Reddit mentions: The best general administrative law books

I passed the CA bar awhile ago but ended up writing this mini guide up for friends who took the bar after me who, like myself, were frustrated with the commercial bar prep courses. I ended up studying supplements (while using Kaplan only for its MBE question bank) almost exclusively on my own schedule (and passed - with a lot less stress than a lot of my peers who struggled to complete the commercial bar prep schedule). My friends found this really helpful so I thought I'd share it with you:


-----------------------
Reviewing the Black Letter Law
I highly recommend lean sheets because they were compact and great for reviewing rule elements.
They also had room in the margins for me to add any other notes I wanted to make.
http://www.leansheets.com/california-bar-exam-outlines-leansheets-com/


I suggest printing the entire pdf in color - double sided - 8.5 x 11 paper
http://documents.staples.com/ASP1/
Binding/Booklet 1
Paper/8.5x11 28lb Premium White / Standard / Standard Print (Precut Size) / Color / Duplex ($23)
-----------------------


Multiple Choice:
Many people say that kicking ass on the MBE section is essential because it's the one section that is truly in your control to differentiate your score. The essay and performance test grading can be arbitrary - most people will get an average of 60 something on everything if they apply the correct IRAC method to the essays. But a lot of people mess up MBEs, and there's no excuse for that because one can definitely improve this with practice.

1. Critical Pass: http://criticalpass.refr.cc/DHGJQMN (my referral link but you don't have to use it 📷. This was Great to review in the evening when I was too tired to do practice questions. They already added flash cards for the civ pro mbe questions. I was stupidly impressed with how these cards actually covered so much of the questions on actual exam. Definitely essential in my opinion
   
   
   
2. Strategies & Tactics for the MBE, Sixth Edition (Emanuel Bar Review)
   https://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Tactics-MBE-Emanuel-Review/dp/1454873124/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
   
   
   I used this book mostly for the general MBE test-taking tips and the tips were so on-point. Because I was using Kaplan and it already had a huge question bank - I practiced with those questions.
   -----------------------
   
   
   Essays:
   
   
   Formatting is KEY. Do NOT write big long paragraphs. I underlined, made sure to write a lot of mini-paragraphs (5-6 sentences max), then move on.
   
   
   During the exam, make sure you use every single fact in the fact pattern. Use a highlighter and highlight each fact or mark each fact after you incorporate it in some way into your essay.
   
   
   Don't worry if the question asks you something pretty obscure or you just blank on something. Just put down something reasonable and move on. Use every fact (there are almost never any red herrings - I never saw any).
   
   
   Using the call of the question--- IRAC. But the IRAC's should be really short and concise - (1 sentence for the issue; 1-2 rule statements, 5-6 for application, 1 sentence for conclusion).
   
   
   I didn't have a memorization plan for rule statements, but made sure to know certain rules very well: Community Property opener, Contract (applicable law, offer, acceptance, etc), Evidence (definition of legal and logical relevance, hearsay exceptions), elements of negligence claim for Torts, etc. You'll find good rule statements in the following book:
   
   
   Essay Exam Writing for the CA Bar Exam: http://www.amazon.com/Essay-Exam-Writing-California-Bar/dp/073550993X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/176-3124324-1877215
   
   
   I didn't actually practice writing a lot of actual essays. I read this book in its entirely and thought it was amazing. The only essay book you need in my opinion. I found the checklists a little hard to memorize, so I just focused on the approach this book outline for every subject. (And memorizing the rules used in the sample essays).
   
   
   And what I did is, after reading the tips, I practiced writing essays for the practice essays at the end of each chapter - read the sample essay + looked at the issue chart + rewrote it again.
   
   
   I liked this book the best because the sample essays weren't ridiculously long like kaplan and barbri. This book emphasizes what HAS to be in your essay responses, and leaves out the extraneous stuff that will hardly get you any points on the exam itself.
   
   
   My essays were much shorter on the actual exam than in any barbri or kaplan sample essay - and I think it was sufficient.
   -----------------------
   
   
   Performance Tests
   http://ipassedmybarexam.com/2011/02/13/the-bar-exam-performance-tests-are-easy/
   
   
   Honestly - that write-up sums up all the tips you need to do well on the performance test. Really thorough and really hits the nail on the head.
   
   
   To be honest, I practiced maybe 2 performance tests in total. The only things I think you need to do is read through all the tips above, and then print out and read all the sample performance test answers for the past 3 years from the CA bar site: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Examinations/California-Bar-Examination/Past-Exams
   
   
   Getting a feel for the memo structure that the bar examiners wanted was the most helpful thing.
   
   
   -----------------------
   Rule Statements
   I did not use this site when I studied for the bar, but someone posted this in another thread and it looks pretty good if you're looking for black letter law outlines and rule statements: By the way, I was briefly looking at this thread for the July 2018 Bar exam and someone posted this link as a good place to get solid rule statements for some of the major subjects:
   
   
   https://law.stanford.edu/office-of-student-affairs/bar-exam-information
   
   
   -----------------------
   Best of luck!!!

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.

> A Pigouvian tax need not be "perfect" to be Pareto improving -- just because policymakers calculate the optimum does not mean that they can't enact benefitial policies.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that they can, either. It's a shot in the dark, at best, even if you leave out the political incentives involved.

> Interpersonal comparisons of ordinal utility are impossible, but von Neumann and Morgenstern's formulation and Nash's existence proof may offer a way out of this problem.

I endorse Murray Rothbard's response to von Neumann and Morgenstern, excerpt below:

>The errors of this theory are numerous and grave:
>
>1. None of the axioms can be validated on demonstrated preference grounds, since admittedly all of the axioms can be violated by the individual actors.
>2. The theory leans heavily on a constancy assumption so that utilities can be revealed by action over time.
>3. The theory relies heavily on the invalid concept of indifference of utilities in establishing the numerical scale.
>4. The theory rests fundamentally on the fallacious application of a theory of numerical probability to an area where it cannot apply. Richard von Mises has shown conclusively that numerical probability can be assigned only to situations where there is a class of entities, such that nothing is known about the members except they are members of this class, and where successive trials reveal an asymptotic tendency toward a stable proportion, or frequency of occurrence, of a certain event in that class. There can be no numerical probability applied to specific individual events.
>
>Yet, in human action, precisely the opposite is true. Here, there are no classes of homogeneous members. Each event is a unique event and is different from other unique events. These unique events are not repeatable. Therefore, there is no sense in applying numerical probability theory to such events. It is no coincidence that, invariably, the application of the neo-cardinalists has always been to lotteries and gambling. It is precisely and only in lotteries that probability theory can be applied. The theorists beg the entire question of its applicability to general human action by confining their discussion to lottery cases. For the purchaser of a lottery ticket knows only that the individual lottery ticket is a member of a certain-sized class of tickets. The entrepreneur, in making his decisions, is on the contrary confronted with unique cases about which he has some knowledge and which have only limited parallelism to other cases.
>
>5. The neo-cardinalists admit that their theory is not even applicable to gambling if the individual has either a like or a dislike for gambling itself. Since the fact that a man gambles demonstrates that he likes to gamble, it is clear that the Neumann-Morgenstern utility doctrine fails even in this tailor-made case.
>6. A curious new conception of measurement. The new philosophy of measurement discards concepts of "cardinal" and "ordinal" in favor of such labored constructions as "measurable up to a multiplicative constant" (cardinal); "measurable up to a monotomic transform" (ordinal); "measurable up to a linear transform" (the new quasi-measurement, of which the Neumann-Morgenstern proposed utility index is an example). This terminology, apart from its undue complexity (under the influence of mathematics), implies that everything, including ordinality, is somehow "measurable." The man who proposes a new definition for an important word must prove his case; the new definition of measurement has hardly done so.
>
>Measurement, on any sensible definition, implies the possibility of a unique assignment of numbers which can be meaningfully subjected to all the operations of arithmetic. To accomplish this, it is necessary to define a fixed unit. In order to define such a unit, the property to be measured must be extensive in space, so that the unit can be objectively agreed upon by all. Therefore, subjective states, being intensive rather than objectively extensive, cannot be measured and subjected to arithmetical operations. And utility refers to intensive states. Measurement becomes even more implausible when we realize that utility is a praxeological, rather than a directly psychological, concept.

I highly recommend that entire paper, by the way.

As for Nash, the fact that we can know there is a Nash Equilibrium has no implications as to whether we can actually calculate it. Hell, mapping Nash equilibrium for a simplified poker game is a PhD thesis in itself.

>This is backwards -- positive externalities should be subsidized, not taxed (negatively taxed). A Pigouvian official would pay the artist to create and display art in her yard.

Interesting. Who knew there could be subsidies without taxation?

>This is what I don't understand. Who, in a stateless regime, is doing the "focusing?"

I primarily meant our focus as economists. Humans have a tendency, however, to create complex systems for the definition and protection of property rights, and these systems function best polycentrically. Most economists are quick to decry even the shadow of a monopoly in industry, but the same critiques (and more) apply to states as monopolies over the production of certain services within given territories. Bruce Benson's book is great on the history of private law, if you've ever got some time to kill. For less of a time investment, David Friedman's case study of the Icelandic Commonwealth is fascinating.

>Is there some kind of dialectical approach where the need for state enforcement of property will wither away, because I am not sure that I could be convinced that a sudden imposition of anarchy would result in clear, focused property rights.

No dialectic, and no "new [ideology] man." I agree that a sudden "imposition" of anarchy would not result in much of anything positive in the short run. People tend to respond badly to sudden impositions in any context. There are many theories regarding this. My ideal transition, for example, would be entrepreneurial advances in technology that allow the market to outcompete the state in the provision of various services despite the state's monopoly by providing higher quality, leading to a gradual decline of state relevance.

> Furthermore, I am not sure that property rights alone are enough to ensure functioning markets, especially in regards to distributive justice (the second welfare theorem). Market outcomes may be "better" without the state, but is this necessarily so if individual utility is a function of income distribution and relative wealth? I think it's reasonable to suppose that an other-regarding individual may choose a less efficient, more equitable state outcome than a stateless, efficient outcome, if given a Rawlsian choice.

I don't think it's at all self-evident that the market outcomes will be less equal than under states. On the indexes of economic freedom (primarily Fraser for credibility, though Heritage's isn't bad even if it carries their name) economic freedom actually has a negative correlation to economic inequality. That said, envy is cultural, but also contextual. If there's no nation, people will tend to look toward more realistic economic regions in comparing incomes. I also hypothesize that the culture of a propertarian anarchist region would tend to discourage such envy (as Protestantism did in Western Europe for centuries, and as seen in Jewish culture).

As of right now I do think the pre-marbury balance of powers was pretty good for preserving a stable Union against the undue influence of monied interests. If you look at the history of this Republic you'll see that most nefarious malfeasance comes through the judiciary, in particular the power of judicial review.

As such I would recommend splitting the contemporary powers of the federal judiciary into "constitutional review" and "judicial review". Here's a great book on how that system currently works to dispel the influence of monied faction in the annals of higher lawmaking of Germany post 1949. The reason why it is necessary to actively guard against monied influence in tracts of lawmaking is that Constitutional Dualism means that precedent has a very high standing in a judge's mind when it comes his turn to pass down law to the current generation, which means one slip and precedent can be used to usurp a Republic. We can see this manifest in the Lockner verdict, the Railroad cases consolidated under Santa Clara, Buckley v Valeo from 1978, Citizen United, etc.

I also think this distinction would be helpful if entrenched;

>The law distinguishes between a natural and legal person. A natural person is any human being, with legal capacity commencing from the time of birth. A legal (artificial) person is an association of people or special-purpose fund (e.g. a foundation) that is recognized by law as having legal personality. It differs from other associations of people in that it possesses legal capacity and can appear before the courts as plaintiff or defendant ("Parteifähigkeit", i.e. capacity to be a party in court). A legal person is separate and distinct in law from its members and from their number or changeover. It is an independent legal entity and is in principle protected by basic rights . Its particular name is also protected by law against unauthorized use by third parties. It has the capacity to act and can thus acquire rights and create obligations with binding effect. It does this through its organs, which in the sphere of private-law labour relations are, depending on the form of company , the shareholders' meeting or company general meeting , the supervisory board , the management board or a managing director . It is recognized in case law that a legal person is liable for unlawful conduct on the part of its organs and must pay damages where appropriate.

>There is a difference between a private-law and public-law legal person. The society or association (Verein) is regulated in the Civil Code as the basis of legal personality under private law. Other civil-law societies are the private limited company (GmbH), the registered co-operative society (eG), the public limited company (AG) and the partnership limited by shares (KGaA), all with their legal basis founded in separate statutes. Otherwise, in the absence of special regulations the provisions of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code are applied to supplement them. The state also can avail itself of a private-law legal person in executing its functions.

>Public-law legal persons exist by virtue of recognition under public law and can be established only by statute or by an act of sovereignty ( act of administration , executive order ) on the basis of a statute.

Republicanism is not dead, it just only works for those with money as it stands and that has to change. The rest of the dominoes will realign whence that has been finished.

You used to need a small and cogent constituency to make Republicanism work. The internet has changed all that. Great paper on that by my colleague here.

Freedom and efficiency are both important.

If the consequences of endorsing complete freedom (i.e. anarchy, since all governments take away peoples' freedoms) were disastrous, then, in the name of efficiency, we should support taking away peoples' freedom and establishing a minimal state to avoid that disaster.

Fortunately, the consequences of endorsing complete freedom are far from disastrous. Anarchy need not be a Hobbesian war of all-against-all. As Michael Huemer says, "We're nowhere close to the case where government would be justified."

However, the point remains that if the consequences were bad, then taking away peoples' freedoms to avoid those consequences in the name of efficiency would seem justified. Therefore, efficiency is also important.

Now, you say that freedom is more important than efficiency. But what does this mean? There's a presumption in favor of freedom, but efficiency considerations can override that presumption depending on how inefficient and disastrous the consequences get by allowing people their freedoms.

Unless you want to argue that only a strict consequentialist believes that efficiency is more important than freedom and everyone else believes that freedom is more important, then I think the correct view is just to say that they are both important, but not that one is more important than the other. That would simplify the issue too much.

The basic concepts of patent law are easy to understand. The U.S. patent law Wikipedia page explains the broad ideas such as what things can be patented and what the pre-requisites are for obtaining a patent. Beyond that you’ll have to get more specific about what you're interested in.

If you want to know why a company would choose trade secret protection over patent protection, or the difference between trademarks and copyrights you’ll need a broader understanding of IP. In law school you would take an IP class and read a hundred cases explaining the nuances of each area of law. The law student shortcut is to read the “nutshell” or the E&E. Both references highlight the black letter law (the concrete legal rules) while the E&E also includes questions and answers that expose some of the subtleties within the law. This is probably what you’re looking for.

If you’d rather know the nitty-gritty about patent prosecution—how you obtain a patent—then you’ll need to understand the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Assuming you don’t care about things like how many months you have to file a response to an examiner’s first office action, I’d focus on chapter 2100, which deals with the statutory requirements for obtaining a patent (as a bonus, chapter 2400 deals entirely with issues surrounding biotechnology).

If your background has you interested in pharmaceuticals then you’ll probably also want to consider how the Hatch-Waxman Act affects the patenting process. Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with Hatch-Waxman so I don’t feel comfortable suggesting a source. Beyond these basics there’s also patent litigation, licensing, and all the policy considerations that go into intellectual property law. But these sources should give you a good starting point.

Anarcho-capitalism 101:

• For a New Liberty [full text] by Murray Rothbard
  
  Anarcho-capitalism: Books on Private Law
  
  
• The Machinery of Freedom [pdf] by David D. Friedman
  
  
• The Market for Liberty [pdf or audiobook] by Linda and Morris Tannehill
  
  
• Chaos Theory [amazon] by Robert P. Murphy
  
  
• The Production of Security [amazon] by Gustave De Molinari
  
  
• The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State [amazon] by Bruce L. Benson
  
  
• Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice [amazon] by Edward P. Stringham
  
  
• Healing Our World [pdf or audiobook] By Dr. Mary Ruwart (some chapters on private law)
  
  
• Complete Liberty [pdf or audiobook] By Wes Bertrand (some chapters on private law)

Pharm does seems to be the outlier in all things patent. Managers in other industries do not rank patent protection as crucial to their development processes as often as pharma managers do. There are a lot of statistics, but I find that one to be a good way to take the average temperature and figure out what might happen if we suddenly cut the system. Bessen & Meurer is still probably the best one-stop-shop for all the basic empirical results in the literature, including that one. They'll point you toward anything more specific (in journals) you want.

The big, if obvious, reason is clinical trials. You absolutely cannot hold onto most, if any, trade secrets once you move into the clinical phases. Your major secrets are going to come out at least to the FDA in your IND application. Even if you could theoretically keep a tighter seal on Phase I participants, medical staff, etc, you've got your clock ticking to file for any patent rights and a long way to go until market. Patenting is going to be the only way you can keep a credible hold on any projected market profits 7-10 years out, justifying either your own internal R&D budgeting or VC/Angel funding. And they're going to be patenting every tidbit of utility leading up to and through the clinicals.

Inventors in other industries can appeal to trade secrets for significantly longer. Sometimes up until it's ready to come to market or at least until they're ready move into prototyping. In larger inventive projects where we may have a harder time with real big secrets, the firm (or the project) can often sit more comfortably on a broad "genus" patent too until later in the development when the spit out a tighter "species" patent right before the innovation hits shelves. In any event, they needed less of a death grip on the patent system to pull them through the R&D, so they view it as "less critical" than the pharma industry.

Theoretically then it's less clear what Non-Pharma would do without them. They probably just dig deeper into secrecy. Since that's not going to be possible for pharma...that's the trouble spot. But, since WTO signatory countries have to provide patent protection, it's a purely academic question. Treaty obligations are pretty darn solid.

I agree with /u/keyilan that its not too late to go back to school in your 30s. I started my PhD at 33. I have a friend who started her MA (and is now in a PhD program) in her 50s. That being said, if you have a stable job you're happy with and want to avoid going into debt, and if you're not completely and totally sure you want to pursue a degree in anthropology, then it's probably better to be an autodidact.

Anyway, here's some suggestions for some stuff on sociocultural anthropology methodology (and historical descriptions of such things) that may be of interest to you.

Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches by H. Russel Bernard (he is the methods guy in sociocultural anthro--and this book is rather dry but super detailed and will teach you all the basics of anthro methodology.)

Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (a classic text in indigenous methods.)

Participant Observation and The Ethnographic Interview by James Spradley

Fieldwork Is Not What It Used To Be edited by James Faubion and George Marcus (I have not read this, but have heard good things about it.)

Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German Enlightenment by Han Vermeulen (this is a history of ethnographic methods rather than a book about methodology, but it's super interesting.)

Your question here and your broader question is really hard to answer succinctly. There are whole classes taught on this. Here are a few points that may be helpful/resolve your curiosity, though.

First, another way of referring to following precedent is the principle of "stare decisis." That may be helpful in running google searches.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, in refusing to overturn Miranda (which, as you may guess, established Miranda rights) indicated that stare decisis is very important, and there must be a "special justification" to depart from precedent (but less so in the context of constitutional decisions): "While stare decisis is not an inexorable command, particularly when we are interpreting the Constitution, even in constitutional cases, the doctrine carries such persuasive force that we have always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some ‘special justification.'"

But not all justices, lawyers, and scholars agree. Most notably, Justice Thomas does not care much for stare decisis (in the context of both constitutional and statutory decisions). According to Justice Thomas, a court's job is to enforce the Constitution (or statute) itself, not any court's interpretations of those laws, so precedent carries very little weight: "When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it. This view of stare decisis follows directly from the Constitution’s supremacy over other sources of law—including our own precedents. . . . In sum, my view of stare decisis requires adherence to decisions made by the People—that is, to the original understanding of the relevant legal text—which may not align with decisions made by the Court. Thus, no 'special justification' is needed for a federal court to depart from its own, demonstrably erroneous precedent."

Ultimately, different justices may have their own views on how it should work--but, really, the bottom line is that nothing besides their own restraint prevents the justices from overturning precedent.

As to how exactly these reinterpretations of the constitution occur--as you note, the text of the Constitution itself hasn't actually changed--this is the subject of much scholarship and debate. If you're interested in learning more about it, I would research the idea of "living constitutionalism," and perhaps read this article/get this book (both by David Strauss, one of the most prominent proponents of the idea that our constitution is a "living document").

This might be a helpful resource if you want more information.

The short and happy guides are the best supplements I’ve used.

It really dumbs down everything and is a great quick reference to all of the major topics.

I especially liked the property one, but they are all good.

A lot of the supplements out there can be hundreds of pages, and it’s just not worth it to me.

A Short & Happy Guide to Property, 2d (Short & Happy Guides) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0314282416/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_yuirDbTH0B87S

Anthony De Jasay is one the most smartest yet underappreciated libertarians I guess. Just look up on his books. Besides that Edward Stringham and Peter Leeson are important figures. I always liked Bruce Benson's works. You should also read his article enforcement of property rights in primitive societies

This article on wild west is excellent. It's based on their book Not So Wild, Wild West

I mentioned Peter Leeson, his article on pirates An-Arrgh-Chy is a different perspective on organization outside the state, his book on same subject, The Invisible Hook is a must read. Also his article on Somalia, Better off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse is perfect.

And this is another article on law and justice by Bruce Benson.

Molyneux borrows ideas in that book and gives no credit to his influences. The book is not TERRIBLE (it's also not great), but your time would be better spent with another work imo. Stick with Rothbard and Friedman for intro texts.

I'd also recommend The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State by Bruce Benson: http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without/dp/1598130447

If this is all totally new to you, this video by Robert Murphy is a really great introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw

If anyone is interested in some of the background and judicial politics behind Brown v. Board of Education, I highly recommend Simple Justice by Richard Kluger.

I was required to read it for one of my legal history courses. BUT, it reads like a novel. It requires very little background knowledge and is just simply a great book. It's a book I'll keep next to my Harry Potter and Game of Thrones books.

There's a book called "Learning Legal Rules" which I read at the start of my law studies which is a bit dense but it's a really good introduction to how the law and the judicial system in the UK works - unfortunately that kind of stuff is too dry to make really interesting haha. I'd recommend it if you read it in bits and pieces rather than trying to go through the entire thing.

You can get the penultimate edition for £2.81 on Amazon.

>Your quote "too fucking bad for you" was not responding to the text. You are revisionist after the fact.

My apologies if you took offense. I assure you my remarks were intended towards the writer and not you personally. I didn't quote you, I quoted him.

>The "bad guy" is not simply the state nor simply the corporation, but the people who think the free market when left to its own devices by entities by sociopathic by definition will always (or ever) do the right thing.

How many times are you going to build the same straw man? My only claim is that markets, in general, work much better than government. The evidence for that claim is overwhelming.

>You probably enjoy sports without referees and ultimate fighting cage matches.

Government is not the only source of law, nor is it a particularly good source. Try this book if you're interested in private law.

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.

Okay first guy got it right but if I'm good at anything its working smarter not harder. DONT get Chemerinsky, amazon prime or get your ass to a book store that sells this go through it and understand the core of the cases, go watch the barbri lectures that are keyed to your semester, take fucking notes, you put your self in a corner so no fucking time to slack. Then go to the library or bookstore and get this And do EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION, the multiple choice took me like 4 hours to get through at a slow pace. and take 30 min for the essays, for efficiency sake do the multiple choice questions first. Good luck.... you'll fucking need it.

Yeah I'm researching now, and I've forgotten that of course what's needed is a combination of tort AND contract law.

I think I've found what I'm looking for, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State - Bruce L. Benson

I'll be going over this article as well by Kinsella: A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability

Economist here! A common definition of a government/state is a "legal monopoly of coercion." Anarchy is simply a situation where that is absent. And just as some governments have been awful and others benevolent and good, anarchy per se is neither. The real question is whether anarchy can allow a flourishing and peaceful society to exist? Of course there are also important normative questions: is a radically decentralized system of power likely to be better or worse than one with fairly centralized authority?

A great place to start is Bruce Benson. There are people who write about "Anarcho-Capitalism" mostly from the Austrian economics enthusiasts, and as fringe as these folks are, there's something to it. Benson attacks an important part of the problem by asking about the workings of the legal system in a state setting and in non-state settings.

A book I haven't read, but that I've heard good things about is The Invisible Hook. Ask yourself this: where do you least expect social cooperation with decentralized authority? Maybe a place filled with short-sighted, uneducated, criminals. An 18th century pirate ship is just such a place. And yet it turns out pirates were among the first to establish checks on central authorities with constitutions.

Another hard case is the case of prisons. And yet the prison economy is flourishing with drugs, cell phones, and other contraband changing hands in a market dependent on trade and cooperation. This happens in spite of a central authority outlawing this activity. Think Soviet black markets in music, except instead of innocent Russians you've got some pretty un-peaceful dudes.

All of these situations shed important light on the possibility of anarchy. They show that some of our basic assumptions about the role of government rest on shakier foundations than we might have thought. People can, and probably will cooperate. Just as surely, they will try to rip each other off. But of course that's true in government too.

Well before the United States even existed, there were several examples of law, justice and accountability systems being provided on a societal scale without government involvement. As a matter of fact, some of western law today derives from some of these systems. Merchant law is a prime example.

So the idea that government is the only, or even the best method of holding companies (or even individuals) accountable ought to be very seriously challenged.

Asking how would the marketplace provide accountability without government is impossible to answer definitively as is any future theoretical concept. Many theoretical answers could be given and if you search diligently enough on the internet you'll find many scholarly writings from reputable sources. If you really want to know, Reddit probably isn't your greatest source. Here's a great book on the subject. And here's a free eBook that deals with this subject as well.

However, we don't need to know how problems in society could theoretically be solved in order to advocate for the end of immoral behavior (the government usurping power from the people and failing to perform). Did the people of the 19th century need to know that tractors and complex machinery would be invented to harvest and process the food we eat to advocate for the end of the chattel slave labor that was being used at that time to harvest food?

I also hope automod doesn't harass me for linking here, but you might also really enjoy a book called The Enterprise of Law, which is dedicated to this topic, and perhaps To Serve and Protect, another work by the same author (Law Professor Bruce L Benson).

If you would like a good discussion of this topic generally, Ilya Somin (a law professor and very staunch Libertarian) has good book discussing why smaller governments are always better:

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Political-Ignorance-Smaller-Government/dp/0804786615/ref=la_B000AP9XW6_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405799469&sr=1-2

Note that "small" here refers literally to the size of the governed territory, not a metaphor for a limited Federal government.

It takes between 40-60 hours to effectively fight a ticket and win. Is it worth your time?

If you just write a statement and go to a hearing, you will lose.

If you want to burn a work week of time and have some fun “fighting the man” and learn some stuff, then this book is excellent:

https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Your-Ticket-Win-California/dp/1413310303

Nolo press has also been a good resource: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-book/chapter3-4.html

And I even made use of the county law library.

(Source: After getting some BS parking tickets and moving violations, I started fighting them. Lifetime, I have beaten 7 tickets, and lost twice. To win, you have to spend hours and hours preparing and navigating to a real hearing, and I only succeeded b/c of that book and because I practiced and rehearsed with a college buddy who is a lawyer now. The last ticket I got, I just paid, b/c it burns so much time and causes much stress.)

Short answer: Freer

Long answer: Listen to the Richard Freer tapes before the relevant class and then again after and actually outline/take notes on the tapes. You likely have free access to the law school legends one through your school; the barbri 1L package also has videos of him which are what I used and my understanding is it's pretty much the same as the tapes. https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-School-Legends-Audio/dp/0314199780

This was a godsend for me. A little pricey but super worth it.

Yeah, it's just in my head that the average voter is so on top of things. They pour over statistics and spreadsheets day and night trying to formulate their opinion. They totally care more about public policy than their favorite TV show or that co-worker they want to ask out on a date.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Political-Ignorance-Smaller-Government/dp/0804786615/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1463629617&sr=8-4&keywords=somin

This is a decent online overview.

For books, I'd point you first toward Simple Justice and Brown v. Board of Education. Questia has a thorough selection of titles, but I haven't read all of them, so couldn't make a significant recommendation there. The two I linked specifically should be available online, so if you have a kindle program on your computer, you're set.

The Brown decision is admittedly not a case I know as well as others (I know a lot more about Lemon v. Kurtzman and Pierce v. Society of Sisters), but those two books linked are at least good overviews (as well as ones my dad used when he taught the case, for many years). If I can get a copy of his syllabus, I could probably get more resources for you, since he knows far more about Brown than I do.

As I said, call it whatever word you want, the key aspect is consent. Here's a good resource on law in that context: The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State https://www.amazon.com/dp/1598130447/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_44i2BbHJ4N8SJ

A few of my friends told me this was the best book for essays (in CA).

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/073550993X/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Then if you're willing to put in the work, you might have a defense. One great resource is David Browns, "Fight Your Ticket and Win in California." The 2009 version is still valid. It gives a lot of information on the "speed trap" defense. This is where you were cited for 22350 using radar.

But basically if a traffic an engineering survey hasn't been done on that stretch of road within the past 5 years, the radar evidence isn't admissible. And given she was moving at the time, her estimation of your speed is a tough sell.

But before you do all that, plead not guilty by mail, pay the full bail ($367) and request a trial by written declaration.

Okay so I got A Short & Happy Guide to Property and it is helpful! Essentially the only difference between these two things is that a Condition Subsequent has conditional language and a carve-out for the right to reenter. But calling it a condition subsequent implies that the right to possess ends with the condition, buuuut, they can stay there until the right to reenter is exercised. Am I missing a logical step or is it just kind of loosey-goosey?

Historians get their knowledge of ancients societies from the sources like tribes living on isolated islands. For those interested in the topic of decentralized law in history, I recommend a book The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State by Bruce Benson. The author is austrian economist. It is ancap-safe reading, doesn't trigger a reader by statist propaganda.

Link

I'm not a con law lawyer, but I have a decent fundamental understanding and I can try to clarify any questions you have. But that book is a great primer on con law, it summarizes the case law book written by the foremost scholar on con law, Chemerinsky.

Insurance, arbitration, private security, bounty hunters, mutual aid societies, there is actually quite a bit of work on the private production of justice and defense.

https://mises.org/books/private_production_of_defense.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without/dp/1598130447

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality rocked my world. Twenty years later, it remains one of the best books I've ever read.

Examples & Explanations: Intellectual Property, Fourth Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/1454803320/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qkMMyb891X7XS

I used this book in my IP Law class during undergrad. Easy to read and tons of info and examples.

> everybody is only subjected to laws that they agree to.

You'd only be legally obligated to laws you agreed to.

> This is basically impossible. The whole reason that politics exists is that people disagree about things.

No it's not impossible. The link I referred to gave many historical examples which prove it's possible. For example, Merchant Law was not developed or administered by governments, but by private merchants and utilized private courts, enforcement and dispute resolution. It successfully resolved disputes outside State jurisdiction for hundreds of years and was integral to international commerce. There are many more examples.

I highly recommend Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" which is a historical and theory review of various types of legal systems: http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without/dp/1598130447

> In this way, a conditional statement with the form 'If you do x I do y' is a law, where x is something I find undesirable and y is something you find undesirable.

A few points on this:

(1) That y is undesirable is not enough to make the statement a law. For example, if I live across the street from you and I say "If you do x, I will demolish my house so that the view from your front window is terrible," then I don't think this isn't a law in the traditional sense of the word, even though you don't want me as your neighbor to ruin the view from your front window by demolishing my house. (Maybe it is a law under some broader definition of law, but it wouldn't be like the laws that states make.) In order to make it a law in the traditional sense, I think y has to involve some use of something that is not your property in the eyes of the subject. So: 'If you do x, I do y' where 'y' involves you using something that I consider to be someone-other-than-you's property without that person's consent.

(Note: There may be good reasons to define "law" more broadly than the "traditional sense" I am referring to. IIRC Bruce Benson used a broader definition of "law" in his book The Enterprise of Law which I read a couple years ago. My intention is merely to point out the differences between your definition and the kind of law that the state makes (a kind that would also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society).

(2) x does not need to be something that you find undesirable in order for the statement to be a law. For example, the state may not find it undesirable for people to possess marijuana (on the contrary, they may want people to possess marijuana so that they can have an additional excuse to hire more police), yet their command "If you possess marijuana, we'll lock you up" is still a law due to what the state will do if you don't obey the command.

(3) y does not need to be something that I find undesirable in order for the statement to be a law. For example, I may love giving money to charity and find this very desirable, but if the state says to me, "If you don't give $1 to a charity of your choice, we will imprison you for a day" then this is still a law due to the kind of consequence the state will impose if I choose not to obey.

Private Security and Dispute Resolution in a Free Society (part 3)

-------------

History

• Article: "Merchant law developed in medieval Europe without the involvement of the state. This is particularly remarkable given that it sought to provide dispute resolution and basic legal standards across a wide territorial expanse that included peoples who spoke different languages and practiced different customs. You can read a good discussion of it in the classic work of Bruce Benson, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State."
  
  
• Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government (Free Market Analysis) "The history of Viking Age Iceland has lessons to teach. One is the importance of a decentralized enforcement power. Iceland's decentralized legal system managed to keep its leaders on a short leash for much of its history. Chieftains only had power if they could convince people to follow them, without the use of coercion. This minimized the principal-agent problem. Who wants to voluntarily follow an incompetent or evil leader? And even if an evil leader did sucker a few free farmers into following him, in the long run he would lose credibility."
  
  --------
  
  Recommended Videos:
  
  
• Law without Government - Pt 1 - video (basic) & Part 2 & Part 3
  
• Funding Public Goods: Six Solutions
  
• Prof. Edward Stringhman: Security and Law without government (moderate)
  
• Private Law - Hans Hoppe (advanced + economics)
  
• Anarchy and Efficient Law - David D. Friedman - video/lecture (advanced + economics)
  
  

Awesome. So is that this book: https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Property-Law-John-Sprankling/dp/1522105573/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518013588&sr=8-1&keywords=understanding+property ?

The Law by Frederic Bastiat (super short, free)

https://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1940177014/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487742542&sr=1-3&keywords=The+law


Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell
https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Society-Expanded-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465025226

Here's a good slogan: "Do what you want, pay for yourself."

Check out this book

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415137489/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

and if interested in critical theory on Native American art

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1848139500/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I took a course on Native American art two semesters ago. My professor was fantastic. These were two were required readings.

Maybe a bit out of date now, but I did enjoy reading it years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Pollution-Control-Mitigation-Environmental-Institute/dp/1585761532

The thing that made estates and future interests click for me was just doing A LOT of practice questions. I also liked our workbook, Amazon Link

I got this book recommended to me in another thread, it does not seen to be a collection of essays but it deals with the Clean Air Act, so maybe what you are looking for?



https://www.amazon.com/Pollution-Control-Mitigation-Environmental-Institute/dp/1585761532

It seems we're talking past each other because our experiences are so different. I'll reiterate that my statements apply to software patents, which perhaps are very different from fields where patents represent "months or years" of research. Many of the software patents I've encountered represent a trivial amount of research - measured in hours or days, not months or years. I'd attribute this to the fact that anyone competent in the field can get 3-4x the salary of a patent examiner by working as a software engineer.

Here's a good book that provides a large amount of empirical evidence in support of my claims:

Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk

You left out he's a republican who champions smaller government. Here's a link to one of his books

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Political-Ignorance-Smaller-Government/dp/0804786615?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

Couldn't agree more! Throughout history, the provision of justice without the state has been the norm at many times in many places: https://smile.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State-ebook/dp/B00BKRY6QG/

I'd recommend reading the original op-ed.

Then in turn, look at the book written by the author Posner cited, David Strauss, called The Living Consitution (Inalienable Rights).

Posner is NOT saying ignore the constitution. He is, however, against head in the sand originalism.

Info about a Peremptory Challenge can be found here and here. The latter of which is far superior but either would do if that's all you want to learn about.

You were traveling Southbound on State College Blvd and made the U-turn at Nutwood Ave, correct?

Do you have examples? Because I know of quite a few critiques along that vein coming from conservative sources:

• Ben Domenech at The Federalist complains that Trump's populism is tapping into "White Identity Politics" rather than conservative principles, and that it's bad for the Republican Party.
  
• Libertarian Ilya Somin has been attacking Trump for a while, attributing his success to widespread ignorance (which is kinda a broader topic in itself that Somin is obsessed with and argues is justification for limited government)
  
• William Galson at the WSJ argues that Trump's appeal can be attributed to the GOP's alienation of the less educated white working class, and highlights their anti-trade, anti-immigration beliefs (which in a place like the WSJ, is politely saying that they're misinformed) as an example.
  
  Part of it, of course, is that we have poll data that shows that Trump supporters are less educated than, say, Rubio supporters. So people on the left and the right start from that premise, and run with the narrative that fits their views best.

> How can you have criminals without laws or laws without a state.

Ancap society is not one without laws, but rather laws are privately produced by agreement with others.

Imagine a private city, it established rules of conduct and (financial) penalties for breaking those rules.

Any visitors coming in must agree to these rules in order to get in. Thus if they agree not to steal and are caught stealing, they agreed to pay the value of the thing they tried to steal to the person they tried to steal it from, or w/e was agreed on.

Here's a whole book on the topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/1598130447

Not a lecture, but check out the Lexis "Understanding" series of supplement books. Property was the first class I ever used one of these books for, and I CALI'd it! They have it on Amazon here, but I'm guessing most law libraries would have it too.

Benson would be the go-to guy: Enforcement of Private
Property Rights in Primitive Societies:
Law without Government and A Description of a Modern
System of Law and Order
without State Coercion, as well as a couple others. He also has a 400 page book which expands on those articles.

Regarding Friedman, I'm confused by you saying you "know it's not true". David Friedman is an anarcho-capitalist, albeit of the neo-classical, consequentialist variety. His book Law's Order demonstrates that economic incentives founded on private property relations are sufficient for law and order.

Just type in polycentric law.

Edit: Mistakenly said Friedman is a neo-classical. He's more of a monetarist. Bryan Caplan is the neo-classical ancap.

Start by getting this book. Best $50 you'll ever spend. In fact, I abandoned my Themis essay materials and used it almost exclusively the final 3-4 weeks of studying.

Learning Legal Rules was always the book which we were advised to read ahead of a law degree:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Learning-Legal-Rules-Students-Reasoning/dp/0199657491

Don't bother paying through the nose for the latest edition.

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-School-Legends-Series/dp/0314199780/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1381594155&sr=8-3&keywords=civil+procedure+freer

Find an upper classman that has them and doesn't need them anymore.

One of the few study aids that is 100% worth the price of admission.

https://www.amazon.com/Estates-Land-Future-Interests-Coursebook/dp/1454825103 this.

Check out Edwards' Estates in Land & Future Interests.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1454825103/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Wenn es dich wirklich interessiert, haste hier einige Buchvorschläge:

Justice without a State Über Herkunft und privatrechtliche Alternativen im Staatswesen

Oliver Janich mEn einer Meinungsbilder im deutschsprachigen Raum

Stirner klar einer der Vordenker des Individualanarchismus

Die Österreichische Schule Wiki einer der Hauptströmungen

edit: Voluntarismus eine Weiterentwicklung basierend auf der Idee der Freiwilligkeit - das "V" im Video

Essay Exam Writing for the CA Bar Exam

Intro

Audiobook series on amazon

I certainly agree that (rational) political ignorance is a serious problem and a huge contributing factor to the current state of affairs. I was persuaded of that even before 2016, thanks in large part to the work of Ilya Somin (whose politics I don't share otherwise).

​

There's no viable alternative, though, at least not one I'm aware of. And if we are going to operate as a representative democracy, then attempting to reduce the franchise is unjust.

Unfair lawmakers lead to unfair laws....and guess what else?

...government corruption.

Edit: Frederic Bastiat covers this phenomena (of tendency to corruption and what affects will manifest in the culture when the law is misused) really well in his book "The Law" It reads like it could have been written last year even though it was written in 1850.

https://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1940177014/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1527552266&sr=8-2&keywords=the+law&dpID=51uAsvXWbiL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Is that considered a "product review or recommendation?"

There's in interesting concept called 'rational ignorance' which in a political context means that for most people the cost of educating themselves about political matters outweights the potential value they might get from making more informed decisions. (By voting or campaigning for issues that are more in their interest.)

If political ignorance really is rational then it's not so much a flaw in the political system as a fact about human nature that any political system has to work around.

The volokh conspiracy has written about the topic quite a bit and one of their contributors actually wrote an entire book on it.

I searched the name of the book you recommended but couldn't find it. Do you know the authors name?

Wait are those 3 different books?

Edit: Yea I am dumb they are different books. Here they are on amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Justice-Education-Americas-Struggle/dp/1400030617

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Lawyer-Mentoring-Paperback/dp/0465016332

https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Action-Jonathan-Harr/dp/0679772677

https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/1400096790

At the very least, I would show up to contest it. I don't know if tickets issued by Bart police are handled in the same way as normal tickets, but if so, and if your time is worth less than the cost of the ticket, it's worth it.

First things first, I would buy (and have bought) this book. No, this isn't a traffic ticket, but much of the rules regarding court rules, motions, etc. still apply.

Next, I would show up at my arraignment and would not waive time. One of our rights under the constitution is a "fair and speedy trial". For infractions, this is usually 45 days. If you waive time, you're allowing the court to dick around as much as they want. Also, I would not plead my case at my arraignment. The sixth amendment guarantees us the right to confront our accuser. Unless the officer is there that day, they'll have to set a trial date. I would let them do so. If they try to hear the trial right then and there, see below for the motion I would file to dismiss due to lack of prosecution. (i.e. your accuser.) I would also bring four separately signed and dated copies of the following motions:

• Motion of peremptory challenge (Disqualifies the judge if the defendant merely believes that the judge will not give the defendant a fair and unbiased trial. - Note: the judge hearing the arraignment may not be the judge hearing the trial, and we only get to do this once, so I wouldn't waste it on the arraignment judge. Find out who your trial judge is first.)
  
• Request for court reporter (The CA supreme court held that even those charged only with infractions are allowed the same rights as those charged with misdemeanors or felonies. I would definitely file this.)
  
• Motion for dismissal due to lack of prosecution (if the court forces the defendant to try the case then and there, and if officer doesn't show up.)
  
  Why four copies? One for the court, one to get stamped by the clerk and keep for records/proof (believe me - this is important, more on that later), and two in case the first two get screwed up. It's important to, at the very minimum, file the request/demand for the court reporter at your arraignment, so that when your trial rolls along, one can demonstrate (via the stamped copy we kept - see? important!) that it was requested ahead of time, and gave the court plenty of notice. I've had a judge claim I didn't request it, and didn't plan ahead and get a stamped copy beforehand. Lucky for me, the court clerk corrected the judge!
  
  Odds are, the only motion you'll end up filing that day is the motion requesting a court reporter. But be prepared; you might need more. Once your court date is set, reply to this post and I'll comment some more.
  
  By the way, I'm not a lawyer, and nothing above should be construed as legal advice. It just happens to be what I've used successfully when faced with minor tickets in the past. If you're particularly concerned, go speak to an attourney. I believe (though I'm not certain) that the public defender may handle this case, depending on the specifics. Go find out.

First off, if you have the resources/time, try taking the bar next July instead of Feb. You'll thank yourself for having more time to spread out and study. I didn't do that (I took all 3 of my exams back-to-back-to-back), but had I failed a third time--which was possible--I would have moved back to my parent's place and taken the test a 4th time in July instead of Feb.


I started studying a week after my results both times. I got a local CA bar exam tutor the 2nd and 3rd time (fuck barbri) that assigned us essays that we later discussed together in small groups. Each day was about 10-15 hours of studying, which consisted of doing and reviewing about 3-4 essays that were assigned by my tutor and 50 MBE's. But make no mistake, I took at least a day off a week. Otherwise, I would have gone insane.


As far as essays go, barbri's aren't that bad, but, at least for CA, they're WAY too in-depth given the time constraints. I used this book for the CA bar exam essays: https://www.amazon.com/Essay-Exam-Writing-California-Bar/dp/073550993X If you can find a NY one similar to the one I linked, then you're golden.

As far as MBE's go, again, get a hold of the Kaplan/PMBR ones, and do these Civ Pro ones from Emanuel: https://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Tactics-MBE-Emanuel-Review/dp/1454873124/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1/164-3132343-7414359?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=3YN7A1AYTGD6BXWMQA79

Finally, I'd review the black letter stuff--which, frankly, is the entire bar exam, as it's almost impossible to grade policy answers--while practicing/reviewing. You also memorize better by practicing. I'd dedicate barely any separate time solely to black letter stuff.

Again, YOU CAN FUCKING DO THIS

> Place is full of sick fucks that try to justify child rape

That's a violation of the NAP, so it's not justifiable under an-cap ethics. You're wrong.

>their whole world view collapses if they have to say some laws, like those preventing child rape, are needed.

An-caps favor private law and thus aren't against laws existing per se. Further, much libertarian thought has gone into how to protect children in a free society, how terrible violence (the use of which is required by the state) is for children, and critiquing the current regime that is clearly failing to protect children:

https://mises.org/library/legal-child-abuse

https://mises.org/library/case-against-government-child-care

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf7uq9NUOnY

Because I believe that the answer to the problem of having violent individuals is not to lock them in cages (where they tear each other apart) and force the community to pay to house and clothe them.

There are a few good books about how you'd have security,courts, law and restitution to victims without a government that enforces a monopoly on these vital services. One of these is Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law: Justice without the State
http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without/dp/1598130447

There are better ways to dissuade violent criminals and better ways to punish them than what the state currently does. If you have a prison, it has to be paid for. If it's not private, then it's funded through taxation which is theft.

This isn't anything I've heard from another ancap, but I also hold the belief that the vast majority of violence committed by individuals, on individuals stems from either abuse, poverty or both. You just don't have well adjusted, well cared for children growing up to be killers or rapists (unless they're a sociopath, but that's a different animal altogether). So it's my belief that a stateless society, where the NAP and natural rights for every man, woman and child (including right to self defense) are championed would both produce and attract minimal numbers of individuals who intend to do harm.

Edit: Just as an afterthought, I wanted to emphasize that societies who centralize the security force, dissuade individuals from learning to defend themselves and houses and feeds violent criminals instead of encouraging them to pay restitution will attract and encourage violent criminals.