxes.

>Let me be perfectly clear: there can be no liberty in a a world where no free market exists. Central planning necessitates control of every variable in order to maximize the result to society, which means that citizens participating in the plan must adhere to the central planners' decrees. Being offered choices by one's authoritarian rulers is not the equivalent to liberty; that is a false dichotomy.

Honestly, that's no more than asserting your own views.

I've seen some arguments in favor of economic freedom being necessary for other forms of freedom in Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom that are well-supported. Many such claims, though, seem to be little more than bald assertions. (And even of Friedman's arguments, while they may all be perfectly true, I'd prefer a more extensive collection of data supporting them, even if it made his book longer and more boring.)

Communism is nothing like laissez faire (literally meaning "let [them] do") capitalism. Although the United States is touted as a capitalist society we are very far flung from a purely free market system.

Free market implies there is no interference or meddling into any market, whatever that may be. Many people, especially in the US, will say that capitalism is the best system ever invented and that we should allow the market to act on its own because it is the most efficient method of organizing people, capital and wealth. For example, instead of some bureaucrat deciding how much bread should cost and how much of it should be produced the interaction between buyers and sellers of bread will determine the price and quantity produced.

In the USSR there actually was someone in charge of determining how much bread should be made and how much it should cost. But it was not just bread but everything that could possibly be produced was also determined centrally. Communist Russia therefore had a centralized or command economy, as there were a few people at the top deciding how goods and resources should be used and distributed. This, as you may have heard, ended pretty terribly, to put it lightly, for a lot of the people of the USSR and eventually brought on the Soviet collapse of the early 1990's.

So seeing how the many communist states have failed in the past, the reaction of many people is to say that not only is capitalism better than communism, pure capitalism is the best form of economy possible. In my opinion this is definitely not the case. And indeed, the US does not have a pure capitalist, Lassaize faire economy. Social security, medicare, and medicaid are all social welfare programs which aim to redistribute wealth. The FCC regulates television and radio, the FDA regulates food and drug production safety and standards, and the DEA keeps you from doing the 'bad' kind of drugs. There is immigration control and zoning laws. Like you said, countries impose taxes and tariffs on each others goods. The list goes on and on. All of these are examples markets constrained by some type of central agency.

An interesting book about the mix of economic policies and their success or failures is "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1608193381

> First, if you want to sound intelligent in a post, do not start of with lol. You would sound much more intelligent if you just left that out and started with "It's"

It's not my intention to sound intelligent, though I guess you're the expert on that. I started my post off with 'lol' because that was the first thing that came to mind upon reading your post.

You're convinced that any movements in the market are automatically optimal and efficient when there's actually no guarantee of that. It's a kind of social Darwinism that seeks to justify the current situation by claiming that since things have evolved this way that that's the best way that things can be. When shareholders seek to liquidate a company, it might be for the best, but then again, it might not be. For you to presume that it's always for the best is a rather tall claim.

The problem lies in where the benefits and costs go and who has the decision making power when it comes to liquidation/investment. For the workers who've invested a lot of time and effort they have a large cost imposed when the company gets sold off. However, workers almost never have a seat at the table where the decision is made to liquidate the company. Even if shareholders can make a larger amount of money over a longer period of time by keeping their investment in the company, they can make a smaller total amount of money in a much smaller period if they just kill development and sell off the assets, then they can just move their now larger and liberated investment to somewhere else and repeat the process. They don't shoulder the costs imposed on the workers, so it makes individual economic sense for them to make that decision even if overall it's a net loss when considering everyone involved. A lot of European countries have mandated worker representation on the board of directors which helps a lot.

>People may get better at their jobs, but they may not. Other companies have the ability to pick up the former employees, just like they have the ability to buy the equipment that the "asset stripper" is liquidating. Because people don't, people do not believe it is a worthwhile investment.

These things could happen, but they don't necessarily happen. It takes a lot of time, money, and effort to pick up the pieces of a liquidated company even if it was profitable before. Most people, like say the workers, don't have those capabilities, and those that do aren't inclined to because they could be making more money elsewhere doing short term investments.

>That might not be their intention, but it is the effect. You have to prove to me that it isn't.

You want me to prove a negative? What proof do you have that it is? Let's cut to the chase, no one is proving anything in /r/politics comments. If you are actually legitimately curious, read this book written by a Cambridge economist, it's got all kinds of facts and references and explains in much more detail where I'm coming from.

Source:
Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman's 10 part PBS series on his book Free To Choose.

wiki link




tldr; volume 1:

America's freedom and prosperity derive from the combination of the idea of human liberty in America's Declaration of Independence with the idea of economic freedom in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Friedman explains how markets and voluntary exchange organize activity and enable people to improve their lives. He also explains the price system. Friedman visits Hong Kong, U.S. and Scotland.

If political ideology were a flat line with totalitarianism monarchism on one end and anarchism on the other, the libertarian ideology would represent about 10-15% of the line on the voluntary end of it. So different libertarians have different ideal societies involving maybe a limited welfare system - to - just police and military and courts - to - no State at all.

That's all philosophical stuff though. In practice, what I'd envision anarchy looking like, as I am an anarchist, is very locally oriented emergent communities and social law determined by local markets, customs, morals, and cultures. Some of these communities may be highly cosmopolitan, some may be highly agrarian or industrial, some autarchic, some highly "international."

As for taxes and opt-in or whatever other details, a purely libertarian society would not have them -- libertarian communities would allow people to pursue whatever kind of voluntary defense or public goods arrangements that they wish. Other less-libertarian communities may have taxes for public goods or common defense. Details are fuzzy.

Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman is a good book on the topic. Also, if you were to post a question in r/libertarian, you might get a good amount of different ideas. I personally prefer not to be too specific precisely because I think the market will sort everything out. When people get too specific they tend to cling to that idea. So you'll commonly get the answer of "private defense agency" or something similar and it can get redundant. I tend to think things that work must be adaptable to reality and not hypotheticals so I'd like to imagine that a free society would be diverse in too many ways to describe.

Hope that answer helps. If not, then I may be able to clarify where you think it's confusing.

>opposes border control, opposes the 'fundamental human right' of a nation to police its borders, deport illegal immigrants, or indeed for communities to have any control over those who would show up, en masse, in their communities

We do not, and I have made this clear several times.

>similar groups in Europe

Parties in Europe seem to do well, and Europe broadly is doing well. We however, have the added benefit of learning from their experiences, to refine our positions.

>prying the cross off

>gave up the distributism and subsidiarity

Hey, call foul all you'd like, we continue to appeal to real and faithful Catholics, Christians in general, and people of other faiths, particularly because they believe in the vision of Distributism, Subsidiarity, Right to Life, and Freedom of Religion that we support.

For example, John Medaille, a prominent writer on Distributism openly supports us, so claiming we oppose Distributism is a hard sell, to me.

> Perhaps you'd care to disclose the particulars of the metaphysical pincicples that cash out capitalism, and what the rational/axiomatic justification is for accepting them, then?

This is a start - http://campus.aynrand.org/more/selected-full-essays/

I know I sound like a broken record but it really helps to read and grok before seeking out discussions or debates.

• Capitalism - the Unknown Ideal addresses this specifically
  
• The Virtue of Selfishness is a good collection of introductory essays
  
• OPAR is a good resource too. Although I have problems with some of Peikoff's original work, that book is, for the most part, a good one-stop-shop that outlines the philosophy
  
• PDF warning - This is a good reading list
  
  Finally, the ARI offers some decent academic courses on Objectivism.,

>If George, Oliver, and I had entered a mutual agreement that whenever someone falls into dire straits, the others'd pitch in, I would be very inclined to coerce George to help, because he'd agreed to do so.

If it was an explicit contract, I would agree with you. The social contract cannot be substituted - it's too vague and never defined, it cannot be used to obligate someone to do something.

>First of all, democratic decisions are a concept that I'd love to hear a better alternative to, because at the moment it seems like it's the least bad option for allowing "everyone" in a society to influence how that society works.

The Machinery of Freedom

>Any form of "not everyone gets a say" means some people will be unable to give their opinion, and you could ask yourself whether you'd like to be at the mercy of someone else's vote, without even the ability to try to influence said vote with your own opinion.

Do you actually think your vote matters today? Really? It's statistically insignificant, and if you are in the minority you have no say even if your vote were to count.

>Secondly, societies with welfare-programs funded by taxes are an implicit agreement entered into by all its citizens

Sorry, but that's BS. It's an obligation forced upon people because the government will imprison you don't want to pay. Do you ever get to vote on welfare programs at the federal level? No. You have to hope and pray the person you vote for shares your view and can actually do something about it if elected. It's a major crapshoot.

>or B) leave the country in question and emigrate to a nation where the society is structured more to their liking.

Ever notice this argument is only ever used against people who want to be left alone? If you want more government involvement, I could tell you to move to Europe or North Korea and to leave me alone. Do you think that's still a reasonable argument?

>then you're probably supposed to stop enjoying the privileges of other people giving their money to you or to the common good of a society or state.

Wrong. I'm still forced to pay for these things, so I will continue to use them until I have the option of NOT paying AND not getting the service in return.

>I'm in favour of helping out those in need because the sheer idea of refusing help to someone in those dire straits of life seems immoral at the very core of it.

Fantastic! So am I. It's called voluntary donation - CHARITY! It's not charity when you don't have a choice. Liberals love to conflate taxes with charity, and I don't know why. Maybe instead of taxes that fund a ton of bad things, you could instead voluntarily donate to the poor to help them even more than the government does now! Maybe your system is hurting the poor unnecessarily.

>this applies to e.g. the Nordic countries as well, where the minimum wages are AFAIK quite higher (even compared to relative costs of living),

Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all don't have minimum wages

If you are interested in books that read as generic non-fiction books and not as textbooks, these two were interesting to me and assigned by professors (one of my majors was economics).

The Choice by Russell Roberts is a very accessible text about international trade (so this book will definitely drive home how free trade is best for society as a whole) but its themes are relevant to general economic theory as well. It is written in the form of Platonic conversation where the entire story is just two people talking back and forth in a question:answer format. My macro professor made all of his classes read it, even his honors students.

The Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian Lincoln Simon explores issues of resource scarcity, population dynamics, and technology diffusion; each of these is important to economic theory and the themes and anecdotes explored here are common to economics. Some of the ideas expressed might fall more into the Austrian/Libertarian camp, but certainly not all (it isn't always black-and-white).

You should read The Machinery of Freedom and/or Chaos Theory. Both books build a case for market-based alternatives to the state better than anyone will do in this thread.

However, I should also mention that Robert Nozick – who some believe to have made the best intellectual case for libertarianism in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia – came to the conclusion that government should provide basic protective services (and only basic protective services) including police, courts, and a military. He described his ideal state as a "Night Watchman State" – and is today usually associated with minarchism. His book is the opposite of an easy read, but if you really like to nerd-out or enjoy punishment, I definitely recommend it.

In any case, my point is that academic libertarians have largely answered your questions, either by describing how a stateless society could effectively provide protective services, or by making a case for a government that is limited to providing only basic protective services.

Thanks, will do, a lot of the stuff I've read is because of reddit or my early interest in Sci-Fi, but even reddit is getting filled up with snappy one liners as Digg once was as well. ;) But regardless of how financially unequal our society is getting, it's still the freedom I 'defended' in the military, like Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

It is sad that Jim Inhofe is such an Koch swilling ass, as I much prefer Jared Diamonds take in Guns, Germs, and Steel. But I did read Rifkin's latest as well. It is very interesting. I also liked David Brin's prescient work The Transparent Society as well.

And Neil Stephenson's REAMDE was awesome. Spoiler alert, don't read the full wiki if you want to actually read the book.

Oh no doubt their have been some great minarchist's along the way. Though I would point out that at least in the case of Friedman both subsequent generations have rejected minarchy in favour of Anarcho-Capitalism. The son David Friedman, even went on to write the book on it so to say, "The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism". The grand son Patri Friedman, is head of the Sea Steading Institute, working on building private floating cities at sea. It is true that current politics favour the minarchist over the anarchist since it is easier to fit in. But most definitely a debate for another time.

No, you really are confused dude. Where are you getting this idea that everyone's wealth is going up at once? Please source this. Explain to me, please, the economic theory here where everyone's relative wealth can all go up together.

Rothbard:

>To gauge the economic effects of inflation, let us see what happens when a group of counterfeiters set about their work. Suppose the economy has a supply of 10,000 gold ounces, and counterfeiters, so cunning that they cannot be detected, pump in 2000 “ounces” more. What will be the consequences? First, there will be a clear gain to the counterfeiters. They take the newly-created money and use it to buy goods and services. In the words of the famous New Yorker cartoon, showing a group of counterfeiters in sober contemplation of their handiwork: “Retail spending is about to get a needed shot in the arm.” Precisely. Local spending, indeed, does get a shot in the arm. The new money works its way, step by step, throughout the economic system. As the new money spreads, it bids prices up–as we have seen, new money can only dilute the effectiveness of each dollar. But this dilution takes time and is therefore uneven; in the meantime, some people gain and other people lose. In short, the counterfeiters and their local retailers have found their incomes increased before any rise in the prices of the things they buy. But, on the other hand, people in remote areas of the economy, who have not yet received the new money, find their buying prices rising before their incomes. Retailers at the other end of the country, for example, will suffer losses. The first receivers of the new money gain most, and at the expense of the latest receivers.

My problem is not that rich people exist, my problem is that too few have the opportunity and the wrong people are rich for the wrong reasons and are FAR richer than they would have been in an actual free market.

I am also concerned because the US is losing its middle class, it is shrinking before our eyes. Statist apologists claim that it is because we are too free. People like you claim that it's not happening.

http://rt.com/usa/news/america-class-study-middle-521/

Between the two of you, it seems I can't win. YES, wealth disparity is increasing. YES, the middle class is shrinking. NO, it's not because of "Reaganomics" and NO the nineteenth century was not impoverished. Go read "The History of Banking in the United States" by Rothbard, learn how the wealth of a nation was stolen throughout US history. It's only gotten worse with the creation of the Federal Reserve. The Fed and Corporate personhood are the engines of wealth creation now and we have NOTHING resembling anywhere CLOSE to a free market. You must have skipped the parts where Rothbard spoke about no multi-regional monopolies ever having been formed without government aid. Do you also happen to believe Standard Oil was a natural consequence of the market? I suspect you do.

You also need to source where you are getting your numbers from. ALSO, the 1890s do NOT represent pre-corporate personhood US, if you believe that you as ignorant as I am beginning to suspect.

Go read a book and leave me alone.

For anyone interested, I can recommend Ha-Joon Chang's 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. Dr. Chang is a Reader of Economics at Cambridge, and is well known for taking free-market ideologies and policies to task, and there is a great chapter where he addresses the, "private will always outperform public" myth. It's aimed at someone with no specialist knowledge of economics, so it can be somewhat simplistic in places, but it does a good job of giving a general critique of free-market, neo-liberal ideology.

Also, as someone who travels by East Coast a few times a year (York to London), I completely agree. East Coast is by far the best service I have ever used; it would be appalling to privatise it.

The article touches on the work of economist and tech investor William Janeway, whose work you can read in Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy. I highly recommend the book, but its core thesis can be summarized with some key arguments both intuitive and counterintuitive.

The book essentially argues that innovation is a fundamentally unpredictable activity defined by extreme, and unknowable, risk. There are roughly two categories of risk: in the basic science (i.e. is the technology possible) and in the market (can it be turned into a cost effective and useful product).

To deal with risk of the first kind, we need heavy amounts of public spending on basic science. Janeway argues in his book that the digital revolution was made possible because the bulk of the basic science involved, i.e. establishing the basic viability of computers and networks, was done by public funding (often with the DoD as the only customer).

More counter intuitive is the second argument, that involving market risks, which is that speculation is in fact a necessary evil in developing useful consumer technologies. Again the premise here is that it is impossible to know ahead of time what useful consumer products might come from basic science, how they might be made, who might make them, and when they might become profitable enough to be self sustaining. i.e. there is fundamental waste built into the nature of innovation. For risky tech ventures to get funding, there must be a larger speculative market that is willing to absorb them, including the failures, so that the successes might benefit everyone.

Janeway argues that this is why the first dot com bubble was actually a good thing despite its extreme 'wastefulness' since the investment that went into building infrastructure and the few successes that came from it laid the foundation for the genuinely useful and pervasive digital technologies that we have today. Essentially, there is a upper bound on just how efficient we can be when dealing with unknowable things, and pushing against that limit will only stifle innovation.

AnCap here. I don't speak for all AnCaps anymore than any libertarian speaks for all libertarians. Here's my data point:

Prisons: Law would have to be reformed first. Instead of having a central legal authority we'd have different arbitration businesses who had market incentives to hold up their reputation. All law would become in the fashion of civil law as we now think of it, where enforcement becomes the recognized prerogative of the one who wins the judgement. People too poor to enforce the judgement themselves could sell part of the resulting proceeds to someone who can, or could use a rights enforcement organization to do the work.

This is not dissimilar to how a large number of historical legal systems have worked. I know David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman) is working on a book about systems like these, and his book The Machinery of Freedom has a more in depth explanation.

Prisons might be run by Rights Enforcement Agencies, or perhaps they would be companies that offer to house criminals to protect them from those avenging blood in exchange for the output of their labor. If you murdered someone and were afraid someone would be taking vengeance, you might hire a prison to shelter you while you work for them. How long you stay or how effective those prisons are at eventually helping you rebuild your life and on which terms they offer their services would determine which ones are successful.

Slavery: We catch flak for this? It's wrong. Forcing someone to work for you is wrong, whether it's in the fields, in prisons, or in the bakery.

Immigration and Borders: The only real borders are private property borders. Do immigrants use up social welfare programs? Of course-- you can't live here without interacting with government services and products. Would I do the same thing in their position? Probably. If they saw so much better opportunity here than there I can hardly blame them for doing it. Am I going to try to stop them in order to avoid them taking up social programs? No. Am I going to support social programs? No. By the time we're talking about who does and who doesn't get to cross the national border and participate in state programs, as far as I'm concerned, we've already 'divided by zero' and any solution is just as valid as any other: That is, not at all.

Race Realism: I don't care. There might be some evidence of aggregate differences between people of different genetic lines. I don't have any reason to believe these differences are likely to be larger than the differences between any two arbitrary individuals, so it hardly matters.

Even if it did matter, it's a red herring for the purposes for which it's used. I run my life, and other people run theirs. I should be free to work or not work, sell to or not sell to, buy from or not buy from, any person I please using whatever criteria I please. If I go to an establishment where I know they hate my race and try to order food there, I should expect I'll be refused. If they're forced to serve me anyway, I should expect they'll spit in my food when I'm not looking, and that I'll have more enemies in the process and no more friends than I had when I started. In such a case I'm free to build my own restaurant or patronize one that better values me. These tasks may be harder, but they give me the freedom to make my own destiny instead of depending on someone else to be nice to me, or to be forced to be nice to me.

As long as I'm not attacking or stealing from someone, or coercing someone, it's not an issue. Let people choose how they live their own lives. My expectation is that most racial tensions will eventually go away when we stop trying to either enforce them or force them to go away. Different groups will come up with different solutions, they will trade these solutions, and it will become in everyone's own selfish interest to get to know people from other races in order to profit personally. Then most of the divides will melt away of their own accord, though it may take a long time.

>Literally nothing you have said is a factual statement. You’re just regurgitating the exact same talking points the OP mentioned. All bluster, zero substance.

“men should stop raping women” - Sarah Hanson Young. For a party who prides itself on gender equality, they sure know how to conflate all men into the rapey category. Replace "men" with another noun in public and see how it sounds, you'd probably be dragged into the human rights court.

>You “read some books” did you? Which ones exactly did you read, and which parts of them are you citing to support your tirade?

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

Give them a read, maybe you'll grow up.

>Also, you can fuck right off with your jingoistic “traditional Australian values” bullshit. Unless you’re an indigenous Australian, you have no more claim to what constitutes traditional Australian values than anyone else living here. We are an egalitarian nation, a nation that believes in fairness and a “fair go”. That sounds a lot closer to Socialism than the capitalist welfare state you’re batting for.

Didn't take long to go from "Indigenous Australians" to "Socialism" - so I won't take you seriously from here on in. Also, don't pretend like Australia is the only country that has been conquered and had it's culture changed by the conquers, it's pretty much happened to every piece of dirt on the planet...

>On the subject of “capitalism and markets”, no one in Australia hates fair competition more than the LNP. Government grants with no tender process? That’s not capitalism. Massive tax breaks and government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry? That’s not capitalism. The Greens would welcome a level playing field, where neither fossil fuels or the renewables industry got any government money. Would you?

Assuming I support the LNP. Assuming I support croney capitalism > free markets. Assuming I support subsidies at all. Assuming I don't support a level playing field that comes with free market capitalism. Pretending like the Greens even support a level playing field, because they don't support the idea of letting the market decide between renewable and fossil fuels naturally (even when renewables are winning the race, naturally, no thanks to big government, rather individuals and big tech).

https://greens.org.au/platform/renewables

"Under our plan, a set percentage of electric vehicle sales by car manufacturers will be mandated so that fossil fuel cars are transitioned off the road, and the cost of electric vehicles will be significantly reduced so more people can buy them sooner. "

https://greens.org.au/platform/public-ownership

"The Greens believe electricity, banking and the internet should be run as essential services, putting public good before corporate profit."

Totally a level playing field /s

Hitler, Marx, Lennin, Napoleon (totally not tyrants) loved Nationalizing things too and history shows it worked wonders /s

I better Venezuela to that list, nationalising everything there went exactly to plan /s

>I’m predicting you have nothing coherent to say and crawl back under your rock after some pathetic insults and a half-arsed assertion of victory. Surprise me.

Speak for yourself. Go take a long hard look in the mirror.

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.

(Meant to post this as a reply apols)

Yes, You may be right and I may be wrong.

But these changes are happening regardless - so I think it's worth following through the arguments, specifics and potential policies we might like to see enacted so that it works out for the best.

You know, we should think like Contact and formulate views and express them to the outside world.

Funnily enough companies right now are struggling with the concept of zero margin business. See Amazon/Wholefoods as a small example.

Or this : https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Marginal-Cost-Society-Collaborative/dp/1137280115

Rifling has a good website that explains tech and 'the end of capitalism' and how it all might work out.

And the concept of a Universal Basic Income is related to this. Or as workers are displaced by robots - perhaps giving ownership shares to all workers past and present.

These topics strike me as best considered with a Culture mindset and a Contact practicality. What society should we aim for and what should we do to achieve that?

I just realized something. Everyone on this subreddit IS Contact...

You may want to check out Free Market Fairness by John Tomasi. It's a bit academic (but you seem fine with that) attempt to build a research program based on bridging what Tomasi calls the "High Liberal" and "Classical Liberal" or Libertarian positions. Essentially he wants to create a political perspective that give weight to social justice issues while also assigning a great deal of importance to personal economic freedom.

I'm not finished the book but it's a really good primer on the background of the different branches of Liberal philosophy and clearly lays out what the main points of contention are between them. It doesn't have any solid answers, but does raise a lot of questions and gives you lots to think about. Check out this interview with him on the Philosophy Bites podcast.

> Are there authors writing from a more contemporary standpoint about how distributism would work in the modern, internet-based economy?

I haven't read anything from them yet, but the two modern Distributist authors are John Mueller and John Medaille.

John Mueller wrote "Redeeming Economics" which, from the reviews, seems to be the more religious of the two. Again, I haven't read it yet so take my words with a grain of salt.

https://www.amazon.com/Redeeming-Economics-Rediscovering-Missing-Enterprise/dp/1932236953/

Medaille wrote "Toward a Truly Free Market".

https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist/dp/161017027X/

As far as reading goes, you might want to start with "Rerum Novarum" from Pope Leo XIII. You can read it free online.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

When it comes to Chesterton and Belloc, I recommend you start with Belloc. Most will tell you to start with Belloc's "Economics for Helen". I had to start with "The Servile State" because E for H was out of stock. Chesterton can be really verbose and his analogies don't always make sense to a modern audience. Of course with both of them you'll come across weird spellings and phrasing (to-day as opposed to today) but don't be discouraged.

I didn't use any of these justifications to do anything. I quoted the exact arguments Bruenig claimed were wrong, showed how they could be modified to be comparative rather than perfectionist and how that would insulate them from Bruenig's claims. You have re-stated the same claims he makes in the article, which does nothing to the comparative nature of the new claims.

Let me explain what the argument that Bruenig needs to make is: With respect to what he calls desert theory (which isn't actually desert theory, but that's not the point) "The principle 'to each according to what they produce' is good because of x, y, and z. Capitalism cannot satisfy this principle because of a, b, and c (he sort of does this if you accept the labor theory of value, which economists categorically rejected about 100 years ago), but Q can satisfy this principle." Bruenig does not do this ever for anything.

If you would like my justification for capitalism, the short version is that actual humans as they are would chose capitalism over any other practicable system, because they are required to by evolved moral norms and even if they had ideal moral norms, they would still choose capitalism.

I would recommend seeing the total picture of Objectivism, and seeing it is a superior ideology than libertarianism (or that Objectivism is in a way libertarianism, plus much, much, much more). Objectivism focuses on ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics which freedom absolutely depends on.

Atlas Shrugged
http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145

The Virtue of Selfishness
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_the_virtue_of_selfishness

Capitalism The Unknown Ideal
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Unknown-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Rand-Library-Volume/dp/0452011019

There is a significant difference between libertarianism and Objectivism, and people need to look hard at both sides and choose.

You're confusing the Industrial Economic Machine with The United States. The United States' power was diminished because power was shifted OUTSIDE the United States, and international global monetary policy was NOT decided by American senators and congressmen; but, rather, by shadowy unelected bankers.

America has NOT benefited from this loss of power and sovereignty. The United States is a debt slave. Every bit as much as the tiniest Third World country. More so.

Compare America's debt to, say, Ecuador. or Bhutan.

The United States has been stripmined and impoverished. In purchasing power, the average American worker used to make (in today's terms) about $100,000/year. Today, it's $34,000.

America has also had its manufacturing base gutted.

It used to be a self-sufficient country. But that scared the international bankers.

If you read Carroll Quigley's "The Tragedy and the Hope," he explains America's titanic natural wealth in terms of resources. He points out that, by 1900, America was producing more wheat than the next five countries combined. It was also dominating industrial production. South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang asked his son if he thought that China was dominant in manufacturing. His son said, "Of course. Look at Walmart. Everything in it seems to be made in China." Whereupon his father said, "China is responsible for about 15% of America's finished goods. At its height, the United States was at one time responsible for 85% of the finished goods on planet Earth." https://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1608193381/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=ha+joon+chang&qid=1570263938&sr=8-2

A great book from 1920 was "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt". See here: https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20140873/html.php In it, Frederick Soddy says that America's productive capacity is so massive that it poses a threat to the global economy. Due to all the stuff it was producing, the prices of goods naturally fell. (This terrified the international bankers.) That's why, once they seized control of America, they instituted the Department of Agriculture and started paying farmers NOT to grow. They needed to create artificial scarcity to keep the prices of things artificially high.

Soddy said that America could produce all its own goods internally: shoes, automobiles, radios, food, and so forth. Because of this, it had no need for imports. A quote from the book: "When one contemplates a country like the United States, which it has been computed could easily supply almost the entire wants of the whole world without over-exerting herself, a country which has few real wants which it could not as well supply within its own territory, and therefore with little use for imports, but an almost infinite capacity for exports, the problem looks frankly insoluble."

This would cause a "balance of trade" problem, Soddy cautioned.

England encountered one of these in the 18th Century. So much gold was flowing out of England to buy tea from India that the British Treasury didn't have enough gold to carry out transactions domestically.

(The British solved this balance of trade problem by selling opium in China and replenishing the Treasury with drug money.)

Long story short: Since America could export everything (and didn't need to import anything) all the money-flows would travel in one direction: to the United States. All the gold from the world's central banks would be flowing TO America.

The solution? Gut America's manufacturing capacity and make it reliant on imports.

Cripple its productive capacity and you can get the gold to flow OUT of the United States.

In summation: The history of the 20th Century was the history of how to stripmine and enfeeble the United States. How to deplete its gold reserves and transfer them OUT of the country. All the gold that was used to found the IMF and World Bank were from Fort Knox. Fort Knox is now empty.

The IMF and World Bank exist AT THE EXPENSE of the United States. And they were not designed to increase America's wealth, but to siphon it out. In the new Banker-Run post-WWII system, America would no longer be permitted to be independent or self-sufficient. It would be folded into a larger "global grid" and made "INTERdependent". Hint: This was NOT to benefit the American people, who are now poorer, more in debt, and who are forced to pay higher prices for everything. In the process they lost their manufacturing dominance and control of their own economy (and government).

Top 3 is obviously going to vary from person to person. Here's a good set of 3 books I'd recommend:

• Economics in One Lesson
  
• The Ethics of Liberty
  
• Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
  
  Between those three, you should get a basic grasp of economics and the ethical arguments for libertarianism.
  
  (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal also comes with the bonus of reading an article by Alan Greenspan in defense of the gold standard.)

cap·i·tal·ism

1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
   
   Yeah sounds like what I want. People voluntarily and spontaneously trading labor or capital for goods and services, unhindered by a coercive authority. A free market whose prices are reflected by consumers and production costs, uninterrupted by government protectionist policies, and so forth. It's obviously more complex.
   
   Here are some good books for ya. Read up.

Hi, I sell books on Amazon. Those littlefreelibrary's are mainly full of what we call "penny books", which you can get essentially for free at garage/estate sales. So nobody cares when people just walk away with them. Let's take one of the #1 Anarcho-Capitalist books "Machinery for Freedom" as an example:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Machinery-Freedom-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699

With shipping, the book costs roughly $15 to purchase. Now let's assume that half of the random people on the street who were to pick it up (a very generous estimate) were converted to Anarcho-Capitalism on the spot. Are you really willing to pay $30+ per person converted to the ideology? I wouldn't be, personally. I would think that just talking to people would prove to be a more viable option.

>Why would the shareholder buy a share if the goal was not to produce income for the share holder?

This book if I remember right has a whole chapter on problems caused by putting all the incentives on shareholder returns. Giving the ceo bonuses for maximizing shareholder returns leads to ceos being massively over paid relative to what they actually do and lower wages for workers. If a ceo is incentivised to increase shareholder returns, it can incentivise bad behaviour. It incentivises short term planning, that can effect long term outcomes when the ceo just wants to hit the target at the end of the year for the bonus.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/0141047976


>Why would the shareholder buy a share if the goal was not to produce income for the share holder?

Because the shares go up anyway.

I'm not going to discuss this with someone who hasn't done basic readings on the topic because it can be pretty laborious and it's such a radical idea as to put a lot of people off.

I will however point you into the direction of Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman if you'd like to learn more. It dispels a lot of common misconceptions about this type of ideology and has direct responses to some claims you've made in your post.

Good luck, friend.

Tariffs are bad for everyone. They inhibit our ability to allocate resources efficiently. They increase prices which hurts lower and middle class families. If manufacturing jobs can be done more efficiently in China, they should be done there, and we should be using the money we're saving to re-educate our own workforce to do higher skilled jobs like medical research, computer programming, etc. Using unions to prop up basic manufacturing jobs is not going to make us better off in the long run.

Definitely, definitely check out Russ Robert's book, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection. Even if it's just to see the other side of things. It will clear up a lot of your misconceptions with regard to international trade and protectionism.

Schweikart's "After Capitalism" offers a critique of capitalism, arguments why socialism would do better, and a practical vision of how we might take concrete steps toward socialism. It is written with activists in mind and doesn't require alot of background knowledge.

http://www.amazon.com/After-Capitalism-New-Critical-Theory/dp/0742513009

Harrington's "Socialism Past and Future" is an outstanding historical and theoretical discussion of how socialists have interpreted 'socialism' and what the future of 'socialism' might be.

http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Past-Future-Michael-Harrington/dp/1611453356

This piece by Bakunin is a pretty good introduction to what the First International socialists believed in and were trying to bring into fruition. This was the ideology of the Commanards, prior to the division of socialism into anarchist and state socialist camps. Other pieces by Bakunin, including "God and the State", are classics and can be found in the archive below.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm

Yes, please! Also, please include audiobook versions wherever possible as well. I love listening to audiobooks..

I'll start!
Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman
Audiobook
Online Book
Real Book (you know, that that thick rectangle thing with paper in it..

Milton Friedman was such a wise man. He and Friedrich Hayek were two people I would love to have on my side arguing the merits of capitalism.

Read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" sometime to truly understand what the other side wants to destroy. He even updated his book, I believe three times, as the landscape changed throughout history.

It's pretty fascinating.

Okay, maybe acceptance is a requirement, I'll give you that. But there are in fact places that in-game currency is accepted. I've seen players sell forum hosting, voice chat hosting, etc., to other players for in-game currency. I've been on MUDs where players are encouraged to create new content for the server and paid with ingame currency. So clearly these markets where in-game currencies are accepted do exist. Likewise the blackmarket existance of gold farmers itself proves there is a functioning currency exchange to "real" money.

So opium is not money because it is a commodity? Nonsense, commodities have been used as money for hundreds of years.

> In the sparsely settled American colonies, money, as it always does, arose in the market as a useful and scarce commodity and began to serve as a general medium of exchange. Thus, beaver fur and wampum were used as money in the north for exchanges with the Indians, and fish and corn also served as money. Rice was used as money in South Carolina, and the most widespread use of commodity money was tobacco, which served as money in Virginia. The pound-of-tobacco was the currency unit in Virginia, with warehouse receipts in tobacco circulating as money backed 100 percent by the tobacco in the warehouse. - Rothbard, Murray, A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II

Oh nice, sounds like the zero marginal cost society. https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Marginal-Cost-Society-Collaborative/dp/1137280115

You might be interested in it, talks about similar things.

I found it to be a good companion to Bregman's Utopia for Realists.
https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World/dp/0316471895

Either way, thanks for naming the book. Gonna check that one out.

What do you want to get out of it? Do you want to read overblown maximalist literature with ideology? Then go for the 50 page speech in the middle of it. Or any of her terrible philosophy books, or some secondary literature by protege Leonard Peikoff.

If you want the story, just watch the movie. It was even more boring than the book, but it's a movie.

If you are looking for well written philosophy that supports capitalism, I wouldn't start with Rand. Maybe read some Adam Smith, or Milton Friedman. Maybe another Comrade on here can help you with that? I'm under-read in capitalist philosophy and economics honestly.

Capitalism and Freedom

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

One of the most important books ever published by the greatest libertarian of the 20th century, Milton Friedman

OP, if you're seriously exploring libertarianism (at least to properly understand it) I would suggest watching and reading the work of Milton Friedman.

1. Power of the Market - The Pencil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8
   
   
2. Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Fortieth-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0226264211
   
   There are lots of youtube videos of Milton Friedman and I highly recommend Capitalism and Freedom. In that book, he lays out how capitalism and free enterprise works better than government systems, no matter how well-intentioned or thoroughly planned-out they are. Based on your initial post, I think you'd find many of his arguments interesting and compelling.
   
   Edit w/ question: holybartender, why do you believe marijuana, or any drug, should be legalized?
   
   I'm curious to hear your answer as I'd bet it echoes many libertarian themes...

The whole principle of "you get what you pay for" is non-applicable to public provision of goods.

The point was most aptly made, in my view, by Friedman in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, wherein he discusses 4 possibilities that encompass the two major reasons to purchase something and the two major ways of funding that purchase:

1. Purchasing for oneself, with one's own money. This results in a purchase that maximizes utility per dollar spent - you get the best deal you can, and you're willing to sacrifice marginal utility if the cost is too high.
   
   
2. Purchasing for oneself, with someone else's money. This results in a purchase that maximizes utility. When it's someone else's money, you really don't care as much, if at all, how well you use the money. This is especially true if you don't have a limit set on the money you're allowed to spend.
   
   
3. Purchasing for someone else, with your own money. This results, for obvious reasons, in a minimization of cost. You want to achieve whatever it is you aim at with the minimum cost possible.
   
   
4. Purchasing for someone else, with someone else's money. You don't give a flying fuck.
   
   The latter option is the closest analog to public spending in support of something. The people who make the spending decision are using someone else's money (from taxes) and thus do not have a true understanding of how much productivity went into making that money. Nor do they have an understanding of what it is that the people for whom they are spending the money desire out of that purchase, and thus the purchase is already hilariously compromised.
   
   Public provision of goods, by conventional economic wisdom, requires that the market fails so badly that the inefficiencies inherent in public provision result in less social loss than the market failure does - and in the case of education this hasn't been shown even once, as far as I can tell.
   
   Moreover, as a side-note, children have no "right" to a quality education. Perhaps we want to make it so that they have a legal right to this, in which case we can create a system like the one we have now (or a much better one founded on vouchers or something similar), but there is nothing about being a human that gives you a right to an education.
   
   Stop fucking talking about people's "natural rights" and instead discuss, for instance, how providing education to every child will result in good things for a society as a whole, such as a more active political system or less crime, or anything else that you can actually discuss and measure objectively.

If you are interested in a discussion on why the wealth of the rich is not their just reward for having taken risk, I highly recommend this post. It draws on arguments presented in this book which I highly recommend if you're interested in a more detailed response.

I'm a former liberal turned anarcho-capitalist and for me it was the lessons in austrian economics i found most interesting to get into. The two books that really turned my crank, and are super accessible/easy-to-read, were Economics in One Lesson, which i see AdamosaurusRex posted, and a collection of Ayn Rand essays put together in a book called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I have to admit, she's quite the writer, I couldn't put the thing down, I think I read it in two days. (http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Unknown-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952/ref=sr_1_1)

> Yeah, because the free market can solve for things like pollution... not.

I believe it can yes. More specifically property rights can overcome the tragedy of the commons, that accounts for so much current pollution. Strict enforcement of property rights compels firms to internalise otherwise harmful externalities (what you're describing in China for example).

Several conservation organisations also share this view. If you care to learn more this book is a good starting place: http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Environmentalism-Terry-Anderson/dp/0312235038

> The entirity of history shows that an unregulated free-market system causes wealth to be concentrated and the poor subjected to abuse (does no one remember the late 1800's and early 1900's when regulation was nearly non-existent compared to today?)

You remember the late 1800's? You're of greater seniority than i supposed.

If you can give me any specific example of a harm in this period that you believe was caused by the free market then at least one of us is sure to learn something.

1. You should read up on lots of different ideologies these books are the good ones as they are pretty short and give a decent understanding of each school of thought.
   
   1. For Left Lib read the Conquest of Bread here
      
   2. For Auth Lib read the Manifesto here
      
   3. For Lib Right read Capitalism and Freedom which you can buy here
      
   4. For Liberalism/Conservatism just read any modern political theory
      
2. Your first point while right is the exact problem AnComs try and prevent, because by dismantling power structures people cannot even make it to the top since there is no top.
   
   also thanks for the actual discussion, most people here are just calling me a Cuck then repeating points I already debunked

> The only solution at the moment is to let true capitalism takes its course and allow the banks to fail.

Just to make it clear. Capitalism is a separation of state and economics. No regulation of private business only protection of rights. What we have now is NOT capitalism. Banks and money is the most regulated and controlled industry ever.

What is failing is cronyism, regulation, central banking. Bitcoin is free market money and is a step towards capitalism.
Capitalism is the solution. Let the free market choose. End of story.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Unknown-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952

Credit to /u/gab91, /r/socialism, /r/socialism_101, /r/communism101 :

Socialism is an economic and social system defined by social ownership of the means of production. (Workers democratically own and operate the places in which they work, as opposed to private control of production aka capitalism)

The means of production are non-human inputs that create economic value, such as factories, workplaces, industrial machinery, etc. The means of production are the means of life. Socialists refer to the means of production as capital, or private property. Private property in the socialist context shouldn't be confused with personal property, such as your home, car, computer, and other possessions.

In a capitalist society the means of production are owned and controlled privately, by those that can afford them (the capitalist aka those with capital). Production is carried out to benefit the capitalist (production for profit). Workers are paid a wage, and receive that amount regardless of how much value they produce. Socialists call this difference the surplus, IE (value produced - wage paid). A 1983 report by England national income and expenditures found that on average, 26 minutes of every hour worked(or 43% of labor value added) by english workers across a wide range of industries went to various exploiting or unproductive groups, with workers receiving only 57% of their pre-tax productive output as wages.

Wage workers are completely dependent on selling their labor power to those in control of production in order to gain access to the necessities of life (money for food, shelter, clothing, etc). Its similarities to chattel slavery has lead many to term wage work as wage slavery, with voluntary employment being simply a false choice between one exploiter or another.

Many Marxists call the totalitarian regimes typically called socialist, as more correctly defined as State Capitalism, since production was controlled by state bureaucracies who also distributed the surplus, rather than through the democratic input of workers.

Capitalism evolved historically out of feudalism, which itself evolved out of slave societies, all three being dependent on a dominant class receiving the surplus of a subordinate class.

Communism is the highest developed stage of socialism wherein there is no state, no money, no class system. The means of production are owned by all and provide for everyone's needs. There are also presumably high levels of automation so most do not have to work.

Socialism can't exist within a capitalist system, much like capitalism can't exist within a socialist system. There is either private ownership of the means of production or there isn't. Many socialists point to directly democratic worker’s councils as an ideal way to organize production.

Past and present socialist/anarchist societies include - Revolutionary Catalonia, Anarchist Aragon, Shinmin Province in Korea/Manchuria, Free Territory of Ukraine, The Bavarian Soviet Republic, The Paris Commune, The Zapatista controlled areas of Chiapas (current day), Magonista Baja California, Shanghai People's Commune, Rojava (current day), Communist Marinaleda

Private ownership of the means of production was established through force and private tyranny, and is only upheld through force. The state is an instrument of class domination which (in capitalist society) exercises a monopoly on violence to forcibly maintain the right to private property. The modern state developed alongside the emergent capitalist system as the bourgeoisie seized political and economic control. It arises from the irreconcilable class antagonisms that exist in society.

Socialism as an economic system is distinct from neoliberalism, as well as social democracy/Welfare state capitalism, which aims to band-aid the ills of capitalism while leaving the exploitation inherent in wage slavery intact.

Revolutionary vs Evolutionary socialism, Economic planning with labor vouchers vs. Market socialism, are a few debated topics within socialism.

Branches of socialism include: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Marxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Libertarian Socialism, Libertarian Marxism, Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, Mutualism, Autonomism, Left Communism, Religious Communism, Council Communism, Syndicalism. Democratic Socialism as a term is out of favor with many socialists due to people confusing it for a pro-capitalist welfare state ideology.

*****

Introductory videos:

3 minute intro to Marxism

10 minute intro to Karl Marx --- (Reminder for newcomers that private property refers exclusively to the means of production, not your home and other possessions which are considered personal property)

Introduction to Marxism by Professor Richard D. Wolff (absolutely essential, the best video we can show newcomers to socialism)

Socialism for Dummies by Professor Richard D. Wolff (necessary for north americans)

Against Capitalism by Jerry Cohen

Introduction to Anarchism by Noam Chomsky

Chomsky on capitalism #1

Chomsky on capitalism #2

Chomsky on american or right-libertarianism

Here is a list of some more Chomsky videos

https://youtu.be/-w12bkm9g8o?t=3m18s <--- Capitalist exploitation explained

Modern introductory books:

Danny Katch - Socialism…. Seriously

Paul D’Amatto - the meaning of Marxism

More books / essays:

Albert Einstein - Why Socialism?

Engels - Principles of Communism (A great glossary of socialist terms)

Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Rosa Luxemburg - Reform or Revolution

Lenin - State and Revolution

Eugene Debs - Capitalism and Socialism

Academic books on potential socialist economics, planned economies, and market socialism:

Cottrell - Towards a New Socialism

David Schweikart - After Capitalism

Socialist films:

Reds(1981), Salt of the Earth(1954), Pride(2014), Snowpiercer(2013)

There are cattle ranchers who want to voluntarily test every cow for BSE so that they can advertise their beef as being 100% free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, but the government won't allow it because consumer market pressure would force all corporate factory "ranchers" to also test every cow sold. It is throughly appalling that our own government does NOT allow ranchers to test as many of their cattle as the ranchers wish, for whatever diseases they want to test for, and then to advertise those results. This BS law is most definitely NOT to protect the consumer, it is solely to protect the pocketbooks of wealthy agribusiness corporations.


P.S.
I long ago stopped eating ground beef and wieners from fast food joints, and although I haven't totally given up on beef altogether I've cut way back and only purchase beef or chicken that hasn't potentially been ground up along with diseased animals, feces, and who knows what else. I would gladly pay a premium to purchase beef from a rancher that individually tests every cow for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) if I had the choice.

Jason Brennan and his new book "Why Not Capitalism" is pretty popular right now. It's a kind of response to G.A. Cohen "Why Not Socialism," which attacks Cohen's book for comparing ideal socialism to real life capitalism. Brennan then goes on to argue ideal capitalism would be more moral than ideal socialism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/29/ha-joon-chang-23-things

Really, really, good. The guy isn't a big anti-Capitalism guy, but this book has 23 very good counter-arguments about certain things you will hear Capitalists say and argue. The book is written in a way that a layman such as myself can understand and he's very entertaining.

You can read the first few chapters here. I would recommend reading "There is no such thing as a free-market" - Chapter 1.

http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1608191664/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302178615&sr=8-1

My god. That is the most delusional and disingenuous thought process I've heard in awhile. Do yourself a favor and read these fantastic books before you belief system destroys the United States of America: Capitalism and Freedom, Why Government Is the Problem and Basic Economics.

Bonus points I think you hit almost every liberal regurgitated talking points.

> That being said, large publicly traded corporations are bastardizations of private enterprise, and more often than not they are in bed with the State to seek favors and crush competition.
>
> Small, privately owned corporations tend to avoid cultural degradation, and they are frequently attacked by the government, such as Gibson Guitars were a few years back.

Then perhaps the problem is public trading; well, among other things. Wall Street has been shown to be problematic in several areas.

> I believe that is not only wrong but completely destructive thinking. People like yourself seem to fail to grasp the enormous complexity in the problem of allocation, distribution, and categorization of goods. If it was as simple as identifying that there are goods at point A and people at point B that need them and so we should move them from A to B, there wouldn't be the entire logistics discipline. Amazon, UPS, Fedex - they all employ thousands of people just to solve their little part of the allocation problem.

I can recognise that this is an enormously complex problem; however, the development of the solution to it is occurring as we communicate. You are no doubt aware that logistics technology, as with all other forms, is currently advancing at an exceptionally rapid rate. Because of this, the word, "impossible," needs to be at least periodically redefined.

> I've never heard "Resouce Based Economy" explained in a way that makes any sense. Care to give it a shot?

I don't necessarily know how Jacques himself would define it; but the way I do, is that it is essentially based on the idea that certain items become sufficiently cheap to produce, that they acquire a monetary value of zero, or near zero; and that as a result of this, we simply stop charging money for the specific commodities that have reached that state. Money would return to its' original purpose; as a regulator of genuine scarcity, and as such, things that truly were scarce would retain an appropriate market price. The only things that would be taken out of the economy, would be those things that we would be producing in sufficient volume, that they no longer needed to be represented monetarily.

Jeremy Rifkin has actually written a book on this as well, called The Zero Marginal Cost Society. I know this seems difficult to believe, but I've seen some truly radical agricultural technologies being developed over the last decade or so. I'm not claiming that this could occur with all or even a large subset of commodities, but I genuinely believe that it could occur with some. Apparently American farmers are already given some sort of incentive by the government to avoid overproduction. There is another book online, New Rules For The New Economy, which goes into some depth about this, as well; although that book does not necessarily presume post-scarcity in quite the sense that I am talking about.

I'm truthfully also inclined to believe that the development and use of BitCoin is a reflection of this, in the sense that it has been said that BitCoin has no direct relationship with the hard value of real goods within the economy, but is instead based on the perceived value of whatever they are paying for. If we are at the point where we can already afford to have a currency that is essentially based on thin air, then that tells me that we are already a lot closer to practical post-scarcity than we might think.

> We've already seen how market-based solutions to the reputation network problem have created vastly superior outcomes. Ebay and other online marketplaces tend to work quite well. Silkroad was completely divorced from the State justice system and State reputation networks, and it worked extremely well. Quality was high, bad actors were limited, and people genuinely experienced vastly better service than on the street.

If those sorts of systems work, then we should keep implementing them, by all means.

> War is stopped by 1 thing above all - trade. As long as people and goods can move freely over borders, tanks and missiles will not.

There does seem to be good evidence for this as well, yes.

I started to make one a while back but didn't get too far. There are just too many great books to choose from.

Classics 1950-1970

What is Conservatism?

The Conservative Mind

The Road to Serfdom

The Constitution of Liberty

Ideas Have Consequences

The Quest for Community

Economics in One Lesson

Capitalism and Freedom

In Defense of Freedom


Age of Reagan 1970-1990

The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945

Modern Times

Knowledge and Decisions

A Conflict of Visions

Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Roots Of American Order


Modern Must Reads 1990-Today

The Clash of Civilizations

A History of the American People

The Vision of the Annointed

Intellectuals and Society

Illiberal Reformers

Restoring the Lost Constitution

How To Be A Conservative

Here's a book on distributism if you want to learn more: Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist Perspective on the Role of Government, Taxes, Health Care, Deficits, and More (Culture of Enterprise)

There were several Milton Friedmans.

As an academic economist, he made important contributions to business cycle theory, monetary history, and consumption theory. For an overview of Friedman's scientific contributions to economics, see here. These contributions have largely stood the test of time.

But there was another Milton Friedman: the policy advocate. In this role, we can look at his popular books like Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose. Whether one accepts the conclusions of his popular work is nearly orthogonal to whether one accepts the contributions of his scientific work. For a critical account, see Krugman.

There's Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which has a sort of Lockean natural-rights bent and Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty which might be more straightforward. I'd also recommend Free Market Fairness by Tomasi; it takes a look at libertarianism with a Rawlsian social justice twist. Finally, I'd take a look at The Logic of Liberty by Michael Polyani. Hope none of these are too basic.

>you can't really believe that all taxation is wrong

Some people argue that, but I don't necessarily.

The real question I would ask, is whether taxation a net benefit or a net loss to the people within a given society.

While your knee-jerk reaction might be an immediate and profound 'yes', as though you've already considered the pros against the cons, ask yourself if you've ever considered democide's effects on markets, whether certain subsides have perhaps interfered with markets at all, and other such large-scale political corruptions. The enormity of such events can only, generally, be funded by taxation--no private firm could amass such capital to create such huge negative effects on markets.

There is actually a book (which can be purchased here or read online for free here), that attempts to put Governments on a cost-benefit analysis, and actually comes up with a very strong case against Governments entirely.

I'm not exactly an anarchist myself, but I find the conversation to be very interesting and, perhaps, even critical.

here's the content of the gist:

Credit to /u/gab91, /r/socialism, /r/socialism_101, /r/communism101 :

Socialism is an economic and social system defined by social ownership of the means of production. (Workers democratically own and operate the places in which they work, as opposed to private control of production aka capitalism)

The means of production are non-human inputs that create economic value, such as factories, workplaces, industrial machinery, etc. The means of production are the means of life. Socialists refer to the means of production as capital, or private property. Private property in the socialist context shouldn't be confused with personal property, such as your home, car, computer, and other possessions.

In a capitalist society the means of production are owned and controlled privately, by those that can afford them (the capitalist aka those with capital). Production is carried out to benefit the capitalist (production for profit). Workers are paid a wage, and receive that amount regardless of how much value they produce. Socialists call this difference the surplus, IE (value produced - wage paid). A 1983 report by England national income and expenditures found that on average, 26 minutes of every hour worked(or 43% of labor value added) by english workers across a wide range of industries went to various exploiting or unproductive groups, with workers receiving only 57% of their pre-tax productive output as wages.

Wage workers are completely dependent on selling their labor power to those in control of production in order to gain access to the necessities of life (money for food, shelter, clothing, etc). Its similarities to chattel slavery has lead many to term wage work as wage slavery, with voluntary employment being simply a false choice between one exploiter or another.

Many Marxists call the totalitarian regimes typically called socialist, as more correctly defined as State Capitalism, since production was controlled by state bureaucracies who also distributed the surplus, rather than through the democratic input of workers.

Capitalism evolved historically out of feudalism, which itself evolved out of slave societies, all three being dependent on a dominant class receiving the surplus of a subordinate class.

Communism is the highest developed stage of socialism wherein there is no state, no money, no class system. The means of production are owned by all and provide for everyone's needs. There are also presumably high levels of automation so most do not have to work.

Socialism can't exist within a capitalist system, much like capitalism can't exist within a socialist system. There is either private ownership of the means of production or there isn't. Many socialists point to directly democratic worker’s councils as an ideal way to organize production.

Past and present socialist/anarchist societies include - Revolutionary Catalonia, Anarchist Aragon, Shinmin Province in Korea/Manchuria, Free Territory of Ukraine, The Bavarian Soviet Republic, The Paris Commune, The Zapatista controlled areas of Chiapas (current day), Magonista Baja California, Shanghai People's Commune, Rojava (current day), etc

Private ownership of the means of production was established through force and private tyranny, and is only upheld through force. The state is an instrument of class domination which (in capitalist society) exercises a monopoly on violence to forcibly maintain the right to private property. The modern state developed alongside the emergent capitalist system as the bourgeoisie seized political and economic control. It arises from the irreconcilable class antagonisms that exist in society.

Socialism as an economic system is distinct from neoliberalism, as well as social democracy/Welfare state capitalism, which aims to band-aid the ills of capitalism while leaving the exploitation inherent in wage slavery intact.

Revolutionary vs Evolutionary socialism, Economic planning with labor vouchers vs. Market socialism, are a few debated topics within socialism.

*****

Introductory videos:

3 minute intro to Marxism

10 minute intro to Karl Marx --- (Reminder for newcomers that private property refers exclusively to the means of production, not your home and other possessions which are considered personal property)

Introduction to Marxism by Professor Richard D. Wolff (absolutely essential, the best video we can show newcomers to socialism)

Socialism for Dummies by Professor Richard D. Wolff (necessary for north americans)

Against Capitalism by Jerry Cohen

Introduction to Anarchism by Noam Chomsky

Chomsky on capitalism #1

Chomsky on capitalism #2

Chomsky on american or right-libertarianism

Here is a list of some more Chomsky videos

https://youtu.be/-w12bkm9g8o?t=3m18s <--- Capitalist exploitation explained

Modern introductory books:

Danny Katch - Socialism…. Seriously

Paul D’Amatto - the meaning of Marxism

More books / essays:

Albert Einstein - Why Socialism?

Engels - Principles of Communism (A great glossary of socialist terms)

Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Rosa Luxemburg - Reform or Revolution

Lenin - State and Revolution

Eugene Debs - Capitalism and Socialism

Academic books on potential socialist economics, planned economies, and market socialism:

Cottrell - Towards a New Socialism

David Schweikart - After Capitalism

Socialist films:

Reds(1981), Salt of the Earth(1954), Pride(2014), Snowpiercer(2013)

You make an interesting point. A way to put this is that the most important event in human history since about the year 1650 with the start of the (water powered then) industrial revolution -- was the --- discover of burning fossil fuels. Energy consumption powers economic growth. Its what got humanity out of poverty. "All economic activity comes from harnessing availalable energy" = p10, "The Zero Marginal Cost Society" by Jeremy Rifkin. What my point is that we have to move beyond that discovery for the sake of humanity, move to embrace a fully renewable energy paradigm, all electric probably, -- so that we still exist when it is our time to reach for the stars.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, I think you'll find David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" very interesting.

Watch this animated summary and tell me what you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

Here's the actual text: https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699

Economic issues seems top of the list of futurological issues right now for many people, I think because it is the one thing technological change is forcing on us now & we are living through it. I also have the feeling we have very stormy weather just ahead of us on that front & that the headwinds of that storm are already starting to rattle our windows.

Of all my futurological reading, the one book that has been making the most sense to me lately about this is - is The Zero Marginal Cost Society by Jeremy Rifkin.

IMHO, he seems the best at clarifying just what it is that is that is going on & putting things like automation, technological unemployment & basic income in the right context.

In brief, his thesis is that we are moving towards a zero marginal cost economy on everything - industrial goods, energy, digital goods & as capitalism is basically redundant & unnecessary in this scenario, it's in the beginning of it's decline to being only a small part of our economy (he still see's a role for it in some areas, but they are small in comparison).

If you accept this premise, I think the next pertinent question is - how as societies do we handle the decline of capitalism ?

He outlines what will follow after this decline as being very similar to how we have always handled the non-profit sectors of our economies in developed societies now. However where capitalism has been centralized and hierarchical - whatever follows will be many flat, decentralized networks.

I think we can sort of get a glimpse of this now with blockchain technologies (I've no idea whether they will eventually play a a major role). But you can see in the work people are starting to do with that idea to expand it well beyond bitcoin, a vision of how a decentralized financial future would work.

Interestingly, if this thesis is correct - wealth redistribution & the problem of the 1% - becomes much less of an issue. A great deal of their wealth would evaporate as capitalism shrinks. The trouble is viewed through the economic eyes of just capitalism (with no nod to he future just around the corner) - this process looks like an apocalyptic disaster. Stock markets disintegrating, global debt defaults & (within the capitalist portion of the economy) huge economic depressions.

Which perhaps, takes us back to that pertinent question - how as societies do we handle the decline of capitalism ?

That's a misconception you're making. First, I was being very simplistic; so attacking me on complexity is disingenuous. That should have been apparent. Secondly, government planning is how a position in the global economy improves. Their economies improved because they were not bound by restrictive "free-market" policies and had no reservations about funding initiatives which placed them in a better position globally. Now there are several other factors to consider when making this assumption, and I am very open to considering them and debating them. However, blanket attacks are not very useful.

Edit: You will have to forgive me. I meant Hong Kong when I referenced Japan. That is my mistake.

This is a good start to understanding the economic environment in Asia:
Four Asian Tigers

I also suggest reading the oeuvre of Ha-Joon Chang. I particularly enjoyed:

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

What Anenome5 is referring to is called Polylaw and it addresses all of your concerns without democratic coercion. If you are interested in learning the details of how this works I highly recommend reading this book. It's free!

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

It's also available for purchase.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Machinery-Freedom-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699

Here is a play list for Free to Choose video series posted on YouTube, all 10 parts.

Free to Choose - Playlist

There was a follow up 5 part series posted 10 years later that I have yet to watch. This original series was amazing though, and the debate held during the second half of an episode is something that is sorely lacking in today's media.

Also follow the book that goes with it - Free to Choose - they serve to complement one another. Read through most of the book so far.

I haven't read this yet, but it has come to me highly recommended Capitalism and Freedom.

I like him better for all three. He was a great man. You are also misinformed on the third one, because he did not cause the panic of 1837. If you want to learn more on the real reason for this depression and many others, I would begin with Murray Rothbard's History of Money and Banking in the US.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Banking-United-States/dp/0945466331

(Free PDF)
http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf

> Have you read any Ayn Rand? Yes. If so, what is your opinion of capitalism? That has literally nothing to do with the previous question.

Ayn Rand wrote a book called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

> I also don't believe that laissez-faire capitalism leads to the most happiness for the most people.

Then how can you include "libertarian" in the label that describes your political philosophy when one of the primary tenets of libertarianism is capitalism? Me being a libertarian and you being a "left libertarian," how are our political philosophies even remotely comparable?

> No. Communism is not "total government".

I will concede it's possible that anarcho-communists have changed the meaning of the word; I'm talking the modern understanding of the word. e.g. Soviet Union/North Korean communism. As an example, the word liberal is commonly used to describe a statist/authoritarian position, thus we need "descriptors" to define the previous meaning such as "classical liberal" (libertarian) and "neo-liberal" (neo just means "new").

For convenience, here is the book list from Professor Casey, with links:

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard (full text)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (full text)

Anarchy and the Law by Edward Stringham (full text: http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Stringham%20(Edward%20P.)%20-%20Anarchy%20and%20the%20Law.pdf)

Radicals for Capitalism by Brian Doherty

Lost in the Cosmos by Walker Percy

The Message in the Bottle by Walker Percy

>...but what would be the harm in having someone speculate on the arbitrary? Since it is arbitrary, it is akin to thinking that a hypothetical situation might be possible.

An arbitrary claim is only properly entertained long enough to identify it as arbitrary. Once it has been identified as arbitrary, it is outside the realm of your cognition. It is not even a proper subject of speculation, since "speculation" implies that there is some shred of a reason for thinking it might be true. Thought about arbitrary statements should not be considered speculation, but should be acknowledged for what it is: fantasy.

In regard to monopolies:
>Would using market force as a means to eliminate competition be a use of force or cohersion?

There's no such thing as "market force," only voluntary trade, real coercion by physical force, and indirect coercion by fraud.

You need not worry about "predatory pricing": Attempting this depletes the profitability of the business and, even if it momentarily "succeeds" in a free market, there will always be another competitor waiting to undercut the overcharging business; if not another start-up, then a big conglomerate. If an inefficient business wanted to undercut all of its competition, it would have to run at a loss almost constantly.

Starting a business, or moving a conglomerate into a new business, would be much easier in a free market. That fluidity is people's protection against so-called "coercive monopolies."

By the way, have you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?

All three. Always. See Bill Janeway's excellent book, Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy, for an explanation of the way these three things work together. http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Capitalism-Innovation-Economy-Speculation/dp/1107031257

I do have to say that I've been delighted by how much the Obama administration had turned into a Maker movement booster, but in the end, the government has played a much bigger role than people realize. All of those robotics companies google just acquired were DARPA funded, for example.

Giving a comprehensive answer for why the State shouldn't exist is really too lengthy for a Reddit post. Here are some of the main approaches and a few book recommendations.

Murray Rothbard favored a deontological approach. People have a natural right to private property and aggression (initiation of force) is never justified. A State must initiate force, so its existence is immoral. His book The Ethics of Liberty is a good summary of this.

David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman) favors consequentialist arguments to justify a stateless society. Monopolies will tend to give worse results and higher prices, and he argues that monopolies on law and policing are no exception. His book The Machinery of Freedom is a comprehensive analysis of how he thinks a stateless society would function.

Michael Huemer uses an intuitionist approach. What allows government employees to commit acts that private citizens couldn't do without being imprisoned? He doesn't think there is a legitimate reason for this, and goes through most of the well known arguments for the social contract theory in his book, The Problem of Political Authority. However, he does concede that a State could still be justified on consequentialist grounds.

I think you would be most receptive to David Friedman's ideas. The Kindle version of his book is only $2.99 on Amazon and it's a straightforward read. You would also probably get more satisfying answers in r/anarcho_capitalism. r/Libertarian is more for minarchists. I hope that helped.

They're both important to me; I value all freedom, and won't just pick one over another.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Milton Friedman's classic work Capitalism and Freedom argues that in the long term the two are inseparable - either you have freedom or you don't. Countries can survive in the short-term with just economic or just personal freedom, but in the long-term one requires the other.

You can have law enforcement without it being restricted to vigilantism or a single monopoly provider.

I can't really give you a complete answer in this medium. However, there's a lot of writing by libertarian anarchists on this topic; let me point you to a few resources:

Books:

• Anarchy and the Law edited by Edward Stringham (this is your best bet)
  
• The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson
  
• The Structure of Liberty by Randy Barnett
  
• Law's Order and The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (here's a relevant excerpt)
  
  Articles:
  
  
• Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice by Bruce Benson
  
• The Idea of a Private Law Society by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  
• Law as a Private Good by David Friedman

Just good ol' Capitalism. Having Capitalism as an economic system doesn't mean there's no society, or non-commercial bonds. There's always friendship, familial obligations, religious ties, etc. In fact, argument can be made that the more capitalistic the socity, the less individualistic it will be, because people will rely on each other more than on the bureaucracy. Just take the US for example. No one would deny that 50s US was more capitalistic than today's US. At the same time, however, 50s US was far less individualistic. States push the "special snowflake" ideologies upon the populace because it enables the growth of state power. Communism is the ultimate "special snowflake" ideology.

It is cool, but does it really increase wealth?

There are multiple sides to micro-lending, but statistics really aren't very good. I think I read about this in a chapter of this book. I really liked that book.

I would start with this -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141047976/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

It will help dispel many of the myths and wrongful beliefs you have.

If you want to understand what is going wrong in the world that's leading these crashes we are having, Michael Pettis writes online on these issues and has some great resources available -

http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets?lang=en

This in particular is a good read, its what opened my eyes to everything else, and underpins a lot of my thinking -

http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/55084

Mises.org - What I think of as the "default libertarian position", to which others are compared. Some minarchists, some anarcho-capitalists. Ranging from culturally conservative to culturally neutral.

Reason Magazine - Reformist libertarian magazine. Mostly utilitarian moderates opposed to cultural conservatism.

Bleeding Heart Libertarians - Culturally radical libertarians, mostly minarchists and moderates with a few anarcho-capitalists. Recently had a debate about the NAP. Some deontologists, some virtue ethicists.

Center for a Stateless Society - Culturally radical free-market anti-capitalist anarcho-capitalists, and a few left-wing anarchists.

EconLog - Blog run by libertarian economists, though the material is accessible to the layman. The related EconLib has libertarian articles and books, and a few non-libertarian books about economics.

Roderick Long - Quasi-Objectivist virtue ethicist, culturally radical anarcho-capitalist.

Lew Rockwell - Former Ron Paul staffer, cultural conservative.

David Friedman - Utilitarian anarcho-capitalist, son of Milton Friedman.

Capitalism and Freedom - Book arguing for moderate libertarianism on utilitarian grounds.

/r/Libertarian - Mostly minarchists, sometimes culturally conservative.

/r/Anarcho_Capitalism - Anarcho-capitalists, as one would expect.

/r/Objectivism - Objectivists, as the name implies.

/r/LibertarianLeft - Mostly left-wing anarchists, but there are some left-leaning anarcho-capitalists too.

If you want more, I still have plenty of resources.

Socialism/Communism

A People's History of the World

Main Currents of Marxism

The Socialist System

The Age of... (1, 2, 3, 4)

Marx for our Times

Essential Works of Socialism

Soviet Century

Self-Governing Socialism (Vols 1-2)

The Meaning of Marxism

The "S" Word (not that good in my opinion)

Of the People, by the People

Why Not Socialism

Socialism Betrayed

Democracy at Work

Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (again didn't like it very much)

The Socialist Party of America (absolute must read)

The American Socialist Movement

Socialism: Past and Future (very good book)

It Didn't Happen Here

Eugene V. Debs

The Enigma of Capital

Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism

A Companion to Marx's Capital (great book)

After Capitalism: Economic Democracy in Action

Capitalism

The Conservative Nanny State

The United States Since 1980

The End of Loser Liberalism

Capitalism and it's Economics (must read)

Economics: A New Introduction (must read)

U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776 (must read)

Kicking Away the Ladder

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

Traders, Guns and Money

Corporation Nation

Debunking Economics

How Rich Countries Got Rich

Super Imperialism

The Bubble and Beyond

Finance Capitalism and it's Discontents

Trade, Development and Foreign Debt

America's Protectionist Takeoff

How the Economy was Lost

Labor and Monopoly Capital

We Are Better Than This

Ancap/Libertarian

Spontaneous Order (disagree with it but found it interesting)

Man, State and Economy

The Machinery of Freedom

Currently Reading

This is the Zodiac Speaking (highly recommend)

Neither is acceptable. Both are founded upon principles from the Enlightenment, ideas that are antithetical to Christianity. Incidentally, this is the reason that many conservative Christians advocate capitalism (and many liberal Christians advocate socialism). In the United States (and the West in general), people are indoctrinated with Enlightenment ideas from early childhood onward. The predominance of Protestant Christianity in the US only exacerbates the problem, since Protestant denominations have more readily acquiesed to the Enlightenment, or were heavily influenced by them from the start.

It's important to remember that in the scheme of history, capitalism and socialism are relatively new ideas, and many economies in many times and places have run successfuly without either. Distributism is an alternate economic theory that is based on Catholic social teaching. If you're interested in learning more, I recommend essays by Thomas Storck and John Medaille, as well as John Medaille's book.

No, libertarian capitalism. I think you should read this book; It would help.

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

I apologize that I can articulate my political and economic views; I am aware it can be intimidating. 🤔

Perhaps you would care to present a system to me that isn't "science fiction?" The superior system you allude to perhaps.

Not everything I'm going to list is really libertarian per se but I think they do give important context for the libertarian/broader right wing movement

Economics in One Lesson. It's repetitive but gets the point across

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a philosophical perspective

IThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's difficult to call Heinlein a libertarian but this book definitely is. Also where the 'rational' part of my flair comes from!

There is No Alternative. I'm not sure how many people would consider Thatcher a libertarian but she's an important part of the history of the modern struggle against socialism that I think is overlooked in the United States

The Fatal Conceit. One of Hayek's must read works. A much shorter one that is I think just as important, Why I Am Not a Conservative

Atlas Shrugged. I'm not saying it's a good book or that you don't know of it but it's worth thumbing through just to see what all the hubbub's about. Prepare yourself for a latent S&M fetish.

Capitalism and Freedom. Maybe reading this will help you figure out why Naomi Klein seems to hate Friedman so much. Also very good and much more digestible is his television series Free to Choose and the similarly titled book

The Communist Manifesto. Provides good context. And maybe a chuckle.

"I don't mind powerful yet small government."

The more you read the more I will urge that there is no such thing, but you hit the nail on the head with the UBI or a negative income tax instead of a giant welfare state.

If that is an idea of yours, that is great and I urge you to read milton friedmans book

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I can only guess that you will love it and consider your life enriched by it

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0517548232/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Qr69Ab6X58RAC

Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226264211/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_3w69Ab3PSWN8X

> The most prosperous period for the west was post-Reagan, though.

Prosperous in what way? Because definitely not for working people

> It is an argument, because without visible examples, we do not have a clear picture of the better alternative, or how to get there. We only have theories, and these theories aren't exactly solid.

No it is not an argument, because saying "it's better than in some desert, war-ravaged post-colonial country" is not honest. Also, Ha-Joon Chang in his book is pretty clear that economic miracles are often result of government interventionism.

> Other countries are only catching up economically. They're not catching up when it comes to civil rights, worker rights or the welfare state.

It's all about trends. It is getting better there, while it's getting worse here in many areas.

> Meanwhile, our countries have to compete with their countries in a global economy

No we don't. We chose to open the markets, often even forced them to because it benefits owners of the production means as they can move freely to country with cheaper labor. It was a political decision, not inevitability.

> Are you going to want an instant big economic paradigm shift every time income graphs dip down a little?

A little? Once again I can only refer you to literature that shows the magnitude of disempowerment that working people have experienced in recent decades. And no, we don't need a paradigm shift, but EU is not tackling any problems. No, they don't fight with tax havens, capital flight, they want to engage in more free trade deals.

> The times have changed, technology is omnipresent, and not every small town can have a factory in its backyard that will guarantee consistent employment for 2000-3000 people. Of course things are going to be worse than they used to be in recently de-industrialized areas.

Again, de-industrialization is a political choice more often than not and we are not living in some golden age of technology. If you wish to know more I suggest you Ha-Joon Chang's book who shows how telegraph was much more ground-breaking than invention of Internet whose influence on productivity is quite vague and rather unprovable.

> And that's not even considering the fact that in the current political environment, voting for those who propose big changes is almost a 100% certain vote to make things worse, and especially make things worse for the working class.

Change is always costly, that's why it would be preferable to go slowly, but people currently in charge refuse to do anything so we will get a revolution.

haha, awesome. Glad you got my joke.

Literature always bugged me a bit, since it's only given for a lifetime of work, not any individual work.

But I disagree with the OP quite a bit - my mentor in college was a PhD in Mathematics who then got a second PhD in Philosophy, who did all his research in Marxist Economics. He was certainly contentious in the Philosophy dept as the only guy who really knew math, and the business & econ department because he directly said he offered courses that were an alternative to what they were teaching

The difference between my mentor and the OP's link is that my mentor took these criticisms seriously and tried to write a positive theory of how economics could work, even if it meant totally abandoning lots of parts of western economic capitalist systems that we know are broken. The OP's article just tears it down, and that's alright I guess, but any undergraduate can do that. Sounds like this guy is wasting his own time

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Capitalism-David-Schweickart/dp/0813331137

David Schweickart if anyone is interested

>Get me a book and I'm more interested.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Banking-United-States/dp/0945466331

You can find a PDF of it for free online.

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!

Because I don't know what jobs will exist in the future. If you were to tell a farmer in the 1800s he is going to be replaced by someone who is building a tractor, he wouldn't know what you were talking about in the same way I couldn't possibly understand what will be around in the future.

If you really want to go down this path.... 1890 - 97% of jobs were agriculture, 1945 - 3% of jobs were agriculture. In two generations, we lost our entire jobs market bud.

Edit: The concept can be really hard to grasp, as I assume you've never had a college level economics class and know everything from Reddit posts, I do suggest reading "The Choice" by Russel Roberts, it cost 5 bucks on Amazon. Amazing and easy reading book. At least try to understand more than just reinforce your own opinions.
https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Fable-Free-Trade-Protection/dp/0131433547

The benefit is the american consumer. It was all explained in this book https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Fable-Free-Trade-Protection/dp/0131433547

It said that the consumer would benefit even if just your own country dropped trade barriers. This concept is also taught in entry level economics courses.

Great list! Let me add some more moderate titles:

17. That which is seen, and that which is not seen - Introduces the "Parable of the broken window" that underpins "Economics in One Lesson"
18. The Road the Serfdom - the case against collectivism, and prescient roadmap for collectivist failure
19. Free to Choose - in Print and Video
20. Capitalism and Freedom - and how they are linked
21. Civil Disobedience - Every other sentence is a poem to human liberty

Check out Robert Murphy's book Choice. It's a summary and commentary on Human Action and much easier to read. I think it's really good.

You don't even need ECON 101. I would definitely recommend reading Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, though, for a very simple and solid description of a number of economic principles. He makes a very clear and solid argument right at the beginning for why trade protectionism is almost always a terrible idea.

How so? I consider myself an environmentalist.

Are you familiar with the book Free Market Environmentalism? You can still have a desire to protect nature and not impeded upon economic progress..

The period between the Civil War and WW1 was not at all laissez-faire. There were extremely high protectionist tariffs, as well as the whole Reconstruction and Transcontinental Railroad being both huge government funded projects. The Heritage Foundation and everything they come up with is a load of crap if you think about it for longer than half a second.

There's an excellent book by Ha-joon Chan (yes he is a capitalist) called 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism, chapter 7 is specifically about the so called "laissez-faire markets".

> Ulysses Grant, the Civil War hero-turned president in defiance of the British pressure on the USA to adopt free trade, remarked that "within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade".

If you don't like reading, there is a lecture on the book he gives at the London School of Economics here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RndDFRnH4

For those who claim that libertarians are not concerned with the environment. Check out the "environment" section at strike-the-root.com. Further, the book, "Free Market Environmentalism" by Terry Anderson shows how government policies have led to land overuse, over-cultivation, tree clear cutting, and massive pollution. Here's the book link, which is included in the article:
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Environmentalism-Terry-Anderson/dp/0312235038/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290025680&sr=1-1

I'm sorry your mind can't fathom a world without violence. And aside from the PDF, websites can't give your computers a virus. PDFs are still pretty damn secure, but if that's your weak argument ("I don't believe in voluntary societies because I can't download the PDF") then may god have mercy on your soul. Let me help you out here, since you can't be bothered to use google:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Machinery-Freedom-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699

There, amazon.com, a trusted website and a paperback book (or are you scared about getting ink on your fingers, too?)

I think our conversation is done, troll.

If OP's hypothetical sounds interesting to you, I highly recommend this book on economic democracy.

The wikipedia page.

Also, workplace democracy.

We probably agree on the same things.

As a matter of fact I know a lot about what happened in South Korea. It's well documented. For some reason it's hard for American to understand what has created the economic miracles of Korea, Japan, Vietnam and China.

It was state fiscal stimulus, closed markets and essentially government and corporate agenda.

>Is there any actual evidence backing this claim?

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0226320618

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx


> i know that extremely high taxes would be detrimental but im thinking about taxes like 30-40%.

30-40% taxes are extremely high. Michael Caine and many others have vowed to leave England if the top tax rate exceeds 50%.

Fiction:

The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin is a great start (good critique of anarchist philosophy).

The Red Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson actually cites Mondragon and discusses cooperative economics in detail.

After The Deluge (of Critical Mass fame) by Chris Carlsson is a novel about a post-capitalist San Francisco.

Non-fiction:

After Capitalism by Seymor Melman.

America Beyond Capitalism by Gar Alperovitz.

Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism by Richard Wolff.

Capitalism's Crisis Deepens: Essays on the Global Economic Meltdown by Richard Wolff.

After Capitalism by David Schweickart.

Against Capitalism by David Schweickart.

Capitalism or Worker Control by David Schweickart

Putting Democracy to Work by Frank T Adams.

Collective Courage: A History of African American Cooperative Economic Thought and Practice by Jessica Gordon Nembhard.

Humanizing the Economy: Co-operatives in the Age of Capital by John Restakis.

Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution by Marjorie Kelly.

For All the People: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America by John Curl.

Yeah, the book is better. I don't know how anyone can read it and not have a different view of the government afterwards.

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-A-Personal-Statement/dp/0156334607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342371472&sr=8-1

then I've got a great place for him to start

Three books I'd suggest, in the order I'd read them:

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek

Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

Outside the libertarian canon, Rousseau's On the Social Contract and Rawls' A Theory of Justice should be on everyone's reading list. Rawls and Nozick are probably the two most influential political philosophers of the late 20th century and understanding their arguments about the justification of property rights and the original position are the ABCs of modern political debate.

Everyone in these comments need to read Platform Capitalism: https://www.amazon.com/Platform-Capitalism-Theory-Redux-Srnicek/dp/1509504869

Not a main point, but embedded in his thesis is that many of these growth-first-profit-later venture funded start ups are in for a smack in the mouth. Interesting read.

Well I did read this

And then this

I'm currently on this

But I will admit, all three have said the same basic thing. Or at least, argued in the same direction. It's the cycle of "artists who sound like", where I only listen to radiohead and then porcupine tree and then bjork and then and then and then and I never hear anything new.

Give me a good contrary economic book, and if I can find it for less than 10 bucks used, I'll read it next month.

What are some good introductory economics books? Is this good?

Thank you for asking so nicely. What pool_dolphin said, pretty much. Capitalism is misrepresented by its opponents, and misunderstood by most of its advocates (e.g. conservatives and some libertarians). The same can be said for communism and socialism, which is why I empathized with the socialist above.

 

This is WAY out there for posting on Reddit, but if you'd like the crash course on my view of capitalism, here's a short nonfiction book. For an even shorter and less convincing version, this page.

SeekFindKnockOpen: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

I recommend The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Fortunately, the local library where I live has a copy. You can also view the video here, but the video is no substitute for the book.

I also recommend 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang. Dr. Chang teaches Economics at Cambridge University, and he is categorized as an Institutional Economist.

Personally, I'd recommend reading Klein first, then Dr. Chang. The Shock Doctrine provided a lot of context for 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism.

And for those who don't like to read, but like to post comments anyway and downvote, neither of the authors I've mentioned are Communists. Dr. Chang believes in private enterprise.

This is a short animated excerpt from his book The Machinery of Freedom, which goes into much more detail.

Also, did the video at least make you think? Do you accept that it's at least theoretically possible for an alternative system such as this?

You've got some reading to do: http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Environmentalism-Terry-Anderson/dp/0312235038

Here's a good start in the mean time.

Here is a good example of a book by a market socialist.

The Second Machine Age, by McAfee and Brynjolfsson.

The Zero Marginal Cost Society by Rifkin.

Ending Aging by De Grey.

Although I would personally argue that you get a good understanding of their material from the numerous talks they give, and learning the background science is probably more important for assessing their claims than simply reading their books.

For those interested i figured out what it was its called The Choice

https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Fable-Free-Trade-Protection/dp/0131433547

Have him read this book. It might help.

My wages are most certainly not below poverty levels. They were for a very short time when I was young, drunk and stupid, but then I realized that it was 100% up to me if I wanted to continue living like that.

I didn't, and I don't.

You say that the "large corporations" don't pay a "living wage". What do you believe a living wage is?

It did not take me very long at all to recognize that what I am paid is 100% based on the value I give to someone else, or the company I happen to work for right now.

You also mention "tax breaks" to corporations. You do, of course, realize that corporations do NOT pay taxes, and that any money that is funneled through the corporation to the Government (taxes) come directly out of the price the customers pay for the products? Every dime.

And that by adding uncountable levels of bureaucracy to the collection and distribution of money (taxes) it ends up costing far more than it otherwise would.

Jesus, kid, pick up an economics book and learn a little bit before you spout nonsense that you picked up in junior high school.

Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwdineshdsou-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0226264211

I also recommend, "Choice" by Robert Murphy

https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Cooperation-Enterprise-Human-Action/dp/1598132180/

If you're serious and looking for some good reading material may I recommend:

Free to Choose - Milton Friedman.

The Law - Bastiat

or something fictional not named Atlas Shrugged, here is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Ok. I do intend to read it.

The camping trip reminded me that it has already been answered by capitalists. I have not read this one either.
https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Not-Capitalism-Jason-Brennan/dp/0415732972

Mmm... I have this but haven't gotten to it yet. Just started Sowell's Intellectuals and Society, but maybe I'll finally start this one next. But I also want to get through Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and Free To Choose and F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Gah... so many books, so little time to read...

<sigh />

I have in these books. Please excuse the fact that I wrote them under a few pseudonyms :

https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

https://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730

https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Democratic-Capitalism-Michael-Novak/dp/0819178233

https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Annotated-Adam-Smith/dp/1611040485

I don't yet have a newsletter but as soon as I do I will let you subscribe to it.

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Environmentalism-Terry-Anderson/dp/0312235038

This applies more to conservationism rather than lowering CO2 emissions, etc. But its relevant if you're interested.

Anything by Ha-Joon Chang.

http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1608193381

edit: insert amazon link.

a simple google will return many articles detailing some of the arguments.

A book I'd highly reccomend is Free to Chose (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607)
It goes into some detail regarding the reasons and harms of minimum wage and is a very interesting read regardless of your opinion.

One model is what David Friedman wrote about in "The machinery of Freedom": https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699

Basically, to summarize you have a market for "rights protection agencies" and everyone can choose which one they want or not have one at all. But I really think there's many ways to go about it.

If you look at all the consequences, utilitarianiam isn't necessarily bad. There's a book-length argument for libertarian views based solely on utilitarianism: The Machinery of Freedom

have you read the book The Choice

Not a single Milton Friedman book? tsk tsk tsk

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211/

https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607

https://www.amazon.com/Government-Problem-Essays-Public-Policy/dp/0817954422

Read up, hon.

Hot Take:

Currently reading Free to Choose by Milton Friedman

So far so good....

Here is the mobile version of your link