Best general administrative law books according to redditors
We found 452 Reddit comments discussing the best general administrative law books. We ranked the 198 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 452 Reddit comments discussing the best general administrative law books. We ranked the 198 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
People get so angry when you take the side of this old woman. I've never understood how she could be such an unsympathetic victim. Turns out it was a deliberate smear campaign that went far beyond the courtroom and has had a lasting effect on tort law in the years since. For anyone who doubts this, or still thinks this woman was lying, read this book: "Distorting the Law". It provides sources and citations for exactly what happened in the case, and how the case was used to push damage caps in States all across the country. It's a shame, a rotten shame, but it's very true. http://www.amazon.com/Distorting-Law-Politics-Litigation-Chicago/dp/0226314642
While it is out of my depth to comment on any historical patterns, it is worth noting that many (possibly most?) Americans have an extremely inaccurate understanding of the degree of litigiousness in their country. The idea that personal responsibility is giving way to litigation is largely a myth constructed by people with a great deal to gain by stifling torts. I'd suggest Distoring the Law for an overview of the topic.
Do you have examples? Because I know of quite a few critiques along that vein coming from conservative sources:
Part of it, of course, is that we have poll data that shows that Trump supporters are less educated than, say, Rubio supporters. So people on the left and the right start from that premise, and run with the narrative that fits their views best.
Actually, I looked into this once. It was a huge marketing effort, with many different firms involved, to quell "frivolous" lawsuits in America. The media was included in this campaign to use lawsuits like this to protect corporate America. No one wants to be the next "McDonald's Coffee Lady". There is a pretty good book that was written about it.
Short answer: Freer
Long answer: Listen to the Richard Freer tapes before the relevant class and then again after and actually outline/take notes on the tapes. You likely have free access to the law school legends one through your school; the barbri 1L package also has videos of him which are what I used and my understanding is it's pretty much the same as the tapes. https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-School-Legends-Audio/dp/0314199780
The Death of Common Sense is an excellent book on the topic. And it's not just in schools either, practically every public employer is rampant with CYA and blind rule-following.
>Oh God. The one thing we don't want them to do is put in clauses and addendum for every eventuality.
This is one of the big complaints in The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America. It's a good read that does a solid job of pointing out the major problems that our system faces as it ages.
I agree with /u/keyilan that its not too late to go back to school in your 30s. I started my PhD at 33. I have a friend who started her MA (and is now in a PhD program) in her 50s. That being said, if you have a stable job you're happy with and want to avoid going into debt, and if you're not completely and totally sure you want to pursue a degree in anthropology, then it's probably better to be an autodidact.
Anyway, here's some suggestions for some stuff on sociocultural anthropology methodology (and historical descriptions of such things) that may be of interest to you.
Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches by H. Russel Bernard (he is the methods guy in sociocultural anthro--and this book is rather dry but super detailed and will teach you all the basics of anthro methodology.)
Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (a classic text in indigenous methods.)
Participant Observation and The Ethnographic Interview by James Spradley
Fieldwork Is Not What It Used To Be edited by James Faubion and George Marcus (I have not read this, but have heard good things about it.)
Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German Enlightenment by Han Vermeulen (this is a history of ethnographic methods rather than a book about methodology, but it's super interesting.)
These laws are written broadly and held up by the courts for a very specific purpose. It gives the state all the power. Try walking around society today and not be in violation of several laws; I dare you. This excessive careless lawmaking has turned us into a anxious, complacent, litigious society that has killed common sense. It will only get worse (enjoy the decline!) because laws are easier to make then they are to remove.
edit.
This from the article was also well stated.
>Arizona’s child molestation laws have been weaponized into a tool for prosecutorial harassment, allowing the state to target any parent or caregiver—out of spite or malice, or simply to boost their conviction rates.
"Weapons" of public control and personal career advancement is a very good example of what many laws have become in our society.
You'll only make them rebel. You should shit on white people eg Western imperialism, current rapes, murders, fucked up hapa kids., actual history of "Christians" like http://www.amazon.com/Pagans-Promised-Land-Christian-Discovery/dp/1555916422/ Just telling them no white boys makes you seem like a racist control freak. Best to feed them the info and let them "decide" for themselves. Eg Asian guys have small dicks, they're rapists, they oppress, foot bind, white guys are so great --> "preferences"
A lot of von Mises's works covered some of the problems of regulatory capture, but the only modern books that remotely discuss some of these things are The Right to Earn a Living and The Death of Common Sense.
Please NOTE: I have not read the 2011 version of the Death of Common Sense, but I have followed Philip K. Howard for a long time and he's right, the US legal system is a mire and we need significantly less laws to reset the system to a point where it can start working again.
I am a libertarian working in government, primarily because I don't think it's right for me to criticize the system from the outside if I'm not willing to get in and repair it. The quagmire of laws is working to civil servants' detriment, not making it easier for us. In fact, many laws are custom-tailored to give certain corporations the advantage and it's quite evident if you really know the area of government you're in.
Since you're clearly a hoplophobe you'll probably be turned off just by the title, but this book does an excellent job of proving it. It wasn't written by a 'gun nut' but by a researcher who actually expected different results from his study than what he found.
Check out Edwards' Estates in Land & Future Interests.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1454825103/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Because the bad guys are always first to follow strict gun laws. Check out the book, More Guns, Less Crime.
Start understanding why it is that people are driven to come here illegally. The immigration/refuge process takes years, even decades. And the people who come here illegally rarely take the opportunities that migrants do. A good starter is here (https://www.amazon.com/They-Take-Our-Jobs-Immigration/dp/0807041564).
Here is a paper and here is a book. Didn't read it but have studied Chomsky.
I gotta go now, once you have read the first (and possibly the second), come back for more.
One more thing: Numbers would look even brighter if there was a clear path for these people to actually gain citizenship and contribute to the country legally. Part of why some of these people don't pay taxes is that they are afraid of repercussions when dealing with governmental institutions. And with Trump, this fear is gonna increase and tax outcome is gonna decrease.
Lawyers aren't great at arguing, they're just great at taking arguments and finding the fulcrum. That's the center by which the two opposing ideas find their leverage. By the way, assholes are great arguing. You should want to be a mediator.
Anyway, I went to law school and it's not hard, students make it seem impossible, there's a curve so it's very hard to actually fail, and the ideas aren't all that difficult. If you're really dedicated to this thinking like a lawyer(finding/limiting liability, crafting agreements based on words/actions, generally understanding what parts of an argument are worthwhile, and other stuff not part of arguments) I would start with this book Examples and Explanations: Contracts.. Your girlfriend could have been Learned god damn Hand and she still probably read a book like this to really understand what the hell was going on. It is 900 pages and for $12.00 you can know as much about contracts as a first year law student. Do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it
ROTFL! How did I know you'd link to something like The Heritage Foundation!?? And you accuse ME of not having any arguments supported by facts? You're linking to a conservative think tank! LOL. Your link has been thoroughly debunked:
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/06/the-immigration-bills-6-3-trillion-price-tag-2/
So, very sorry, you are wrong on crime:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/is-illegal-immigration-linked-to-more-or-less-crime/
You are wrong on taxes:
https://www.amazon.com/They-Take-Our-Jobs-Immigration/dp/0807041564#reader_0807041564
And your statement about "destroying our culture" is the epitome of right-wing racist rhetoric.
If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:
There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.
Some honorable mentions:
As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons
The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.
Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.
The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.
Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.
You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.
So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.
really? seems to work fine for you guys
http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II--Updated/dp/1567512526/
http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/1250045061/
http://www.amazon.com/Pagans-Promised-Land-Christian-Discovery/product-reviews/1555916422/
Don't forget your latest adventure in the middle east.
In the scenario you provided, the "proliferation of more weapons" does nothing to protect your child. Children under the age of 18 cannot carry handguns. So the odds of survival for your kid are roughly the same now as they were before the SCOTUS ruling. They stand the same likelihood of becoming victims of gang crime now as they did before. They also are just as UNLIKELY to be shot by a stray bullet from a law abiding citizen as they were before because if you read the new laws for the city of Chicago, gun owners can not take their guns outside.
Now, if Chicago were to change the laws to be more like the rest of the nation, perhaps there would be less random acts of gang violence against law abiding citizens for fear of encountering an armed victim. If you really are interested in this topic, I recommend John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. And if you are really interested in protecting the life of your child while he or she is walking to school within Chicago city limits, I recommend you sew kevlar into their backpack or move to a different state.
"Shadowsweep, you're fucking crazy. What do you mean mind control?
First, some proof. Do you admire Winston Churchill and British pursuit of "free trade" with China? You do? Did you know?.... http://i.imgur.com/Wfjq2ty.jpg
How does mind control work?
Here's an explanation by Frank Chin (https://www.sendspace.com/file/rcc58h) or you can read the stuf below...
The model is simple.
● cherry pick, exaggerate, make up all the good whites do. hide the bad. eg Christians built all these hospitals and schools. ignore http://www.amazon.com/Pagans-Promised-Land-Christian-Discovery/dp/1555916422/
● cherry pick, exaggerate, make up all the bad non-whites do. hide the good. eg Tibetan genocide that never occurred. ignore http://english.cntv.cn/2014/10/18/VIDE1413584528072923.shtml
It starts when you're young...http://i.imgur.com/nVH6lQE.jpg and http://i.imgur.com/fV7PBJL.jpg
But why? Why do they hate themslves? Why do they pull up negative stories? Here are some for those who are Chinese....http://i.imgur.com/6GgL2fo.jpg and http://i.imgur.com/3r13sl5.jpg and http://i.imgur.com/7IKlQVU.jpg and http://i.imgur.com/pDDIOMf.jpg
In dating/love, they use lies like oppressive, misogynistic, tiny penises, rapey, super violent, but also nerdy and girly, etc
Why do they also worship whites? You're told about "Western values" like human rights, freedom, democracy, "all men are created equal". Well, how do you explain this?...http://i.imgur.com/UaORZPs.jpg
In dating/love, they use lies like egalitarian, bigger penises, less rapey, less violent, etc
Bottom line is: All your attacks should leave whites fearing for their life, fearing that their sick rape of the mind will be exposed, and their crimes brought to light. That's the litmus test. Do your actions directly harm the cause? (white racist control)."
----------------------------------------------
I'm saying Asian women are WEAK to not be able to break free. People who cannot break free are usually LOST CAUSES. And MOST OF THE ASIAN WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS. And a lot of them even KNOW they are racist, which is why they are WILLING COLLABORATORS.
They are not just mind-controlled drones. Looking at stupid bitches like Jen Ang or whatever who said "never date an Asian man", she fully recognizes her own racism.
You will be surprised HOW MANY Asian women are fully COGNIZANT of their racism and they WANT to BREED OUT THE ASIAN and BECOME WHITE, by having HALF WHITE CHILDREN. who they HOPE to go on to marry more whites and eventually are absorbed. Too bad a lot of their sons turn out Asian looking.
Why the fuck you think so many Asian women go through insane crazy jaw and nose and eye surgeries, those that have very flat faces or flat noses or tiny eyes? They HATE their own features because they DECIDED that white is superior. One part brainwashing OTHER PART DECISION.
This is same tactic goblins used to convince Native American women to self genocide. One part brainwashing other part WILLING COLLABORATOR.
It is a CHOICE. Brainwashing is only PART OF IT.
If you were a jew in the concentration camp told to gas fellow jews, would you choose to do it or not? Not knowing whether the promises about sparing you are true or not. There is the REAL test of willpower and MORALS. This is the CHOICE that shows where ones' loyalty lies and how good of a heart they have.
Intro
Audiobook series on amazon
These are all must reads if you haven't already
>For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
>Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (free online)
>Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy (free audio online too)
>Power and Market by Murray Rothbard (this book doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves around here)
>Markets Not Capitalism (free pdf and audio on line too)
>Lessons for the Young Economist by Robert Murphy (free online too)
>Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block (audio and pdf free online)
>The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State by Bruce Benson (needs more love!)
It is great that you are reading Human Action. That book is amazing. These articles compliment it very well. They really helped me understand praxeology better. They are also good for anyone who didn't get a clear idea of Robert Murphy's position during his debate with David Friedman.
>Praxeology as the Method of the Social Sciences by Murray Rothbard
>Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics by Murray Rothbard
The other articles in part one here are good too but the ones I linked helped me the most.
First off, if you have the resources/time, try taking the bar next July instead of Feb. You'll thank yourself for having more time to spread out and study. I didn't do that (I took all 3 of my exams back-to-back-to-back), but had I failed a third time--which was possible--I would have moved back to my parent's place and taken the test a 4th time in July instead of Feb.
I started studying a week after my results both times. I got a local CA bar exam tutor the 2nd and 3rd time (fuck barbri) that assigned us essays that we later discussed together in small groups. Each day was about 10-15 hours of studying, which consisted of doing and reviewing about 3-4 essays that were assigned by my tutor and 50 MBE's. But make no mistake, I took at least a day off a week. Otherwise, I would have gone insane.
As far as essays go, barbri's aren't that bad, but, at least for CA, they're WAY too in-depth given the time constraints. I used this book for the CA bar exam essays: https://www.amazon.com/Essay-Exam-Writing-California-Bar/dp/073550993X If you can find a NY one similar to the one I linked, then you're golden.
As far as MBE's go, again, get a hold of the Kaplan/PMBR ones, and do these Civ Pro ones from Emanuel: https://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Tactics-MBE-Emanuel-Review/dp/1454873124/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1/164-3132343-7414359?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=3YN7A1AYTGD6BXWMQA79
Finally, I'd review the black letter stuff--which, frankly, is the entire bar exam, as it's almost impossible to grade policy answers--while practicing/reviewing. You also memorize better by practicing. I'd dedicate barely any separate time solely to black letter stuff.
Again, YOU CAN FUCKING DO THIS
>Warren is the most intellectually bankrupt individual
I laughed harder at this than I should.
Because Warren has actually written books on bankruptcy. Just not the intellectual kind.
Archives for this post:
----
Archives for links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, My face is tired. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
Historians get their knowledge of ancients societies from the sources like tribes living on isolated islands. For those interested in the topic of decentralized law in history, I recommend a book The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State by Bruce Benson. The author is austrian economist. It is ancap-safe reading, doesn't trigger a reader by statist propaganda.
Wow the comments in this thread are stunningly dense, reactionary and filled with useless anecdote. I guess everyone thinks they are an expert on the American school system because they spent a period of time in it. Many rules like this are district not school policy. I've seen multiple examples where teachers and principals who stood up to zero tolerance policies were asked to carry it out or be let go by the district/charter board. What created this and other disasters is simply the litigious nature of our society. Fear of litigation causes schools, and businesses to overcompensate in their day to day operating policies often times with terrible outcomes. If you'd like to learn more about this phenomena I'd highly recommend Philip K. Howard's The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America
>It's stupid, there're no facts backing it up
Actually there's a whole book about it. More Guns, Less Crime
Yeah I'm researching now, and I've forgotten that of course what's needed is a combination of tort AND contract law.
I think I've found what I'm looking for, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State - Bruce L. Benson
I'll be going over this article as well by Kinsella: A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability
If anyone didn't know, the author, John R. Lott, Jr., also wrote the famous book "More Guns, Less Crime".
E & E
https://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Contracts-Brian-Blum/dp/1454815477
I just happened to have written an article on that subject. Quick note on the article,"Voluntarism" is a non-government philosophy (sometimes called "anarchism").
-------------------------
---------------------
Private Security and Dispute Resolution in a Free Society
-----
Preface & Concepts:
-----------
Alternative Security and Dispute Resolution
Lastly...
-------------
History
--------
Recommended Videos:
Anthony De Jasay is one the most smartest yet underappreciated libertarians I guess. Just look up on his books. Besides that Edward Stringham and Peter Leeson are important figures. I always liked Bruce Benson's works. You should also read his article enforcement of property rights in primitive societies
This article on wild west is excellent. It's based on their book Not So Wild, Wild West
I mentioned Peter Leeson, his article on pirates An-Arrgh-Chy is a different perspective on organization outside the state, his book on same subject, The Invisible Hook is a must read. Also his article on Somalia, Better off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse is perfect.
And this is another article on law and justice by Bruce Benson.
I passed the CA bar awhile ago but ended up writing this mini guide up for friends who took the bar after me who, like myself, were frustrated with the commercial bar prep courses. I ended up studying supplements (while using Kaplan only for its MBE question bank) almost exclusively on my own schedule (and passed - with a lot less stress than a lot of my peers who struggled to complete the commercial bar prep schedule). My friends found this really helpful so I thought I'd share it with you:
-----------------------
Reviewing the Black Letter Law
I highly recommend lean sheets because they were compact and great for reviewing rule elements.
They also had room in the margins for me to add any other notes I wanted to make.
http://www.leansheets.com/california-bar-exam-outlines-leansheets-com/
I suggest printing the entire pdf in color - double sided - 8.5 x 11 paper
http://documents.staples.com/ASP1/
Binding/Booklet 1
Paper/8.5x11 28lb Premium White / Standard / Standard Print (Precut Size) / Color / Duplex ($23)
-----------------------
Multiple Choice:
Many people say that kicking ass on the MBE section is essential because it's the one section that is truly in your control to differentiate your score. The essay and performance test grading can be arbitrary - most people will get an average of 60 something on everything if they apply the correct IRAC method to the essays. But a lot of people mess up MBEs, and there's no excuse for that because one can definitely improve this with practice.
https://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Tactics-MBE-Emanuel-Review/dp/1454873124/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
I used this book mostly for the general MBE test-taking tips and the tips were so on-point. Because I was using Kaplan and it already had a huge question bank - I practiced with those questions.
-----------------------
Essays:
Formatting is KEY. Do NOT write big long paragraphs. I underlined, made sure to write a lot of mini-paragraphs (5-6 sentences max), then move on.
During the exam, make sure you use every single fact in the fact pattern. Use a highlighter and highlight each fact or mark each fact after you incorporate it in some way into your essay.
Don't worry if the question asks you something pretty obscure or you just blank on something. Just put down something reasonable and move on. Use every fact (there are almost never any red herrings - I never saw any).
Using the call of the question--- IRAC. But the IRAC's should be really short and concise - (1 sentence for the issue; 1-2 rule statements, 5-6 for application, 1 sentence for conclusion).
I didn't have a memorization plan for rule statements, but made sure to know certain rules very well: Community Property opener, Contract (applicable law, offer, acceptance, etc), Evidence (definition of legal and logical relevance, hearsay exceptions), elements of negligence claim for Torts, etc. You'll find good rule statements in the following book:
Essay Exam Writing for the CA Bar Exam: http://www.amazon.com/Essay-Exam-Writing-California-Bar/dp/073550993X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/176-3124324-1877215
I didn't actually practice writing a lot of actual essays. I read this book in its entirely and thought it was amazing. The only essay book you need in my opinion. I found the checklists a little hard to memorize, so I just focused on the approach this book outline for every subject. (And memorizing the rules used in the sample essays).
And what I did is, after reading the tips, I practiced writing essays for the practice essays at the end of each chapter - read the sample essay + looked at the issue chart + rewrote it again.
I liked this book the best because the sample essays weren't ridiculously long like kaplan and barbri. This book emphasizes what HAS to be in your essay responses, and leaves out the extraneous stuff that will hardly get you any points on the exam itself.
My essays were much shorter on the actual exam than in any barbri or kaplan sample essay - and I think it was sufficient.
-----------------------
Performance Tests
http://ipassedmybarexam.com/2011/02/13/the-bar-exam-performance-tests-are-easy/
Honestly - that write-up sums up all the tips you need to do well on the performance test. Really thorough and really hits the nail on the head.
To be honest, I practiced maybe 2 performance tests in total. The only things I think you need to do is read through all the tips above, and then print out and read all the sample performance test answers for the past 3 years from the CA bar site: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Examinations/California-Bar-Examination/Past-Exams
Getting a feel for the memo structure that the bar examiners wanted was the most helpful thing.
-----------------------
Rule Statements
I did not use this site when I studied for the bar, but someone posted this in another thread and it looks pretty good if you're looking for black letter law outlines and rule statements: By the way, I was briefly looking at this thread for the July 2018 Bar exam and someone posted this link as a good place to get solid rule statements for some of the major subjects:
https://law.stanford.edu/office-of-student-affairs/bar-exam-information
-----------------------
Best of luck!!!
>Great question.
Great Answer.
Edit: For anybone interested in learning about the governmental over-regulation going on in the US and the ramificatioons on the citizenry, THIS is a very clear and easy to read account. It isn't brand new information, but is almost completely current. Excellent book.
it's $0.99 for the kindle version
Socialism is flawed at its very core; it is rooted in coercion and an all-powerful state apparatus. I strongly recommend reading "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat. It's very short (like 60 pages IIRC) and thought-provoking.
Edit: Also, if you are interested in socialism in practice (like a "case study") I would definitely look into some books about China from 1920 to 1990. The eyewitness accounts from the 1950s are especially damning of what socialism is like in reality.
Economist here! A common definition of a government/state is a "legal monopoly of coercion." Anarchy is simply a situation where that is absent. And just as some governments have been awful and others benevolent and good, anarchy per se is neither. The real question is whether anarchy can allow a flourishing and peaceful society to exist? Of course there are also important normative questions: is a radically decentralized system of power likely to be better or worse than one with fairly centralized authority?
A great place to start is Bruce Benson. There are people who write about "Anarcho-Capitalism" mostly from the Austrian economics enthusiasts, and as fringe as these folks are, there's something to it. Benson attacks an important part of the problem by asking about the workings of the legal system in a state setting and in non-state settings.
A book I haven't read, but that I've heard good things about is The Invisible Hook. Ask yourself this: where do you least expect social cooperation with decentralized authority? Maybe a place filled with short-sighted, uneducated, criminals. An 18th century pirate ship is just such a place. And yet it turns out pirates were among the first to establish checks on central authorities with constitutions.
Another hard case is the case of prisons. And yet the prison economy is flourishing with drugs, cell phones, and other contraband changing hands in a market dependent on trade and cooperation. This happens in spite of a central authority outlawing this activity. Think Soviet black markets in music, except instead of innocent Russians you've got some pretty un-peaceful dudes.
All of these situations shed important light on the possibility of anarchy. They show that some of our basic assumptions about the role of government rest on shakier foundations than we might have thought. People can, and probably will cooperate. Just as surely, they will try to rip each other off. But of course that's true in government too.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat (super short, free)
https://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1940177014/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487742542&sr=1-3&keywords=The+law
Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell
https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Society-Expanded-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465025226
Here's a good slogan: "Do what you want, pay for yourself."
Essay Exam Writing for the CA Bar Exam
Sure. I mean there are no studies that show more firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens actually decreases crime... oh wait there is. Likewise Florida's violent crime rate dropped when they passed right-to-carry laws.
There are also endless stories of people successfully defending themselves with firearms.
> I think the way to a better world though is not through forcing guns out of peoples hands but having them willingly put them down (sport and hobby guns excluded).
Once the criminals stop using weapons us law abiding citizens will be glad to also stop carrying means of self-defense.
I'll also mention your first claim can't be verified for one reason. In order for the claim to be valid we have to know with certainty that the criminal wouldn't have shot the victim if the victim didn't have a means of defending themselves. If you take any self-defense class they teach you if you're being mugged just give the guy your valuables and hope he'll be on their way.
In most cases the only reason the victim will use a firearm in self-defense is if the criminal has made it apparent that violence was going to be used against the victim even if they did comply. It's highly likely that had the robbery victim not had a gun in the cases you're claiming they would still have been shot but the criminal would have gotten away without any resistance.
Keep in mind that countries like Somali have strict laws against weapons ownership. Matter of fact, the law is written that civilians are not allowed to own automatic weapons. Yet they do and in great number and each year pirates and so fort increase in numbers. The reason why is really two folds: one the government can't stop it and two there's no enforcement of the laws.
I suggest reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636 which pinpoints gun ownership and lesser crimes.
Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet per year they have the highest rate of gun-related deaths. Yet in cities where they have policies for gun ownerships, especially a permit to carry a weapon, tend to be the safest city with fewest crimes.
If anyone is interested in some of the background and judicial politics behind Brown v. Board of Education, I highly recommend Simple Justice by Richard Kluger.
I was required to read it for one of my legal history courses. BUT, it reads like a novel. It requires very little background knowledge and is just simply a great book. It's a book I'll keep next to my Harry Potter and Game of Thrones books.
> you don't see anything wrong with a city full of people carrying guns at all times? is this the best way toward safety?
I see nothing wrong with that, at all. Except no one has the right to bring anything onto your private property without your consent. And as far as it being the path way toward lowering crime... the answer is a resounding yes. Or Kleck's book. Or this (pdf), pages through 649-694.
I understand your concern. Believe me, I do. Criminals shouldn't have guns. Violent men and women shouldn't have them. But gun control doesn't prevent them from obtaining them. That's the logical failure of gun control advocates. Gun control doesn't prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, it prevents innocent civilians from defending their loved ones and property. At its core, gun control handicaps in favor of the criminal-minded, against the law-abiding citizen.
A few of my friends told me this was the best book for essays (in CA).
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/073550993X/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Aviva Chomsky, a professor at Salem State College, states that "Early studies in California and in the Southwest and in the Southeast...have come to the same conclusions. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are more likely to pay taxes than they are to use public services. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most public services and live in fear of revealing themselves to government authorities. Households headed by illegal immigrants use less than half the amount of federal services that households headed by documented immigrants or citizens make use of."[42]
If youre more curious about these ideas you have been radicalized to believe, maybe read this!
"They Take Our Jobs!": And 20 Other Myths about Immigration https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807041564/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_vTitDbNEEJ5V3
I trusted her textbooks: http://www.amazon.com/Law-Debtors-Creditors-Elizabeth-Warren/dp/0735576262/?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396657439&sr=1-4
Seriously, damn good books.
Interesting viewpoint from a Native American perspective
And another
I just started reading this book (only about 50 pages in), and it's quite good. It's about the lack of common sense in our legal system and regulations, everything has to be written, recorded, and has to have a rule attached to it. Nothing in our system is "simple" anymore.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Common-Sense-Suffocating-America/dp/0812982746
More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott
Wenn es dich wirklich interessiert, haste hier einige Buchvorschläge:
Justice without a State Über Herkunft und privatrechtliche Alternativen im Staatswesen
Oliver Janich mEn einer Meinungsbilder im deutschsprachigen Raum
Stirner klar einer der Vordenker des Individualanarchismus
Die Österreichische Schule Wiki einer der Hauptströmungen
edit: Voluntarismus eine Weiterentwicklung basierend auf der Idee der Freiwilligkeit - das "V" im Video
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.a65d5a7d2280Q
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Then if you're willing to put in the work, you might have a defense. One great resource is David Browns, "Fight Your Ticket and Win in California." The 2009 version is still valid. It gives a lot of information on the "speed trap" defense. This is where you were cited for 22350 using radar.
But basically if a traffic an engineering survey hasn't been done on that stretch of road within the past 5 years, the radar evidence isn't admissible. And given she was moving at the time, her estimation of your speed is a tough sell.
But before you do all that, plead not guilty by mail, pay the full bail ($367) and request a trial by written declaration.
I certainly agree that (rational) political ignorance is a serious problem and a huge contributing factor to the current state of affairs. I was persuaded of that even before 2016, thanks in large part to the work of Ilya Somin (whose politics I don't share otherwise).
​
There's no viable alternative, though, at least not one I'm aware of. And if we are going to operate as a representative democracy, then attempting to reduce the franchise is unjust.
The thing that made estates and future interests click for me was just doing A LOT of practice questions. I also liked our workbook, Amazon Link
Insurance, arbitration, private security, bounty hunters, mutual aid societies, there is actually quite a bit of work on the private production of justice and defense.
https://mises.org/books/private_production_of_defense.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without/dp/1598130447
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
Start by getting this book. Best $50 you'll ever spend. In fact, I abandoned my Themis essay materials and used it almost exclusively the final 3-4 weeks of studying.
I also hope automod doesn't harass me for linking here, but you might also really enjoy a book called The Enterprise of Law, which is dedicated to this topic, and perhaps To Serve and Protect, another work by the same author (Law Professor Bruce L Benson).
At the very least, I would show up to contest it. I don't know if tickets issued by Bart police are handled in the same way as normal tickets, but if so, and if your time is worth less than the cost of the ticket, it's worth it.
First things first, I would buy (and have bought) this book. No, this isn't a traffic ticket, but much of the rules regarding court rules, motions, etc. still apply.
Next, I would show up at my arraignment and would not waive time. One of our rights under the constitution is a "fair and speedy trial". For infractions, this is usually 45 days. If you waive time, you're allowing the court to dick around as much as they want. Also, I would not plead my case at my arraignment. The sixth amendment guarantees us the right to confront our accuser. Unless the officer is there that day, they'll have to set a trial date. I would let them do so. If they try to hear the trial right then and there, see below for the motion I would file to dismiss due to lack of prosecution. (i.e. your accuser.) I would also bring four separately signed and dated copies of the following motions:
Why four copies? One for the court, one to get stamped by the clerk and keep for records/proof (believe me - this is important, more on that later), and two in case the first two get screwed up. It's important to, at the very minimum, file the request/demand for the court reporter at your arraignment, so that when your trial rolls along, one can demonstrate (via the stamped copy we kept - see? important!) that it was requested ahead of time, and gave the court plenty of notice. I've had a judge claim I didn't request it, and didn't plan ahead and get a stamped copy beforehand. Lucky for me, the court clerk corrected the judge!
Odds are, the only motion you'll end up filing that day is the motion requesting a court reporter. But be prepared; you might need more. Once your court date is set, reply to this post and I'll comment some more.
By the way, I'm not a lawyer, and nothing above should be construed as legal advice. It just happens to be what I've used successfully when faced with minor tickets in the past. If you're particularly concerned, go speak to an attourney. I believe (though I'm not certain) that the public defender may handle this case, depending on the specifics. Go find out.
I downvoted you, but I thought I'd actually reply too.
I was just looking for your opinion on rape?
By your logic, they (the victim) should just stop fighting? Less chance of being "killed" right?
The big bad bullies want your car? House? Wife? Children? Just give it to them! Avoid confrontation, it is safer!
The fact of the matter is that people have the right and ability to protect themselves. If the citizens of this country were stripped of that ability, crime would increase, because only police would be able to protect you (and there is a very limited number available at any given time, in any given location).
I'll just leave this here, and Google has plenty more...but I gotta run...
It's this one.
Only the case law is hard to find (for state self-defense law including case see the now dangerously dated Self Defense Laws of All 50 States (but you can assume the case law only got worse)), but the Federal laws are all there on the Cornell site, and they host the regulations as well. Or for the book treatment, including the pro-gun laws which somehow were never incorporated in the U.S. Code (funny, that...), see Korwin's 2009 Gun Laws of America - 6th Edition, but be warned it doesn't have an index, you have to read it front to back. But it's by U.S. Code numbers, and the uncoded stuff is in the very back.
I searched the name of the book you recommended but couldn't find it. Do you know the authors name?
Wait are those 3 different books?
Edit: Yea I am dumb they are different books. Here they are on amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Justice-Education-Americas-Struggle/dp/1400030617
https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Lawyer-Mentoring-Paperback/dp/0465016332
https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Action-Jonathan-Harr/dp/0679772677
https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/1400096790
https://www.amazon.com/Estates-Land-Future-Interests-Coursebook/dp/1454825103 this.
You left out he's a republican who champions smaller government. Here's a link to one of his books
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Political-Ignorance-Smaller-Government/dp/0804786615?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Couldn't agree more! Throughout history, the provision of justice without the state has been the norm at many times in many places: https://smile.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State-ebook/dp/B00BKRY6QG/
>Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes that the belief that illegal migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false". Lipman asserts that "illegal immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584
>Aviva Chomsky, a professor at Salem State College, states that "Early studies in California and in the Southwest and in the Southeast...have come to the same conclusions. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are more likely to pay taxes than they are to use public services. illegal immigrants aren't eligible for most public services and live in fear of revealing themselves to government authorities. Households headed by illegal immigrants use less than half the amount of federal services that households headed by documented immigrants or citizens make use of."
http://www.amazon.com/They-Take-Our-Jobs-Immigration/dp/0807041564#reader_0807041564
At worst I've heard they break even on taxes vs welfare, but then provide a net positive with respect to increased economic production which means more demand which means a healthier economy.
Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality rocked my world. Twenty years later, it remains one of the best books I've ever read.
The United States is not as litigious of a country as even people within its borders think it is.
In the grand scheme of things, very few people sue for perceived wrongs and even less win. The media has distorted the public's view on this due to their tendency to report the extreme and ignore boring "facts and statistics".
Getting a lawyer to provide you legal advice is simply a solid logical step in sorting out situations where the law may get involved.
>If there is a reasonable claim it will usually get settled.
Settled for a fair price? No, sir. Recommended reading.
Benson would be the go-to guy: Enforcement of Private
Property Rights in Primitive Societies:
Law without Government and A Description of a Modern
System of Law and Order
without State Coercion, as well as a couple others. He also has a 400 page book which expands on those articles.
Regarding Friedman, I'm confused by you saying you "know it's not true". David Friedman is an anarcho-capitalist, albeit of the neo-classical, consequentialist variety. His book Law's Order demonstrates that economic incentives founded on private property relations are sufficient for law and order.
Just type in polycentric law.
Edit: Mistakenly said Friedman is a neo-classical. He's more of a monetarist. Bryan Caplan is the neo-classical ancap.
If you would like a good discussion of this topic generally, Ilya Somin (a law professor and very staunch Libertarian) has good book discussing why smaller governments are always better:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Political-Ignorance-Smaller-Government/dp/0804786615/ref=la_B000AP9XW6_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405799469&sr=1-2
Note that "small" here refers literally to the size of the governed territory, not a metaphor for a limited Federal government.
cap·i·tal·ism
Yeah sounds like what I want. People voluntarily and spontaneously trading labor or capital for goods and services, unhindered by a coercive authority. A free market whose prices are reflected by consumers and production costs, uninterrupted by government protectionist policies, and so forth. It's obviously more complex.
Here are some good books for ya. Read up.
Here's a book full of statistical analysis that demonstrates with facts and figures exactly what I've been saying: More Guns, Less Crime.
Australia tried to ban guns, so Now you guys stab and slice each other instead. And the citizens are left defenseless.
The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State
Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice
> Do you think it's a good thing to have a bunch of unemployed foreigners? Why?
They're in the country already, and if they are deported, we should deport them as families. Keeping them here is much prefferable to the way we deport them now.
> If you can't operate a profitable business without illegal labor, then you can't operate a profitable business. Plenty of other people manage to make it without cheating, if you can't then maybe being a business owner just isn't for you.
I would be perfectly fine with that, but it would also cost us jobs.
> Wage growth has been stagnant while productivity has gone up . The rise in inequality isn't because capitalists have suddenly become evil or greedy, they were always like that, and our laws haven't changed that much to allow for such a divergence. The only rational explanation is the flood of unskilled workers have pushed the wages down and stifled growth.
There are many reasons for that disparity, and for the most part, it isn't because of illeagal immigrants. It includes China taking our manufacturing jobs, automation, the vastly decreased power of unions(this is a HUGE factor), and the much higher pay given to top level employees.
> Just like every other president's policies, I doubt how Trump's tax plan is passed will be anything like how it looks now.
If he's defending a tax plan that most people know won't work, I still don't want to vote for him over someone whose tax plan is much better(but still relatively bad), like Hillary or Bernie.
> We would also lose the costs associated with them.
The cost may actually be lower than the benefit. Highly reccomend you read this book, it was very informative to me: http://smile.amazon.com/They-Take-Our-Jobs-Immigration/dp/0807041564
> everybody is only subjected to laws that they agree to.
You'd only be legally obligated to laws you agreed to.
> This is basically impossible. The whole reason that politics exists is that people disagree about things.
No it's not impossible. The link I referred to gave many historical examples which prove it's possible. For example, Merchant Law was not developed or administered by governments, but by private merchants and utilized private courts, enforcement and dispute resolution. It successfully resolved disputes outside State jurisdiction for hundreds of years and was integral to international commerce. There are many more examples.
I highly recommend Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" which is a historical and theory review of various types of legal systems: http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without/dp/1598130447
It takes between 40-60 hours to effectively fight a ticket and win. Is it worth your time?
If you just write a statement and go to a hearing, you will lose.
If you want to burn a work week of time and have some fun “fighting the man” and learn some stuff, then this book is excellent:
https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Your-Ticket-Win-California/dp/1413310303
Nolo press has also been a good resource: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-book/chapter3-4.html
And I even made use of the county law library.
(Source: After getting some BS parking tickets and moving violations, I started fighting them. Lifetime, I have beaten 7 tickets, and lost twice. To win, you have to spend hours and hours preparing and navigating to a real hearing, and I only succeeded b/c of that book and because I practiced and rehearsed with a college buddy who is a lawyer now. The last ticket I got, I just paid, b/c it burns so much time and causes much stress.)
Well before the United States even existed, there were several examples of law, justice and accountability systems being provided on a societal scale without government involvement. As a matter of fact, some of western law today derives from some of these systems. Merchant law is a prime example.
So the idea that government is the only, or even the best method of holding companies (or even individuals) accountable ought to be very seriously challenged.
Asking how would the marketplace provide accountability without government is impossible to answer definitively as is any future theoretical concept. Many theoretical answers could be given and if you search diligently enough on the internet you'll find many scholarly writings from reputable sources. If you really want to know, Reddit probably isn't your greatest source. Here's a great book on the subject. And here's a free eBook that deals with this subject as well.
However, we don't need to know how problems in society could theoretically be solved in order to advocate for the end of immoral behavior (the government usurping power from the people and failing to perform). Did the people of the 19th century need to know that tractors and complex machinery would be invented to harvest and process the food we eat to advocate for the end of the chattel slave labor that was being used at that time to harvest food?
As I said, call it whatever word you want, the key aspect is consent. Here's a good resource on law in that context: The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State https://www.amazon.com/dp/1598130447/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_44i2BbHJ4N8SJ
> Giving people guns doesn't just make everything better.
I'm sorry, I disagree strongly. Violent crime is nearly non-existent in well-armed societies like Switzerland. The US would be a lot better except the main driver of violence is the drug war.
>but I wish people did more training.
I do too. I'd love it if "big government" had free shooting ranges, gun safety videos for kids in classrooms, maybe even free gun safety and marksmanship classes.
Switzerland does things like this. If we brought our troops home from every overseas deployment, and replaced that $500 billion expenditure with $10 billion a year for gun ranges, marksmanship training, and ammo to practice, I think we'd have a much better society.
>Intruders should be punished, but when a gun is involved someone tends to end up dead.
If only more intruders could get shot, they would stop their practices altogether. There are studies indicating strong correlations between the level of gun ownership and whether home invasions are commonly attempted.
>Regardless of being a criminal at that moment, it's stuff worth a life?
That's not the issue. The issue is that many times you don't know if a criminal is armed. That's why castle doctrine exists: if someone is in your house illegally and you genuinely fear they are a threat to kill you, you have the right to shoot first and ask questions later. They initiated the dangerous situation, they bear the risk.
>We do need to figure out how to reduce crime,
End drug prohibition. 50% of violent crime ends tomorrow.
>but giving people guns doesn't make crime stop.
https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
When the president of the company is named in a book it makes it pretty simple.
This is a decent online overview.
For books, I'd point you first toward Simple Justice and Brown v. Board of Education. Questia has a thorough selection of titles, but I haven't read all of them, so couldn't make a significant recommendation there. The two I linked specifically should be available online, so if you have a kindle program on your computer, you're set.
The Brown decision is admittedly not a case I know as well as others (I know a lot more about Lemon v. Kurtzman and Pierce v. Society of Sisters), but those two books linked are at least good overviews (as well as ones my dad used when he taught the case, for many years). If I can get a copy of his syllabus, I could probably get more resources for you, since he knows far more about Brown than I do.
> How can you have criminals without laws or laws without a state.
Ancap society is not one without laws, but rather laws are privately produced by agreement with others.
Imagine a private city, it established rules of conduct and (financial) penalties for breaking those rules.
Any visitors coming in must agree to these rules in order to get in. Thus if they agree not to steal and are caught stealing, they agreed to pay the value of the thing they tried to steal to the person they tried to steal it from, or w/e was agreed on.
Here's a whole book on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/1598130447
Info about a Peremptory Challenge can be found here and here. The latter of which is far superior but either would do if that's all you want to learn about.
You were traveling Southbound on State College Blvd and made the U-turn at Nutwood Ave, correct?
This was a godsend for me. A little pricey but super worth it.
I'm sure either one of us can write a detailed and well researched paper on the levels of gun ownership, the income disparity, the racial makeup and level of violence in the United States, RSA and other nations.
For me, I recommend reading John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime as a very well researched book deconstructing that very assumption that you assert.
Actually, the jury is out in regards to economic cost vs benefits and the rate of education:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41645?index=8711
http://www.amazon.com/They-Take-Our-Jobs-Immigration/dp/0807041564#reader_0807041564
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584
http://cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
https://www.wmich.edu/hhs/newsletters_journals/jssw_institutional/individual_subscribers/39.4.Becerra.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-04-06/econ-101-on-illegal-immigrantsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
Not to mention that you completely failed to address my points. Again, even if the figure is correct and the total cost is 113 billion, why is there a reason to give a shit about illegal immigration for the reasons you listed when there are gigantic problems with those domains that aren't caused by illegal immigration and are far more harmful to the average American? You realize that even $113 billion overall and $52 billion for education is a drop in the bucket, right? Or that a deportation program like Trump is proposing would cost even more money than the net loss incurred by illegal immigration if a net loss even exists? Why is this the reason you'll elect a president for when there are other gigantic issues facing America and Trump's deportation "plan" would cost untold amounts of money, bloat government offices, and cause some economic sectors to become unstable and negatively impact Americans? I don't even like illegal immigration, but it's just embarrassing to watch people get swept up in this rhetoric when our national security is threatened, our education system is shit, our middle class is shrinking, we're diplomatically in a fragile position, our prison system is an absolute mess, citizens have massive piles of personal debt, and our violent crime rate is abysmal compared to other industrialized nations. Oh but no, it's the people crossing the border and picking berries for dollars a day on the farms that are causing all the problems somehow, rather than systematic issues with American institutions and volatile foreign relations. It's simple for voters to understand and exploits their fear, so why not use it as a main campaigning point, I guess.
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Now Just. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Idiot.
> A Pigouvian tax need not be "perfect" to be Pareto improving -- just because policymakers calculate the optimum does not mean that they can't enact benefitial policies.
Yes, but it doesn't mean that they can, either. It's a shot in the dark, at best, even if you leave out the political incentives involved.
> Interpersonal comparisons of ordinal utility are impossible, but von Neumann and Morgenstern's formulation and Nash's existence proof may offer a way out of this problem.
I endorse Murray Rothbard's response to von Neumann and Morgenstern, excerpt below:
>The errors of this theory are numerous and grave:
>
>1. None of the axioms can be validated on demonstrated preference grounds, since admittedly all of the axioms can be violated by the individual actors.
>2. The theory leans heavily on a constancy assumption so that utilities can be revealed by action over time.
>3. The theory relies heavily on the invalid concept of indifference of utilities in establishing the numerical scale.
>4. The theory rests fundamentally on the fallacious application of a theory of numerical probability to an area where it cannot apply. Richard von Mises has shown conclusively that numerical probability can be assigned only to situations where there is a class of entities, such that nothing is known about the members except they are members of this class, and where successive trials reveal an asymptotic tendency toward a stable proportion, or frequency of occurrence, of a certain event in that class. There can be no numerical probability applied to specific individual events.
>
>Yet, in human action, precisely the opposite is true. Here, there are no classes of homogeneous members. Each event is a unique event and is different from other unique events. These unique events are not repeatable. Therefore, there is no sense in applying numerical probability theory to such events. It is no coincidence that, invariably, the application of the neo-cardinalists has always been to lotteries and gambling. It is precisely and only in lotteries that probability theory can be applied. The theorists beg the entire question of its applicability to general human action by confining their discussion to lottery cases. For the purchaser of a lottery ticket knows only that the individual lottery ticket is a member of a certain-sized class of tickets. The entrepreneur, in making his decisions, is on the contrary confronted with unique cases about which he has some knowledge and which have only limited parallelism to other cases.
>
>5. The neo-cardinalists admit that their theory is not even applicable to gambling if the individual has either a like or a dislike for gambling itself. Since the fact that a man gambles demonstrates that he likes to gamble, it is clear that the Neumann-Morgenstern utility doctrine fails even in this tailor-made case.
>6. A curious new conception of measurement. The new philosophy of measurement discards concepts of "cardinal" and "ordinal" in favor of such labored constructions as "measurable up to a multiplicative constant" (cardinal); "measurable up to a monotomic transform" (ordinal); "measurable up to a linear transform" (the new quasi-measurement, of which the Neumann-Morgenstern proposed utility index is an example). This terminology, apart from its undue complexity (under the influence of mathematics), implies that everything, including ordinality, is somehow "measurable." The man who proposes a new definition for an important word must prove his case; the new definition of measurement has hardly done so.
>
>Measurement, on any sensible definition, implies the possibility of a unique assignment of numbers which can be meaningfully subjected to all the operations of arithmetic. To accomplish this, it is necessary to define a fixed unit. In order to define such a unit, the property to be measured must be extensive in space, so that the unit can be objectively agreed upon by all. Therefore, subjective states, being intensive rather than objectively extensive, cannot be measured and subjected to arithmetical operations. And utility refers to intensive states. Measurement becomes even more implausible when we realize that utility is a praxeological, rather than a directly psychological, concept.
I highly recommend that entire paper, by the way.
As for Nash, the fact that we can know there is a Nash Equilibrium has no implications as to whether we can actually calculate it. Hell, mapping Nash equilibrium for a simplified poker game is a PhD thesis in itself.
>This is backwards -- positive externalities should be subsidized, not taxed (negatively taxed). A Pigouvian official would pay the artist to create and display art in her yard.
Interesting. Who knew there could be subsidies without taxation?
>This is what I don't understand. Who, in a stateless regime, is doing the "focusing?"
I primarily meant our focus as economists. Humans have a tendency, however, to create complex systems for the definition and protection of property rights, and these systems function best polycentrically. Most economists are quick to decry even the shadow of a monopoly in industry, but the same critiques (and more) apply to states as monopolies over the production of certain services within given territories. Bruce Benson's book is great on the history of private law, if you've ever got some time to kill. For less of a time investment, David Friedman's case study of the Icelandic Commonwealth is fascinating.
>Is there some kind of dialectical approach where the need for state enforcement of property will wither away, because I am not sure that I could be convinced that a sudden imposition of anarchy would result in clear, focused property rights.
No dialectic, and no "new [ideology] man." I agree that a sudden "imposition" of anarchy would not result in much of anything positive in the short run. People tend to respond badly to sudden impositions in any context. There are many theories regarding this. My ideal transition, for example, would be entrepreneurial advances in technology that allow the market to outcompete the state in the provision of various services despite the state's monopoly by providing higher quality, leading to a gradual decline of state relevance.
> Furthermore, I am not sure that property rights alone are enough to ensure functioning markets, especially in regards to distributive justice (the second welfare theorem). Market outcomes may be "better" without the state, but is this necessarily so if individual utility is a function of income distribution and relative wealth? I think it's reasonable to suppose that an other-regarding individual may choose a less efficient, more equitable state outcome than a stateless, efficient outcome, if given a Rawlsian choice.
I don't think it's at all self-evident that the market outcomes will be less equal than under states. On the indexes of economic freedom (primarily Fraser for credibility, though Heritage's isn't bad even if it carries their name) economic freedom actually has a negative correlation to economic inequality. That said, envy is cultural, but also contextual. If there's no nation, people will tend to look toward more realistic economic regions in comparing incomes. I also hypothesize that the culture of a propertarian anarchist region would tend to discourage such envy (as Protestantism did in Western Europe for centuries, and as seen in Jewish culture).
Freedom and efficiency are both important.
If the consequences of endorsing complete freedom (i.e. anarchy, since all governments take away peoples' freedoms) were disastrous, then, in the name of efficiency, we should support taking away peoples' freedom and establishing a minimal state to avoid that disaster.
Fortunately, the consequences of endorsing complete freedom are far from disastrous. Anarchy need not be a Hobbesian war of all-against-all. As Michael Huemer says, "We're nowhere close to the case where government would be justified."
However, the point remains that if the consequences were bad, then taking away peoples' freedoms to avoid those consequences in the name of efficiency would seem justified. Therefore, efficiency is also important.
Now, you say that freedom is more important than efficiency. But what does this mean? There's a presumption in favor of freedom, but efficiency considerations can override that presumption depending on how inefficient and disastrous the consequences get by allowing people their freedoms.
Unless you want to argue that only a strict consequentialist believes that efficiency is more important than freedom and everyone else believes that freedom is more important, then I think the correct view is just to say that they are both important, but not that one is more important than the other. That would simplify the issue too much.
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-School-Legends-Series/dp/0314199780/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1381594155&sr=8-3&keywords=civil+procedure+freer
Find an upper classman that has them and doesn't need them anymore.
One of the few study aids that is 100% worth the price of admission.
> unless you're saying that crime has dropped independent of police coverage...
I'll say that! Lots of people say that, for example there's the More Guns, Less Crime argument and the Freakanomics pro-abortion argument.
So we can go ahead and cut the police force, and their pensions, now - right?
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
Well, emotionally, of course I agree. However, following facts, I have to disagree: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
And in a gunless world, the guy with the biggest crossbow reigns supreme. I don't seem to recall much less violence before the invention of gunpowder.
And look: Things that are true on a micro level are also true on a macro level: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
Unfair lawmakers lead to unfair laws....and guess what else?
...government corruption.
Edit: Frederic Bastiat covers this phenomena (of tendency to corruption and what affects will manifest in the culture when the law is misused) really well in his book "The Law" It reads like it could have been written last year even though it was written in 1850.
https://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1940177014/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1527552266&sr=8-2&keywords=the+law&dpID=51uAsvXWbiL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
Is that considered a "product review or recommendation?"
Here is the mobile version of your link
Not quite what you are looking for, but a very good explanation of contract law. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454815477
There's in interesting concept called 'rational ignorance' which in a political context means that for most people the cost of educating themselves about political matters outweights the potential value they might get from making more informed decisions. (By voting or campaigning for issues that are more in their interest.)
If political ignorance really is rational then it's not so much a flaw in the political system as a fact about human nature that any political system has to work around.
The volokh conspiracy has written about the topic quite a bit and one of their contributors actually wrote an entire book on it.
Check out this book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415137489/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
and if interested in critical theory on Native American art
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1848139500/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I took a course on Native American art two semesters ago. My professor was fantastic. These were two were required readings.
Obviously you can only take guns away from the innocent citizens, and you can never take them away from the criminals. If you think society is better off by disarming honest, innocent citizens, then you're so stupid I can't help you.
https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Yeah, it's just in my head that the average voter is so on top of things. They pour over statistics and spreadsheets day and night trying to formulate their opinion. They totally care more about public policy than their favorite TV show or that co-worker they want to ask out on a date.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Political-Ignorance-Smaller-Government/dp/0804786615/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1463629617&sr=8-4&keywords=somin
> Place is full of sick fucks that try to justify child rape
That's a violation of the NAP, so it's not justifiable under an-cap ethics. You're wrong.
>their whole world view collapses if they have to say some laws, like those preventing child rape, are needed.
An-caps favor private law and thus aren't against laws existing per se. Further, much libertarian thought has gone into how to protect children in a free society, how terrible violence (the use of which is required by the state) is for children, and critiquing the current regime that is clearly failing to protect children:
https://mises.org/library/legal-child-abuse
https://mises.org/library/case-against-government-child-care
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf7uq9NUOnY
I think so, and there have been various published studies on the issue. I think the threat of retaliatory violence diminishes the chance of violence. The counties with the highest gun ownership have the lowest number of crimes, for example. Washington DC has some of the strictest gun laws but some of the highest levels of crime.
A lot of opinions added in that link while the studies don't show accuracy for what we are looking for, let alone, it's damn near impossible to be accurate when they are undocumented to begin with.
​
Opinionated pieces creating flaws in the arguments
Methodology
While the spending and income behavior of undocumented immigrant families is not as well documented as that of US citizens, the estimates in this report represent a *best approximation of the taxes families headed by undocumented immigrants likely pay*.
​
I could go on for days but I think it would be pretty delusional to think you could accurately study on the benefits of illegals towards the economy when it comes to most portions mainly due to the fact you can't accurately record "undocumented" illegal immigrants.
​
What I will say is that it is a fact they impact our support systems and heavily impact our local states and cities to the areas of illegal immigration. Which with this information it is pretty clear they impact and slow down our progress to move forward.
Because I believe that the answer to the problem of having violent individuals is not to lock them in cages (where they tear each other apart) and force the community to pay to house and clothe them.
There are a few good books about how you'd have security,courts, law and restitution to victims without a government that enforces a monopoly on these vital services. One of these is Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law: Justice without the State
http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without/dp/1598130447
There are better ways to dissuade violent criminals and better ways to punish them than what the state currently does. If you have a prison, it has to be paid for. If it's not private, then it's funded through taxation which is theft.
This isn't anything I've heard from another ancap, but I also hold the belief that the vast majority of violence committed by individuals, on individuals stems from either abuse, poverty or both. You just don't have well adjusted, well cared for children growing up to be killers or rapists (unless they're a sociopath, but that's a different animal altogether). So it's my belief that a stateless society, where the NAP and natural rights for every man, woman and child (including right to self defense) are championed would both produce and attract minimal numbers of individuals who intend to do harm.
Edit: Just as an afterthought, I wanted to emphasize that societies who centralize the security force, dissuade individuals from learning to defend themselves and houses and feeds violent criminals instead of encouraging them to pay restitution will attract and encourage violent criminals.