(Part 2) Best products from r/Libertarian

>I don't know you and I promise you I'm not consciously trolling. I'll back away now to prove it. I love discussing politics and challenging my own assumptions/having them challenged. I don't care as much for insults. Sorry for getting defensive.

Well, sorry as well... but that's what it seemed like to me. (And quite frankly I'm just not in the mood for trolls).

>My main point, to others who may be reading, is that if government is a wolf, it is only made so by the moneyied big business interests that occupy it. Not because government is inherently evil/wolf-like. (Big business is not inherently evil, either, it's just not as concerned for the welfare of the people or the land, etc. It's primary reason for being is to make money)

I will make one MAIN point here to try to explain, and "challenge your assumptions".

You understand that "businesses" (even BIG businesses) are abstract entities, right? Entities that consist of human beings... flawed human beings who are often guilty of avarice (aka greed) and ambition (seeking status/power, typically via money).

Government is the same -- it is an abstract entity that consists of human beings. Flawed human beings. Human beings who have often eschewed the seeking of wealth (aka avarice/greed) and instead who engage in "ambition" (i.e. the seeking of status/power) FIRST. But they too are still human, and -- especially in places like Washington D.C. -- they need MONEY to live, and even MORE money if they are to maintain and GAIN status and power (remember that "ambition" yeah, that). Money like that does NOT (and will not) come via increased salaries or bonuses. BUT, it certainly CAN come via other means -- means which most of us would call "corrupt" but which may very well be entirely legal (speaking fees, book deals, plus things like jobs for spouses, friends, other relatives, etc. -- not to mention "inside info" in advance on stocks, real estate deals, etc.)

And, remember that "ambition" -- yeah, well you don't increase your status or power by doing such a great job that you work yourself OUT of a job -- you increase your status and power (and money) by making yourself MORE needed (by doing things that make your department need to get BIGGER and BIGGER -- in part because "status" is very much more about how many employees you have reporting to you, etc.)

Go read up on Parkinson's Law (written as satire, but long regarded as inherently true nonetheless).

And if you insist that "noble intentions" are the only thing at play, or that it overrides everything else (even personal ambition) then I strongly suggest you get and read (from cover to cover) a short book called "The Careless Society: Community And Its Counterfeits" -- written by John McKnight -- who was NOT a libertarian by any means, actually he's a "disciple" of lefty community activist Saul Alinsky (best known for his book "Rules for Radicals") -- that book should open your eyes and eliminate the naivete -- and if you can read that book and STILL come away thinking that all "noble" government bureaucracies are perfect shepherds (and not "wolves" preying upon the sheep) ... well then I'd probably give up and wish you well.

---

EDIT: You are entirely wrong in your view of profits (i.e. "making money") but that is another whole long post and I am too tired to explain now. (Hit me some other time).

This is an issue that is hit on from time to time in libertarian science fiction. Scarcity in an economic sense isn't likely to function any differently than it does now. Some resources are in greater supply than others, and humanity will continually seek to maximize its usage of these resources in one form or another. How societies organize around these resources will vary, of course, in the same way it does in contemporary political philosophy and political fiction.

Specifically in libertarian science fiction, there are two general approaches to individual freedom in light of human space exploration:

1. History is cyclical, and freedom only exists on the frontier. Throughout human history, political systems increased in scope and complexity, and individual freedoms diminish. Then, for some particular reason (economic, religious, political), a range of people push out the boundaries of civilization, and start exploring a new frontier. The culture of these frontier societies tend to be a true melting pot, as the desire for freedom isn't restricted to members of just one culture or another. Individual freedom is near its maximum out on the frontier, until civilization catches up to it. Space offers the possibility that civilization never really catches up to the frontier. We might call this the "optimistic" approach to individual freedom in an endless space. These stories tend to be more fun and inspiring -- "imagine what the future will hold!"
   
   
2. The vastness of space allows for a tremendous increase in the diversity of human societies, including new forms of social organization, political systems, and societal mores. Some of these societies will resemble past cultures based upon militarism or oppression (i.e., a Roman Empire or Ottoman caliphate), while some will resemble past cultures based upon free trade or freedom of expression (i.e., Renaissance-era Italy, or information age America). The characteristics associated with these societies are more of a result of economic conditions and cultural traditions. Often there will be a severe confrontation between these societies. We might call this the "pessimistic" or "realistic" approach to individual freedom in an endless space. These stories will typically serve as an educational tool, or a thought experiment -- "is our current way of doing things really the best way?"
   
   If you really think about it, you do see a generally agreed upon fact in both approaches: some portion of humanity will always desire and seek to live with maximized individual freedom, while some portion of humanity will always end up in a society that maximizes an "us" or a "we." The "hows" and "whys" are where libertarian science fiction stories really vary. Scarcity will tie into narrative in the same ways that it does now: different groups of people will approach the availability or scarcity of resources differently, to any of a variety of fates.

> I'm more than happy to compromise on reforming safety nets (that work better and are cheaper, such as a negative income tax)

I'll amend this to say I'm happy to compromise on reforming safety nets that work better and involve less government (which often means cheaper, but that's not necessarily the goal), such as negative income tax. I'd rather be free and poor than unfree and rich, I also happen to think that freedom and prosperity are closely related, if not in a causal relationship.

A negative income tax is superior to our complicated welfare system because (in order of importance to me):

1. it's objective (you report income, you receive benefits; there's no human making decisions)
   
2. it gets money to those that need it most (I recently read $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America, which studies the poorest Americans that the welfare system misses; why have a welfare program if it misses those who need help the most?)
   
3. it'll probably cost less
   
   I'm essentially willing to support anything that reduces the scope of the government, even if it increases taxes, though I'd prefer lower taxes. I think the government should be as limited as possible to maximize individual freedom first, and minimize cost second, and I'm willing to sacrifice the latter to get the former.
   
   > After watching this congress, I have zero hope we'll ever see free market healthcare
   
   I try to steer conversations away from who pays and focus on how much is being spent. I don't think it's worth pushing for repealing the ACA until we deal with regulations and whatnot that are driving costs up, but I do think repealing the individual mandate is an important part of it, so I guess I'm in favor of pushing for partial repeal, but only after fixing some of the other major problems.
   
   For example:
   
   

• reform or abolish the patent system: should drive down prescription costs
  
• abolish tax incentives to offer health insurance at work and require employers to offer the cash value of an offered plan to employees (will get more people using the free-ish insurance market we already have)
  
• potentially abolish group plans (not 100% sure on this one)
  
• limit the types of suits you can file against doctors so they can try innovative and risky procedures if you choose to
  
• require doctors to provide expected outcomes and expenses for a procedure before starting or recommending the procedure (works well in the laser eye surgery industry, so why not expand it?)
  
• remove any regulations that prevent doctors from opening a specialized clinic (e.g. a doctor that only does appendectomies)
  
• legalize marijuana and reschedule the remainder of recreational drugs to allow research and put them on a track to be legalized
  
• make birth control and other common medications available over the counter
  
• allow patients to elect for the generic versions of drugs in hospitals or to have any FDA approved alternative be used in the hospital (essentially abolish whatever "no outside food or drink" type regulations for hospitals)
  
  Etc, etc, etc. Even if we make healthcare universal or whatever, we'll still have these problems driving up costs, and it could even get worse since patients don't see the costs.
  
  We can make an immediate impact by enacting a few of the above, which will show people that opening up the market does drive down costs, and then we can use something like a Negative Income Tax to subsidize people who can't afford the current system (e.g. we can slowly erode the ACA subsidies with a cash based system). People like cash, so I think this could be an attractive solution.
  
  Like you said, it's not ideal from a libertarian standpoint, but it's far better than anything that's been proposed by either side of the aisle, and even has appeal to poor people (getting cash from the government is definitely a win over getting goods in kind).

Okay lets start off with the move to electric as being "carbon" neutral. Most electric engines get their power in one way or another from coal. Coal is the dirties worst kind fuel you can pretty much get. Yet in the green new deal all of the existing energy sources are banned except coal. (Especially nuclear which is one of the cleaner sources). So if its really about the "science" why are only keeping one of the chief offenders at the exclusion of better cheaper cleaner energy sources?

https://www.enovaenergygroup.com/which-types-of-energy-source-produces-the-most-pollution/




Next, light rail. The left loves light rail mostly because between AM Track and the unions they own the rail industry in the united states. They can do as they please and reward their supporters. Light rail can and does make sense in smaller countries like Japan or in the nations of Europe because you have smaller more densely populated areas. By extension it could make sense for the coasts of the united states. Where is doesn't make sense is in the middle of the country. Its too big and too lightly populated for the numbers to really work. I would direct you to Freakonomics if you want some further reading material.

https://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=sr_1_1?crid=RL6DWAUXJAKW&keywords=freakonomics&qid=1551233567&s=gateway&sprefix=freak%2Caps%2C186&sr=8-1

​

Lastly Air travel won out over rail a hundred years ago for valid reasons. For large heavy cargo and freight, ships and trains still make sense. Where it makes no sense is for people. People want to get where they are going as quickly and cheaply as they can. Thus the invisible hand did its thing and you have the modern rail and airline industries.


So here are a couple of questions. Why to be environmentally sound to we have do things more stupidly? Like regress from air travel back to land and sea travel. Why are pro environmentalist so obsessed with forcing others to their way of thinking? Seems to me that if they lived what they preached and we saw real benefits from those actions people would naturally get on board and then you wouldn't need to regulate anything. The people would regulate themselves. Why would we as a species want to spend 5 times the net value of all money and product of human existence on a program doesn't even promise to solve the problem to any sort of measurable effect?


Just some thoughts

Every paper currency in the history of the world has gone to ZERO. Think this time it will be different? Maybe its to visit whose running the Fed Reserve & there track record. Come to find out the foxes are guarding the hen house. How much has the dollar lost value since the private banking cabal took us off the gold standard.

Just figured I leave this here since inquiring minds want to know!!!!


Maybe its time to revisit how the Federal Reserve bank was created....

Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk

Glenn Beck Exposes the Private Fed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB5LK-jihgk

G. Edward Griffin, the author of the bestselling The Creature from Jekyll Island and a long-time Federal Reserve researcher, explains:

"We pick up the story, appropriately enough, under cover of darkness. It was the night of November 22, 1910, and a group of the richest and most powerful men in America were boarding a private rail car at an unassuming railroad station in Hoboken, New Jersey. The car, waiting with shades drawn to keep onlookers from seeing inside, belonged to Senator Nelson Aldrich, the father-in-law of billionaire heir to the Rockefeller dynasty, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. A central figure on the influential Senate Finance Committee where he oversaw the nation’s monetary policy, Aldrich was referred to in the press as the “General Manager of the Nation.” Joining him that evening was his private secretary, Shelton, and a who’s who of the nation’s banking and financial elite: A. Piatt Andrew, the Assistant Treasury Secretary; Frank Vanderlip, President of the National City Bank of New York; Henry P. Davison, a senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company; Benjamin Strong, Jr., an associate of J.P. Morgan and President of Bankers Trust Co., and Paul Warburg, heir of the Warburg banking family and son-in-law of Solomon Loeb of the famed New York investment firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Company. The men had been told to arrive one by one after sunset to attract as little attention as possible. Indeed, secrecy was so important to their mission that the group did not use anything but their first names throughout the journey so as to keep their true identities secret even from their own servants and wait staff. The movements of any one of them would have been reason enough to attract the attention of New York’s voracious press, especially in an era where banking and monetary reform was seen as a key issue for the future of the nation; a meeting of all of them, now that would surely have been the story of the century. And it was. Their destination? The secluded Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia, home to the prestigious Jekyll Island Club whose members included the Morgans, Rockefellers, Warburgs and Rothschilds. Their purpose? Davison told intrepid local newspaper reporters who had caught wind of the meeting that they were going duck hunting. But in reality, they were going to draft a reform of the nation’s banking industry in complete secrecy."

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212

G Edward Griffin Creature From Jekyll Island Second Look at the Federal Reserve https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dba9OY0QatU

More Input: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Federal-Reserve-Eustace-Mullins/dp/0979917654

Free Copy http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

"If there were a shred of proof, the socialized health care programs in every other developed nation would be failures."

Socialized medicine (which is where we are heading) is incapable of giving everyone health care to a satisfactory degree. One source that does an in-depth examination is the following book Lives at Risk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_at_Risk
http://www.amazon.com/Lives-Risk-Single-Payer-National-Insurance/dp/0742541525

I predict that over the next 30 years or so, we will see the breakdown of certain single-payer systems for the same reasons as the Soviet Union fell apart (economic reasons: http://mises.org/story/3543). There is no functioning price mechanism, and eventually there aren't any more resources to be wasted. Already, nations with government-run health care are liberalizing their medicine:

"The authors explain that most European countries with a national health care system have introduced market based reforms and relied on the private sector to reduce costs and increase the availability and effectiveness of health care. Some examples include the NHS has begun treating patients in private hospitals and contracting with private health care providers the Canadian health care system spends over a billion dollars annually on U.S. medical care Sweden has introduced reforms to allow more than forty percent of all heal care services to be delivered privately" - Lives at Risk

Some respected libertarian literature

• Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick - this is one of the best libertarian books about libertarianism. Also is the book that is most known and respected in academic circles.
  
  
• The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible by Ken Schoolland | The Book on Amazon- Especially good from people new to libertarianism. Amazing, clear and concise illustration of Economics (Catallaxy) Applicable at all levels and all ages, young, old, novice and familiar.
  
  
• Free to Choose by Milton Friedman
  
  
• The Road to Serfdom by F. Hayek

(funny I am having this exact conversation in another thread)

We are operating anarchistically every day. In many ways, we succeed in SPITE OF the state, rather than because of it. The vast majority of our choices are just made with voluntary, organic interaction. Organic is the keyword here because complex systems work best when allowed to find the best-path via "bottom-up" organization (for example, skin cells forming Voronoi patterns).

Economics, as the observation of human action, "maximizes value" because of these really fundamental mathematical truths. Even services like security and rights claims are better served by a system that can adapt both in context and efficiency like this.

EDIT:

For a good discussion of this, see Everyday Anarchy by Stephan Molyneux (written well before he became a weird race-realist nut and abandoned his own principles for some reason I dunno maybe just that he's getting old).

For a good discussion of how such a society has worked in the past, check out the not so wild wild west paper.

> Safety nets only kick in when the market has failed people.

In an ideal world, sure, but in many cases they kick in when people have failed the market. In fact, many social programs are set up to keep people in the system instead of helping them get out of it. Check out $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America for examples of people that are completely missed by our current welfare systems. In short:

• employers are unwilling to gamble on people living in government housing
  
• most government services are not cash based, so individuals don't have cash to get better clothes or transportation for an interview
  
• many poor people live with others, so they have less need of some programs are more need of others, yet benefits aren't fungible
  
  If we are to have a useful social safety net, it needs to be partially, if not entirely, cash based. For example, I think we should replace Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, etc with a Negative Income Tax, which should reduce costs and increase utility in those who are willing to apply themselves.
  
  > When America was great
  
  America is still great, why do you think it isn't? Sure, we have some problems, but our laws have so far prevented government from completely screwing things up. All we need is a reevalutaion of some key programs to make sure they're actually helping people that need it instead of helping the wealthy.

I was going to reply to your points, but when I got to this:

>Yes, the government is spending 7.8 trillion additional dollars, but the citizens of the US are making an additional 7.8 trillion dollars.

I realized that you don't actually know anything about economics. That isn't an insult or me being flippant! Lots of people don't know anything about economics - it's called "the dismal science" for a reason. And lots of those people that know nothing about economics vote and have political opinions, because one is not a prerequisite for the other. So I'm not insulting you by saying that - it's just that no one who has ever stepped foot in an economics 101 classroom on the first day, opened en econ-related book of any kind, or even Googled the word "economics" would say that.

So, instead of debating these specific points with you, I'm going to be as helpful as I can be. Here are the books you want to start with:

Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373957729&sr=8-1&keywords=economics+in+one+lesson)

Ludwig Von Mises' Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0865976317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373957777&sr=1-1&keywords=ludwig+von+mises)

And Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0865976317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373957777&sr=1-1&keywords=ludwig+von+mises)

I don't mean to pile three books on you - honestly, you can just read one and get started (I would recommend Hazlitt to start). Once you have a bit more understanding of how things like GDP are calculated, how inflation affects purchasing power, how credit risk is evaluated, and so on, you'll have a better understanding of your own suggestion without needing me. Hazlitt isn't a long read - if you have an average amount of free time, you can probably be through it in a few weeks. I look forward to discussing it with you!

I'm going to have to stop you there. As much as you can say "resource distribution is based on need, not greed", you're actually removing the incentives that allows billions of people to be fed. While it sounds nice in theory (resources based on need, not greed), you're actually committing millions of people to starve, because the incentive to feed the masses is gone.

The profit system is simply the indicator of where to place the scarce resources with variable uses. Profits are that gauge.

I'm going to recommend you a book to read. You should also recommend me a book to read, and I will do so if you read mine. Does that sound like an okay deal?

The book I want you to read is Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

)

Rand was a very polarizing figure, but if you divorce the philosophy from the individual, she actually did bring something to the table. At the risk of sounding like an ad, if anyone is truly interested, check out Objectivism in One Lesson by Andrew Bernstein. It's a lot easier to follow than The Virtue of Selfishness, which is the closest thing I could find to a manifesto by Rand herself.

I think this is one of the very best videos on it, from a Georgetown Professor: http://youtu.be/vScOpGjGB7c?t=2m59s He is speaking and writing for people specifically like you.

His book is probably the best introduction to libertarianism that there is: http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-What-Everyone-Needs-Know/dp/019993391X (Oxford University Press). You buy it (it's pretty cheap) or find it online (pirated).

SECTION | CONTENT

--|:--
Title | The Myth of Natural Monopoly | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Description | Buy 'How Capitalism Saved America | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo': http://amzn.to/1GUXmEK --- My website: http://www.vforvoluntary.com/ Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/ The 2006 Steven Berger Seminar: Thomas DiLorenzo on Liberty and American Civilization http://mises.org/events/86 June 5-9, 2006 LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE - CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 3.0 MP3 files of this lecture series 1-5: http://www.mediafire.com/?lol1q61emb1ac98 6-10: http://www.mediafire.com/?bmrem3dswc...
Length | 1:06:14






****

^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)

> do you think that someone born with 100% biological potential for intelligence who doesn't read books will have the same intelligence as someone, with half the potential, who does?

Intellectual stimulation has been found to not affect GMA: https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036

Contact Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) or Students For Liberty (SFL). However, before you tell people how to interact with cops, I'd recommend reading Arrest Proof Yourself first.

You're both arrogant and willfully ignorant.

Post all the regulations you want, and post all the positive effects they've ever had if you want. It doesn't change my argument one bit, that government regulation is neither the best nor the most moral way to fix problems. You don't want to acknolwedge the great, great harm that regulations do? I can't stop from sticking your head in the sand. You may want to read a little, though, and educate yourself, so that you know what you're talking about. Start off with Thomas Sewell's Basic Economics, then we'll have an educated discussion about the harm that comes from government regulation. Next you can read Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (it's free online). Then maybe you can open your eyes and "see reality" the way it really is. Perhaps you'd benefit from a reading of Bastiat's That which seen, and that which not seen, since you like to point to existing laws so much.

The thing about the market is, it adapts, it changes, it retains choice. Doesn't use violence or coersion, or jail people just because they want to take a drug, but the FDA says, "no". Who is the one who believes in absolutes?

I think we're done here, until you feel like educating yourself about economics a little bit.

As I said, if you think it won't work simply because people will try to force their view of things onto society, I won't disagree. Humans, especially having seen how effective govts currently are at curtailing "bad behavior" in other places, seem to want to wield that power and control for themselves.

> I think libertarian societies just tend to allow themselves to form a central governance.

Yes, the bad side of an an-cap society is that it doesn't forbid anything ... even the creation of a govt. But I would say it is people that allow the creation of govts, not "libertarian societies".

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress described that process pretty well.

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

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard (full text)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (full text)

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

Radicals for Capitalism by Brian Doherty

Lost in the Cosmos by Walker Percy

The Message in the Bottle by Walker Percy

So I understand your point, but my questions were more about pointing out that its a complicated issue. I also get frustrated when I hear politicians simplify complicated issues by saying things like "Its working" or the opposite. Then again, they are politicians: this is what they do.

If you start with the opinion that it is a lie, and go looking for evidence to support that opinion, I'm sure you'll find some. But it will just be the other side of a bunch of rhetoric, not a useful picture of the real story.

May be of interest: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

https://www.nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Immigration-Market-Based-Approaches-Science/dp/0190258799/

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.25.3.83

http://www.dagliano.unimi.it/media/12-Ottaviano-Peri-2008.pdf

http://economics.ucdavis.edu/people/gperi/site/papers/rethinking-the-effect-of-immigration-on-wages

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3KABalnjP5OYjUxZjBiMmItZjRjNi00YzkyLTliNDctYTY1YTM2MjJkYzU5/edit?pli=1

Cato institute studies (right-wing think tank) all overwhelmingly in support of open borders.

https://www.cfr.org/report/economic-logic-illegal-immigration

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937800705187

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/new-immig.pdf

http://www.naid.ucla.edu/uploads/4/2/1/9/4219226/b46.pdf

I highly recommend the books/anthologies by Jason Brennan as well.

"The Great Libertarian Offer" by Harry Browne

"Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises

"Man, Economy, and State" by Murray Rothbard

"The Law" by Frederic Bastiat

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

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

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a philosophical perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, sure, but Rand was definitely talking about the former. She literally wrote a book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931

The apparent change of those who think it is justified is actually less than the margin of error of the poll. The change in those who think it's politically motivated is just over the margin of error.

Biggest change is among Republicans, who previously thought Trump should cooperate, but now don't.

Also they only spoke with 1,101/235M+ Americans of voting age

How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Kp38Ab9T1YZET

Good read.

Dude, if you're going to even try to engage in a discussion about economics, I'd suggest you actually read an economics text book first so that you can at least try to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Here's one.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-Pilgrims/dp/1400083311

Differs in that it has a commitment to the truth and isn't agenda-driven.

Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know is a very good place to start.

Do you want to post the link again? Sure beats quoting a passage from it that proves your straw man?

Here I'll post it too.
https://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036

He earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Arizona, and is Associate Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University.
He is the author of several books Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know and blogs at bleedingheartlibertarians.com

His new book, Against Democracy critically examines the merits and demerits of democracy and makes a case for epistocracy, "the rule of the knowledgeable".

Podcast interview http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-176-jason-brennan-on-against-democracy.html

You may be interested in the book How to Lie with Statistics. This and other techniques are discussed in depth.

Which reminds me...

Moon is a Harsh Mistress is an excellent book!!

Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know https://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-What-Everyone-Needs-Know/dp/019993391X/ref

http://amzn.com/0451163931 ಠ_ಠ

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529

​

Come back when you finish

How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo is a fast read that covers all of this well. The Myth of The Robber Barons by Burton Folsom is more in-depth.

> One question I have though is regarding internet equality. Specifically, if Libertarian is for zero government involvement in business, that wouldn't a Libertarian say that if an internet service provider wanted to prioritize or slow down traffic for certain websites, then it is their right to do so?

Yes, generally (if they should is another issue, of course). Though we would also say that the reason there is no competition between ISPs is because of government regulation. In areas where ISPs actually compete with each other, their service generally tends to be quite good.

>any limiting of the internet, be at speed or censorship, might as well be another form of oppression.

Someone inconveniencing you is not oppression. When the ISPs start shooting people in the streets for uploading the wrong YouTube video, you can call it oppression.

> I believe that the right to own guns should not be taken away from us. But to me, background checks, psychological screening, and training are not exactly bad.

So, you're okay leaving the decision of if you have that right to a government bureaucrat that, I promise, does not let their own political or personal views influence their decisions at all?

Would you be okay with a government bureaucrat pre-screening and approving your reddit posts? You know, just to make sure they aren't terrorism. Make sure you fill out the paperwork right and everything will be fine, I promise.

> I tend to think that corporations generally shouldn't be allowed to fund campaigns.

Corporations are run by people, why can't I run my company the way I want, including supporting whomever I'd like?

And what actually constitutes "funding campaigns"? Can I put a pro-Rand-Paul logo on my website? In the lunch room? Can I show up on TV and say I'm voting for Rand? Can I put up a YouTube video talking about how I like Rand's policies? A TV ad?

Do you want to live in a country where a CEO posts a nice video of how Rand's policies will impact their business, and then gets thrown in jail for illegally contributing to his campaign?

> A corporation-backed candidate would have the advantage in any campaign when compared to smaller, independent candidates.

Historically, this is not true. The overwhelmingly vast majority of elected officials are not backed by any corporation, let alone large ones.

The reason presidents, senators, and representatives are often supported by corporations is--surprise surprise--they want the politicians to pass laws that harm their competition (remember the only way monopolies can exist?). Libertarians say that legislation like that should not be passed, and, consequently, corporations will have no incentive to attempt to influence elections.

> What are your views on the "no-fly" list debacle?

No due process; if it's not illegal, it's immoral.

> If a business is allowed to deny service to a person for one of the above reasons, aren't their rights being violated?

As a guy who's not straight, let me tell you: I don't want anti-gay people making my wedding cake. I want them to voluntarily put a big huge sign in front of their store that says "NO GAYS" so I know not to accidentally give them my money. Forcing them to serve me is absolutely unethical.

> Even if they aren't being violated based on that service alone, wouldn't the ability to do this eventually lead to groups of people being shunned or outcast, thereby violating their rights?

No.

> Most Libertarians would be for allowing immigrants into the country and creating a path to citizenship for them, right?

We already have this, it's called "legal immigration." It's hideously dysfunctional, like all government programs, but it exists and does not need to be "created."

> I've seen little on this sub to determine whether or not a Libertarian would be for allowing Syria refugees into the country.

Because libertarianism is not a cures-all-the-world's-evil-with-this-one-weird-trick philosophy.

Some problems are hard, sorry.

> I am pro-gay rights and gay marriage, and can't really pinpoint a "common" Libertarian sentiment on the topic though.

Historically libertarians have been ridiculously pro-gay rights and gay-marriage (well, and anti-government-being-involved-in-marriage, but that's another story).

> I am of the opinion that with a basic education, future generations will be able to obviously create more informed thoughts, decisions, and figure out better future for themselves.

You're young and naive, we get it.

> Wouldn't a national standard aid in this goal?

No, absolutely not. Teachers are supposed to be subject matter experts. Why the hell should a bureaucrat who knows nothing about a subject be telling an expert how and what to teach?

> I can't really make an informed decision regarding student loans.

They're a huge clusterfuck caused by massive government distortions of both the higher education and student loan markets.

> If the current idea is to tax the rich more to pay for a higher education and make it free. Which is a noble goal, but taxing this rich (to Libertarians I'm sure) would be a direct violation of rights.

And, more importantly, wouldn't solve the problem. The market distortions were caused by government intervention--throwing even more money at it will only make it worse!

> Other views I hold, that would contradict a Libertarian's, are that vaccinations should be required (I believe you're putting others in danger by not doing so)

Look--"required" means, to the government, "we will send people with guns to your house and force you to, and kill you if you resist." Are you okay with enforcing vaccination in this manner?

Sure, the government may start with nice letters, but eventually CPS and the Swat team show up at your house, take your kid, and vaccinate him against your will. And then, oops, it turns your kid was allergic to the vaccine just like you've been telling them for the past 15 months, but the bureaucrat (who can't be fired and has legal immunity) fucked up your exemption paperwork and now your kid is dead.

OTOH, if a private school had a policy that kids needed to be vaccinated--no child murder.

I'm sure you think I'm being extreme, so here's an example: the media has recently claimed that 307,000 veterans have died while waiting for care since 1998. If that were true, that would be ~1,500 dead/mo. Or, to be dramatic, one 9/11 worth of dead every other month. That's a lot of people. The VA disputes this on the grounds that, and I quote: "[the database is] unreliable for monitoring timeliness or determine if a record represents a veteran’s intent to apply for VA health care." Their defense is that they are too incompetent to even attempt to keep track of if people are even seeking care. Consequently, they can't even tell us what the real number is.

Do you want those people to be responsible for safely vaccinating your child? I sure as hell don't!

> I do not support the death penalty

AFAIK most libertarians don't. Some do, though.

> As you can no doubt tell, Im a very ill informed on the details of Obamacare, Foreign Policy, and other broader topics. I am trying to fix that though.

You should start with some economics classes. Having a real understanding of even the most basic economics will get you much further than knowing trivia about specific policies like Obamacare.

Here's a good popular-level intro: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529
But you should take real classes, too.

> Now, on candidates, I'm surprised at the anti-Bernie sentiment in this sub.

Socialism is literally anti-libertarianism.

> As I understand it, Libertarians are for starting everyone on common ground, but then leaving them to their own devices afterword, regardless of whether or not they need help.

No. Libertarians are for not forcing anyone to help someone else (and to help their way or you are going to prison).