Best products from r/libertarianmeme

Thank you so much!

1. I have an ongoing video series on how to do that :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR05vS3fkbg&list=PLWnBf9AmSb5dlRoRnVlInM0yB4uujufsL
   
   
2. There will always be disruptive people in any movement, but even more so in a liberty movement since freedom entails the freedom for people to differ as long as they are not initiating force. What can be done? Individual and community curation and responsibility.
   
   
3. I agree with Marc Montoni on this issue, and recommend to you his excellent piece, Why Hold Back if You are Not Going to Win? https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/05/marc-montoni-why-hold-back-if-youre-not-going-to-win/
   
   Particularly, and I quote Marc:
   
   “As LP campaigns move “up-ticket”, they should be more radical, not less.  A candidate for state legislator should use “abolish”, “eliminate” and “repeal” much more often than a candidate for city council (although city council races can use a healthy dose of those things also).  A candidate for US House or Senate should use those terms even more often; and candidates for President should use them most of all.
   Up-ticket candidates should know the talk, speak it well and speak well of it.
   We should give more leeway for those running for more local offices; but the centerpiece campaigns should be bold and clear about what we want.
   If you’re only interested in “tinkering-around-the-edges” reforms that are tepid and fearful, why are you even in the Libertarian Party?  There are already two major political parties MUCH better-suited to dancing around.””
   
   I am also reminded of the quote I put on my FB timeline a few days ago:
   
   “Libertarians must come to grips with just how radical their philosophy is, and they should embrace that radicalism heartily and unwaveringly, even brashly. We are not "just folks," and we do not fit in with the contemporary political "dialogue." Radical thinkers of the past did not try to make their positions fit into the contemporary "dialogue," and libertarianism is not just radical. If you will excuse the expression, libertarianism is "radically radical." Libertarians do not advance their cause if they tone down the radicalness of their views in order to "make a difference," or to raise money from squeamish donors, or to have influence in the halls of Power. The cause of liberty is based on truth, unassailable truth. And the louder libertarians profess it and the more consistently they defend it, the better the chances that it will be heard. I do not say that the Truth will out. But I do say that Whispered Truth and Diluted Truth will not. Truth honeyed with the shibboleths of the Left or the Consensus Universe is Truth betrayed. Let us be proud to say "sibboleth," and mark ourselves as not belonging to the tribe of our opponents.”
   
   The main party founder David Nolan also shared this view: http://lpedia.org/Document:Letter_17_July_2009_on_Party_Principles_to_the_LNC_by_David_Nolan
   
   
4. Yeah that is a tough one, and I have my dark days. I keep going remembering the high aspiration of liberty - its not about the personalities, it is about the pure principle.
   
   
   If you appreciated this answer, I ask two favors: please subscribe to my YouTube channel as I need to get 1,000 subs to unlock key features: youtube.com/pinkflameofliberty.com
   and
   If you could please start any Amazon purchases using my affiliate link, it won’t cost you a dime to help me support my work. Just start with this link, https://amzn.to/2Yyo9jY ,chuckle, and continue your purchases from there - anything bought in that session is credited to an affiliate referral.

Ok LOL! Ha ha ha ha! Ok, since you can't be bothered to use the internet, here ya go! That was easy. Total win for me. Jeez. Do you need me to do a tutorial on how google works, too? How embarrassing for you.

I don't know. I think certain parts of a society need to be pulled into modern ethical norms.

I know this is anti-libertarian but I think the state needs to implement certain laws to help society behave more ethically.

I say this based on the data found in Steven Pinker's book Enlightenment Now. I highly recommend it and he does a far superior job articulating the importance of the state.

I don't want this to expand into a slippery slope argument. I think there need to be strong limits on government power.

Edit: Added Link

Actually scratch the macro/micro difference. The best layperson Econ books are:

-Freakonomics (Revised Edition) https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0061234001/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_p6WfAbTQ50ZGZ (it has a follow up, SuperFreakonomics)

And

-The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1451651732/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Q5WfAbR3TEZTP (or anything by Steven Landsburg really)

If you like podcasts, check out Planet Money, Freakonomics Radio, and EconTalk.

Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are both available as audiobooks and done really well if that’s a thing you like.

I actually ran the numbers. If the government were reduced to a constitutional size, we could be debt-free and almost completely tax-free within about 8-9 years.

It could be much faster. In this idea I actually reduce the socialism programs by 10% per year for 10 years, but if we're OK with people having to become responsible overnight, probably more like 6 years.

At the end, the only remaining tax would be 7% on offshore drilling on the continental shelf, in waters which are not claimed by any state.

I just want to put a funny tl;dr up here - you're calling an organization that doesn't even have a leader authoritarian.

Jeremy Corbyn is a democratic socialist. Scandinavian countries are demsoc countries. They are not fascists. "Taxes" are not fascist. "Regulations" are not fascist. Fascism is hyper-nationalist authoritarianism, it has nothing to do with economics whatsoever. Different fascist regimes have had different economic systems. The point of fascism is that it's opposed to democracy and liberalism.

You're defining your terms in a dishonest way that bares little resemblance to what that word actually refers to. Everything you dislike isn't fascism, it has a real definition that is accepted in academic political science communities. [Here's the wikipedia page for fascism.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) Here's the one for economics. I'm happy to provide impartial in-depth sources on fascism and how it functions if you like, it seems to be an issue of some interest to you. Personally I found this one to be the most elucidating.

I don't know what books you've been reading in the last 15 years, but find better ones.

Please, you cant just throw the names of movements out and say "this" pick 1 and tell me why it's different from what I said. It's like when Nazis tell me "FiNd ThE GaS ChAmbeRs DoOrs." Or "ThE rEcOrDs OnLy ShOw 100k DiEd" its toxic and it's not an arguement for Nazism.

As an example.

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis https://www.amazon.com/dp/0913966630/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_9d11CbKBMASRK

ThIs Is wHy I'm rIgHt.

Throw me a weeks of research, jackass...

Your right, welfare states are not socialism, which is the point I was attempting to make, I fell short and I apologize. Also, I'm am going to have to make a point to read Anarchy in Action to understand the totality of "social justice" as I currently agree with the narrative that minority groups are being marginalized, but not by active measures or willful action, more so by taking shitty actions on good data. There is exception in area where the white supremacist movement has managed to gain power in regions by questionable tactics purposefully take shitty actions that installs the institutional racism. I disagree entirely with "social justice" on a pure economic class interpretation as in a democratic society I elect the rich with my money except in cases of "plunder" or "fraud" which we are dealing with currently. Fuels both sides of the anarchy spectrum. Now I understand that we are not Techno-primitivist so certain markets I have no choice in if i want to economically important but that choice is always there.

Would love to have a homestead and a tiny house... the market allows me to have both.

lol that's so not true. Here's an entire book on Nazi gun control. It was written by Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and Research Fellow with the Independent Institute who has argued and won three constitutional law cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hedgehog-Fox-Tolstoys-History/dp/1566630193

This is a great read on the subject.

I read this a while backb great book

https://www.amazon.com/Aint-Nobodys-Business-You-Consensual/dp/192976717X

>I do want strong public education and universal healthcare. However, I want those services to be provided with the most efficient use of tax dollars instead of that money being pissed away.

Yikes, Please read

It was reprinted in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00HKMUY5C/

The original source is listed at the bottom of the image.

I read a book, called the curse of the high IQ. Heres a link

https://www.amazon.com/Curse-High-IQ-Aaron-Clarey/dp/1522813756

Really great book that sums it all up. You should check it out.

If you can't buy what you want, become the one who sells it

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960

Or more accurately, this.

I'm actually reading a book on Charles Manson, and Laurel canyon. Here's the book. All of it well documented. There was a hell of a lot more to the hippie scene, Zappa, Manson than people are told.

I haven’t gotten anything from them, but this is the cheapest custom flag I can find. And it’s amazon so if it’s shitty you can probably return it.

All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays by George Orwell

One of my faves:

>“All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”
― George Orwell, All Art Is Propaganda: Critical Essays