(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best political & governmental books

Other people have addressed the EU question, so I'll focus more on politics in general. There's some decent BBC media which covers current politics, it can sometimes be a bit tedious, some shows are better than others, and I certainly wouldn't recommend rigorously following all of them, but it's pretty good for familiarising yourself with the current state of affairs. Some TV and radio shows to follow -

Daily Politics - daily show analysing politics, which often gets high profile politicians on.

This Week - weekly show, airing after Question time, with a slightly comedic approach to political analysis.

Andrew Marr Show - weekly show, the one which senior ministers (the prime minister, the chancellor, the home secretary, etc) are most likely to appear on.

Question Time - weekly topical debate program, with questions from the audience directed towards politicians.

Any Questions - radio version of Question Time. Often not quite as annoying as Question time.

Today in Parliament - daily radio show covering news from parliament.

 

Parliament.uk and gov.uk are both great resources for learning how parliament and government functions, and learning about legislation. If you'd prefer a less fragmented read, such as a book, then Exploring British Politics by Garnett and Lynch seems like a good introductory source, though I will add the disclaimer that I've only used it occasionally as a reference book, and it is fairly pricey.

 

It can sometimes be difficult to understand the significance of things in politics without a basic grounding in the historical context, so I will recommend some more books to help with that (although much of the info can be found online). Two of the most important figures in recent British political history are Thatcher, and Blair. Charles Moore's Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography, Volume One is a good book for starting to understand the political context of the Thatcher era, although it is obviously quite biographical too, and being the first volume it only covers roughly the first third of her time in government. The comprehensive tome on Blair and his wide-ranging effect on the functioning of british politics is surely Seldon's Blair's Britain, 1997-2007, although I will warn you that is it most definitely a tome - incredibly thorough and a bit of a slog. The best way to approach this is probably to read the sections on things you are interested in, like the NHS, and leave the rest until you feel you want to learn about them. Sections of Seldon's Cameron at 10 are definitely worth a read if you want some more insight into the first Cameron ministry, and the coalition years.

 

I can't really recommend any comprehensive histories on the political parties (although what I've read of Tim Bale's The Conservatives Since 1945 is pretty good). One I would recommend is Goodwin's Revolt on the Right, which offers a fairly original analysis of the phenomenon that is UKIP. There's a more up-to-date follow-up to that, (UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics), which I imagine is also pretty good, but I haven't read it. Familiarising yourself with general political ideologies (to rattle off an incomplete list: one nation conservatism, high toryism, classical liberalism, social liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, democratic socialism, etc), how these relate to each other, and how they have manifested in the various 3 main parties over time is a must for understanding the parties and the political tensions within them. Wikipedia should suffice in filling in the details there (and in other places), for now.

>Interesting, I will look at the papers.

Lenz is a book, as a heads-up. This is the book. The others are papers.

>So they conclude: If the economy is bad, people are more likely to vote for the party which isn't the government at that moment. Did I understand this correctly?

Yep!

>Another comment stated (without any sources) that a difficult economic situation causes a shift to the extremes, you know anything about that?

I haven't seen anything on that. It may be true, but I wouldn't know.

>This is more a sociological question, so maybe you don't know, but does person which start earning less, change political preferences?

I'm going to assume you mean party choice in presidential elections when you talk about political preferences.

Yes...at least, that's what most people believe. Changes in real disposable income, according to Hibbs in "Bread and Peace Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections", is the "bread" portion of the title. Hibbs argues that changes in real disposable income were a significant portion of the vote shares for the incumbent party. In October 2008, Hibbs used the model of bread and peace in "Implications of the 'Bread and Peace' Model for the 2008 US Presidential Election" to predict that Republicans would get 48.2% of the two-party vote share. They got 46.3%. This doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that bread and peace alone don't make for the total share. He addressed this in 2012 in "Obama's Reelection Prospects under “Bread and Peace” Voting in the 2012 US Presidential Election", noting that other factors influence elections. He said:

>Other factors of course influence presidential voting, potentially so dramatically that the systematic influence of Bread and Peace fundamentals may be overwhelmed. However, such events are transitory rather than persistent, they vary randomly from election to election, and they typically defy ex-ante objective measurement. The accounts by talking heads, and even analyses by thoughtful journalists and academic experts, are sometimes populated with stories revolving around election-specific idiosyncratic factors and fanciful ad-hoc variables whose true influence can be assessed scientifically only by statistical conditioning on persistent fundamentals.

>In 2008, Obama's race and McCain's age were prominent idiosyncratic factors, though in the end neither exerted perceptible net effect on the election outcome. Race will never again figure significantly in presidential politics, and that will be Obama's greatest positive legacy to democracy in America.4 In 2012 the main idiosyncratic issues appear to be gay marriage, immigration policy, Romney's religion and financial affairs, and the Affordable Care Act upheld on June 28, 2012 by the Supreme Court. On the personality dimension we have Romney's social awkwardness and distance by contrast to Obama's hip-cool. None of those factors played a role in earlier elections and all will have disappeared by 2016, and maybe even by Election Day 2012.

Still, he decided to use bread and peace to predict, in that October 2012 paper, that Obama would lose. However, he noted that other factors could push Obama's vote share as high as 52% easily. This is actually what Obama got. So while real disposable income and peace are not the only factors, there is definitely evidence that it matters in elections.

One thing to note is that people may not change their actual political preferences based on how the economy is doing. Voters are woefully ignorant of how tax policy works, how the economy works, and more. What Lenz argues that they actually do, is that they vote for those who they like, and then adopt their policy views. So if they dislike the incumbent party because of a bad economy (or because they are earning less), they are more likely to vote for the challenger. They may adopt the policy preferences of that challenger.

It's important to also note that there are some voters who likely never change their actual political preferences.

Numbers on how many and how this all works are unclear, because of the uncertainty and numerous factors that coalesce. But that hopefully helps.

From your overview, which had you saying "trainers" and "£80", I'm going to infer that you are British. Which is excellent, because I can recommend The Establishment: And how they get away with it without reservation, hesitation or caveats. As I see it, this book should be essential reading for everyone in the United Kingdom, but it's number 1 on your reading list if you want to be informed about the world, as it will inform the entire prism through which you interpret information not only about politics and society in the United Kingdom but also the rest of the world. It's written by a left-wing journalist, but you don't have to be left-wing to make use of it. It could be the case that you read it and find nothing wrong with anything he writes about, in which case, OK... right... you're perfectly entitled to that view, but then at least you've come to that opinion from a position of knowledge.

Noam Chomsky said that the way to keep people passive and content is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. So vary the opinions and views you are exposed to. Read the newspapers and the news programmes etc., but read some other things as well, like the Canary for example. Find some left-wing blogger (I'd point you to Another Angry Voice) and listen to what they say. Find out about the political compass and how to more correctly classify political beliefs (I'd maybe suggest taking the test and following the recommended reading for your quadrant?). Take the time to learn what it means for people to hold these views and who in politics believes what. You'll notice that I've said a fair bit about left-wing media in the UK -- the reason for that is two-fold: a) as you may have deduced by now, I'm a left-winger, so I'm quite familiar with this stuff (and eager to direct you towards it), and also b) as the book explains, if you want right-wing media, the country is saturated with it. You don't need me to tell you where to find it.

Your goal at all times should be to come to a political viewpoint, understanding what it means and having dismissed other possible viewpoints. If you really want to, be a Tory, and vote for them at the next election (whenever that might be), but understand what it means to do so. Above all, remember that no-one for whom it is relevant is politically neutral. If you're truly neutral, you're apathetic, and that applied to basically no-one who talks about politics, Bear this in mind, and subject all you read to scrutiny.

And for God's sake, buy the book! Read it! If you do nothing else that I've said, do that. It is the best place to begin, and easily the best investment of your time and money you could make all year.

P.S. Whew, that turned out to be a long post! Sorry about that :)

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

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

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

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

Awesome, let me hook you up:

Murray N. Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, the indepth treatise on liberty in a society without the State. And the audiobook.

Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy (Audio). Shorter work on the principles of liberty and expands on the economic aspects.

Anarcho-capitalism Primer videos playlist. There are about 4 or 5 shorter than 10 minutes for you to chill. And there are the in-depth, one-hour lectures for when you are in between the books.

Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Rothbard poured a lifetime of research and all his intellectual energy to makes an overwhelming case on most matters of social concerns to explain society without the Nation-state (Audiobook).

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (e-book) and (audiobook). Friedman uses economics and utilitarian concerns to discuss how society would improve with liberty and without the State.

The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill (audiobook.) Excellent and very argumentative, with many interesting illustrations and discussions on several topics of society and economics.

Huemer's Problem of Political Authority. It is a work on political and moral philosophy, with some treatment of psychology.

Leeson's Anarchy Unbound. Peter Leeson is a legal scholar and his work documents historical and contemporary legal practices and teachings and how they apply to a society of liberty.

Christopher Chase Rachels' A Spontaneous Order. Inspired by the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on argumentation ethics as an ultimate foundation for liberty. First five chapters available as audio.

For a more complete list see Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

When you read one of them, I suggest for you to write up a short post on your favourite subjects. It is a great way way to have productive discussions. Don't forget to tag me ( /u/anon338 ) so that I can enjoy it also.

Alright, well the first thing to remember is to disregard most of what you hear from your acquaintances on social media- they are almost always wrong. The second thing to remember is that everything is always more complex than sound bites let on. This is meant as a starting point- if you are interested in politics there is a mountain to read and learn.

You have a lot of questions, and I will try to answer them in order.

> How exactly does the US election process work?

The US has a single-member plurality representative democracy in a presidential system of government.

The US Constitution denotes the separation of powers of the three branches of the federal government, and also lays out indirectly how federalism works.

Because of Duverger's Law, this results in the primacy of two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. Most major candidates at all levels of government are traditionally from these two parties.

Each of these parties select their candidates through a primary election process, where candidates of the same party compete to represent that party in the actual election.

> What are super PACs?

Super PACs are a type of Political Action Committee that grew out of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling which established that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects political giving as a form of free speech, even for corporations. A lot of people confuse Super PACS (PACs that have unlimited contributions but cannot give to or coordinate with a candidate) with Dark Money that sometimes gives to Super PACs.

> Also, what exactly are lobbyists? In my understanding, politicians are being bribed and it's legal? Politicians are basically openly buyable?

No, this is patently false. It is a very common misconception (especially on social media like Reddit) that is perpetuated by people with little knowledge or background in politics. Bribery (exchanging money for votes) has been illegal for hundreds of years, and yes politicians have gone to jail for it.

Lobbying is an industry that grew out of the First Amendment's right to petition the government. Basically, it is every citizen's right to go up to Congress or the Administration and talk to them. Over time, people realized that going in groups of like-minded people is better than going alone; so they formed advocacy organizations (lobbying groups) and they lobbied Congress on behalf of their members. Obviously, corporations do this too on behalf of their owners/shareholders. Lobbying performs some very important functions.

Now, an area where reformers are looking is how donating money to a candidate year after year (remember that money for votes is illegal) to develop relationships with lawmakers gives them influence. This is undeniably true. A politician is much more likely to take a long discussion meeting with someone who gave to their election bid than someone who didn't. This is a problem. However most laypeople assume that lawmakers make up their platforms to please lobbyists in order to get money- this is demonstrably false- it's actually the other way around. Advocacy groups largely give money to people who already agree with them, to support them and to get or keep them in office. (The one area where this doesn't hold true is on non-salient issues; small tweaks in the tax code, minor regulation changes, etc. In these cases, lobbyists do exercise undue influence because the issues are so remote, lawmakers don't already have an opinion.) -But these problems are not unique to American politics- lobbying in some form happens in every country in the world.

In terms of all candidates but Sanders being utter jokes, you are entitled to your opinion. But please don't assume that other rational voters are any less astute than yourself- there are always reasons to support a different candidate, and the only way to test if your reasons stack up against theirs is through vigorous public debate.

If I missed anything, or you have follow up questions, let me know. It is a big topic, worthy of many books, so obviously things are paraphrased or left out.

EDIT: Thanks for the gold!

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

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

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

Posted here is an excerpt from this blog.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a lot of very simplistic points made for and against the positions presented by the libertarian/anarchistic intellectual traditions, and internet comments especially can devolve very quickly. Some people who've taken the time to research the arguments related their own questions or opinions about anarchy have sophisticated responses against steel-manned positions, but the majority are radically oversimplified and woefully short of awareness just like this. It's disheartening to spend so much effort to find out where exactly you stand in a political sense, and find that there appear to be legions of people continuously washing up against you who, though they might claim rationality, are perfectly content to drop an opinion as a decisive conclusion into a soundbyte space with no real argument. And this applies to the person you're speaking to above, not just you. It's just a really poor exchange. I'll see what I can do to help in this case, and maybe something interesting will happen.

To be very up-front, I would also describe myself as an anarchist. I came to that conclusion first by exposure to powerful moral arguments that required no acceptance of any special moral theories, but simply pitted my own morality against my belief in the political authority of the State and exposed total conflict. However, half the anarchists I've met didn't come by this approach, but by pragmatism instead. I would say that approach occupies most of the anarchist literature out there, being things like legal theory, game theory, economics, solutions to public goods problems, market failures, basically a consequentialist's playground. The reason for this is probably that a lot of folks demand quite a complete and detailed explanation for most facets of a theorized anarchist society where today they can only imagine coercive (State) solutions to the same problems. Since both of the above comments appear to be approaching from a pragmatic perspective, that's the kind of resource I'll be providing.

The claim in question is one of the most common refrains first uttered in response to the idea of a stateless society. "Without government, warlords would take over." Luckily for anyone interested in that claim here, it is also addressed in most places where people bother to ask about it. I'll present some of the shorter resources, and one or two longer ones, and then at the end I'll even contribute a tidbit of my own thoughts on the matter, which take a little bit of a different angle.

The most direct address is an article by Dr. Robert P. Murphy (economist) which you can find in written form here, or as a 12-minute narrated audio upload which someone has posted here. It doesn't take long to get through, and I don't need to reproduce its arguments here. I'm interested to hear what you think of it.

Edit: I also realize that in the article above, Murphy mentions some concepts which are common to discussions of polycentric (stateless) legal systems, but not common outside it. Things like private defense and arbitration agencies. While these too are discussed in the link below, to help provide context for anyone who feels a little confused with the above, there are some great youtube videos that give a quick introduction to these as well. The Machinery of Freedom: Illustrated Summary and Law Without Government. Hopefully this doesn't muddy the discussion, but provides some useful context if something was missed in the above article.

Further resources that cover the "warlord" question, though with the greater context of a detailed surrounding system, would include the freely available 2nd edition or Amazon-purchasable 3rd edition of The Machinery of Freedom by economist David Friedman (Milton Friedman's son). I would consider his discussions of stability questions certainly related to that, though he presents things in terms of a Mafia-like setup, and the concerns given his particular premises are not exactly the same.

I think you'd also find Chase Rachels' chapters about Law & Order and Defense & Security from A Spontaneous Order relevant as well -- you might even skip the rather boring and rigorous argumentation ethics the book leads with to get to that spot.

And I think that's more than good for a starter. Now my own tidbit. Please read/listen to the first article I linked before moving on here.

Something I think all of these guys miss even in their own objections is the public's idea of the belief in political authority. Were we to assume that a given -- let's say "Western" -- society actually opted for a truly stateless existence (whether an existing one "transitioned" or a new one was created, like a seastead community), it stands to reason that the people comprising it would have given up any belief in the legitimacy of political authority. If they hadn't, there's no reason they would've gone anarchist in the first place instead of just replacing one government with another. And if they did actually go through all the trouble to rid themselves of a State, and they indeed did not tolerate claims of political authority on that scale, there's no reason to assume they will turn right around and tolerate it on the local scale either. "Warlords" here, like kings and barons, need people to actually believe they have a right to do what they do in order to maintain any kind of power base. It's unclear why a people who disbelieve in this right of rulership would listen to them in the first place, much less tolerate them when they would not tolerate a modern State. This is my same argument against another common question: "If you eliminated the state, wouldn't a new one simply rise in its place?" or "Wouldn't a corporation just turn into a state?", etc.

If you assume a simple disbelief in political authority, a necessary precursor, for a people who were not already degenerating into moral barbarism (in which case a state comprised of those people doesn't help anyway, as Somalia had before it ripped itself apart), then the re-emergence of States on any scale doesn't seem likely to me, including that of the local warlord.

JK: As the resident young person on this AMA, I’m happy to take this question! There have been a number of field experiments explicitly looking at effective tactics in increasing youth voter turnout.


Generally speaking, the tactics that work to engage older voters also tend to be effective at engaging younger voters. Door-to-door canvassing, high-quality phone calls, direct mail, and text messages have all been proven to cost-effectively increase youth voter turnout. On the other hand, tactics that you think might work particularly well for young people, namely email and online advertisements, have generally been totally ineffective. Just because young people may live online does not mean the online world is the best place to engage them in politics. Instead, the old-fashioned tactics, such as door-to-door canvassing, tend to work much better. For a summary of this research, I highly recommend Don Green and Alan Gerber’s book [Get Out the Vote] (https://www.amazon.com/Get-Out-Vote-Increase-Turnout/dp/081572568X).


Another incredibly important piece in engaging young people is registering them to vote. Registering a young person gets them on the list of voters which opens them up to being contacted by campaigns. Voting tends to be habit-forming, so getting someone to register and vote when they turn 18 increases their likelihood to remain voters throughout their entire lives. Check out these two papers if you’re interested: (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12210/abstract) and (https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/07/Preregistration-10.22.14.pdf).

It's not as bad as you might think, research tells us the kind of people who vote are more educated, more wealthy, and in middle to upper socioeconomic classes. The two parties are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, and a majority of Americans reasonably align with one of the two. If you don't, then you can simply deny party affiliation and vote for whomever you want.

I feel as though it's a popular sentiment to hate the U.S. government and believe it to be inefficient, but as far as representative government goes, that's exactly what Congress is right now -- each individual district represents the constituents of their district pretty well, and most Americans approve of their Congressperson because, contrary to what people might think, members of Congress are really efficient at doing things that benefit their district, which they can then gloat about, get re-elected, and continue.

Congress as a whole is divided because we as a country are divided -- so ideologically, it actually represents us pretty well. Having a system that removes parties will only cause ideological confusion, representation issues, and a majority of other issues.

If you're interested in this kind of stuff, I suggest reading Mayhew's Congress: The Electoral Connection which sums up a lot of these issues very nicely. My degree was in political science, so I'm biased, but a fascinating read nonetheless.

Well…

As to those with absurd views, like those about lizards, I would likely ignore them. However, to suggest that readings of New Labour as having conservative tendencies is anything like believing people in power are secretly lizards is itself the sort of claim that I would normally like to ignore... (and which you would mock).

Moving on...

Note first that you’ve yet again conflated Conservative with conservative. I’ve never maintained that New Labour was a Conservative party, only that in many respects it was conservative. Think of the following aspects: privatisation of public assets, anti-trade union reform, income tax cuts for the wealthy. All of these things indisputably occurred under Blair, and they were an extension of the kind of conservative approach to economics and politics that Thatcher introduced. It’s neoliberal ideology in practice, and neoliberalism was first advanced by right-wing think tanks and pressure groups.

Consistent with neoliberalism, big business effectively lobbied Blair’s Labour MPs, and this was really quite unprecedented for Labour. There were many well-publicised scandals about this—I didn’t mention Hewitt and Hoon for no reason in my earlier posts. Add to it Blunkett, Milburn, (David) Milliband, Byers, and others. They satisfied the demands of certain big business firms, by reducing relevant trade union power, and paving the way for privatisation “reform”; and they really benefitted, personally, from these manoeuvres. This is a matter of public record.

The relationship with right-wing press, facilitated by Blair and Campbell, was also crucial in securing and maintaining New Labour’s power. Blair became Godfather of one of Rupert Murdoch’s children. Strong relationships with media barons and other wealthy individuals were previously the preserve of conservative figures. Yet Mandelson said that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” and holidayed with a Russian Oligarch (along with a young George Osborne, no less!).

Blair consistently ignored what Trade Union groups had concluded (e.g., demands on renationalising and social housing). His ’97 election pledge included not increasing taxes on the rich; indeed, his reign saw him gradually reduce corporation tax. (Brown was very effective at slashing this.) As you’ll see from another debate in this thread, public spending did increase, which made it look less conservative. Yet, traditional left policies were abandoned here, since public services suffered when privatisation carved out more in-roads than even under Thatcher.

When I said that New Labour was essentially conservative, this is what I meant. They were, in some cases quite transparently, committed to a right-wing political-economic policy in neoliberalism. Any claim as glib and quick as "New Labour were the same as the Conservatives" (note the big 'C') is likely not to be supported by a range of intellectuals. But the subtler point I've been arguing is indeed supported by many. A cursory Google search will help you.

Here are some to get you started:

Bob Jessop

Stuart Hall

Paul Smith

Owen Jones

Of course, there are plenty more besides. And there will be plenty of neoliberals who dispute the key points. But that doesn't take away from these and other authors as presenting an intelligible, respected opinion to the effect that New Labour continued elements of Thatcherism which are right wing in nature. That's a view that you're either misrepresenting (with your big 'C'), or simply laughing at.

> Republicans unfairly benefit from it,

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

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

>In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

Ok that one says 212. I guess they slippin.

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

>It doesn't make the EC good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first one I read was Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, which was a great introduction. It's short and very easy to get into. You can read it in an afternoon. It's actually from a speech he gave, so you can probably find the audio online for free and listen to it instead if you prefer.

But his best book, in my opinion, is Understanding Power. It's more of a collection of essays, speeches and interviews, but it really shaped my understanding of the world better than any other book I have read. I can't recommend this book enough.

If you're more interested in libertarian socialism, in addition to Understanding Power, read Chomsky on Anarchism. He presents the theories in very clear language, instead of being overly theoretical.

If you're more interested in his writings on US foreign policy, also read either Failed States or Hegemony or Survival.

Enjoy!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XTY6KZM/

"Reversing the Apocalypse: Hijacking the Democratic Party to Save the World" by Krystal Ball.

> Reversing the Apocalypse is not simple Trump bashing, but a powerful and self-reflective critique of where the Party went wrong and what Progressives can do to turn the tide. Krystal Ball narrates the modern descent of the Democratic Party from the party of workers and New Deal Progressives to the party of Silicon Valley elites and the managerial class. Tragically, this working class abandonment happened right when ordinary Americans needed the most help. But Krystal’s critique is radically action focused-what can we do to reclaim the Democratic Party for workers and start winning elections again.

Seems pretty alright. Ran for Congress in 2010 but lost due to a goofy party photo pseudo-scandal + running in Virginia.

Ok "certainty" overstates it. What can be mathematically proven is that in plurality voting, it's in each voter's best interest to vote for his favorite of the two candidates most likely to win. Since voters tend to vote strategically, plurality voting has a strong tendency towards two-party dominance; this is Duverger's Law.

Proportional representation and some voting systems like approval or range voting don't have this problem.

Also see the book Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone.

I cannot put in strong enough terms how much I disagree with your thoughtful decision to not vote. As such, I think it useful that I present my opinion below; I apologize in advance for potential pay-walls below. Note that a lot of the earlier research (aka not Avery or Gilen's papers) can be found in summary form on wikisum if you cannot bypass the pay-walls and yet are interested in following along.

As far as I understand, the main reason that you decide not to vote is because you believe that the voting public has virtually no influence on policy decisions. Since you are one of the voting public, your voting is effectively a waste of your valuable time. For evidence of this belief, you present Gilens' recent paper.

I personally have two major problems with this paper, but only one is relevant to this discussion on the utility of voting: the professed interchangeability of the beliefs of the elite and the beliefs of the median voter (R^2 = 0.78, pretty good for social science). This high level of interchangeability means that their model's imposition of independence between the two is highly suspect. I believe that this model could easily shunt all correlative power from the elite to the majority voting public and lose very little predictive power. Said another way, this model could just as easily demonstrate that the American system is a democracy as an oligarchy.

Regardless of my opinion, this paper will also take a while for other political scientists to adequately respond for/against/otherwise to this very exciting and divisive work. Note that this is not at all a point for or against the paper.

Avery's recent paper instead posits instead that no matter how you slice the data, systematic economic inequalities in voter turnout are represented in economic policy decisions in the near-long term (3 or so years after election). Obviously this result may just arise from confounding factors (ie elite people vote more and also have a disproportionate influence on policy). However, there is a large body of evidence that individual representatives view re-election as at least a proximate goal (see Mayhew and Fenno for the basics). To me, this provides at least soft evidence that this reflection of voter turnout on policy is a causal one. Miller and Stokes put this idea to the test and found that representatives vote pretty well along the constituency preferences on the salient issues of civil rights and social welfare and less well on the less salient issue of foreign policy.

Look, there is no doubt that the system has flaws. There is no doubt that a lot of victim blaming in the form of shunting shame on the American people for not informing themselves. But your beliefs on salient issues do matter (such as civil rights and social welfare; I am very confident that economic issues can also be added to this list) and one effective way to leverage these votes means making sure to help avoid systematic under-representation/inequality in voting. That means, if you are someone who has the thought not to vote, you are one of the most influential voters (a paradox, I know). However, if you don't vote, your influence drops to 0. So please, please vote. Vote for the implementation of deliberative democracy if you think that will help. Vote uninformed. Vote selfishly. Vote so that, overall, the votes are representative of the population. Once we start working towards that problem, then we can start working toward related issues (such as informed voters).

Thank you for providing me an opinion to which I could respond. I look forward to responding further!

Regarding your 2: there are five different scandals linked on that linked page alone, just from the time Bill was President. There have also been many scandals she's faced since that time. You don't consider that a problem, seriously? They say that whenever you see one cockroach you should conclude that there are several nearby. So what then should we conclude when we see several cockroaches, if not that there's an infestation?

I can see three main possibilities: either she is an innocent person and keeps getting accused of illegal actions due to the worst luck in the universe, or there's a far reaching conspiracy focusing on manufacturing false claims against her specifically (much more often than against any other potential target), or she is guilty but calls in favors and destroys relevant evidence in order to get away with things she shouldn't be able to get away with.

Which seems the most probable to you: a corrupt politician getting away with it, a powerful conspiracy against a politician existing but somehow failing over and over and over again to get rid of her, or someone innocent of all wrongdoing repeatedly facing scandals for absolutely no reason?

If you don't think it's a big deal when politicians break laws in order to make themselves and their friends money, I'm astonished. Corruption is the ultimate form of rent seeking, and the proximate cause of highly extractive institutions. Additionally, when someone who's corrupt is in power, they'll tend to bring other rent seekers in their wake. They are likely to sympathize with their friends promoting special interest groups, rather than to dispassionately evaluate the costs and benefits of policies for the average citizen. I think the laws that we do have are permissive enough as it is. I'd much prefer a candidate who seeks to strengthen and broaden these laws in order to give government policymakers good incentives, over a candidate who prefers to weaken them, circumvent them, or break them.

The cattle controversy is the one I'm most familiar with. She got a hundred fold return shorting the cattle futures market during a time when the cattle futures market was rising. Expert economists, using a model "stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt... concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion." Whatever the justice system might or might not require, I don't need any more evidence than that. An exact description of how she did it seems unnecessary, in my view, when such an implausible outcome occurring without corruption is essentially impossible. I am very much inclined to think that if she were a normal person, rather than a rich white ex first lady who has lots of friends and knows lots of secrets, one of these scandals would have landed her in jail by now. Politicians are corrupt all the time, and get away with it all the time, and she shows every possible sign of being typical in that regard.

I am not saying that because she is corrupt, she's automatically worse than any other possible candidate running for the presidency. I'd prefer Clinton to Trump, certainly, and am essentially indifferent between her and Sanders. However, I do think that it's shameful to our legal system that someone like that is allowed to walk free, and shameful to democracy in general that she's the best candidate our electoral system has managed to produce for us this year. It has become mainstream for people to mock and insult the Republicans for having Trump leading the polls, and the Republicans deserve it, but if the world made sense the Democrats would be receiving similar insults too, and just as frequently, but they are not.

It's not just Hillary I think is corrupt, though, lest you think this is all coming from a place of partisan bias. Karl Rove belongs in jail too. As do many other "respectable" people who've helped guide our country, in both the major political parties, whose names are too numerous and controversial for me to list here.

The first and hardest concept to grasp is that socialism is only an economic system. It is often conflated with the political system, communism, but both are very broad. Wikipedia's article is actually very good for an overview.

The question that neturally arises from an overview of socialism is, "well, how would we implement this so we can enjoy [insert level of quality of life]?" And that is a very involved discussion.

I've also found that Michael Harrington's Socialism: Past and Future to be a good read, but I'm sure there are others here that could recommend better books.

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

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

Certainly true, but it's also pretty hard to agree on which new voting system should be used if we ever switch; they're all better than FPTP, but all have some major problem that makes them sound like a poor choice (even if it's an improvement overall). In the case of IRV (single-winner STV), you get weirdness where one candidate would win, but then a few new people decide to vote for them and now suddenly they lose because of the shift in how other candidates get eliminated.

Gaming the Vote did a good job of making me fear all voting systems. Every time they described a new one I thought "well, that sounds quite good", and then the next page would be "let me tell you how this is secretly terrible". STV is my personal favorite (although I think range voting was the one generally considered to give the best results), but the whole thing is absurdly complicated

He wishes to help regulate, that's part of his job. He would likely want to pay more taxes as well, but that doesn't mean he's going to donate to the government before legislation is passed. It's reasonable for legislators to patronize companies they wish to regulate. His Senate office isn't involved in the Amazon book deals. Good for him for standing up for what's right even though the company helps him sell books.

Here's what you can do:
Step 1: Go to your local library's contact page (now is a good time).
Step 2: Contact them and ask them to order copies of:

> Where Do We Go From Here ISBN 978-1250163264 [to be released Nov 13^th]
> An Outsider in the White House ISBN 978-1784784188
> [Our Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Revolution_(book) ISBN 978-1250132925
> The Speech: On Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class ISBN 978-1568585536
> * Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution ISBN 978-1250138903

Step 3: Smile that public funds are supporting the political revolution and disseminating our message.
Step 4: Pass on the idea if you think it worthwhile.
Step 5: Lean into standing up, exercising your voice, and fighting for what you believe in.

Peter Schweizer was a foreign policy advisor to Sarah Palin. He works with Andrew Breitbart and has authored several books with titles such as Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic.

But I don't bring this up to discredit the man. I think it's great to see a person of his character addressing such a pertinent issue like insider trading in Congress. The fact that it is him delivering this message encourages unity between conservatives and liberals so that we can more effectively confront the extensive corruption within our state and corporate systems.

Edit: This story was also covered well by Newsweek. Peter Schweizer's new book, on this topic and based on his independent research, is Throw Them All Out.

This is a very good description and understanding of political movements.

Here is a book about conservatism by an American. It's definitely much more negative in outlook towards conservatism than you but it looks at the history of conservatism and what is the common thread and is a very interesting read.

>The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin

>
> Late in life, William F. Buckley made a confession to Corey Robin. Capitalism is "boring," said the founding father of the American right. "Devoting your life to it," as conservatives do, "is horrifying if only because it's so repetitious. It's like sex." With this unlikely conversation began Robin's decade-long foray into the conservative mind. What is conservatism, and what's truly at stake for its proponents? If capitalism bores them, what excites them?
>
> Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality.
>
> Despite their opposition to these movements, conservatives favor a dynamic conception of politics and society--one that involves self-transformation, violence, and war. They are also highly adaptive to new challenges and circumstances. This partiality to violence and capacity for reinvention has been critical to their success.
>
> Written by a keen, highly regarded observer of the contemporary political scene, The Reactionary Mind ranges widely, from Edmund Burke to Antonin Scalia, from John C. Calhoun to Ayn Rand. It advances the notion that all rightwing ideologies, from the eighteenth century through today, are historical improvisations on a theme: the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

>She's also intrigued about the idea of UBI but isn't necessarily 100% sold on it as far as I can tell.

She is, and I think that’s one of the big reasons why she supports Yang. She wrote a book supporting the need for UBI before Yang’s book was released. She was also asked by Yang to review his book before publishing. Krystal is all about helping the white working class, who are often overlooked and left behind. She brought him on her show when she was with MSNBC and Yang worked at VFA, since he was helping create jobs in these disenfranchised areas that she’s concerned about. So she already had an affinity for him, wanting him to succeed, especially as an outside underdog. They both have the same interests in mind.

Krystal has a personal soft spot for Bernie, though, that she and many others can’t let go. She was really invested in 2016, even going on a campaign tour with him. There’s a reason why she didn’t pick a side with the UBI vs FJG discussion, even though she wrote a book explaining the need for UBI. 😉

What was so good here was watching Bernie be super respectful and thorough when deal with people who clearly had opposite opinions of him.

For anyone who doesn't know - Bernie was a weekly guest for 10 years on Thom Hartmann's radio show. Thom has a book on how to win over peoples hearts and minds. Its called Cracking the Code. I highly recommend.

https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Restore-Americas-Original/dp/1576756270

The analysis of the stock transactions was put forward in a book by Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

The book, entitled "Throw Them All Out", and subtitled How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison, was featured in a recent "60 Minutes" investigation that gained a lot of attention.

In it, Schweizer said McDermott "bet big" by buying 2,000 shares in ID Biomedical of Quebec for $10 apiece in June 2004. That was six weeks before the House of Representatives passed the $5.6 billion bill dubbed Project Bioshield. Shares in the company subsequently tripled before McDermott sold them in September 2005.

Asked if he was accusing Rep. McDermott of insider trading, book author Schweizer said, "it is highly unethical to purchase stock in a bill you are supporting and then enjoy the profits when the corporate recipients see their stock climb."

Also named in the book as beneficiaries of cronyism and insider tips are Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Approval is great, range is better though! That being said, pretty much anything is better than plurality. If you're really interested in this kind of stuff, William Poundstone's "Gaming the Vote" is a great intro to different voting systems. It gives background on how the systems came about, and how they work. It can get a little long winded at times, but I'd definitely recommend it!

> If you are an experienced politician, you know that you never get too far ahead of the populace.

I would mostly agree in this particular case, but to be more precise, that's only true for those few issues where large numbers of people actually have crystallized opinions and care passionately about them -- like guns, gays, and abortion.

On most issues, though, people choose a candidate first and then just follow whatever policy positions that candidate supports.

Could you link the original studies here? I'd love to take a look since I spent a ton of my undergrad researching this exact topic. One variable I noticed that was interesting was education (I.e. eurosceptic in France for example were overwhelmingly the most educated (Masters/Phd's by in large. I also would reccomend these two books, i've read both and while they are focused primarily on Britain and UKIP the first is a good primer while the second is riddled with data, graphs, number sets, trends, and scatter graphs!

1)Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy)Mar 18, 2014
by Robert Ford and Matthew J Goodwin

http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Right-Explaining-Extremism-Democracy/dp/0415661501/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462988605&sr=8-1&keywords=revolt+on+the+right

2) UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics 1st Edition
by Matthew Goodwin (Author), Caitlin Milazzo (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/UKIP-Inside-Campaign-British-Politics/dp/0198736118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462988668&sr=8-1&keywords=ukip

Over the course of the last year I have had 3 morbid examples of bad living situations. I think the universe is telling me something.... like clean up your credit and apply for the IT job you are avoiding because you don't like working with IT guys.... yes I have a degree and the employment background which is why I am avoiding getting back to that career path.

I am considering writing a small saga of bad living situations.

After leaving my mother's house (she had major surgery, recovered, went back to work, then as I was just starting a job) she took her boyfriend's advice to "tinker" with the electrical wiring in the kitchen and massively injured herself ended up in rehab after 2 weeks recovering from burns/being electrocuted and the house had to be partially rebuilt. Mind you this is the second time she has done this.

So I move into a friend's place I have known for 5 years. He's an open-minded free spirited and spiritual air line pilot. He's into shamanic drumming, reiki and what I didn't understand what it actually was "orgasmic massage". I kid you not.

https://www.amazon.com/Mindfuckers-Fascism-Including-Material-Followers/dp/0879320389

One of the main cult leaders chronicaled in the book is Victor Baranco, he taught the 4 hour extended female orgasm to Nicole Deadone. She in turn knew this friend of mine in the 80s when he was stationed in Hawaii as an airforce pilot. Search "Clit cult" on gawker.com

Naturally the friend of mine who is a pilot spent 5 of 7 months pressuring me to move to Sanfrancisco to live at the "One Taste" commune so he can visit regularly. I think he's banned from the place. Needless to say I haven't spoke to him again except to inform him I am blocking his number and to not contact me again.

Next was a house owned by a woman who claimed to be a social worker, a licensed social worker with a bachelors degree.

Neither which was true, she didn't actually live in the house and renting out rooms when she doesn't live there is illegal. I also checked with 8 states if she was licensed as a social worker, then the university she claims to attend isn't offering a masters degree in the field she claimed, so its obvious she is working on her undergrad degree. She mostly rented to people in substance abuse rehab on social security and was looking to get away from that.

Problem was the guy she left in charge of the place was on parole from federal prison who regularly relapses from meth. Methodone by the way is a hell of a drug to help people get their meth addiction under control. It makes them psychotic, and their bowel movements smell like a 4 month old rotting corpse. My bedroom was next to the bathroom and shared a vent. I nearly died from the stench.

The meth head threatened to make my life miserable living there, I recorded it sent it to the landlord and she told me it wasn't legal to record. Well this is a single party consent state, its legal. The meth head also hated the landlord yet wanted to fuck her. The meth head hated all women. Yet the landlord defended the meth head because he was in a large rehab and she volunteered there, hoping that if this guy 13 years into 15 years of parole turned himself around she'd get the credit thus an actual job within the state. Landlord worked in a different stated because she had looked for work for almost 2 years in this state, thus had to actually take any work she could.

I didn't mention there was a Nigerian living there as well who was an investment sales person who wanted me to believe he was the most buff, handsome and richest person I could know. Yet he took public transit like me and rented a room in a house just like me. I know the work he did, its pure commission and that's why his girlfriend and brother was paying his bills.

At least at the last house the landlord demanded neither roommate speak to me because she didn't want to risk me recording more audio of threats.

Now this place. I won't describe it in detail but its all audio recorded and I have photos of the immense shitload of mess the DANCOroommates made all summer long.

I also have court in 2 weeks because the girlfriend of the DANCOroommate is contesting the HRO I have against her. And some fucker applied for a discover card in my former married name (I got a divorce a decade ago) with the current address I live at.

The DANCOroommate had this nuts idea that my ex husband would testify against me at the HRO hearing so they are trying to find him.

Its pretty obvious both of the DANCOroommates are using skip tracing and applying for credit cards in my former married name to commit identity theft/bank fraud (which is the very first criminal conviction for the guy) to ruin me and to find out everything about me.

Not going into detail about the roommate/landlord who is running around bitching at me, because he's just a spoiled brat who won't pay child support even if he has told his father he needs more money to pay that child support, and he gets the money. It just never makes it to the county. I've tried to certified mail my rent payments to him, he won't pick up the certified mail (possibly because he's afraid it might be related to his child support case) and in the last couple days that certified mail was supposed to be returned to me at the house.... The certified mail with the rent hasn't shown up. I think the landlord took it. He has bizarre idea that money orders are like german barabonds and that they cannot be traced nor proven when the money order was purchased/made. So that's going to make him look crazy when I take him to small claims court.

I think I am at the point in my life that it can't get much worse. My divorce was bittersweet, this is absurd.

after I get a my own apartment, change jobs, clean up credit (possibly freeze my credit for a while), I will work on getting a federal job and move out of the mid west entirely. I've been told by a friend who is an attorney from DC (he travels for work, non-profit legal advocacy) that most of what have been through this last few months would be swiftly taken care of by law enforcement and courts. That either one of them would be in jail right now because enforcement is so much better outside of this Midwest hell hole.

The state I live in has to get better about providing affordable housing and enforcing laws. And yeah I am writing a book on this. Fuck it enough of its audio recorded.

On a positive note. I have good friends. I have repaired my relationship with my ex husband, my first fiancée (he's a shrink in the prison system, yeah he's had a good laugh at this), I am ready to move forward do some growing up and take steps careerwise and financially. Eventhough I am very good at my job, it doesn't pay well and its been rocky business as my bosses close an unproductive side venture; I was very angry at my bosses for their unfulfilled promises. It drained me, now that I have so much other stuff to be angry with my focus is much more in front of me, not fighting to make right on promises broken. I am much more able to leave things behind me.

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

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

Here is a short reading list that should give you the essentials:

Some of these will read like stories, others are more academic in nature. There is both Canadian and American material included. overall, you should get a pretty good impression of how political campaigns are planned and how they actually roll out.

1. Burton, M.J. & Shea, D.M. (2010). Campaign craft: The strategies, tactics, and art of political campaign management (4th ed.). Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers. https://www.amazon.com/Campaign-Craft-Strategies-Political-Management/dp/031338343X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1479856930&sr=8-2&keywords=campaign+craft
   
   
2. Green, D.P. & Gerber, A.S. (2015). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. https://www.amazon.com/Get-Out-Vote-Increase-Turnout/dp/081572568X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479857921&sr=1-1&keywords=get+out+the+vote+how+to+increase+voter+turnout
   
   
3. Thurber, J.A. & Nelson, C.J. (Eds.) (2014). Campaigns and elections American style: Transforming American politics (4th ed.). Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. https://www.amazon.com/Campaigns-Elections-American-Transforming-Politics/dp/0813348358/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479857939&sr=1-1&keywords=Campaign+And+Elections+American
   
   
4. Faucheux, R.A. (Ed.) (2003). Winning elections: Political campaign management, strategy, and tactics. New York: M. Evans & Company. https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Elections-Political-Campaign-Management/dp/1590770269/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479857978&sr=1-1&keywords=Winning+elections%3A+Political+campaign+management%2C+strategy%2C+and+tactics
   
   
5. Issenberg, S. (2012). The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. New York: Broadway Books. https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Lab-Science-Winning-Campaigns/dp/0307954803/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479858008&sr=1-1&keywords=the+victory+lab+the+secret+science+of+winning+campaigns
   
   
6. Laschinger, J. (2016). Campaign Confessions: Tales from the War Rooms of Politics. Toronto: Dundurn. https://www.amazon.com/Campaign-Confessions-Tales-Rooms-Politics/dp/1459736532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479858025&sr=1-1&keywords=campaign+confessions
   
   
7. Delacourt, S. (2013). Shopping for Votes: How Politicians Choose us and we Choose them. Madeira Park, BC: Douglas and McIntyre. https://www.amazon.com/Shopping-Votes-Politicians-Choose-Them/dp/1771621095/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479858059&sr=1-1&keywords=Shopping+for+votes

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has a $158 billion question for the wealthiest person in the world. “Jeff Bezos and his company, Amazon, make huge profits by paying their employees wages that are so inadequate that many of them need public assistance just to get by,” the senator says. “How absurd is that?” But try to ask Sanders why he’s set to sell his upcoming book, “Where We Go from Here,” on Amazon and you won’t get an answer.

What a terrible article. So because Bernie wants Amazon and other companies like them to pay their employees a fair wage and not rely on public assistance, he's not allowed to use their platform? He never said Amazon should not exist. This is absurd.

It's like saying Democrats or Republicans want to change the minimum wage - yet they still eat at restaurants paying their servers a different minimum than their proposal? Gotcha!!!! Checkmate for the low effort thinkers.

Michael Harrington's Socialism: Past and Future is an excellent primer (though it assumes some familiarity with the topic and players at hand). I don't know that there can be a "best" book on socialism, but that's generally what I recommend to friends.

Harrington isn't primarily concerned with picking apart capitalism here, and it won't serve as a refutation of Friedman if that's what you're looking for -- it stays basically within the bounds of what the title suggests -- but it's a well-written, valuable read nevertheless.

Trying to figure that out. I'm going back over "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and checking out new books like "Cracking the Code" to refresh and challenge myself. Man audio books are great.

The book's a little old now but there's a great book called Get Out The Vote that shows the most effective way of reaching voters.

https://smile.amazon.com/Get-Out-Vote-Increase-Turnout/dp/081572568X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=get+out+the+vote&qid=1574258585&sr=8-1

>I agree. I figure there is no difference between Obama and Romney, and I'd be voting for Ron Paul as VP.

what gets me about this statement is its so fundamentally wrong. The concept of a political ideology completely smashes this statement into the ground, but just even looking past that for a second we come to this. They perceive the two parties to be the same because they base their comparisons on the end result coming from our government. Since our government is naturally a pull-push battle between two sides the final product, or legislation, is something both people support. So they overgeneralize this factor and state "well since republicans and democrats both supported it they're the same". its absolutely breath taking the lack of knowledge these people have in terms of understanding the way our government works. I'd love to put one book in all their hands and tell them to read up.

Congress: The Electoral Connection
http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Connection-Professor-David-Mayhew/dp/0300105878/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342584855&sr=1-4&keywords=Congress

serenity now!

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

"Gaming the Vote" is a great read for anyone interested. It covers history and math of voting, and makes a strong case for both range and approval voting. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003K154R0/

Well, yeah. He could have done it for free, but he didn’t. Nothing wrong with that. I like his ideas. Let’s just acknowledge he’s wealthy and that’s fine

Here is Bernie enriching Bezos https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269

I actually agree with you about Bugliosi . . . that he's a stooge . . . especially in the case of Manson.

I just thought he summarized the facts in a good way and his skepticism may be warranted in this one instance.

Btw, a good source on Manson that questions Bugliosi's claims is "Mindfuckers" -- that also discusses Mel Lyman and Victor Baranco. It's a great book expanding on original Rolling Stone articles.

Grandest_Inquisitor: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

I actually agree with you about Bugliosi . . . that he's a stooge . . . especially in the case of Manson.

I just thought he summarized the facts in a good way and his skepticism may be warranted in this one instance.

Btw, a good source on Manson that questions Bugliosi's claims is "Mindfuckers" -- that also discusses Mel Lyman and Victor Baranco. It's a great book expanding on original Rolling Stone articles.

>It seems to me that the gist of conservatism relies on two things, (1) mistrust of a priori (utopian) reasoning and revolutions, (2) and trust in incremental changes by past experiences and wisdom.

If you one day feel like challenging this conception of yours, i recommend taking a look at the book The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin by Corey Robin.

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

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

How is that a "straw man"? For it to be a straw man fallacy, 123 would have to be involved in some kind of debate, which he is not. 123 has only made a simple statement, distorted slightly by sarcasm but still easily interpretable.

A straw man takes the form of "well you people think A, which is absurd because XYZ", when in fact nobody has been claiming A. That's a straw man.

Absolutely nothing about what 123 did is a straw man fallacy. Absolutely nothing about what 123 did is any type of fallacy. He called out Noam Chomsky, who is in fact an humanist, for not having spoken up on the situation.

> In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.

-- Noam Chomsky


> The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power and if I didn’t betray it I’d be ashamed of myself

-- Noam Chomsky


> Education must provide the opportunities for self-fulfillment; it can at best provide a rich and challenging environment for the individual to explore, in his own way.

-- Noam Chomsky

> The only justification for repressive institutions is material and cultural deficit. But such institutions, at certain stages of history, perpetuate and produce such a deficit, and even threaten human survival.

-- Noam Chomsky, ibid

Cracking the Code is a great read. It goes over the various communication modalities sighting many examples of powerful speeches and as a bonus, breaks down the philosophical differences between progressive and conservative mindsets.

It is called "Libertarianism Today", by Jacob Huebert. The PDF file is linked to in the OP.

I recommend also buying a copy to reward Mr. Huebert for an excellent effort.

http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-Today-Jacob-H-Huebert/dp/0313377545

If you read Revolt on the right (which is the best book about UKIP right now) they suggest that the BNP hindered UKIP's success in the north when they were prominent and that up to 2010 one of UKIPs main aims was to squeeze them out iirc.

When you say "Radicalized" do you mean, like UKIP, because if so I highly recomend Revolt on the Right.

I assumed you meant non-fiction, but if you meant fiction, perhaps you'd like House of Cards.

Other than that, books are usually released at the end of a particular era in politics such as Tony Blair's Premiership, although I haven't read it. One of the political memoirs of either himself or Alastair Campbell.

Hope this helps.

Here's the blurb:

> Behind our democracy lurks a powerful but unaccountable network of people who wield massive power and reap huge profits in the process. In exposing this shadowy and complex system that dominates our lives, Owen Jones sets out on a journey into the heart of our Establishment, from the lobbies of Westminster to the newsrooms, boardrooms and trading rooms of Fleet Street and the City. Exposing the revolving doors that link these worlds, and the vested interests that bind them together, Jones shows how, in claiming to work on our behalf, the people at the top are doing precisely the opposite. In fact, they represent the biggest threat to our democracy today - and it is time they were challenged.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Establishment-how-they-get-away-x/dp/0141974990

> Conservatives tend to value hierarchy

They don't just value it — hierarchy is the common factor between all conservative movements since the French Revolution.

Read the Reactionary Mind. The author goes through hundreds of years of conservatism, comparing & contrasting different movements. Many of them wouldn't get along, especially in terms of economics, social politics, governance, etc. And yet they all agree on one thing:

> Hierarchy is the natural state of society.

Now, exactly who is on top, and why they're up there... well, the different movements would argue about that too.

EDIT: clarification, thanks to u/RicketyFrigate

That's why they call it the Reactionary Party.

Have you read The Reactionary Mind? It tracks conservatism from the French Revolution onward, and finds that the only common factors are:

1. Hierarchy is good
   
2. Change (away from hierarchy) is bad
   
   Hierarchy = any kind structure that says some people deserve more than others. Whether they be rich, or white, or male, or landowners, or family, or citydwellers, or religious, or sectarian, or educated... different brands of conservatism prefer different kinds of hierarchy
   
   But they all want some people on top and, more importantly, some people below. And they will fight fight fight to stop any change from happening.
   
   It's a fascinating read!
   
   
   
   

They never shut down Operation Mockingbird. Great book on the subject.

>Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor for the German main daily newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), has first hand knowledge of how the CIA and German Intelligence (BND) bribe journalists to write articles free of truth, facts, and with a decidedly pro-Western, pro-NATO bent or, in other words, propaganda.

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

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

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

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

>that the Washington Post is a "CIA front" (that's some real Alex Jones shit right there)

LMAO

https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474

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

Love how thinking the government can put propaganda into media is akin to believing in aliens.

Wow

No worries! In a very general sense a libertarian is a person who is fiscally responsible and socially liberal. There are quite a few good books out there on libertariansim... one that comes to mind is Libertarianism Today by Jacob H.Huebert. It's written rather well and is easy to understand - great for beginners and a great review of the basics for those who are familiar with libertarianism.

Edit: If you want to read it but don't want to spend the $40 check out your local library. Mine didn't have a copy, but I requested they purchase it. They did (actually purchased 2 copies) and I was reading it about a month later.

Thats right Yanggangers, I was writing about automation and UBI before you even knew Andrew Yang existed Between this and the MSNBC Don't run "Trilogy" I have great respect for her.


^^^^^^^^Buy ^^^^^^^^her ^^^^^^^^book

They have a vested interest in making it look fair. 'it look' being key.
They will always side with the government on important issues but will throw a dog a bone every now and then.

Good book on the subject
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0141974990/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1451727521&sr=8-1&pi=SL75&keywords=the+establishment

The establishment

Seriously, if you are curious to learn what libertarianism is, I highly recommend Libertarianism Today by Jacob Huebert. Cheers.

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)

This is not about the Guardian and 'what it believes'. If we can be mature for a moment, this is another fascinating article by the irrepressible Matt Goodwin and Robert Ford, professors at Manchester University and regular columnists to the Guardian, who have spent 10 years surveying UKIP support and have a greater understanding of their support-base than anybody else right now.

Their credentials are indisputable. If you don't like well researched observations (rather than bigotry and arrogance)... you can always lump it and bury your head in the sand.

If you give a shit (and I have a feeling you don't), read, their widely acclaimed book on this subject

Prior to Quantitative Easing 1 (QE1), "there were 18 Federal Reserve Board members who were previously high-level executives of the “too big to fails” that were in line to receive the bailouts, according to a GAO report. And 76 percent of Fed board members also own or owned stock in those same institutions."

"Those (top 6 financial) entities spend billions of dollars to lobby Congress and finance Congressional campaigns and buy Presidents (they own both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney)."

Source

Sounds like plenty of corrupt breathing down of throats already.

If you haven't read Throw Them All Out, I highly recommend it. Both sides are corrupt as the day is long, and the Federal Reserve is just another tool of that corruption.

Yeah, I was just thinking out loud. The heart attack gun was the first thing I thought of when I saw the news and given his background.

Thanks for the recommended article. I also pre-ordered his book on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474

>Link me to that strawman political behavior research please

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

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

> oh totally well-educated and adjusted political expert.

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

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

> It always sets off alarm bells to see Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Prof. Weinstein, and Hirsi Ali get lumped in with conservatives - even though all of these people are liberal, and most are very liberal.

Conservatism by definition is the defense of hierarchy against leftist movements. The main political split in Western societies is between those who think hierarchical domination should be minimized or abolished, and those who believe it is natural, inevitable, and glorious. If they are defending an ethnic, gendered, or economic hierarchy of any kind, then they are doing conservative politics.

https://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Out-Politicians/dp/0547573146

This book is incredible, it probably has a Republican bias to some extent but well worth reading. The legal standard for insider trading among US politicians is completely different from what you’d find in business.

Read this -> Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class

Swiftly followed by this -> The Establishment: And how they get away with it

Short books. Easy to read. Fucking eye opening.

If by 'best journalism on TV' you mean they read Peter Schweizer's book Throw Them All Out.

http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


How to Send Books and Magazines to Pennsylvania Inmates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalinism (an authoritarian form of socialism) is the most well known, and reviled, because of Cold War propaganda, but it worked pretty well. It's really the only form of socialism people know to have been fully implemented (Mao too but I don't know enough to comment on that) and since it was pretty evil in the beginning, people assume every form of socialism is inherently evil. Cuba has done pretty damn well despite being under intense embargos. Give Michael Harrington's book a read for a good recap of the history of socialism.

Then there's capitialism, which is a precursor to socialism, as it was a necessary evil (Industrial Revolution, for instance) to get us to be able to produce goods at a massive clip. I think in the beginning capitalism was fine for what needed to be done but it always ends in monopoly and incredible disparity because it relies on wealthy people being "well meaning" and "good" when we know they're not. Capitalism keeps people ruled by elites and allows us to...elect fascists like we have now. Nothing is perfect but I'm just asking you to challenge your preconceived notions of capitalism.

Apologize if this was hastily written, I'm about to drive somewhere.

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

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

I haven't read this book yet (it's on my Amazon wishlist), but Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News looks like it covers this very subject.

He wrote a whole book (or, well, a collection of essays and other stuff chronicling his lifelong anarchy support): http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

He's one of the most well known anarchist thinkers.

It was front page news several weeks ago, and the man who wrote the book about all of this is enjoying a few weeks on the bestseller's list.

>What books on politics do you recommend?

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

I also wanted to add that Chomsky is a very good contemporary reference also:

On Anarchism:

https://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

Notes:

https://chomsky.info/state01/

haha, instead of asking us, read what he was to say on anarchism

Very good book on the matter.

https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/product-reviews/1944505474/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

Interesting'

>It is that and worse! I as of now woukd like to stop buying anything from Amazon... I usually buy a fair amount of stuff every month. Bezos should be stoned at his next public appearance. I have already canceled Netflix just due to their unwarented price increases.


https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269

lol

Looks like it's coming soon: https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474

Something like http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Out-Politicians/dp/0547573146?

Most of the suggestions in this thread are specifically socialism from a marxist perspective. I think you might find Socialism: Past and Future by Michael Harrington an engaging and insightful read on socialism from another perspective.

If we want real third parties, we need to change how our electoral system works. Our current system just guarantees that if three candidates run, the first choice will never win.

http://rangevoting.org/

http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-ebook/dp/B003K154R0/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1381631276

https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269


It came from selling this.


More utterly transparent Republican projection. "We don't steal, THEY steal!"

There's also a collection of some of his writings/interviews on libertarian socialism: Chomsky on Anarchism.

And his essay: Notes on Anarchsim

> I've met plenty of conservatives who don't see anyone as inferior.

It's not usually explicit, that specific people are inferior. But the ideology believes that the "better" people should control the lessers in various spheres in society. Great related book here: https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110

> nowadays you won't see anyone on National Review or so implying someone is less worth.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131583/national-reviews-revolt-masses

> this is the mindset of conservatives since inherently you are being steadfast against a changing world. The idea already has conflict set and the world is crumbling around you as you get older and wish for whatever idea of right you had.

Totally. Corey Robin has been pushing (in his book and elsewhere) the thesis that conservatism has always essentially been about preserving the hierarchy of the past. And this is necessarily a project of oppression and occasional violence. Nice New Yorker writeup here.

Translation from German coming on May 15.

https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1484284892&sr=1-1&keywords=udo+ulfkotte

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

The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin

As stated in this segment, it is based research done in this book, http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146/?tag=wwwbreitbartc-20 . The book probably should be required reading.

This interview is transcribed in the book Chomsky on Anarchism.

http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

The link will take you to a book of his. The book is about his personal anarchist views.

I'll read it if you read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269

Where We Go from Here by Bernie Sanders https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250163269/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_NCGIBbTZ3T60A via @amazon


Edit: at least you can get a look at the cover.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Establishment-how-they-get-away-x/dp/0141974990

source: http://coreyrobin.com/2016/02/27/why-you-should-never-listen-to-the-pundits/

...in case anyone wants to sign up for Corey's email updates—they're a goldmine (he's the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin)

Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News

by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte Ph.D Ph.D.

https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474

https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110

Link to item: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1944505474/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_apa_i_y4PZDbC7GD5JZ

I thought you were talking about this book, which I refer to as "my Bible."

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

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

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

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

Toilet cleaning should be a privilege for these jackals. They deserve to be on a chain gang turning big rocks into smaller rocks. Read "throw them all out" by Peter Schweizer to learn about how nearly all of our elected officials are straight up criminals, via insider trading and other shady deals they all conduct.

Ironic, since Noam Chomsky apparently considers himself an anarchist, and wrote a book called, "Chomsky on Anarchism."

http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324305240&sr=8-1

If you are interested in a deeper dive at how Fox uses all sorts of dirty psychological tricks to manipulate the masses, check out Thom Hartmann's book: Cracking the code:

http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Restore-Americas-Original/dp/1576756270/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332710778&sr=1-1-fkmr1

Check out "The Reactionary Mind" by Corey Robin. All this hate and lawlessness are completely in line with conservatism throughout history. They will stop at nothing to preserve their status in the hierarchy. https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110

It isn't just right-wing talking heads, though. In the book "Socialism: Past and Future," by Michael Harrington, there is an extensive analysis of all the different kinds of Socialism, and Michael Harrington himself acknowledges that even Socialists have difficulty defining exactly what Socialism is, and he was a Socialist.

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

There's really no question about it. He has been an anarchist his entire life.

But to your second point, I can remember a conservative teacher complaining to the class about teaching Chomskian grammar, because she found his politics offensive, but couldn't discard his linguistic work.

Hi /u/netpres, you're not shadowbanned, but 4 of your most recent 100 comments/submissions were removed. They may be removed automatically by spam filters and not necessarily by human moderators.


Submission in australia, "David Attenborough says air travel should be more expensive to fight climate change", 1pts (10 Jul 19)





Comment (1pts) in photoshopbattles, "PsBattle: Solar System Chocolates!", (09 Apr 19):

> Did you get them from the Rhiga Royal in Okaka, Japan? They taste really good as well as look great :-)





Submission in PoliticalDiscussion, "If you think IPCC says we're all doomed, you're getting warmer", 1pts (17 Oct 18)





Comment (1pts) in books, "Is this active censorship? - A recent and troubling example...", (09 Jan 18):

> It looks like Amazon.de has the book for sale in English: https://www.amazon.de/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515499862&sr=8-1&keywords=Journalists+for+Hire






^^Bot ^^here. ^^My ^^home ^^is ^^at ^^/r/CommentRemovalChecker ^^- ^^check ^^if ^^your ^^comments/submissions ^^have ^^been ^^silently ^^removed!

Help us expose and stand up to social media bias and censorship!

I remember when that book came out detailing the insider trading and horrible corruption going on in the halls of Congress. As I recall, 75% of the politicians mentioned negatively in the book are Democrats with the remainder obviously being Republicans. Guess who /r/politics ragged on . . .

I'm going to be pessimistic and provide this book by Ford and Goodwin - admittedly, however, books of a similar disposition could be archetypal of all over Europe at the moment, but people coming to the UK (especially from outside of Europe) should definitely give the book more than a passing glance. It's contemporary and, following the 2008 Wall Street crash, it doesn't look like it'll be going away any time soon.

The book is called "Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain", and focuses primarily on the rise of Farage and UKIP into the public conscious - for those unaware (to use a few gross simplifications), UKIP is the UK's "Front National"/"Swiss People's Party"; Farage is the UK's Geert Wilders.

seems like taxpayer money was wasted buying the physical copies off the market. now the few remaining copies have crazy asking prices like $1000 .

or in some cases no copies at all:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I'm not coming up with ebooks. nada. https://www.smashwords.com/books/search?query=+Ulfkotte+

If there was an ebook published there would be no price manipulation by depleting inventory; too many electrons in the universe.

If anyone finds a link to an ebook of above (either in german or eng) please post it on this thread. thx

This isn't exactly all that new, there was a pretty comprehensive section about it in the recent book about UKIP's rise. Basically under Blair labour realised that the working class was a shrinking demographic with insufficeint votes to get them into power, as opposed to the 50's and 60's when it was a very sizable voting bloc. So they went after the growing educated urban middle class in the 90's and their core working class vote kind of just came along for the ride because many were lifelong labour voters and many would never vote tory.

However, after 20 years of being ignored and one financial crisis which hit them fairly hard, lots of the core labour vote have got sufficiently alienated and pissed off that they're either alienated from the political process and don't vote or are abandoning them for UKIP. At this point in time, there's an absolutely massive difference in the values between young urban labour voters and the older trad who are now abandoning them, which is pretty obvious from all these stories (the "bigoted woman" thing being perhaps the first obvious instance). Anyway, some kind of pitch from a man called Tristram to regain 'english patriotism' is frankly nowhere near enough to overcome the schism (and will probably be percieved as quite condescending by those it's targeted towards), if indeed it can be overcome at all.

If you really want to lose your mind at how bad it is, read this book. It’s insane what they’re legally allowed to get away with.

https://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Out-Politicians/dp/0547573146

The problem with the world is, there are way too many people that have been apathetic for too long about political corruption. It's start to demand change at every level of Government, which means kicking out all incumbants and anyone that was so much affiliated with anyone participating in any type of Fraud, Waste, or outright Abuse. Anytime anyone in government commits fraud, they should immediately be forced to resign, or should be voted out in the next election cycle.