Best democracy books according to redditors

Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.

This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

The real news:

http://therealnews.com/t2/

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r

http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

Look at the following graphs:

IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

And then...

WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

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

Free markets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

Important history:

http://williamblum.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4

> I have a huge issue with saputo being one of Canada's richest men in an Industry protected by government that screws over the public daily. If you want government regulated profits expect the government to regulate your pay


Then you should start learning about how the world has always worked.

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

Testing theories of representative government

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."

Crisis of democracy

http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-democracies-Trilateral/dp/0814713653/

Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.

https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

https://vimeo.com/39566117

>What the actual fuck is wrong with politicians.

You're slowly becoming aware of how corrupt and fucked up the world really is... You're not seeing what's going on behind the scenes... they fear the net and hence want to lock everything down.

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

Snowden on terrorism/spying.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/sep/25/edward-snowden-treaty-glenn-greenwald-mass-surveillance-terrorism-video

Democracy Inc.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

Intereference in other states when the corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

From war is a racket:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]

"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]
General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/

Too true. Since the late 70's the media arm of the GOP has done an excellent job at demonizing the words Democrat and Liberal. They're literally used as general derogatory descriptors in Texas.

EDIT: For those saying or insinuating that the left is equally guilty of this, not by a long shot. Of course Democrats will take any opportunity to disparage all Republicans even if it's only some of them behaving badly - but that's not what I'm talking about. The GOP has honed this craft to a fine art through talk radio and various propaganda outlets which masquerade as "news." It was a brilliant strategy, really:

Step 1) Portray "government" as the problem to everything

Step 2) Drive home the message that Democrats/left are the party of government

Step 3) Ensure that government cannot actually function in order to fulfill Step #1

Step 4) Win elections by pointing to #1 and #2

The dysfunctional, hyper-polarized political environment that we find ourselves in now is not equally the fault of both parties and one party has clearly done a better job at whipping it's base into a frothing fury over the last 30 years.

Two good books (one from a long time ex-Republican strategist) if anyone is interested in learning more about how we got here and what can be done to change it:

The Party is Over

It's Even Worse Than it Looks

No, there isn't. The stated strategy of the house Republicans from the day Obama was elected was to not compromise and try to thwart the new administration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

No amount of wineing and dining was going to get the House Republicans to deal.

Look at the book "Its even worse than it looks" by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann. Goes thru in detail how every negotiation was blown up by the younger house leaders for political gain, not for the good of the country.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

No. The situation right now is something of a repeat of the worst excesses of the Nixon administration, yet for a lot of people paying attention to politics now they never lived through the Nixon scandals. This, along with a series of long-term trends, combine to make a 'new normal' that I don't think a lot of people understand.

I'm not sure how far back to go with this but I'll start with the ultra partisanship that exploded around Obama's time in office. Mann and Ornstein had been warning for years that political extremism was starting to harm good governance, and we saw quite a bit of evidence in that with the no holds barred, scorched earth policy of Newt Gingrich's new GOP in the '90s, which forswear any compromise. This by itself was not really an issue until the American electorate turned more and more partisan over the 2000s, and most especially during the Tea Party movement under Obama. The displacement of traditionally conservative or otherwise 'moderate' Republicans by Tea Partiers happened in a wave that unseated, most ironically, Eric Cantor...yet Cantor, Ryan, and Marco Rubio themselves emboldened the Tea Party out of the realization that this clearly partisan movement could get them votes. So Cantor then losing to a Tea Partier (David Brat) for being a 'RINO' probably should have been the first warning sign that things were getting out of control (Anybody listening to conservative AM radio around tea party time knows what I'm talking about).

Despite what excuses people may make for the government shutdown during Obama's term and certain obstructionist efforts, they still had a deleterious effect on Congressmen and Senators solely because they proved that a partisan position for the sake of appearing extreme could actually enhance one's standing with the electorate. The GOP waves during the Obama administration and into state-level elections was largely the result of simply radicalizing the base against Obama and the Democrats. In turn, Democrats turned more partisan as well. This would itself not have been an issue until Trump was elected, and has thoroughly ruined political discourse in the country by completely dividing Americans into 'loyalists' versus 'The Enemy.' The issue is getting exacerbated, not cured, mostly because the system has changed to favor extremist pandering and none of the political compromise that is actually necessary for good governance or confidence in political institutions. Consider the divide in media consumption based on one's political preference. Probably the most striking part of America society and its politics is how absolutely delusional each side is about one another. There's little to no understanding about how the other end feels. Coming out of a Democrat administration, the right-wing forces that propelled Trump (Breitbart, internet personalities, Bannon, Yiannopoulos) were especially bad (YET EFFECTIVE, can't deny that) about portraying a cartoonish idea about 'the Left' and perpetuating cultural grievances/race-baiting. The polarization has gotten so bad that the most radical, poisonous elements of the right-wing spectrum are not being sufficiently recognized by those who just consider themselves Trump supporters or typical Republicans. To illustrate this, consider the tragedy at Charlottesville, where the endless feedback loop of cultural grievance and moral relativism led to a murderer's mother not even being aware her son was in a white supremacist organization versus a regular Trump rally. The more extreme organizations are always seeking normalization, and there's pretty good evidence they're going to get somewhere under this administration if things don't change soon.

The shoe could well be on the other foot come next election. But this is the new normal. It's less likely Trump's man-child antics disappear and get replaced by someone more presidential, and more likely someone savvy to 'the game' like Senator Tom Cotton will step in to replace him. The Trump administration is a whole new level of incompetence compared to past administrations, but this itself is not really noteworthy if it wasn't coupled with the extreme polarization of the electorate, making endless excuses for it. The scandals of the Trump administration have been normalized by one side and absolutely outrage the other, even though under any other administration there would be far more diligence and scrutiny over such issues by the majority of Americans and the media, not just one side. My particular specialty is in foreign policy. I won't go into details but the near-comic bumbling of Trump officials when it comes to dealing with other countries and their envoys is already legendary. Virtually nobody else would make these mistakes. Yet the American public is divided on a sports-team-esque basis, and thus simple questions like 'Should someone like Tom Price have ever been approved for his job?' go ignored in favor of cheerleading.

So, no, this isn't normal. The politicization of the Special Counsel, by its nature Independent, out of fear it will cost one party votes or face should never be considered normal. But it's going to be. This is not some aberration in American history: this is just how it's going to be. For a while, at least. Likely through the next administration, too.

Hope this helps!

Also read Mann and Ornstein's It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism to understand why 'our political dysfunction is largely because of the transformation of the Republican Party into an extremist force that is “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”'



https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Good next up:

http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409/

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Deadliest-Export-Democracy-Everything/dp/1783601671/

I don't have any off the top of my head, but I own (have yet to do any substantial reading of) a book called Fight Club Politics that goes back to pre-Lewinsky era Gingrich and talks about how this poison has been seeping through Congress for a long time. There's also a similar book called It's Even Worse Than It Looks which I haven't read, but I'm lead to understand (by reviews and, among other things, the title) that despite the American electorate believing collectively that on some level all of this is just political theater, that this is actually really really bad partisanship.

Those might not be exactly what you're looking for, but they're surely in the right vein. The other thing when it comes to Obama to remember is that he's black. I'm not saying that everyone who opposes him is an old-fashioned, biological racist. Many are what's referred to sometimes in microaggression theory as "symbolic" racists (whereas when conservatives accuse liberals of being "the real racists" they're accusing them of being "aversive" racists. It's a different thing).

When Obama got elected, he ran on a platform of "hope and change". I think this scared a lot of white people, because for white people, they don't need much hope and they don't want change because things have been going pretty well for them. If you don't recall (I'm not sure how old you are), the rhetoric coming from the right was not far off the shaking in the boots that we're seeing Linsey Graham doing now over ISIS. Obama was going to come for your guns, and then give all your money to the (lazy) black people, and that's based on socialism. Etc. etc. etc... Worse, socialism takes away FREEDOM and, in modern practices has involved DICTATORS, which is likely how people came to a lot of these crazy conclusions.

I'm not sure exactly where in the last 25 or so years--I'm sure it talks about in the books that I mentioned--the word liberal became this weird pejorative. It's funny to me, because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty so I'm proud to call myself liberal and progressive, but whenever someone starts saying "The liberals" or better yet "those libs", I know they're about to spout some baller-level ignorance. My point is, somehow liberals became un-American to the true patriots.

In fact, watch Jon Stewart's clip from last week ripping Fox News for the latte-salute while followed immediately by the awful boobs-on-the-ground joke. "Fuck your false patriotism" he says. It's pretty powerful, and he doesn't pull any punches.

So yeah, I'm sure someone has done better research on it than me, but combine all those toxic elements and you've got the people convinced that Obama is the Antchrist.

No, I am making an observation about behavior of both sides. Donald Trump is not sufficiently competent that I would throw my lot in with his crew.

I'm suggesting casting out the beam in thine own eye before going after the mote in thy brother's.

There are two options:

1. Left coalition ceases playing identity politics.
   
   
2. Some large contingent of white males gets pissed off and starts playing identity politics more aggressively and better than everyone else.
   
   There is no "white males hand over everything because please, oh, please don't call me racist/sexist" option.
   
   I think it's not obvious whether the American polity as it currently exists will make it another decade.

FWIW, this guy is one of the coauthors of a book on national populism and the term predates Kaiserreich.

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

You are incorrect. The Republicans have become radicalized. Democrats have not. R is the party that deserves 80% of the blame. You can read it here:

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465074731 AND here

https://www.amazon.com/Broken-Branch-Congress-Institutions-Democracy/dp/0195368711

Recall that Obama reached out to them early in his term and was rebuffed. Also, recall that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell had a meeting to plan out tactics deliberately designed to obstruct.

Recall that my argument was about USSC obstructionism not any of the lesser courts. Stick to the topic, please.

It has nothing to do with being "fiscally responsible", it has everything to do with obstructionism and radicalism. Being fiscally responsible is a cheap codeword that means "cut govt programs" and "make America weak".

Indeed, if that was the case then why are the Rs OK with spending 58 Billion more on the military BUT not spending on domestic programs such as healthcare?

I do agree that a Market oriented approach, like the kind that was modeled on RomneyCare, is the better approach.

Edit: words

Yes, agreed, everyone should. But most won't. And many who do read it either fail to understand it and/or refuse to believe it because they are more comfortable with the fantasy that America is some sort of great, leading Democracy. The cognitive dissonance is simply too much for many Americans. A very false sense of American exceptionalism tends to win out. If you notice, Wikipedia is even considering doing away with the individual Inverted Totalitarianism page.

Anyway, here are more links for those interested.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=AV_c1ElZl7Q

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/180-0382729-1464265

http://www.alternet.org/news/85728/

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

https://vimeo.com/39566117

Testing theories of representative government

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Democracy Inc

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

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

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

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

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

Are any of these claims...wrong?

For example, take:

> Anti-conservative sentence of the oped: " the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t." Hmm.


This isn't a hot take from Krugman. It's conventional wisdom in political science. See https://voteviewblog.com/2015/06/10/more-on-assymmetric-polarization-yes-the-republicans-did-it/ or https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

By republicans do you mean, people who vote republican, or people in actual power?

I don't care about what the people who vote for them think, they are just those who have been convinced to vote for them. The party doesn't make decisions based on what the people who vote for them think. They convince people to vote for them, then do whatever they would like, as long as they can convince people to continue voting for them. If you believe that political parties in the USA (Democratic included ) actually give a shit what the people want, then you are being extremely naive and need to learn a lot more about what is happening, and stop watching mainstream news immediately.

I am talking about the people purposefully making said decisions.

Have you taken a look at the front page of Reddit Politics for an extended amount of days? Look at it daily for a month. 50% of the threads are about "Hey guys Republicans are trying to do X that will fuck shit up for all of us" or "This is what Republicans did in X city / state / nationally".

This is what today's US is, if you truly care to see it for what it is, I urge you to watch this lecture or read the book it is based on.

http://blip.tv/lannan-foundation/chris-hedges-on-the-work-of-sheldon-wolin-2-april-2011-5201884

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/0691135665

Sounds like you've read Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. The author Sheldon Wolin makes the point that the Democrats have failed as an opposition party and have become complicit in the neutering of the federal government. The book is an excellent read and eye-opening as well.

And you're exactly right (the book by Sheldon Wolin is great, incidentally). No meaningful form of political democracy can survive in a society with a capitalist economic substructure. Capitalism inevitably creates a ruling class of wealth that puts itself far above the people in both legal and social status by subverting whatever form of government might exist. If we want egalitarianism and democracy to exist in the future, we must completely transform our economic system into some form of socialism, for which the capitalist ruling class's power base of private capital ownership does not exist.

The book that the term is coined from.

A Chris Hedges lecture where he discusses the term.

Yes. The "democracy" agenda does.

 

btw, the title is about human rights.

> it's not something Jeremy Hunt made up on a spot.

Well, it's not as if he co-authored a book on privatising the NHS.... wait what?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

Honestly, Chomsky's endless publication of one book after another -- so many books, all of them (outside his linguistics work) monotonously harping on the same narrow range of subjects -- make me think that monetization is exactly what's going on. If you really care about an audience rather than making money, stick that shit online for free.

In high school I owned all four of the books in this omnibus volume (reissue, repackage, repackage) and I'm delighted by the sheer self-righteousness in some of the reviews on that page. "The comfortable lies spread by the media!"

This. For everyone who reads /r/politics, pick a party, find the nearest club for your party, attend the meetings, meet and talk with either the people who make the decisions that affect the world you interact with, or the people challenging. The group of 15 people we have in my town is deigned important enough that every primary candidate from our party for every office in our part of the county, as well as county-wide, state-wide office, and our congressional level elections come to talk with us and answer our questions. This is because these people know each of us is worth 50 votes in the election, since our friends and family all ask who they should vote for.

 

Highly recommend this book from Robert Heinlein on the subject.

The guy you want is William Blum.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Deadliest-Export-Democracy-Everything/dp/1783601671/

See also his books Killing Hope and Rogue State.

The same Jeremy Hunt who co-authored an instruction guide on privatising the NHS?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

Apparently he's also a fan of homepathy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9520269/Jeremy-Hunt-is-controversial-appointment-as-Health-Secretary.html

And should we also ignore this governments attempts to piss off as many people in the employ of the NHS as possible? To sabotage the growth of our nursing staff by cutting bursaries? To continue to discourage young doctors who are desperately needed in an understaffed and overworked health service, that still costs less per capita for a higher standard of care than many other countries in the world? To continue to make real-term cuts to frontline services?

Any of Bill Blum's books are probably a good primer on US imperialism.

https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Deadliest-Export-Democracy-Everything/dp/1780324456

The obligatory Chomsky

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805076883/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i9

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1250131081/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1

PS - don't buy directly from Amazon :P

My go to reading list,

Killing Hope, by William Blum

America's Deadliest Export Democracy, by William Blum

Who is William Blum?

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner

Enemies: The History of the FBI, by Tim Wiener

Who is Tim Weiner?

The Secret History of the American Empire: The Truth about Economic Hitmen, Jackals, and How to Change the World by John Perkins

Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins

Who is John Perkins?

>It takes leadership and compromise to overcome differences in politics. Republicans are representing their constituents as well as the Democrat elected are doing the same.

>Get over it guys, this is normal. This is politics, this is the american way. Like it or leave it.

Actually, the filibuster has been used more during Obama's term than ever before. It is worse than it used to be.

I often beat the drum for Sheldon Wolin, as I found his book on our current political system illuminating. The Amazon description of the book explains it better than I can. http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

I recently saw the Progressive writer and commentator Thomas Frank on C-SPAN's BookTV, where he was launching his latest book Listen Liberal. This one is a history of why the Democratic Party turned its back on the US working class and how it has become a second (and maybe, no longer just the spare) tool for financial interests. He ended his formal presentation with this alarming comment about the upcoming Presidential election. Choosing Trump is voting for 'Intolerance'; Choosing Clinton is a vote for 'Inequality', presumably to be perpetually increasing.

It's just a load of bullshit that the Democrats ever had ANY political good will from the Republicans. A group of major Republican thinkers, including Mitch Mcconnell, met right before Obama was elected and stated publicly that their number one priority was to see that Obama was a one term president.

If you seriously think that the Republicans ever had any intention of helping Obama or the Democrats or that they had any ounce of support for bipartisanship you just weren't paying attention.

Edit : I suggest you check out the book by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann It's Even Worse Than it Looks They are a Democrat and a Republican, very well respected in Washington, who make the point that Republicans never had any intention of working in a bipartisan fashion.

Yes although it was a book not a pamphlet.

'book'.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

is this a good book

or is it bad and/or will it just stroke my priors

Na.

Ethnonationalist talking points are rising all throughout the West and permeating into the underground cultural discussion with no signs of slowing down. People are waking up to the medias blatant bias and dishonesty (which you yourself admit exists) and White people in particularly are becoming more sympathetic and receptive to our ideas. We likely won't be called the alt-right in the future when this stuff starts to come to a head but we are an inevitability.

https://www.amazon.com/National-Populism-Against-Liberal-Democracy/dp/0241312000

By the way if you're going to write this shit can you at least try and format it? Have some consideration, please.

There's a great book by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein that explains a lot of the problems we face today in terms of partisanship. There are a few factors that caused both parties, but especially the republicans, to move to the extremes starting in the 1970's. They include:

The "Reagan Revolution" which brought social and religious conservatives together with fiscal conservatives.

Newt Gingrich, who encouraged GOP Congress members to avoid talking with Democrats or face severe repercussions. He later led the 1994 Contract with America.

The election of Barack Obama, who the conservative movement hates for a variety of reasons. Politicians are feeding off that hate.

Money in politics has made Republicans at the whim of major corporations, which paralyzes progress.

That's my response for the moment. I'll upvote and mention anyone who has something better.

EDIT: formatting and grammar

It's even worse than it looks By Tomas Mann and Norman Ornstien is all about Republican obstructionism and how polarized our political system has become. There's plenty of evidence and specific examples in there, especially the first chapter.

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

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

http://www.amazon.com/World-Works-Story-Skull-Press/dp/1593764278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368251410&sr=1-1&keywords=noam+chomsky+how+the+world+works

I can definitely recommend America's Deadliest Export: Democracy and Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II by William Blum. The latter pretty much has every intervention by the US since WW2. Really nice for referencing.

I'll bite.

First and foremost, there are many different breeds of libertarians (or people that call themselves libertarians). For instance, Glenn Beck has even used the word to describe himself as such--however, I don't think many libertarians really take him seriously on that claim.

More seriously, libertarians tend to be divided into two camps: those that want small government providing basic protection of individual rights (called minarchy) and those that want no government at all (usually labeled as anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, agorists, etc.). I consider myself a voluntaryist, which in addition to being an anarcho-capitalist, also qualifies me as someone who does not wish to participate in electoral politics and views it as an approach that really cannot help--and also means that I only prefer voluntary means through which to achieve a voluntary society.

To make matters more complicated, the anarchists of us have two different ways to speak of a free market: a David Friedman approach which concentrates on how free markets solve problems more efficiently than States, and a more deontological approach made famous by Murray Rothbard. Usually, you'll see us taking both angles--sometimes it helps to show how a free market is ipso facto better than a State, and sometimes it's better to show that we have the ethical high ground. (And some of us can be absolute in this sense--some might even recognize a failing of a free market but say that it still doesn't justify violating the ethics of libertarianism.)

There is, however a hurdle that needs to be jumped, I think, to truly grasp the libertarian position: familiarization with Austrian Economics. Austrian Economics is usually regarded as a fringe school of economics, and not taken seriously--it is taught in only a few of the colleges around the United States. In spite of that, Austrian business cycle theory, which puts the blame on fractional reserve banking, and specifically, the Federal Reserve, for the ebb and flow of today's marketplace, has proven itself time and time again. Frederick Hayek, the pioneer of this theory (and a winner of a Nobel Prize because of it), predicted the 1929 stock market crash, and more recently, Peter Schiff used it to predict the current recession. (It also explains bubbles that have inflated and popped in the past, when applied.) The best layman's explanation and the theory's real world applications that I can give you is the recent book Meltdown by Thomas Woods. It's not too long and does a great job at explaining Austrian business cycle theory.

There are many differences between Austrian Economics and the more mainstream schools, but I highlighted Austrian business cycle theory because that is the really important one. To emphasize this even more, I can say that if I could change one thing about the current State (sans abolishing it), it would be to abolish the Federal Reserve by establishing a free market currency. Unhesitatingly.

I personally arrived to my conclusion through a deontological perspective, and later familiarized myself with how free markets can provide services that most people widely regard as services that only States can provide. The deontological perspective essentially leads up to the non-aggression principle (NAP): aggression, which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. (I can hammer out the details of the NAP's justification if you like, but I've chosen to omit it here in the interest of brevity.) The most important thing to realize about the NAP is that it is proportional: if you violate my property, I don't have the right to kill you (i.e., the idea that I can shoot a little boy that trespasses onto my yard to collect his baseball). As once I have quelled your aggression, any further aggression on my part is an over-abundance, and therefore an initiation of aggression--and that is illegitimate.

So with this in light, you can see that libertarians (at least, my style, anyway) are a bit of a mix: we simultaneously believe that libertarianism is the only ethical stance consistent with the idea of liberty, and its natural conclusion, a free market, is an inherently better solution to the problem of "infinite wants" and "scare resources" then centralized control through a State. That is, the State is both illegitimate and inefficient.

So the key to the free market, or capitalism, is to understand its most fundamental truth: two individuals voluntarily committing a transaction. What does it mean to commit a transaction? It means that I am giving you X in return for Y because I value Y more than X, AND because you value X more than Y. It's a win-win scenario, and not zero-sum: we both get something we desire.

For example, if my toilet is clogged, and despite my best attempts, I cannot unclog it, I probably need to call a professional. When the plummer comes over, he tells me that it will be $100 to fix my toilet. Immediately, his actions indicate, "I value $100 more than the value of my services as a plummer." When I agree to his proposal, my action indicates, "I value your services as a plummer more than I value $100." At this most basic level, we can see the Subjective Theory of Value in action brilliantly. That is, things don't have intrinsic value, only the value that each individual assigns.

Now, with that background, I think I can answer your questions:

(Wow, I went over the character limit for comments... yikes...)

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


How to Send Books and Magazines to Pennsylvania Inmates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> I'd definitely recommend The Road to Somewhere by David Goodheart as a general background for the mistakes that led to Brexit (and Trump).

And as a follow up: National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Eatwell Roger and Matthew Goodwin

Climate denialism is inextricably linked to the discursive dynamics of varying forms of conservatism (American libertarianism, nativism, anti-globalism, so on) and more broadly, capitalism. Though the wealthiest of the world could support climate change policies and initiatives and still remain grotesquely rich, we have clear evidence that capitalism has repeatedly and systematically discouraged and failed to incentivize action. Then consider that the wealthiest individuals in Western society and elsewhere own most of the media. Though many (e.g.) Americans like to claim they are skeptical of the media, the overwhelming majority are absolutely plugged in to their reality, capitalist realism. Though not strictly on climate, check out Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism. A proper democracy would not tolerate the inaction on climate we see today.

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

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

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

Posted here is an excerpt from this blog.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>My issue is that I don't understand why or how things got so polarized on this side.


I highly recommend It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. Two respected and moderate political scientists go into the specifics of why American politics have become so polarized. I think we're just seeing that polarization on an intra-party level on the Democrat side more recently, though.

did you read this book?

The corporate control of the media and de facto control of the government is corporate fascism, or what the political theorist Sheldon Wolin called “inverted totalitarianism.” Check out his book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/069114589X/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_t1_Qx9qDbZ87KK29

Even fascists have unions. So do communists. So do socialists. So do dictatorships. They too have their orgs. For Benito it was black shirts, for Hitler, the SS. For the US, the KKK and later American Bund.

Per Wolin and his magnum opus, I know there isn't one democratic institution in the United states.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

The NRA can't be a democratic institution. The united states is hybrid to authoritarian when stripped of American execeptualism.

>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.

David Brock documented this quite nicely in his book "The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy" - in 2004.

The rules were by no means unpopular at the time, but were simply disliked by the radical wing of the Republican Party that supported Reagan during his ultimately successful run in the 1980 President election. The guy was honestly an insurgent candidate who managed to win largely by appealing to folks in much the same way that Trump did last year. The similarities are actually rather striking although I would argue that Reagan was much more controlled and less volatile than Trump he was much more dangerous in terms of actually getting things done once in office.

His policies mostly focused in removing everything the Democrats and moderate Republicans had done since the Great Depression along with cutting taxes. Many New Deal social programs were eliminated and labor unions were absolutely crippled through having their negotiating position weakened to the point where striking laborers were often simply fired during his administration. I personally blame him for the collapse of American manufacturing and the near stagnant wages for American workers since the 1980s when adjusted for inflation. And for the federal debt getting out of control as it was a relatively small proportion of our GDP when he took office but had ballooned into the trillions by the end... but tax cuts as bribes certainly worked to keep getting Republicans elected until the economic downturn of the late George H.W. Bush administration.

As far as the Fairness Doctrine the Wikipedia article is pretty solid and has some good sources if you want to dig deeper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I feel like this reply is a bit of a mess but if you want to get deeper into the strategy behind the removal of the Fairness Doctrine and the establishment of right-wing talk radio in America I recommend The Right-Wing Noise Machine by David Brock. He was an insider in the fledgling industry that was right-wing agitprop during this period and eventually became sickened by the beast he helped create.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400048753/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Don't push yourself beyond your own boundaries. There's a story about the first lion tamer who used a chair. She was immensely successful compared to her colleagues, who all tended to die in the ring. She, on the other hand, retired. Why? Because the lion would see the four legs of the chair, all equal targets, confused about which one to go after.

My favorite source is Lew Rockwell yours may be different. Explore the options, Rothbard is great at explaining things simply. For A New Liberty I think is the best introduction that fully covers every subject you can think of. It's well explained and isn't overly complicated.

While tips are helpful, your path is your path. :) Hope this helps.

You must have missed the cold war.

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

Also recommended reading:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1780324456/

The obvious answer is Anarchy, State and Utopia - Nozick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

Full text: http://irishliberty.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/robert_nozick_-_anarchy_state_and_utopia.pdf

It's bizarre to me that you would even need to ask such a question. Maybe a slightly easier starting point: http://www.amazon.com/What-It-Means-Be-Libertarian/dp/0767900391

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

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

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801

Have a look at this book and who the authors/co-authors are or were.

It's not unreasonable to assume that a majority Conservative government would move away from the NHS as we know it. Ideologically they don't believe in it. There are pros and cons to doing so, but I'm not personally convinced that the Conservatives, particularly cabinet ministers, are sufficiently honest about their position in a public fourm.

It's also not unreasonable to believe that American based firms would benefit from such a transition away from the current national health service model.

lol. As submitter I should have remembered. Long couple of days.

Source is
> David Brock's Republican Noise Machine

This is a good start, though not all encompassing on this topic, obviously. Here is an interesting excerpt from his book Chomsky on Anarchism. I would really reccomend picking up a copy of How The World Works which is a short compilation of a broad range of his ideas and analysis. It's taken from interviews, so it's a quicker read then most of his stuff. If you need any more pointing, just ask!

Well check this book out.

http://www.amazon.com/For-New-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/1610162641/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375981593&sr=8-1&keywords=for+a+new+liberty

It's available online for free, too. This should fix the last vestiges of statism in your head.

Aggression for self-defense is acceptable whenever someone fears their life or safety is in danger. Someone pulling a gun on you certainly fits that bill. If a man draws down on you you can only assume that he intends to harm you physically and you are perfectly within your rights to respond appropriately. Verbal threats are much of an excuse for attacking someone. Now, verbal threats such as "I'm going to kill you" and menacing movements towards you are entirely different. It just depends on the context of the situation.

As for homesteading you'll see different opinions on this, but my take on it is whenever you've put the land to some use. I don't think clearing a bunch of rocks is enough to justify ownership of it, but it does show intent to occupy. Now, say you were to build a house and till up a section of land for planting crops I could safely say that what you have appropriated is justly yours (provided no one else holds a legitimate claim to said property).

If you want to get more information on these topics I'd suggest reading [The Ethics of Liberty] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethics-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369188520&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ethics+of+liberty) and [For a New Liberty] (http://www.amazon.com/For-New-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/1610162641/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369188520&sr=8-2&keywords=the+ethics+of+liberty) by Murray Rothbard. Those are great starting points and should keep you busy for a little while. You can also find these two books for free on Mises.org [here] (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp) and [here.] (http://mises.org/document/1010/For-a-New-Liberty-The-Libertarian-Manifesto)

Take Back Your Government!: A Practical Handbook for the Private Citizen Who Wants Democracy to Work was an early work by Robert A. Heinlein. It was published in 1992 after his death in 1988.

https://www.amazon.com/Take-Back-Government-Robert-Heinlein/dp/1612420613

Go.

> Capitalism has been consistently proven to raise the standards of living wherever it has been tried.

Google the word neoliberalism sometime, and spend a day researching it.

> Meanwhile, every single attempt at socialism - the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Venezuela, Cuba - has resulted in disaster, and has lowered the standards of living wherever it has been tried.

In what sense are these socialist, apart from what they call themselves in name? An anarcho-capitalist can have some actual, justified criticisms against socialism in practice (I've seen many), but when people like you plow forward with such an elementary misunderstanding, believe me when I say you look bad, even to your own camp.

The Zapatistas? The Paris Commune? The Ukrainian Free Territories? Revolutionary Catalonia? The Israeli Kibbutzim? That is your actual target.

> There is a reason why every single country that was once considered communist has transitioned towards capitalism...

Because they were bombed to hell in the interest of the capitalist class?

> ... and it should be no surprise to anyone that the standard of living has raised in these areas.

Like the four asian tigers did through State intervention? (And like the US did, also). Nothing even close to a free market prescription, albeit a quasi-capitalist one nevertheless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democratic base (broadly conceived, not just internet culture warriors) prefers a compromise style of politics to a confrontational style (source). It's only high information, high engagement voters with a particularly strong ideology who want to see confrontation. We shouldn't appease this small group at the expense of the Democratic base more broadly, or else we'll end up with another McGovern.

While you're right that both parties have done some terrible things, technically, the Republicans are demonstrably MORE culpable in this bullshit. I highly recommend this book. It's pretty damning.

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Whenever people make this false equivalency, it shows their lack of understanding of how Republicans have governed over the past 30 years.

From a bipartisan source (one expert from Brookings, another from the Heritage Foundation), actually it's true.

>When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

>“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

Brilliant book that takes a very serious look in to both sides over the last decade. It's written by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein who have spend decades studying congress and pride them selves on being as non partisan as they can.

Edit: Didn't read the part about not being too wordy and this most likely falls in to that category. Excerpt Going to leave this here for others though.

I wanna give a shout out to one of my favorite books and the last book I read as a polisci undergrad before a graduated a few years back. It's Even Worse Than It Looks by Mann and Ornstein. It's a breakdown of congressional politics and asymmetric polarization, and how we've come to such a hellish political gridlock today.

It was the last polisci book I read in college and it really brought together a lot of ideas and trends I noticed and studied, and prepared me to identify the causes at the root of Trump's rise.

They are in a way, see Inverted totalitarianism (and in Democracy Incorporated by Sheldon Wolin).

> It's so offensive to imagine resources being squandered on luxury yachts and sports cars just so that rich people have something to continue spending more and more money on.

This is what you get when you support capitalism. You'd have to strictly limit how much any one individual could gain. Note that it's a matter of history and population size, not that these people "earned" their money. Not to mention our current societies are based on massive historical slaughters and injustices.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

I suggest reading Democracy Inc [1]. Fun book!

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

>There's the appeal to history that completely ignores the fact that all predictions made by "political scientists" were wildly inaccurate.

But they haven't been - sorry son simply asserting something does not make true.

>Like economics, political science has no real objective way of measuring things. You can be a political scientist and argue for or against X depending on your subjective motives.

Some one doesn't know fuck all about how social science works.

>That's why your appeals to authority are irrelevant ("I know X, believe me" is Trump's version of it).

TIL linking actual research is an appeal to authority.

>Democrats have constantly moved to the right to capture these independents while increasingly neglecting the left

Exactly like political scientists predicted

>Maybe you ended up as a political scientist because you lacked the logical reasoning to get past the LSAT

Yeah the GREs don't exist. Maybe you never went to college because you couldn't pass the SATs

>If so, maybe you should stay humble and not flash your internet credentials so quickly.

Are you ignoring the actual research for a reason?

>And back to the fundamentals that you fail to grasp:

Hey Mr. Dunning Kruger, people will vote for the candidate closest to their position, move left (or right) and those toward the center will find themselves closer to the candidate on the other side.

We've known this shit since 1957.

We call this Median Voter Theorem

Oh look Here's another paper on the subject

And a very informative graphic on illustrating how wrong you are

>the moderate voter (Democrats and some independents) are going to vote Democrat over Trump, the logical thing to do is to cast your net into the pool of voters that you haven't locked up. Those voters are progressives and millenials

Why would a progressive not vote for any candidate left of Trump? You're holding on spinets of logic and half truths without thinking the through. What kind of fucking moron who claims to be progressive votes for Trump or stays home on election day? It's just as rational for a liberal to want a Conservative over a moderate as it is for a someone who loves dark chocolate to prefer shit over milk chocolate.

> doesn't exists and all you achieve in the process is to disenfranchise progressives and millenials.

Only the fucking idiots who don't exist. Listen son, I'm both a millenal and a progressive and if you think there's any chance of me not voting against Trump regardless of who the democrats nominate you don't understand fuck all.

Now stop talking shit about an entire discipline of research you know fuck all about but are somehow arrogant enough to assume is wrong because some bullshit you think it is.

Also ive noticed you still haven't linked any research to support your argument. All I'm hearing is from you is "but I feel like vaccines will give my baby Autism and the drug companies just want my money"

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

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

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

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

This book explains why national populism is here to stay.

They are not about reasonable, work together, get a functioning government.

They are about "oppose anything the Democrats suggest, all the time."

(Except for trade deals, of course.)

This is a pretty good book about it. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Right-Went-Wrong-Conservatism/dp/1476763801

https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X

These are 3 examples of significant literary works on American politics written in recent times. And although I only own one, I'm probably going to buy "It's even worse than it looks" I'm pretty sure they attest the asymmetrical polarization of American politics today, that allows extremists to thrive, whereas they couldn't have in previous decades.

The problem with Fox News, is for a major news organization, even they have a mixed record on reporting actual "facts". Edit: To be fair, CNN and MSNBC also sometimes misinform their viewers as well, but not nearly as bad as Fox does.



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

A study was done that found that people who don't watch news at all, were better informed on factually correct information, than people who religiously watched Fox News. One of our biggest media outlets in the nation, is routinely misinforming it's viewers on matters of national significance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#443b3c5b12ab

Most the Right Wing media sources, play on stereotypes and emotionally driven headlines rather than factually reporting the news.

This is why now, in a country that has always honored Freedom of Speech, is now taking issue with "Fake News" making it's way into peoples facebook streams. Because a lot of media sites are now regularly failing to report factually correct information, and it's causing the electorate to vote for candidates who are consistently factually incorrect in what they say. And a major country like the United States, who leaders consistently believe in and base policy off of factually incorrect information, I don't see how that can possibly be good for my country, or the world for that matter.

It is no mere coincidence that for a Conservative party, globally speaking, only in America is the Republicans the only major Conservative party in a Western Democracy, that outright denies the realities of Climate Change.

Perhaps, but the average person also the sort of idiot who watches reality TV. That's the problem.

And it's frankly ridiculous to cast Democrats and Republicans as equally crazy. False equivalence. California is run by competent people who live in the real world, even if you disagree with their specific policy priorities. States like Kansas are run by people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and the way to stop teenage pregnancy is to not tell them how to avoid it.

Even if you think the deregulation of licensing organizations should be prioritized, for example, you can't possible see the Republicans as a rationally equivalent organization. They've gone off the deep end.

Don't take my word for it. Ask actual conservatives.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

I would encourage you to consider the work of Sam Wang at Princeton. Also, nonpartisan experts like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein wrote in 2012 about the issue of Republicans changing the rules to protect partisan Republican advantages in legislatures. This research is not conclusive, but there is ample evidence to support my contention that the benefits of incumbency and redrawing of district boundaries gave Republicans advantages in the 2012 Congressional election.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

http://election.princeton.edu/2013/02/03/slaying-the-gerrymander/

http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

A book I just finished reading for my AP Gov & Pol class seems to be relevant here. It outlines some key congressional issues, especially the overuse of filibusters and failed old tactics we keep trying to reuse. It was a pretty good read, especially for something so critical. I'll put up a pdf of my summary i had to write for it if you guys want.
EDIT: Added a few words.

There are a few ways the minority party can hold up change. This is because of the setup of the US system.

1. One party holds House, other party holds Senate, or vice-versa.
   
   Because the House and Senate have to agree on legislation to send it to the President, if both sides vote along party-lines on most issues (as is today) and suck at negotiating (as is today) then there is no way to get the bill into law. That's because the House can simply refuse to vote on a bill passed by the Senate, or vice-versa. This was originally implemented way back when the US Constitution was written, in a compromise. The more populous states wanted the House of Representatives to be the legislature's style, since it is based on the population size of each state (so, for example, California has far more members than most other states, since it's the most populous). Other states with smaller populations didn't want to be left out of the decision-making that could affect them, powerless to stop the majority-populous states who had different needs/wants, so they preferred a system like the Senate (each state has 2 Senators). They were combined to create the bicameral system you see today, with two houses elected differently (Senators statewide with longer terms, House members in their districts) to ensure that the "tyranny of the majority" did not take over. That means that a district's wants can still be heard through its House member, and not overruled by the rest of the state.
   
   
2. One party holds Presidency, House or Senate (or both) held by non-supermajority other party.
   
   In this case, the Presidency can stop laws being implemented that they do not like, though this isn't as easy or politically clean. If the House and Senate both pass laws, it gets sent to the President, who can veto the legislation. Initially this was used quite rarely, but over time it has changed from something that Presidents use to dispute the constitutionality of a proposed law or something like that, into something that Presidents use to not implement policies they think are bad (usually, really bad). The House and Senate can override a veto, because the US supports the idea of popular law overriding a single executive (aversion to tyrants and kings and all that), but they need a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate. This is incredibly hard to get on a party-line issue, though it can happen in other cases. Usually it never gets to that, because it would be far too embarrassing for a President, and they'd usually back down first, or the House/Senate wouldn't bother if they know they can't beat a veto.
   
   
3. One party holds at least 40 seats in the Senate, and the other holds whatever else.
   
   In this case, the Senate can be held up quite a lot through a procedure called "filibustering", which many people have heard of. Basically, it's a way of stopping the Senate from moving forward, by invoking the need for additional debate. It's been used quite famously by some, including for speeches that last upwards of 10 hours, meant to hold up legislation long enough that a recess has to be called, that legislators simply give up, etc. The filibuster can basically indefinitely hold a bill, and it requires 60 votes to invoke cloture, which means to allow the bill to move on. So basically debate can be extended however long, unless 60 Senators agree to shut it down. The filibuster wasn't used until 1837, a full 30+ years after the Constitution was written, though it was made possible by a rule change in 1806 when the US got rid of what it considered a redundant rule. Cloture was added much later, in the early 1900s, to combat the filibuster tactic, though it needed a 2/3 vote to invoke back then (not 60 as today, which is 3/5). Basically, neither side wants to give up their ability to use a filibuster, no matter how much they hate it.
   
   This is all very different from the system in the UK, you're right. The UK has a much more fluid system, where the ruling party gets to rule outright and just change things. Some have argued that the US needs to implement more parliamentary-style procedures if people will abuse the filibuster and other similar rules. Two authors (on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum) argued this point in a book that was quite interesting.
   
   We can get along this way, but the more polarized the US legislature gets, the more difficult it is to get along. It wasn't always like this. Legislators used to agree on more issues and only have one or two areas of big disagreement that they couldn't work out. It's not working that way anymore, for whatever reason. The system is quite difficult to work in, and the lack of bipartisanship is only making it harder. Not sure how it could be fixed besides playing nicer, unless the people in charge decide to change their own powers, which is quite unlikely. You could imagine the headlines now: "XXXX Party Seizing Power; Abolishing Filibuster/Veto/Other House".

I'm not a partisan. I reject the two-party system altogether. Don't you get that? Politics isn't about "brands", unless your perception of politics is as fucked up as it is in america. I'm not eating "my own." You're the one swallowing it.

If you want an objective perspective on the sort of government we have in America, read a book by a real political philosopher.

> Christ are you 12 years old? You don't like the way something is, so you act like a bull in a china shop changing it?

Bull in a China shop? Do you realize how bass-ackward your reasoning is? I'm advocating peace, and I'm the bull in the china shop? We're wrecking shop, murdering innocent people every day fighting a resistance in Iraq, not an "insurgency." We're fighting a cultural opposition to our presence, not some abstract group like an armed coalition of sunnis or shiite muslims. We ARE the the problem. Ending the occupation of these countries will stop a majority if not all the violence. If there will be civil war, it will not be our fate to decide.

> It is possible and even likely that defense spending will trend downwards if things continue going how they have. You don't have to change everything right now.

Based on what? Did defense spending decrease after the cold war ended? No. We invented the concept of a "rouge state" and decided it would be a good idea to maintain a military force capable of fighting two wars at a time. Were their defense spending cuts after the first Iraq war? Not for long. Now we're invented the war on terrorism to justify even more spending. The idea of a defense spending cut is even dubious. In there world, a "spending cut" is a smaller funding increase than the previous year. Practically every national defense strategy report is a pitch to pump more resources into the military industrial meat grinder.

Crappy, massively destructive president? It wouldn't be a tough act to follow considering every president since Reagan, including Obama, has been a war criminal with shitty approval ratings. Here I am, calling for peace, and you accuse me of being a weapon of mass destruction.

Sheldon Wolin is a political philosopher of the first order; he has educated some of the more contemporary greats as well. His book about inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy is here.

See also: Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism

Most people in canada are politically unsophisticated and aren't educated enough to answer. Get off the subs for the illusioned and uneducated (which is what reddit is in a nutshell).

http://therealnews.com/t2/

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

Well educated people don't see it happening. Hedges and Wolin have spoken about this topic at length.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/069114589X

If revolution is going to happen its going to happen elsewhere first, former national security advisors are worried about the non north american peoples primarily but they are going full blown into 'protect the rich' mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

I could offer you a reading list to elucidate my points about Russia and the negatives of imperialism within burgeoning industrialist society. Right now however, I'm actually very stretched thin. I'm on a business trip that looks like will now be extended. I'm working just under 100 hours per week now that I've inherited two more projects that were supposed to be assigned to others. It's kind of a cop-out to not further expand on my earlier statements. But since I don't perceive you as being particularly close-minded (if anything you seem appropriately honest about what you do and do not know) it might actually be beneficial to simply provide you with the data as it was presented to me, and then let you draw your own conclusions.

For starters I'd recommend reading about the history:

http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Russians-History-Geoffrey-Hosking/dp/0674011147

This book gives a very wide-angle approach to Russia, Russians, and their governments.

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forever-Until-More-Formation/dp/0691121176/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

This book offers a bit more of an intimate perspective about perhaps the most relevant generation of Post-Soviet influence.

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805075593

This book offers some insight into America's foreign policy during the 20th century. In particular the negative impact of crafting foreign policy through an aggressive campaign of global occupation. The latter chapters talk about China and the former Soviet Union and draws many disturbing parallels with the United States defense spending habits in the last decade.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/B004HZ6XWS/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861749&sr=1-2

This book will perhaps be the most controversial read out of the list. It deals with the very unfortunate relationship between corporatism and American politics as well as the various stages of civil rights and labor movements. There is also a great deal of additional facts about imperialism in America which expands many of the points made by Chalmers Johnson.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861920&sr=1-1

There are several areas of agreement in this book between the views expressed by Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn. While the principles certainly come from different places, there is a well-reasoned, and thoughtful common ground. It is challenging from any perspective to completely agree or disagree with these narratives, but the contrast is most refreshing.

http://www.amazon.com/Pig-That-Wants-Eaten-Experiments/dp/0452287448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300862132&sr=1-1

This book is basically a breath mint. The subjects being tackled in the rest of these books can often be somewhat troubling. This book will offer you short thought experiments that will prove entertaining as well as provocative. They will also help provide some lightheartedness to the mix.

If your a 'recovering republican' I recommend this book:
What it means to be a Libertarian It really explains the core of what libertarianism is from the perspective of a former mainstream republican.

Then start reading some classical Libertarian works like:
The Road To Surfdom by FA Hayek, where you will be amazed to learn that Big Corporations are the best friend the far left socialists ever had and know that they are full of crap whenever they say bad things about big business. I really like Hayek's writings quite a bit. Hayek is my favourite libertarian economist. The things he predicted right after world war 2 have happened amazingly like his predictions. This book is so popular its even been made into a comic book version.


/And don't forget all the links on the right hand side of this reddit. Lots of good stuff in those links.

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

You can be told the facts and the figures and reason to the wrong conclusion, see the science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Testing theories of representative government

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."

Crisis of democracy

http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-democracies-Trilateral/dp/0814713653/

Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.

https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

https://vimeo.com/39566117

it would have to be a tie between For A New Liberty and Skyrim Guide. before you ask i got it because i am to damn short tempered to find all the cool shit scattered al over the place, and i'm a sucker for the maps.

> But a number of Tories including the Jeremy Hunt advocate a denationalisation of the NHS and introducing an insurance market system. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801 I disagree with this but you can take it up with the Tories that co authored the book

shoehorn much? Irrelevant.

> Republicans unfairly benefit from it,

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

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

>In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

Ok that one says 212. I guess they slippin.

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

>It doesn't make the EC good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you serious? I was of the idea that he is a lefty that was trying to work out the details of communism. The person who informed me about him was from the r/Anarchism101 subreddit. Can you link a source where he was transphobic? He mentioned in one of his videos that he is writing a book titled How the World Works which is the same title as this Chomsky book idk if they are even tangentially related, but I had a preconceived image of him that sounds like it’s not true based of your response.

https://www.amazon.com/Conquest-History-Political-Social-Science/dp/0486478505

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_O3gnDbK18SCMD

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.

I listen to his shows all the time and overall I like him. He is pushing a very important conversation in a very public way.

His positions are similar or parallel with [Anarcho_Capitalism] (http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/) or [volunteerism] (http://www.reddit.com/r/voluntarism/).

These lines of thought are the blistering center of libertarian thought. If you want to take a serious study of libertarianism this area must be explored.

These books are great and will change the way you look at the world forever. I consider these to be the Red pill. I know it sounds corny but I am serious.

• For a New Liberty
  
  • [Free PDF] (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp)
    
    
  • [Physical Book] (http://www.amazon.com/For-New-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/1610162641/ref=sr_1_3? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331654993&sr=1-3)
    
    
• The Ethics of Liberty
  
  • [Free PDF] (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp)
    
    
  • [Physicall Book] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethics-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331654832&sr=8-1-spell)
    
    Read Rothbard it took me down a deep rabbit hole. There is so much to read and learn and most of it is out there either free or affordable.
    
    It seems that Ron Paul has drawn a lot of his ideology from this line of thought. So If you are a RP fan it will give you better context.
    

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!

Not to be a stickler, but you could easily argue that abstaining from voting is as sensible as going vegan, since it's all about supporting the status quo of a system that's based on unscientific nonsense. I've taken quiet an interest in democracy the past few years and the more I learn about it, the dumber it seems, kinda like animal agriculture.


If you're curious about the subject I'd highly recommend both Against Elections and Against Democracy. Democracy For Realists is pretty enlightening so far as well, but I'm not done with it yet.

sure thing. where are you from?
i recommend this book: https://www.amazon.de/gp/aw/d/1847924220/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅZÕÑ&qid=1495112323&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=david+van+reybrouck&dpPl=1&dpID=41Q2zt5ze9L&ref=plSrch

i'm just reading it now :)

One would be free to ignoring a judgement of a private court, but the consequences would be severe. One might be social ostracism, the vast majority of people would be unwilling to do business with a man who had ignored the judgement of a well respected private court, for both reasons of ethics and more importantly reasons of liability. Another possibility is a writ of outlawry, that is the man in question's legal rights and protections will have been considered forfeited leaving him vulnerable to theft, mob justice, and other undesirable outcomes. There are many intricacies in a system of polycentric law, and I do not pretend to be familiar with all of them. Books like The Machinery of Freedom and For a New Liberty as well as The Ludwig von Mises Institute provide some good information on the topic. If you're curious about historical precedents early Iceland provides a fascinating albeit imperfect example.

I do not understand what you mean by short term?

This debate has been going on since the inception of the Argentinean country and well before either of us were born. While short term is relative you are using in it in quite an unusual way.

"Spurious"
Which specific argument are you referring to here?

My suggestion undermines the social contract?
Only suggestion I made was to offer the citizens of Falkland large sums of money and a home in England in return for whatever holdings they have in the Falklands. You may have a point your trying to make but you need think it through and get it in writing.

Extend my argument.. What use is Hull...
Again see what i wrote above. But also I never advocated that it would be compulsory, you did that in your own head. However the CPOs do exist.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11487/147639.pdf

The government can take your land and compensate you for it. Happens when railways, roads, etc are built.

Public services..
Again this is an argument that you are making, not me. But a number of Tories including the Jeremy Hunt advocate a denationalisation of the NHS and introducing an insurance market system.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801
I disagree with this but you can take it up with the Tories that co authored the book

Defending the interests of British citizens
Unless we discuss what their interests are how can we defend them? It may well be in their interest to move to England with large sums of money. But crucially it may well be in the interests of the British citizens who live in Britain.

Bowing to diplomatic pressure
We don't really have a great deal of diplomatic pressure here so clearly I am not advocating that. What we do have is a great deal of ill will in the Americas.

It does however paint Britain as weak that we do not have the ability to end a blockade on our overseas territory. It highlights our lack of perceived strength in the USA, when we let our soldiers die for the USA, we let our image be tarnished by our unwavering support for the USA. That the USA then does not feel the need to at least support our sovereignty shows that we are not the world power we once were. Even China defies our right to sovereignty over the Falklands on paper at least, supporting the Argentinean claim.

By allowing the Falklands issue to remain unresolved we are allowing are international standing to diminish.

Have another attempt at explaining your views. This time think it through a bit more.

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

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

I want to remind readers that there is another great guide for political revolution by Robert Heinlein called Take Back Your Government and it begins with us in our communities. Everybody has a job that needs to get done.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371071793&sr=8-1&keywords=inverted+totalitarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy this would be a good place to start.

​

The idea that mob mentality and a tyranny of the majority would occur under direct democracy is incompatible with how the system actually works and did work in places like ancient Athens.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Elections-David-Van-Reybrouck/dp/1847924220 If you want a more thorough resource on what direct democracy is and why it's much more democratic than representative democracy.

yes, the received narrative about gg is misleading but so is the narrative in this forum, imagining all the conspiracy thinking, piling on and demonization isn't bad. It's not surprising that twitter mobs formed when a bunch of idiots dripping with suspicion pored over pointless details right out of "The Paranoid Style in American Politics".

Regarding Trump, yes partisanship in elections causes a slant (there is no neutral position to judge) but by now most people agree he is a terrible president and you're overestimating partisanship in the most popular left leaning news (The New York Times, The Washington Post) compared to right leaning news in the election (Fox News, Breitbart) which was far more one-sided.

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

https://www.amazon.com/Asymmetric-Politics-Ideological-Republicans-Democrats/dp/0190626607