Reddit mentions: The best political science books

A couple of books that buttress these findings:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0029166500

("Progressive" regulations are a myth. Most such regulations were actually implemented at the behest of big business interests, to reduce destructive (to their profits) competition and to set up de facto cartels)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226243176

(The policy outcomes the political system produces are a result of special interest and business groups investing in the political system)

Why such outcomes:

Most libs focus almost exclusively on campaign financing, donations, and super-PACs. The problem is possibly even worse than that. We have an extremely sophisticated system of bribery, where political favors are rewarded later:

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/make-it-rain-revolving-door/

(This focuses exclusively on lobbyists, but there is nothing stopping something similar being done by hiring ex-politicians as consultants, corporate officers, giving them seats on corporate boards. Similar things can be done with advisers and staff members to politicians - see how Robert Rubin and Larry Summers were rewarded by Wall Street after the Clinton admin. And you can hire them first, then have them go back to politics, and back and forth - see Dick Cheney and Halliburton)

As far as campaign donations, super-PACs, etc, are concerned, my own $0.02. Note a billionaire who gives $1m to a party, or a partisan political organization, etc, is going to be rewarded with access, attention, and influence. On the other hand, if you and 30,000 "little people" friends of yours each chip in $100 to give to a campaign or a party, do you know what you will get? Spam.

The whole system is rife, shot through with asymmetries like this. Consider that just by being wealthy and successful, rich people (or their agents, like Summers, Rubin, Greenspan, etc) are rewarded with the presumption that they're experts and specially knowledgeable about their fields. Few stop to consider the way their incentive system is set up, and the systemic consequences of political action to "help" their industry thrive.

So. The study is undoubtedly right. The conclusions are supported not just by empirical observations and data, but also by careful consideration of the nitty-gritty details of how the political system works.

Implications: the real problem people are NOT the voters and the bases of the two parties. They are the rich, and the politicians themselves, who are to a man corrupt. I.e. it is not the Tea Partiers. It is people like Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc, whose incentive structures, after all, are wired EXACTLY like people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner's.

Despite the obvious logic of this, the two parties' bases continue to focus on each other. See e.g. the constant non-stop hate directed at Tea Partiers and conservatives by liberals. This is a product of manipulation by the two parties' propaganda systems - I repeat, if you hate Tea Partiers, and think they're the problem, not that Obama and the Democrats are venal and self-serving just like Republican politicians, and that you got stupidly scammed by Obama and the Democrats, then you're a victim of brainwashing and propaganda.

How this propaganda system works is actually excellently illustrated by r/politics. The constant stream of anti-GOP, anti-conservative, anti-Tea Party posts and articles works like "Two Minute Hate" from 1984. Remember, the best, sophisticated propaganda works not at the knowledge/information level, but at the emotional level - you can see this in how, e.g.corporate advertising has advanced from mainly information based in the late 19th/early 20th century, to more lifestyle/identity/emotional appeal and manipulation today. I repeat, the real problem with the propaganda system is not the torrent of false information being fed to Tea Party rubes (although to be sure, that is harmful and dangerous as well), it is in how your emotions, how you relate to leaders and institutions and organizations like Barack Obama, the Democratic or Republican party, liberal democracy, capitalism, the US government, the United States, the UN, etc, are shaped and manipulated.

Finally, the obvious impossibility of making a politico-economic system like ours work acceptably, democratically, in a way that produces rational responses to changing conditions (rather than corrupt rent-extraction policies to benefit whichever special interest group's turn it is at the trough) suggests that liberalism is not a legitimate, real ideology. Rather just like mainstream conservatism, an artifact of the propaganda system, a series of lies and conditioning designed to constrain people's political behavior within acceptable norms, and to shape, channel their reaction and anger at constantly deteriorating conditions and injustices in a direction that is safe and acceptable to the system, the establishment, and the ruling class.

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

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

Sorry, nope. On the major policies that have brought us to this pass (imperialism, neoliberalism) there is simply no significant difference between the two parties. Every single democratic president in the 20th century was an imperialist (i.e., even those who weren't expansionists, actually held on to the Philippines and Cuba, pre-WWII. After WWII that they were all imperialists is crystal clear). The first president who adopted neoliberal policies? Carter.

This GOP vs Dems "ideological" fight is basically a sham for the benefit of the proles. The two parties, which are identical (top down led, hierarchical, filled with the same sorts of ambitious climbers) in their most important, significant characteristics must, after all, differentiate themselves somehow. So they do something very similar to what Coke and Pepsi do. It's mostly an exercise in branding and pandering to different demographics, which creates a very convenient divide-and-rule dynamic.

So if ideology isn't what gives us actual outcomes, then what is? One strong candidate: money.

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176

And of course, dems have always been willing to accept corporate money, and money from wealthy businessmen.

Another indication that the dems have been feeding you a false narrative? You know all those "progressive era" legislation that were passed, ostensibly to curb the power & excesses of the Robber Barons, by progressive reformers? Sorry, nope. Actually, money drove the process back then too. So those legislation were shaped by the business interests themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500

So, in light of the fact that the way you think political outcomes in this country are decided is simply... wrong, the fact that we have rock solid bipartisanship in the broad outlines of the most important policies for the country, how certain are you feeling about the narrative that it's due to the GOP (hell, let's not even say solely - let's say your claim is that it's mainly the fault of the GOP - 60% or so) that the country has been destroyed over the past 40 years?

But it's the Republicans who've been pushing neoliberalism you say? Without them and their ideologues we wouldn't have neoliberalism and ergo we wouldn't be in this mess?

Really? Here's someone who disagrees:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

He argues, in fact, that the process by which industrial-capitalist countries come to be dominated by financial-capitalists, and move from exporting goods to exporting capital overseas, as is the case with the neoliberal globalized economy, is inherent in the capitalist system.

So, do democrats and liberals support capitalism, or not? Then, if we accept that the communist analysis of the matter is correct, you must share the blame. Even communists are telling you that merely acquiescing, enabling, accepting capitalism is tantamount to agreeing to neoliberalism.

Now, what else is liberalism? It's actually pro-interventionist government, pro-government regulation. It's a Statist ideology, in other words.

Libertarians, are of course, anti-State. You know who else is anti-State?

Yep, Anarchists and Communists.

So, whereas out in the ideological extreme, radicals are arguing over whether capitalism is ultimately the prime evil (communists), or whether it's statism (libertarians), or "cheating" by claiming it's actually both, can't we get rid of both at the same time? (anarchists) you guys are actually both pro-statism and pro-capitalism.

Still think you liberals are on sound ideological ground?

But anyhow, let's set ideology aside for a sec, and examine practical matters - how you can accept or reject "greed, corruption, and blatant attempts at manipulation" etc. etc. with your political behavior.

Since I've claimed earlier on that ideology isn't what determines what policy outcomes we get (and you should know this, since poll after poll shows that the US population prefers liberal/progressive economic outcomes and measures, usually by pretty strong margins), then what does? I've hinted that money almost certainly has something to do with it, but let's see if we can generalize it further.

Think for a sec about the "ideology" of monarchies or imperial polities. Their "doctrine" or "religion" told them that their king or emperor was the sovereign by divine grace, or in some cases, was actually a divinity himself. Now, under such an ideological system, how on earth is it possible for anyone to oppose or overthrow the king or emperor?

And yet, the history books are filled with cases where kings or emperors were deposed or overthrown. In short, polities sometimes (often? nearly always?) do not work according to how their legitimizing mythology/ideology/doctrine claims they work. No matter what theory says, the King has to have the support of the great feudal lords that control the military muscle, and the clergy that confer legitimacy on his reign, and do the vitally critical work of telling the peasants they must obey their king, or this big spirit high in the sky will get very angry with them and make their crops fail, or whatever.

I submit that our polity is no different in this regard. All the stuff you've been fed about how the people elect representatives based on their ideas and values, and the representatives make decisions based on those ideas and values, and the net outcome is some sort of grand average, net combination, middle ground of the ideas and values of all the people in the United States - pure BS. The system doesn't work like that at all. Instead, the system has an architecture, a structure that consists of how power/influence/wealth are distributed in our society, and this constrains the actions and choices of the participants in the political system. To put it simply, people who want to get along, must go along. Anyone serious about getting into power, or staying there long, has to cater and sell out to business interests, or non-business interests like the national security establishment, etc. etc.

Which is why pretty much any democrat that receives "serious candidate, worthy of your attention" treatment from the corporate MSM you can conclude automatically is no good. Has sold out, or has indicated he's willing to sell out and play ball. And if you could parse the rhetoric of these people correctly, you would understand why. You might have thought that Obama's campaign rhetoric in 2008 was "less-hawkish," therefore making things on the imperialism/war front a bit better, but you would have been wrong. In fact, his rhetoric was about restoring a much-needed camouflage cover for American imperialism - Obama's job was basically to give American Empire a make-over, which Bush's ineptness had almost pulled the curtain on, to expose the brutal truth.

Anyhow - I won't belabor Obama any further, since it's clear you see him for what he really is. But I did want to point out that he is what he is not because of the Republicans; what you think makes the Democrats "better" - i.e. their multi-lateralism, their veneer of cosmopolitanism, their willingness to "work with and listen to foreigners" (actually, almost always foreign governments, which are often in bed with us despite their people's wishes) - are actually absolutely essential components in the project of American imperialism.

So the problem is much deeper and fundamental than simply Republican mouth-breathing, chest-thumping bellicosity.

But anyhow, so if voting for a "realistic" candidate does no good, then what does? For starters, when someone like Ron Paul stands up in front of Republican audiences to preach an anti-Empire, anti-Fed, anti-NAFTA, anti-War on Drugs message, you should recognize that for the godsend, the gift-horse that it is, and back it. Because, the thing that makes you accept the Democrats, no matter how bad they get, is that the Republicans are just a bit worse, right? How convenient for the Democratic party's leaders. Now, how can we defeat this simple yet diabolical trap? Oh wait, we could... go mess with the Republican party - pull it leftwards on some key, big issues. You know, by, e.g., backing Ron Paul.

Other than that? Well, the traditional political activism of calling your representatives, writing to them, to urge the correct decisions surely cannot be wrong. Although at this point I am seriously skeptical about your average liberal's ability to tell good decisions from a French horn.

Oh and hit the streets. Anti-war rallies. OccupyWallStreet. Both of which would be much larger and energetic if the Republicans were occupying Washington DC.

Ok? Sorry that was so long. As you no doubt know it's much more intellectually challenging and more work to make your points with less lengthy prose, and it's late here, and I'm tired, so all I could give you was a semi-stream-of-consciousness, semi-rant deluge. On the other hand, I figure there's more than enough anti-liberalism arrows there to keep you busy for at least an hour or so trying to parry them.

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!

Well...I agree History is key...but...

You really need to read Political Theory first for a foundation. Every modern day political ideology is based off of these books in one way or another.

• John Locke - Two Treatises of Government
  
• Kant - Political Writings
  
  -Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Basic Political Writings
  
  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Introduction to the Philosophy of History
  
  And....
  
  Bentham and Mill - The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill
  
  Karl Marx, Freidrich Engels -The Marx-Engels Reader -Second Edition Don't worry, it still contains the Communist Manifesto.
  
  Machiavelli couldn't hurt to know either.
  
  For some basis on International Organizations - whether it be trade theory, regimes, etc.... this book is top of its class.
  
  Friedrich Kratochwil, Edward D Mansfield - International Organization and Global Governance: A Reader
  
  You also should really read into and understand the Treaty of Westphalia
  
  Then from there
  
  You can look into History, Economic Theory, and/or whatever specific part of the political spectrum you have interest in.
  
  If you are a student try to take advantage of JSTOR...if you aren't a student...you can always purchase access if you are genuinely interested in this stuff.
  
  AFTER you atleast have a foundation under your belt.
  
  You can then use Think Tanks most of what I will link are Internationally known and used and are unbiased, non partisaned.
  
  

• Atlantic Community (This is a german think tank *In english)
  
  
• DIW Berlin - A Economic Think Tank
  
  *Think tank for Action on Social Change - Based out of Ireland
  
  
• Ecologic Foundation - NZ Based, it focuses on Environmental Policy, used world wide.
  
  All of these are widely used, widely respected. Whether you agree with their stances or not. Each of them have had their fair share of Criticism.
  
  I firmly believe that Think Tanks provide the best source of political information, and that they allow one to mold their own political views on grounds of academia and not propaganda and misinformation. (I'm looking at you MSN and Fox news)
  
  Conservative
  
  Acton Institute
  
  American Civil Rights Union
  
  American Enterprise Institute
  
  Bradley Foundation
  
  Center for Security Policy
  
  Claremont Institute
  
  Employment Policies Institute (Fiscal)
  
  Goldwater Institute
  
  The Heritage Foundation
  
  Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
  
  National Center for Policy Analysis
  
  Libertarian
  
  Ludwig von Mises Institute
  
  Cascade Policy Institute
  
  Cato Institute
  
  Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
  Foundation for Economic Education
  
  The Heartland Institute
  
  The Independent Institute
  
  Reason Foundation
  
  Progressive
  
  Center for American Progress
  
  Center for Economic and Policy Research
  
  The Century Foundation
  
  Drum Major Institute
  
  Institute for Policy Studies
  
  New Democrat Network
  
  Third Way (Independent - Dem leaning)
  
  World Policy Institute
  
  
  Liberal
  
  Economic Policy Institute
  
  Economic
  
  American Institute for Economic Research
  
  Analysis Group
  
  Committee for Economic Development
  
  Global Financial Integrity
  
  James Madison Institute (Free Market)
  
  Milken Institute
  
  National Bureau of Economic Research
  
  Peterson Institute for International Economics
  
  Political and Economic Research Council
  
  Tax Foundation
  
  National
  
  Center for a New American Security
  
  Center for Defense Information
  
  Discovery Institute This one has a religious agenda. It's a good use...but beware they are attacking Religion
  
  
  International
  
  American Foreign Policy Council
  
  Aspen Institute
  
  Atlantic Council
  
  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  
  Center for Global Development
  
  Council on Foreign Relations
  
  EastWest Institute
  
  Foreign Policy Research Institute
  
  Inter-American Dialogue
  
  Migration Policy Institute
  
  RAND Corporation VERY good Think-Tank
  
  Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  
  Non-Partison Public Policy
  
  Brookings Institution
  
  Center for Ethical Solutions
  
  Center for Governmental Studies
  
  Center for Immigration Studies
  
  Center for International Policy
  
  Center for Media and Democracy
  
  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  
  Foundation for Excellence in Education
  
  Global Development and Environment Institute
  
  Hoover Institution
  
  Hudson Institute
  
  Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
  
  James Baker Institute
  
  New America Foundation
  
  Pew Research Center (I love Pew)
  
  Urban Institute
  
  
  
  Bi-Partison
  
  Center for Strategic and International Studies
  
  Constitution Project
  
  
  Most Universities around the World have think tanks also
  
  The only one I care about and rely on is the Think Tank at the University of Virginia.
  
  The University of Virginia's Miller Center
  
  Think Tank Directory
  
  Elections, Candidates
  
  Vote Smart
  
  On The Issues
  
  
  Sorry in advance if the Format is shit

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.

> It's a big government that has been purchased and is currently being run by big corporations.

The corporate form is relatively recent (4, 5 centuries?) so let's generalize it to "the rich."

The problem is, if you study history, governments have pretty much always been associated with the rich. It is an institution that is either created by, or controlled by the rich, or in cases where the government is imposed by those who control military force, the guys who control it in very short order become "the rich" and use their control of government to make that state of affairs permanent.

As far as corporations are concerned - don't forget how corporations are created. By a State Charter. I.e. corporations are entities created when the government bends the rules and exempts some rich people from liability laws for some of their investment/business activities.

So there is a case to be made that government supporters are ultimately responsible for the problem of corporations.

> Big corporations that Ron Paul wants to further remove regulations from.

How did those corporations get so big? Who controlled the government when it enacted those regulations? So what purpose do those regulations really serve?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-1900-1916/dp/0029166500

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176

> Just as thinking the problem is only democrat or only republican caused

I don't think that. The vast majority of you liberals or Democrats think that. That is a big part of the reason why I yell at you.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1i6ac5/wounded_soldier_writes_letter_about_being_forced/cb1mwdd?context=3

> thinking Ron Paul the deregulatory is the solution shows that you just aren't paying attention.

Of course he's not "the solution." But his campaign in 2008 and 2012 were probably the best efforts to back, to make things better.

Because corporate/Wall Street scam #1 is imperialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

And a guy who is speaking out against that, in front of Republican audiences, is pure fucking gold.

> Why do you think Ron Paul is the only "crazy" the media allows to have even a small voice?

The media has to maintain the illusion we're a free country with a free media. So they can't simply ignore a movement of a couple million people. It's the same sort of stuff they do with #OWS or anti-war rallies. They can't completely bury it, so they either play down the numbers (i.e. anti-war rallies with hundreds of thousands of people made to look like it was "only" 50 thousand) or portray them like crazy kooks (Ron Paul, #OWS).

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-ron-paul-media-video-2011-8

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!

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!

Right. As a student of Irish History (i'm currently writing my dissertation on the army in Northern Ireland in 1972-1985, but i'm not some /r/AskHistorians flaired user), i probably would not use this as a good document of what happened in the period. It seems to present a more heavily nationalist slant which can be a little misleading.


One of the best starting points is Peter Taylor's excellent three part series on each major group
Brits: the war against the IRA looks at the role of the British government and Army during the Troubles, especially the role of 14 intelligence company.
Provos: The IRA and Sin Fein looks at the Republican (those natives who wanted a united Ireland through violent means) side of the conflict while
Loyalists looks at a much less explored topic of the loyalist (natives who identified themselves as British) side of the conflict. They are all relatively neutral in their stance and are excellently researched with a touch of humanism yet balanced by a strong journalistic style which makes for compelling yet enlightening reading


Each book was accompanied by a television series which can be found on youtube, although it is a little fragmented.


If people would like to know a little more I'd be happy to answer questions or point people in the right direction...

EDIT: mine engrish is naccht su gut today

what it takes: the way to the white house

just the most incredible, enjoyable study of politics and what makes a person great.

If you enjoy talking about politics, or find elections interesting, your world view will be made so much wider by this book.

I'm sure no-one else will have heard of it, so here are links to:

the rather short wiki

the amazon page with excellent reviews

the goodreads page with more reviews

the author discussing the book on cspan

No doubt about it, I'm in a niche ideology.

As far as "selling" it to the masses, that's been the focus of my thoughts for a while now. I don't feel that libertarian socialism is as radical an ideology as it might appear at first, especially in the context of the United States' political traditions.

The broad concepts aren't particularly complex, and they can be easily understood even by children. In the late 19th and early 20th century when leftist ideologies were more common, their ideas were spread through town hall assemblies, discussions in union meetings, popular songs, and, perhaps most importantly, a robust, widely-available working class press.

I don't want to harp on Chomsky too much, but the Propaganda Model presented in Manufacturing Consent goes a long way toward explaining why leftist ideologies have fallen by the wayside in the last 150 years or so. There's a great summary of this in Understanding Power, but I don't have my copy handy and google searches aren't turning anything up (as an aside, I'd highly recommend giving Understanding Power a read as it offers a great example of just how accessible and easy-to-understand anarchism can be)

So to me, it's not really a question of whether or not these ideologies are comprehensible to the average Joe. In fact, I'd argue that the current neoliberal capitalist paradigm demands much more complex and illogical reconciliations (2+2=5) from non-elite adherents.

To sum it up, in my mind there are two primary hurdles that need to be overcome in order for the idea to gain traction: (1) our perspective on private property (income-producing property; i.e. the 'means of production'--not your toothbrush), and (2) our understanding of "human nature"

Happy to go into more depth on those points, but I want to keep my comment brief(ish).

As far as coming up with a workable, realistic path, my personal opinion is that the specifics of Marxist and Syndicalist approaches to organizing are largely irrelevant in today's context (but the broad ideas are still on point).

Economically, I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to abandon the idea of markets as a way of allocating resources, so a solid first step would be embracing a Mutualist approach that democratizes workplace control but retains a market. However, my long-term view is that markets are corrupting and should eventually be phased out.

Politically, I'm drawn to Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism as a workable framework that doesn't require immediate and total revolution (though the expectation would be that eventually there would be a confrontation with the state)

I'm rambling at this point, so I'll shut up now. But I hope that all makes sense and answers your question(s).

Looking good! That's an amazing stash! :D

I found this the other day. I read an excerpt on Tumblr and it just seems like the funniest thing :D Thanks for the contest! <3

and telling people how and what they should post isn’t?

Seriously, if you want a longer post on the history of the political parties in the United States, complete with the very slow transitions, and the exceptions and alternatives, I would recommend not a post, but this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081578225X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687562&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0742508889&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=16HQ3KRJ8WXFYQ4M20F4

its a nice read.

My broad sweep of the transition of the parties is basically correct. The exceptions that are easy to point out often prove the general trend in the opposite direction.

>>So having a political leaning makes one biased as to what facts to focus on and report?

>It very well can. More importantly why suggest a left wing pundit when there's going to be hundreds of other reports on the documents from other sources that aren't biased?

I don't see an answer to my question here. That it "very well can" doesn't show that Maddow in particular is biased just because she has obvious political leanings. (It's actually the obviousness of the political leanings that would incentivize her to be as unbiased as she can - you know, for credibility's sake, which you preemptively deny to her for no good reason.) As to "why Maddow," it's because she notably spends a lot of her shows being on Mitt Romney's case, trapping him with facts and his own statements, that's why.

>And why the mention of chompskey? Do you even understand his views? He spoke out against mainstream media regularly so I don't think he would be suggesting we listen to a cable news reporter either. More importantly chompskey holds very different views from a modern liberal like Maddow. Chompskey is heavily influenced by classicaly liberal philosophy which is completely different from modern liberalism. If anything chompskey would be a sort of neo libertarian. Do you know who noam chompskey is?

First off, it's spelled Chomsky. I've read his book Understanding Power and numerous columns of his at tomdispatch.com. So yeah, I know a thing or two about the guy. Even had a short e-mail exchange with him a couple weeks back. And I know how he's influenced by classical liberal philosophy and calls himself a libertarian socialist, the socialism (and, e.g., his stated support for the OWS movement) being what places him quite prominently on today's political left. And he's very clued into factors that generate bias in the media, and he inspires his more adept readers to identify and combat any biases in their own cognitive endeavors. Which brings me to my original question which you really haven't answered.

>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!

[Understanding Power] (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-The-Indispensible-Chomsky/dp/1565847032#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1450851636683) USA good one. I linked to it in Amazon just so you can read the description. Just a heads up, Chomsky is widely considered to be one of the greatest modern thinkers, but because of that, he can be pretty formidable and at times difficult to follow, but if you can you will definitely be smarter because of it.

A) You should wallow in pity about how nothing has changed since 1972.

B) If you want more HST I recommend The Rum Diary or Hell's Angels.

C) If you want more politics I recommend Game Change which was about the 2008 election and was pretty great if not overly shocking or if you really want to get deep into something try the 1,000 page opus about the 1980 election What It Takes

Your scenario assumes there is only one ransomer and one ransomee in the world. This can make for a good toy problem, but we should be clear that we're diverging from the real world here.

This is one of many scenarios where it is to your advantage for your opponent to believe that there are circumstances in which you will act against your own (apparent) self-interest. The best thing you can do to prevent kidnapping (in this scenario) is to credibly and publicly assert that you will never pay a random.

If you're a kidnapper and you anticipate people attempting this strategy, you can publicly and credibly delcare that you'll kidnap people regardless. (This might be tricky, as kidnappers historically aren't super credible people).

The key is to be (1) credible and (2) first. Whoever makes the first credible precommitment wins.

Similarly: there is a game called "Chicken", where two drivers careen towards each other at high speed; whoever swerves first loses. The dominant strategy...

(think about it for at least 30 seconds)

(it hasn't been 30 seconds yet)

(keep thinking)

(do you have an answer?)

(take a second to write it down or say it out loud)

[solution](#s "...is to throw your steering wheel out the window before the game starts, such that your opponent knows for a fact that you can't swerve.")

Another, similar demonstration of the power of precommitment is demonstrated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8. If you want to skip the game show fluff: It's a prisoners dilemma and things get fun around 2:40.

tldr: You can use your opponent's model of you as a weapon against them.

Recommended reading: http://www.amazon.com/The-Strategy-Conflict-Thomas-Schelling/dp/0674840313

This one is pretty interesting - https://muse.jhu.edu/book/35818

Also this - https://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Party-System-Alignment-Realignment/dp/081578225X

And another - https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-American-Electoral-Systems-Contributions/dp/0313213798

Recent and good - https://www.amazon.com/When-Movements-Anchor-Parties-International/dp/0691164703

This is stuff that I enjoy reading about, but credit where credit is due that I gleaned a lot of this from a website called factmyth - I would give this more thorough breakdown a read. - http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/

I thought the documentary was great but it's very long and I think a lot of people don't catch the details. I also thought it was good to revive the video since I think it's informative and more people should check it out. This particular excerpt seemed relevant to social democracy.

The rest of the documentary is largely focused on Thomas Ferguson's book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems and features quotes from Ferguson and Noam Chomsky quite heavily. Ferguson believes that you can predict government policy by following the financial backing of the various politicians. For example, it is argued that health care entered the US national debate in 2008 not necessarily because people wanted it but because various manufacturing industries were seeing their costs of labor go up and were feeling the pinch during the financial crisis and they in turn lobbied the politicians. At the end the documentary tries to make the case for both socialism and democracy.

For Enjoyable Political Science stuff, I would suggest A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabbato.
For the best election reading, go for [What It Takes] (http://www.amazon.com/What-Takes-Way-White-House/dp/0679746498/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371747306&sr=1-1&keywords=what+it+takes) by Richard Ben Kramer.

Understanding Power is a collection of lectures and Q&A sessions, and as such it is in a conversational style that is much easier to digest than his more scholarly works. I would definitely recommend this over books like Manufacturing Consent as an introduction to Chomsky's ideas. Manufacturing Consent was made into a documentary which does a good job of outlining his critique of the mass media.

I like the general way you're thinking. I've become interested lately in why states form and how they are destabilized or prevented from forming from an anthropological standpoint. What conditions, technological, ecological, cultural, can place limits on their growth and aggregation? Shatter them into small manageable pieces or keep them from forming in the first place?

This book really got me thinking about that angle, and you might enjoy it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Not-Being-Governed/dp/0300169175

This one also carries some similar thoughts, I recall an excerpt about the advantages of smaller city-states vs. large modern nations:
http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680

This one also has some interesting thoughts about the vulnerabilities of modern states and what enables the groups that are currently able to resist them, though I'm still undecided as to how much of it was just current conventional military thought regarding guerilla warfare repackaged as Silicon Valley fluff for people that have never had a standard western military officer's education. I've read a couple of books by David Kilcullen, who I believe closely represents the current "establishment" thinking on western counterinsurgency doctrine, and he repeated some of Robb's points about the decentralized network nature of modern guerrilla movements. Still, food for thought.
http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0470261951/ref=la_B001ILOBMI_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409237873&sr=1-1

Definitely get Tom Ferguson's book then. Sadly, I haven't found a pdf of it online but your library or Amazon should have it. He has a number of articles that should be interesting. In short, he explores how the opportunity cost of voting causes political systems to be dominated by moneyed interests. As labor organizes, it becomes a moneyed interest and is able to get into the political system, which affects the composition of the parties. I should be able to snag his scholarly articles if you can't get them through your university or wherever. He spends some time talking about Europe too, so you should be able to get some useful info for making comparisons.

I'm afraid I don't have much on China, probably because unions are illegal and thus quite small and powerless.

>coming up with a coherent political theory

For what it's worth, my personal impression is that intellectuals on the far right are more coherent in their politics than intellectuals on the far left. Intellectuals on the far right can often point to specific things they think work well, such as Singapore, or European monarchies. Sometimes they even have radical new proposals... but at least they are concrete. I less often here of concrete ideas coming from the far left. My general impression is that the far left has strong ideals about radical egalitarianism, but no plan for how to achieve it that's more sophisticated than "destroy everyone who disagrees with us".

Of course, most of the people on both sides who show up for events like this one are not intellectuals and don't have coherent views.

Without pressure from the left they will continue to slide right. They will continue to accept money from corporations and they will continue to support their causes, they will fail to represent us and continue to rig elections.

They organize wedge issues specifically designed to split us up into groups, squabbling over issues that do not fundamentally alter society or power structures, while silently passing legislation which consolidates power for the wealthy. Many wedge issues we deal with today would essentially be trivially solved in a world where our government was run by and worked for the people rather than the wealthiest 1%.

I highly recommend reading this book: Understanding Power: The indispensable Chomsky

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this one:

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

It's pretty comprehensive in terms of covering the essentials of his positions on most major issues, but the editors did a fantastic job of presenting all of it as a question/answer type of format. Another cool thing, the footnotes/citations were so voluminous they made it a .pdf online because it would've probably doubled the size of the book:

The Footnotes to Understanding Power

Yes, it does exist, however fragmented it is. You could start looking at Magna Carta, then the Bill of Rights (and the Claim of Right), the Acts of Settlement, the Parliament Acts, the Human Rights Act, the House of Lords Act, the Life Peerages Act, the Representation of the People Acts, the Constitutional Renewal Act and then take a look at the various conventions that exist which are just as much a part of our uncodified, though still existent, constitution.

For a good overview of the constitution without the digging through centuries old legislation and accounts of conventions, you can look at The British Polity (5th edition is most recent) by Professor Phillip Norton or (it's a bit old now, but still good for the most part) The Hidden Wiring by Professor Peter Hennessy. I recommend finding them through a library if you do though, they can be quite expensive.

A bit of a different book from me.

The Politics Book - Paul Kelly

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1409364453/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_VvB1xbAZFK029

It is a good, fairly unbiased, summary of politics and philosophy from history and is great for beginners who want to grasp political ideas and understand political history at a basic level.

The layout is modern and easy to understand so I highly recommend it.

>Thats a thing? Why havent i heard of them before? Like during ap history when we were going through the federalist papers...

Yep. And once you read them you'll realize why you haven't heard of them.

The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers

Required reading for the 218, if you know what I mean.

>You had me at "STK"

Happy reading. I'll leave you with a good AF one-liner:

>...the gilded pill, is often found to contain the most deadly poison.

Brutus 3

Protip: you can read most of them for free there.

Depends. What topic interests you, and at what level? He's written on philosophy, politics and of course lingustics.

For an overview of his political beliefs, I like Understanding Power, whose footnotes are web-only, because otherwise they would've more than doubled the book. (It's also very readable, since it's taken from question & answer sessions, where he's looser with language than in prepared talks or in print. And even Chomsky uses the book to look up stuff, praising the duo who assembled the book.)

Language and Politics is also interesting, and touches more on philosophy and lingustics.

There's much on the web. He also used to participate on ZNet's old message forums; however his years of posts (probably in the thousands) answering people's political questions may be lost.

It's a simple extension of an analysis of power. I'd encourage you to look at this book (also available in audiobook).

If you are truly interested and can't afford it, PM me.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-Indispensable-Chomsky-Noam/dp/1522694358

"Military spending doesn’t redistribute wealth, it’s not democratizing, it doesn’t create popular constituencies or encourage people to get involved in decision-making. It’s just a straight gift to the corporate manager, period."

...

"They understood that social spending could play the same stimulative role, but it is not a direct subsidy to the corporate sector, it has democratizing effects, and it is redistributive. Military spending has none of these defects."
link

One of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems themselves.

For example, the Washington Post noted that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole. However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' " Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.

And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now."

(page 388).

Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?

Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.

Chomsky's views on postmodernism aren't at all new. He dismisses pomo in Understanding Power (2002); I don't have my copy handy to give a page number, but I'm pretty sure it's in the index. He said things to the effect that he can hardly read pomo literature and that it's hardly amenable to serious analysis because its claims are so obscure or indeterminate. His latest remarks are a quite-consistent extension of his earlier ones.

You're overthinking this one. You don't really need an analytical approach to drafting such materials. The literature is a collection of circlejerking over overly complicated models that tell you everything about nothing. The materials you will be writing are written at a sixth grade level. It's a simple, topic, problem, boss' solution writing. All you really need to be able to do is define the problem as a fall guy for your boss' solution. Add some folksy shit in there, and boom, a press release. It wouldn't hurt to go read through local press releases and build a template to work from.

A sample press release is:

Title "Elected Official X To [Something]/On HR Vote"

Congressman Brown on HR 69 Vote: The Murder All Puppies Act

Intro that summarizes the issue.

4/20/2013: The House of Representatives voted today to pass HR 69, the Murder All Puppies Act. Congressman Brown (D-AL) joined his colleagues in passing this historic legislation by a vote of 434-1.

Position statement with quote from elected official.

"Today's vote removes a dangerous threat from the United States, " Congressman Brown said while addressing reporters after today's vote. "The warmth, innocence, and feelings of happiness that generally are created by a puppy prevents citizens of the United States from being individualistic individuals. I was pleased to join my colleagues in crushing the collective spirit of the United States by removing what little happiness remains in an age of chronic debt, partisan gridlock, being mired in two unwinnable wars, and a perpetual election cycle that allows non-issues to become hot media topics. With this vote, this House has been able to accomplish what Bane was unable to do to Batman--we broke their spirit."

Contact info.

Congressman Brown has represented Alabama's 63rd Congressional District since 1875. The 63rd district includes, Topeka, Roll Tide, and 15 Piggly-Wiggly's. Congressman Brown can be contacted at (202) 555-1212.



That all said, the seminal book in political communication is Fenno's Home Style. Fenno does an excellent job of learning how MOC's communicate with their constituents via "soak and poke." If you have the opportunity, learn the language and issues that are important to your constituents, and weave that into your materials. Land access, ranchers, national defense, whatever the case may be.

Cool to see the 500 warhead scenario focused on countervalue targets while more warheads increases the targeting of counterforce targets. Basically, if you have only a few warheads, they need to be big and focus on deterrence. If you have many, they can be smaller and more targeted towards crippling your opponent's military.

People under-appreciate how much game theory was derived from the cold war with great books like The Strategy of Conflict.

I humbly suggest you read Winner Take All Politics, or if you're a voracious reader: Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems. These will free you of some fetters.

There is!

Specifically, and Wikipedia will back me up on this, von Moltke insisted that Germany's Schlieffen Plan, which called for simultaneous war against France and Russia, would have to proceed unaltered, despite last-minute attempts by England to guarantee French neutrality. The notion was that troops were already on the move with pre-set orders, and with the speed of communication and transport abilities, no last-minute alteration could be managed.

(It strikes me that unalterable mobilization in that fashion is an interesting example of pre-committal and its ramifications: consider Thomas Schelling's book for more on game theory in conflict.)

Also, if you want a whimsical and sort of weird take on Kaiser Wilhelm II, Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August -- haha, just kidding, though that book is great -- The Zimmerman Telegram, and specifically its second chapter (I think), details some of Wilhelm's quirks and odd theories on how the war would or could be won. They're pretty interesting. But the book is hard to come by anywhere except online or in a vintage bookstore.

>Former Central Intelligence Agency briefer David Priess, the author of a book about PDBs, said that traditionally, Trump and Pence's predecessors sat for "daily or near-daily intelligence briefings" between their elections and their inaugurations.

>He said Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan did not start receiving their daily briefings until later in November, while the delayed election result in 2000 meant that George W. Bush did not start receiving his until December.

If you want the number of days each sat for a briefing before inauguration you will need to read Priess' book. Here ya go. Have a ball!

"Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky" is outstanding. It's based on speaking engagements and the the footnotes are an actual website, so they're exceptionally thorough and even include some official documents. It covers many, many topics, so best of all, you can jump around and read sections you're interested in. An Amazing book. For the table of contents check it out on Amazon, but buy the book from The New Press link given above.

The art style? Well it's kinda like a deliberately simple sort of thing, couldn't find any pictures of the inside but the cover should give you an idea of what it's like: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Book-Paul-Kelly/dp/1409364453

Could definitely go that way at this point. Glad my weak starter was enough to interest you though. The main text on Patchwork was published by Moldbug, here are the 4 chapters:

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Moldbug has an interesting style, he writes like he's just shooting the shit but the guy understands insane amounts of political and economic theory.

There are a lot of blogs on Patchwork as well, which go at it from various perspectives that aren't as far-right as Moldbug. The blogger Xenogoth in particular compiled a "patchwork reader" of all the writings on it, but that's escaping my googling right now.

Speaking of political science, I'd like to recommend a couple of books to my liberal friends here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0029166500

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226243176

That should drive a stake through the heart of the fraudulent scam and marketing/propaganda lie that is modern American liberalism.

>My plan this time around is to base a collection of ten threads each based on a chapter of 'The Politics Book' published by Dorling Kindersley.

I bought that yesterday! Asdas for £8, cheaper than Amazon, I thought it was a bargain considering how clear and yet how jam packed it was.

I'll have you know that What it Takes is a brilliant book!

And if it's on sale in a used bookstore, so be it, internet sir!

Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems SPOILER

Amazon

Google Books

B&N

If there is anyone who wants to read this and legitimately can't afford it.... reply to this... and I'm sure we can find a way.

The Golden Rule Documentary feat Noam Chomsky


Can you add some info about the book(official title, author) for those just arriving to the party? I was searching Amazon... but I don't know the author and there are a few "The Golden Rule".

No, this is false. Have a read of Stephen Pinker's Better Angel's of our Nature. It shows clearly, in many graphs detailing information about many different types of violence; that all types of violence have been in steady decline over the last thousand years.

This trend of a steady decline also continues over the last 100 and last fifty years and he documents this.

Further, US military strength has been in steady decline over the same period.

Your argument is not backed by data if your argument is that greater military strength produces greater peace. The inverse is true. Also if you want some political discussion about why this is the case have a read of this book.

> Understanding Power is just as relevant too.

Understanding Power is the best overall book on modern politics i have ever read. Really challenged/changed a lot of my preconceived opinions about politics

If you don't like Joe Biden, read What It Takes: The Way To The White House and get back to me.

Also it's literally the greatest book ever. Start reading now and you'll have it read in time for his re-election bid in 2024!

I'm from the nationalist side of Northern Ireland and growing up I had no idea what the reason was for loyalist paramilitaries to exist

This book Loyalists gave me a better idea

> Rich people aren't being represented obviously!

This book, outlined in this article and summarized in this video says otherwise. It is an inevitability of liberal democracy.

^^I'm ^^agreeing ^^with ^^you, ^^btw.

Dude, it's in almost any book written about Bush's time in office. He read them, but he also got an in-person briefing by a CIA officer. Normally the VP and other people sat in on the brief. It's not up for dispute whether or not he read them. The question is why he didn't take them seriously, which is a different question.

Edit:
Here's a surprisingly topical book. link

I'm not sure where you got your info from (Baghot is a loong time ago) but mine principally came from a book called [The Hidden Wiring]{http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Wiring-Unearthing-British-Constitution/dp/0575400587). If you have another source, I would be interested.

As for India, there was never a sovereign of all India before Victoria so no historical claim. They went towards a presidential system but still Pakistan felt it needed to secede as the Muslims felt their interests were vulnerable.

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

>What books on politics do you recommend?

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

I've never tried them, so I'm just going to guess cherry lemon? If that's a filling?

this book seems hilarious.

Understanding Power gives a pretty broad overview of his ideas.

I think it may be 'The President's Book of Secrets: The Untold Story of Intelligence Briefings'

Yeah, it seems like that's the lowest price for an ebook version. And the lowest prices for paperback are roughly the same at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. B&N has free shipping, and I don't know if Amazon Prime makes it cheaper there, so I'd just check both.

a shitty textbook made in the Clinton years. Covers up until WW1 reasonably well then falls apart. America: Pathways to Present.

I generally make my own stuff for all my non US History classes and only use this occasionally in US History.

I use this for gov: https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-U-S-Constitution/dp/1592576273 and think it does a great job for what I want of the class.

https://www.amazon.ca/Leviathan-Thomas-Hobbes/dp/0199537283/ref=sr_1_1/154-5195785-5062237?ie=UTF8&qid=1481467964&sr=8-1&keywords=leviathan+hobbes

https://www.amazon.ca/Social-Contract-Jean-Jacques-Rousseau/dp/0140442014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481468107&sr=8-1&keywords=rousseau+the+social+contract

https://www.amazon.ca/Second-Treatise-Government-John-Locke-ebook/dp/B004UJCSBG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481468187&sr=8-1&keywords=locke+second+treatise

Otherwise, I don't think what you're looking for exists. I know the Supreme Court has written some flowery words about where the government derives its powers whenever it feels the need, but it's not in any one document, and I wouldn't know where to find it. We don't reinvent the wheel every time we build a car, and we don't rejustify the existence of the state every time we form a new one.

A good book on the subject is Brave New War by John Robb. Here's his blog.

Robb talks about "open source warfare," which refers to using a lot of small independent groups that share their methods on public forums. Another of his main points is that infrastructure attacks are the most effective. They tend to be cheap and low-risk, but inflict a high economic cost.

More info...

Interestingly enough, the reason why this early government failed is due to a weak federal government and we even had an insurrection. The new federal government called for this stronger federal government that we have today.

The founders were split on this and we had Federalists and Anti-federalists. You can find their writings on Amazon and the books as called Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. If you look at parts of the Democratic and Republican party policies, they all stem from this basic argument: how powerful should our government be?

Amazon says 64 pages

http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Sun-Tzu/dp/161382288X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1411579391&sr=8-3&keywords=art+of+war+sun+tzu

If you want a broad view of Chomsky, I suggest The Essential Chomsky. It's a collection of some of his most influential writings. If you want to skip the linguistic stuff and focus on political writing, Understanding Power has been suggested. I haven't read that one, though. The linguistic stuff, in my opinion, is interesting but very hard to follow if you're not into linguistics already. The opening piece from Essential Chomsky is a 50+ page essay which is a critical examination of a linguistics writing. It took a long time to read and I retained little.

Here is more info on the first book I recommended. Here is the second.

Justice is a way to avoid the tragic equilibrium in the prisoner's dilemmas we all face every day. A college sophomore would say that if someone wrongs you, it is irrational to seek revenge, because even if it hurts the one who wronged you it costs you something as well. However, if someone thinking about wronging you knows you will "irrationally" seek revenge, they're less likely to wrong you.

Being known as someone with a strong commitment to justice is a good way to accomplish this.

The above is a very short overview; Thomas Schelling got a Nobel Prize for related theory, and authored a very readable book on the subject; The Strategy of Conflict.

Chomsky's Understanding Power is a long, organized Q&A and has sections where he discusses libertarian socialism directly, but the entire book is about the same general philosophy.

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

Here are two more of Chomsky's recommendations gleamed from Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
(which I highly recommend):

• 
  Rajani Kannepalli Kanth, Political Economy and Laissez-Faire: Economics and Ideology in the Ricardan Era
  
• 
  Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell
  

https://www.amazon.com/What-Takes-Way-White-House/dp/0679746498

Same here. Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

It's from Understanding Power, A collection of talks he's done over the years. This one's from talks he gave at Rowe, Massachusetts.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-Indispensable-Chomsky-Noam/dp/1522694358

Understanding Power

Note that there is this vast MSM apparatus pushing an alternative narrative? A different description of what is going on? One that fits much better with your mental image of how the world works?

That's right. That is why it is there. It is there precisely to induce that false narrative, theories of how the political system works.

It is indeed true that folks who do not adhere to "mainstream" ideas of how the political system works might be... insane, and wrong. But it is virtually certain that those who do adhere to the mainstream view are... brainwashed cretins.

Because political systems never work the way the internal propaganda tells the sheeple it works.

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176

Books? Here ya go.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0029166500

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226243176

http://www.paulstreet.org/?page_id=32

http://mises.org/document/1223

And liberalism doesn't work. Never did.

Chocolate Raspberry

Any one of the first 4 that are 4cents would be great

If you can read a 1,000+ page book on a political campaign, What It Takes goes into Bob Dole's early life in detail. The book is about everyone running in the 1988 Presidential election, and almost certainly the best book you will ever read about what makes people become successful politicians and what a major election campaign is really like.

Anyway, back to Dole. It wasn't just his hand that was injured in WWII, his whole body was mangled. There were several years where he was bedridden and likely suicidal afterwards, and he was generally expected to stay that way and die within five, maybe ten years. The surgery on his shoulder that turned his arm into a pen cup was an extremely risky, experimental procedure when he had it done, and it was basically as a last ditch effort.

Then he spent a few more years relearning how to do every basic task you take for granted, and went to law school, where he learned everything by memory because he had no way to take notes. Then he was a small-town lawyer who got into politics.

I'm not a fan of his politics or his weird third-person self-reference affectation, but he has an incredible backstory.

If anyone wants to understand this academically try reading Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule : The Investment Theory of Party Politics, but it is an academic read that might be difficult to parse for those not trained in political science methodology. You can view a documentary regarding the book here.

>But I've not yet found a good discussion on power.

Noam Chomsky is your huckleberry if you lack the stomach for French verbosity.

Power & Ideology

Understanding Power

Political works by Chomsky:

The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967),
At War With Asia: Essays on Indochina (1969),
Government in the Future (1970),
The Fateful Triangle (1983, 2015),
The Chomsky Reader (1987, 2010),
Manufacturing Consent (1988, 2002),
Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1992, 2015),
Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky (2002),
Hegemony or Survival (2003),
Failed States (2006).

Works on Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky: A personal bibliography, 1951-1986 (1986),
Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent (1998),
Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals ( 1999, 2002, 2016),
The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky (2005, 2017),
The Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky (2000, 2002, 2004),
The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower (2007), Noam Chomsky (2015)


Also this, this, this and this.

Salvador Allende is a good example to see the effect America has on other countries.

Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky wonderfully links the domestic struggle with American Imperialism.

Violence by our boy Slavoj Zizek, refracts outbursts of violence into his own unique way of looking at events. Really eye opening.

America has historically exported some of the worst, murderous violence overseas for the pettiest of reasons, its own gain regardless of the consequences to liberators struggle.

I'm glad to hear of someone interested in learning, hope I've helped!

I think you are more talking about resource/time management; for this, I cannot offer much help.

But if you are interested in strategy, I can recommend two books:

The Art of Strategy - it is a 'pop science' introduction to strategy. Not that deep, but very easy to read.

Then, if you feel you need to learn from the Masters, go for the big guns:
The strategy of Conflict - it is not an easy read, but some of Thomas Schelling's insights will blow your mind. Use with cautions, though; some of the strategies described backfired horribly during the Vietnam war (Schelling was one of the advisors at the RAND corporation at the time). Just thought I should warn you, before you blow up your life/relationships in an exercise of strategic brinkmanship: it is indeed a dangerous book.

>an entire country wants to stay at war
I never said that; I was referring to the state of Israel, not the public of Israel. But thanks strawman-ing my argument, sardonically prove reductio ad absurdum, and then make fun of me. I appreciate it.

You didn't specify which point you wanted proof for, but I'll give you my favorites. Here's the evidence:
Byman-Do Targeted Killings Work?
Noam Chomsky-Sheer Criminal Aggression. with no Credible Pre-text
B'Tselem-Fatalities
Noam Chomsky-Understanding Power

Ex-army here. I did six years in the Army Reserve and a one year deployment to Iraq in 09.

The military is the most extreme example of hierarchy I can think of. There are literally dozens of layers of it, in the rank system and the chain of command, and you wear it on your chest in the form of your personal rank.

The purpose of the military is to destroy and conquer human beings, so it isn't surprising that those in the military experience what we dish out. It's why we have higher rates of suicide, mental illness, crime, etc. Everybody's experience is different of course, but I would call mine a "socially acceptable abusive relationship". Those on the top would engage in verbal abuse and physical abuse (in the form of corrective action through physical exercise, as well as sending us on pointless mission that put our lives at risk).

The military is about power, just as corporations and other big businesses are about power. Power is how you take more than you create. It's how a CEO can pay himself a million bucks a year but give his employees minimum wage. The military is how capitalists and states maintain their power at home and overseas. When foreign nations refuse to part with their natural resources or labor for a pittance, that's when those in power have to take action. I'd suggest reading Understanding Power to get the specifics here.

I could always feel there was something wrong with this system, but it took experimenting with a number of different philosophies before I came to anarchism. Abolishing all hierarchies and tools of oppressions...that's what really got me.