Best law books according to redditors

We found 4,763 Reddit comments discussing the best law books. We ranked the 1,663 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page


Lawyer & judge biographies
Law dictionaries & terminology books
Natural resources law books
Professional & law ethics books
International law books
Legal education books
Legal history books
Media & law books
Legal self-help books
Business law books
Law practice books
Intellectual property law books
Criminal law books
Legal rules & procedures law books
Law specialties books
General administrative law books
Legal theory & systems books
General constitutional law books
Tax law books
Family law books
Philosophy of law books
Legal estate planning books
Health & medical law books

Top Reddit comments about Law:

u/Jaxster37 · 938 pointsr/worldnews

Money is a powerful incentive. I'm horrified and disgusted by it as well, but unfortunately it just shows that there is a price at which all morals are abandoned. This is what autocracies do and we let them because it's in our best interests to.

Edit: This may be a good reminder to look at CGPGrey's video on how leaders stay in power and track the similarities with recent conflicts in Venezuela and Syria. Also check out the book the video's based on.

u/deep_pants_mcgee · 290 pointsr/politics

It's simple. Can even lay it out in a few steps.

Step 1. Make many things in your country illegal. So many that many law abiding citizens will commit crimes without realizing it.

See "Three Felonies a Day"

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.

Step 2. Make the Rule of Law optional. This way your friends and cronies won't get caught up in Step 1 by accident. Too big to jail

edit: If they accidentally do get caught, have Congress change the laws, and then have the Supreme Court grant them retroactive immunity.

Step 3. Start a massive surveillance program of US citizens. Now you can play "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" with terrorist groups. Or find a few misc. felonies to charge dissenters with. After all, with endless reams of data to sort through, odds are you'll be able to manufacture a crime out of something innocuous.

If that doesn't work, label peaceful protestors as terrorist groups, now you can apply the Patriot Act to anything related to them, or their friends, or family members. Know anyone who had anything do to with anyone in Occupy Wallstreet? You're probably being monitored.

Step 4. Control that data network. Now you have your hooks into just about anyone and everyone.

u/[deleted] · 279 pointsr/technology

We continue to spend billions in tax payer money on catch all dragnet programs that don't protect us in any meaningful way. Terrorist attacks continue unabated while we practice this farce known as security theater. Meanwhile we've got government cronies that continue to use our data for other things that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

Meanwhile you've got politicians continuing to make laws that make even the most benign citizen a criminal.

The millennial generation will look at the baby boomers as the generation that ripped up the constitution with the same disdain that we currently view McCarthyism. Count on that.

u/voompanatos · 183 pointsr/politics

Folks should read and remember "3 Felonies A Day". Amazon link..

When everyone is guilty of something, selective enforcement is what lets inequality disguise itself as equality.

u/ParamoreFanClub · 174 pointsr/nfl

You are completely missing the point. I don’t even know where to start addressing this. It’s not just about people killed by police, they are protesting an entire system that punishes certain races more harshly than others. They are protesting a justice system that favors the rich. They are protesting the existence of for profit prisons that make money off throwing people in jail.

Here’s a link to a whole book on the subject

And if books aren’t your thing there is a documentary called 13th on Netflix.

u/ALoudMouthBaby · 166 pointsr/bestoflegaladvice

> people get thrown in jail for unpaid fines/fees and other minor violations in 13 states,

So is this a space where we can discuss the excellent book The New Jim Crow because it seems highly relevant.

u/Black_Gay_Man · 157 pointsr/news

I don't take issue with the statement that the media has an influence. I take issue with that being used as a way to diminish the real grievances that likely sparked the unrest.

Yes there are instances that turn out not to be ideal (with less than sympathetic victims, but that's been happening since Rosa Parks and Claudette Colvin) and there is the question of why white people have to have their property destroyed to resolve larger societal issues for which they are not directly culpable. But can't you apply the same logic to all the black people whose harassment and predetermined criminality at the hands of the police should not be dismissed out of hand because of the actions of a small handful of violent black people? I'm a big believer in fiat justitia ruat cealum, but I think the difference is that people are viewing Darren Wilson as a guy who deserves due process and others see him as a representative of the Ferguson Police Department. In reality he's both. He must be held to a higher standard as an institutional figure, but he's also entitled to have the facts of his particular incident evaluated fairly. Unfortunately, the notion of "fairness" comes from the the great beyond. He's getting his actions evaluated by a well-meaning (and almost exclusively white) accountability apparatus which is often very far disconnected from the experiences and root living conditions of black Americans. That's another big crux of the issue. It's justice being determined by people who sincerely believe they are neutral, but who unfortunately view the scenario through the spectrum of their own whiteness and skepticism of the idea of inappropriate or violent behavior from a cop. I wonder what would happen if the grand jury was all black and from Ferguson. Why are they likely to be any less partial than some white people who have also almost certainly seen some of the international news coverage? Again a question from the beyond, because they are not deciding what happens to someone who is supposed to be serving them. There is no structural accountability to the black people the cops are supposed to be serving the interests of, and black people do not have much collective political power to alter the white establishment save from mass civil unrest.

No I don't think that most white people are violent racists, or that they're even actively or consciously racist. The larger problem is blindness and willful ignorance. I think people see the disparities and don't see them at the same time. There is plenty in the public discourse about the ludicrous rates of arrests of blacks for offenses committed primarily by whites and how they fare much worse in every stage of the judicial process, but society rationalizes it. Is it because there are structural impediments suppressing black upward mobility or is it because they're lazy and need to have the moral fortitude to resist falling into rap music and the "thug" lifestyle? Interestingly, narratives similar to these have been going on since slavery and segregation. I think the white racism is definitely fueled by the right while the left sometimes makes facile arguments that don't get to the core of the problems. Yes I think there are cultural clashes that occur when two different cultures are next to each other that results in the dominant one using racism to justify fiendish or oppressive behavior. But the big fat zoom out issue is that it's used as a smoke screen to keep poor whites and blacks from organizing against the corporate state. I don't think Rush Limbaugh and those morons at Fox give a shit about black "thugs." I think they get white people so worked up about the negroes coming to take their job that they don't to pay attention to the crooks behind the curtain stealing all the money. Also, blacks tend to have very anti-authoritarian views such as checking the extensive power of the police and the expansion of social programs to resemble much of the western world. Notice how gleefully the left is in saying this issue has larger racial overtones, but they don't leap up and fix the militarized police force either or attempt to remedy larger societal problems that perpetuate these disasters either. They spout the same law and order crap as the Republicans, because it benefits them when they proliferate the same corporate state.

What is and isn't seemingly more important is hard to determine. That's another argument that's been around in every major social movement in US history. It wasn't time for blacks to have full citizenship because you know the economy, Vietnam blah blah blah. What is and isn't important is also largely determined by white people, but what I will say is that our democratic process should (but doesn't) serve the needs and alleviate the suffering of actual human beings instead of corporations and its own power. Black people are seriously suffering (as are many whites but not at the same rates as determined economically) and have very little political power (likely because of their widely held real left wing views) and this sometimes spills over into the revolt we're currently seeing in Ferguson. Is the question whether or not this doesn't seem so important, or just whether or not it happens to not be so important to white people?

EDIT: Cleared up a few thoughts and thanks for the gold!

EDIT 2: Grammar stuff

u/mattman59 · 145 pointsr/todayilearned

>if you're going to raid a house with multiple people and rifles, how the fuck could you get the address wrong?

Halfway through this and had to put it down multiple times after reading stories of cops doing stuff like this and then the courts ruling that they acted appropriately. Juries in America by in large are fucking retarded.

u/insanelucidity · 122 pointsr/hiphopheads

Hijacking the top comment to repost this:

To elaborate on how prison has replaced slavery as a means of racial control, here's an excerpt from a book called The New Jim Crow.

It's written by a legal scholar named Michelle Alexander, and it explains how mass incarceration in America has replaced slavery and the Jim Crow laws as a racial caste system.

> Mass incarceration in the United states has emerged as a stunningly comprehensive and well-disguised system of racialized social control that functions in a manner strikingly similar to Jim Crow.
> This is, in brief, how the system works: The War on Drugs is the vehicle through which extraordinary numbers of black men are forced into the cage. The entrapment occurs in three distinct phases.
> The first stage is the roundup. Vast numbers of people are swept into the criminal justice system by the police, who conduct drug operations primarily in poor communities of color. They are rewarded in cash — through drug forfeiture laws and federal grant programs — for rounding up as many people as possible, and they operate unconstrained by constitutional rules of procedure that were once considered inviolate. Police can stop, interrogate, and search anyone they choose for drug investigations, provided they get “consent.” Because there is no meaningful check on the exercise of police discretion, racial biases are granted free rein. In fact, people are allowed to rely on race as a factor in selecting whom to stop and search (even though people of color are no more likely to be guilty of drug crimes than whites) ‒ effectively guaranteeing that those who are swept into the system are primarily black and brown.
> The conviction marks the beginning of the second phase: the period of formal control. Once arrested, defendants are generally denied meaningful representation and pressured to plead guilty whether they are or not. Prosecutors are free to load up defendants with extra charges, and their decisions cannot be challenged for racial bias. Once convicted, due to the drug war’s harsh sentencing laws, drug offenders in the United States spend more time under the criminal justice system’s formal control — in jail or prison, on probation or parole — than drug offenders anywhere else in the world. While under formal control, virtually every aspect of one’s life is regulated and monitored by the system, and any form of resistance or disobedience is subject to swift sanction. This period of control may last a lifetime, even for those convicted of extremely minor, nonviolent offenses, but the vast majority of those swept into the system are eventually released. They are transferred from their prison cells to a much larger, invisible cage.
> The final stage has been dubbed by some advocates as the period of invisible punishment. This term, first coined by Jeremy Travis, is meant to describe the unique set of criminal sanctions that are imposed on individuals after they step outside the prison gates, a form of punishment that operates largely outside of public view and takes effect outside the traditional sentencing framework. These sanctions are imposed by operation of law rather than decisions of a sentencing judge, yet they often have a greater impact on one’s life course than the months and years one actually spends behind bars. These laws operate collectively to ensure that the vast majority of convicted offenders will never integrate into mainstream, white society. They will be discriminated against, legally, for the rest of their lives ‒ denied employment, housing, education, and public benefits. Unable to surmount these obstacles, most will eventually return to prison and then be released again, caught in a closed circuit of perpetual marginality.

The American criminal justice system is rigged against black people, black men in particular. It's a disgusting injustice, and nobody in mainstream society seems to really care. I'm glad Kanye is shining a light on it though.

u/kit8642 · 118 pointsr/news

Let's not forget the 9/11 hijackers lived with a FBI informant and with the 93 WTC bombing the FBI was going to have their informant build the bomb with fake material, but that got screwed up, additional source. Here is the transcript from the informants secret recordings with his FBI handler:

>FBI Special Agent John Anticev: But, uh, basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary, that it's—you know. But you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. [Nancy Floyd is another FBI Special Agent who worked with Emad A. Salem in his informant capacity.]

>FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem: Well, I have to tell her of course.

>Anticev: Well then, if you have to, you have to.

>Salem: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with a receipt and now it's questionable.

>Anticev: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the ordinary.

>Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case!

Audio source at 4:20

u/Terr_ · 110 pointsr/worldnews

Why do you sound so surprised? It's similar in America. Once you stop talking about "the little people" (i.e. at least 99% of us reading this) it happens frequently.

It's just easier to see it going wrong somewhere else, because all the flag-waving and "for the good of the nation" crap is more transparently-absurd when it isn't your own flag and nation.

  • Here in the US, we have politicians who admit (in interviews and memoirs) to behavior which are federal felonies... and also war-crimes (under multiple ratified treaties), yet our political class always just says "It's time to look forward, not back"[2] and sweeps it all under the rug. Virtually every US presidency in the last four decades (including the current one) has vigorously protected the members of the previous one from investigations or prosecutions, anything on the scale from outright pardons to refusal to prosecute to back-room (but still documented) lobbying efforts.

  • Even outside political offices... A wealthy hedge fund manager slams into a bicyclist with his car, and flees the scene, eventually stopping to call for a tow-truck from a Pizza Hut parking lot so that he can get his car secretly repaired. The cyclist, on the other hand, ends up being rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding, spinal injuries that need surgery, and eventually plastic surgery for the scars to his face and body. The manager, meanwhile gets caught by the police, but gets off with a misdemeanor[1] because, in the words of the prosecutor, "felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in [his] profession".

  • Example: Conversely, while that rich guy gets off light (because prosecuting him might interfere with Rich People's Money) there's an unarmed homeless man, who non-violently robbed a bank (with his hand in his pocket to suggest a gun) and who refused to take more than a single $100 bill, giving the rest back to the cashier. He turns himself in the next day and confesses to stealing so he could stay at the detox center, and gets a minimum of 15 years (!) of prison. He'll probably die in there from old age before he gets out, because mandatory minimum sentencing laws prevents the courts from doing much else.

    And that's not even touching what the US does to whistle-blowers who try to expose possible criminality within the government.

    For a more in-depth investigation of recent examples (and who benefitted from pardoning who, who was punished for whistleblowing,etc.) try: With Liberty and Justice for Some.


    [1] For those unfamiliar with US law, most crimes are separated into either misdemeanors (minor crimes of misbehavior, like littering or parking your car where you shouldn't) versus felonies (things which are either "evil" or at least incredibly reckless, like stealing or killing). The distinction between the categories can matter quite a lot in certain situations.

    [2] Another variation is "We're not here to seek revenge, we need to focus on keeping it from happening again... like we said last time... and the time before that... and the time before that...."
u/itsactuallyobama · 102 pointsr/SubredditDrama

Actually it goes way farther back then that! After slavery was abolished, the white people in charge (for a lack of a better phrase) realized they could not just do what they wanted to black people anymore. The solution to this, through the law, was arresting them for minor reasons and locking them up. This of course expanded over time and as you said, The Drug War became a great resource for continued oppression- intentional and unintentional.

The New Jim Crow does an incredible job of going over it. Whether or not you agree with her theories, it's an important viewpoint to familiarize yourself with.

u/roboczar · 94 pointsr/todayilearned

Well, as much as people like to think they were autocrats playing a game, they were not. Both of them were conscious of threats to their power by the landed classes, the junkers and the boyars, specifically, who tended to dictate policy in a more real way than the rulers themselves.

Much of the reasoning behind the war, despite personal reservations of the heads of government, was dictated by internal politics as much as external.

Edit: didn't think I'd get this many upvotes. Recommended reading on "autocratic" power structures and why autocrats are many times less autocratic than you might think.

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics mirror

u/gaumutra_fan · 75 pointsr/india

The Southern states got lucky - they don't have natural resources. Everyone thinks that having natural resources means you'll get wealthy but it's the exact opposite. It is the surest way for a poor region to stay poor.

Here's how it works in a place like Jhakhand. The rights for the minerals are sold to the lowest bidder with the highest bribes. The politicians in power depend entirely on these bribes. Once they're in power, they only need to keep the businessmen happy. They don't need to invest in schooling, healthcare or anything else that improves the lives of their people because the money from the minerals continues to flow into their pockets. In fact, investing in schooling in such a state is bad idea for the politicians because once folks is educated they will realise the scam that the politicians are perpetrating and disrupt the flow of money. Since no one is educated and the state is run by the mineral mafia, no businesses will invest because they have no one to employ and don't want to be extorted by the mafia.

Whereas in a state like TN that is blessed with a lack of natural resources, the politicians need to up their game to stay in power. This means freebies, but also measurable improvements in literally every sphere of life - secondary education, higher education, healthcare. Police has to be less corrupt because otherwise businesses won't invest. TN was bending over backwards to attract manufacturing and IT before it was cool in Gujarat. This is a virtuous cycle that leads to more benefits - because everyone was already educated, most women were already having fewer children decades ago.. Fewer children meant more resources poured into those children, making them more likely to succeed. Educated productive citizens working in IT and manufacturing generate more income for the state government than unskilled labourers. In TN, that income is used to develop the state. In Bihar, it's used on fodder scams.

But it's so simple then! We can fix Bihar and Jharkhand! We just need to elect a politician who won't take bribes, will use the money generated from the natural resources to educate the population, on healthcare, on roads, on electricity etc. Yeah ... that's not happening. Because a person who starts this shit in Bihar will have their legs broken by the people who like the status quo and want it to continue. The goondas who break your legs have their salaries paid for by the bribes you hate so much. Gtfo if you like having two functional legs.

Don't listen to hogwash that "south indian culture" is somehow superior. I'm south Indian and I've lived in all parts of India. It's not true, and it's just racist BS. To blame people in Bihar and Jharkhand for not being educated because of "culture" is basically victim blaming.

If you'd like to learn more about why natural resources are a curse, please read The Dicatator's Handbook or watch this 20 minute trailer - Rules for Rulers. If nothing else, it'll cure you of the thinking that you could do a better job if you were in power.

u/Oashigo · 72 pointsr/neoliberal

This is the title of a book he wrote.

u/andpassword · 66 pointsr/legaladvice

> TSA treated me like I was a criminal

I'm sorry to say it, but you are a criminal, now. You did actually break the law, even though it's a stupid one. Zero tolerance laws make for bad public policy.

If it makes you feel better, you're in good company: the rest of the adult population of the USA.

I don't know what the solution is when we're supposed to have 'rule of law' but the law is so complex and far reaching that it's impossible for anyone to keep it 100% of the time. Obviously anarchy is out. But the current system is just as broken, in different ways.

I'm sorry this happened to you, I hope you get a good lawyer and you're able to put this all behind you soon.

u/101011 · 62 pointsr/TrueReddit

>And your stats don't mean anything. They can be interpreted as meaning that blacks are more likely to commit crime in general, which the stats also show.

First, I appreciate that you're taking a different line of reasoning here. It's not easy to stand up against a multitude of people that see things differently than you. However, I think you're cherry picking statistics here.

You're right that statistically speaking, black people are more likely to commit violent crime - but if you don't follow up that statistic without asking yourself "why" then you're missing the crux of the issue.

For instance, did you know that white people are statistically more likely to abuse drugs than black people, but that black males are convicted at a rate 10 times higher than white males?

There's a long and complicated history as to why black people are inordinately prosecuted in our judicial system. But I strongly believe that if you look at the total numbers with an unbiased view you'll agree with me here. If you're interested in learning more on this topic, I strongly recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

u/Phuqued · 58 pointsr/politics

I'd recommend checking this thread.

u/AppropriateAlias · 57 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

[Glenn Greenwald (the main reporter of Snowden docs & person who showed Clapper was lying) actually wrote a book on how, under the US justice system, there are 2 tiers -- one for elites (who don't get punished) and one for everyone else.] (

u/heartbeats · 55 pointsr/dankmemes

If you're actually serious, this is an excellent read and a good starting point. Here is a free PDF copy. Here is another free PDF copy with links. One of the most incisive, accessible, and well-researched resources out there today.

u/Bluebaronn · 54 pointsr/geopolitics

I was a fan of The Dictators Handbook.

Kissinger's On China was also very good.

u/PLEASE_USE_LOGIC · 53 pointsr/The_Donald

This is actually true. Liberals have decreased brain volume in the right amygdala.^1 They have lesser brain function in the prefrontal cortex that suggests many of them may have hypofrontality, which is what causes laziness. Conservative score higher in conscientiousness/work-ethic. Liberals have a poor understanding of what is harmful due to their lack of brain development. This is partially what causes them to be score highest in criminality.^2

Social liberals in particular (social justice-types) tend to have too much empathy such that they are incapable of rationalizing their way to their own morality.^3 Instead, whoever victimizes themselves is the most moral to them.^4 If you disagree with them, it is such that "you are immoral" and they result to insult and make character assassinations. It is a fact that too much empathy leads to immorality.^5

A good way to fight this is to engage in moral arguments with them and prove them to be immoral instead of having cause-and-effect arguments which the right prefers to have.^6

[1] Brain structure

[2] Liberal criminality

[3] Liberal vs. Conservative on empathy & morality

[4] PC Police and Social Attitudes

[5] Too much empathy leads to immoral and irrational behavior

[6] Debating leftists

u/DrunkHacker · 51 pointsr/Libertarian

It's not just a matter of being exposed. Three Felonies a Day is a great book about how it's almost impossible to not break the law on a daily basis.

u/dklax77 · 49 pointsr/todayilearned

It's this kind of thinking that fuels racism. There are too many people who think that Obama being elected as president was a sign of racism ending. This couldn't be further from the truth. Explicit racism is certainly on the decline but it has taken new forms that are more socially acceptable such as racially-motivated policing, constitutional rights being revoked from former convicts, and much more. There's a really great book called The New Jim Crow that details this way better than I can.

EDIT: THANK YOU for the gold! I'm not entirely sure what it does but I definitely appreciate it. Also, I think anyone who reads The New Jim Crow deserves gold in my book.

u/brocket66 · 47 pointsr/news

Radley Balko -- once a reporter at libertarian website Reason, now at the Washington Post -- has owned this beat for over a decade now. Read Rise of the Warrior Cop if you're interested in learning more.

u/timshoaf · 46 pointsr/learnprogramming

The tone of this came out a bit more antagonistic than intended, so please, do not think that is the design. I would like to hear your opinion on the underpinning issue, while also pointing out there are some deeper complexities.


So /u/ogre14t, in your experience, as a corrections officer, have you found that a.) isolation from the rest of a post-industrial technological society while providing diminished an laughable attempts at career training while strictly adhering to draconian policy regardless of context or b.) allowing a little leeway for those who are trying to turn their life around, tends to lead to actual rehabilitation rather than recidivism?

You seem like a man who likes rules. Or at least enforcing them. The problem is the rules you enforce are not always optimal for the circumstances. He is not necessarily missing the rehabilitation of his sentence just because he is committing some infraction that violates the letter rather than spirit of the law.

I can tell you, as a professional software engineer, that while it is possible for him to learn to code without the use of his internet connection in a general sense--data structures, algorithms, even most language syntax--he is not easily going to be able to learn the employment-ready skills that typically depend on knowing some common popular libraries, and have reference docs.

While I am certain there are violent criminals that utilize communications platforms to perform all sorts of ilk, and even some that would do so to endanger the lives of you and your coworkers, the dichotomy you present about 'following rules' and 'not following rules' is just not as black and white as you make it seem.

The average American commits Three Felonies A Day from a statutory basis. This provides the executive and judicial branches all the ammunition they need to arbitrarily target those who disagree with others in power.

You are a felon. I am a felon. We are all felons. So let's not pretend like we can all just 'live by the rules' in any meaningful way.

I presume that, as a corrections officer, you got into your field hoping that you could 1.) protect society in a meaningful way, and 2.) make an impact on the lives of those trying to turn themselves around. To that effect, which would you rather see? Someone violating a rule for good, or yet another untrained ex-con that has to resort to crime to survive under a highly prejudicial job market that you'll see back there in a year or two?

I don't think many people ever wake up in the morning truly wishing others misfortune, so I am guessing it is the former... on a more constructive note, what would be the appropriate policy for him to follow in order to get a, perhaps supervised, internet connection; or perhaps have someone there install the necessary software and download some libraries and documentation? I don't think any of us here want to see his sentence get extended for violating policy.

u/i_have_severe · 42 pointsr/politics

Don't even try to play this "I'm not sure, I need evidence" bullshit. This is the definition of being naive. You must actually not be a human with any grasp of the society you live in to even think someone needs to present evidence to you of institutionalized racism. There's literally no way you're old enough to type on a computer to not have been presented countless times of institutionalized racism throughout your life.

Alive and well in our justice system.

Alive and well in our schools.

Alive and well in our food supply.

Billions of other examples for your naive mind.

You should check out this book if you actually are as naive as you claim to be.

u/ABlockInTheChain · 42 pointsr/btc

It's very common for regulators to talk with companies that don't fall under their legal jurisdiction and put extra-legal pressure on them anyway, because they can destroy a company and even put people in jail.

Even if they'd eventually win the case in the courts, most companies can't afford to defend themselves against that kind of attack. Not to mention, the laws of the US are so numerous and so broad that if the feds really want to put you in jail there's no degree of compliance you can perform that will make you immune from conviction. Everybody is guilty of something.

"Nice company you have here. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."

u/kyleg5 · 41 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

While that can be true, Cato does have more intellectual honesty than, for instance, the Heritage foundation. They have a libertarian agenda, but as long as you bear that in mind, there can still be good analysis found.

More importantly, Radley Balko is a phenomenal reporter who has basically been leading the charge on the militarization of police. He also writes for WaPo, and I would say is much less interested in being an ideologue than just aggressively exposing this single issue. I cannot recommend Rise of the Warrior Cop enough.

u/podcastman · 41 pointsr/politics

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how...

u/JaMichael_James · 37 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement is a must read book for any cop. It should be given to every 5 year vet. He’s right at point where not naive enough to believe the job won’t change him, but young enough to still escape with his marriage, family, finances and health.

Get it:

You can read it in one weekend

u/Philipp · 35 pointsr/Documentaries

It's not quite unregulated. It's actually heavily regulated, but the regulations are just stacked against normal citizens.

Take "A corporation is a person". That's a legal concept that is maintained by the government.

Take "I can copyright something". That's a monopoly on ideas which is defended by the government.

Take "You can't photograph my mass farming". Another heavy regulation.

Or take, of course, the bail-outs themselves -- that's a perfect example of government not letting capitalism go its way, but rather, stepping in.

(An interesting book on the subject: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer. On a related note, by Glenn Greenwald: With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.)

u/Midnight_in_Seattle · 35 pointsr/TrueReddit

This story has two important points: 1. Texas justice is completely fucked up and 2. Police and prosecutors often act in ways that callously disregard the rights of others, yet they are rarely held accountable for their own criminal acts. The numerous videos of innocent people being shot by cops that've surfaced in the last several years demonstrate the problems in police departments.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces is good further reading on these topics. So is Three Felonies a Day. Almost no one is safe—not even victims.

u/yourelying999 · 35 pointsr/nyc

>Indulge me in the systemic injustices of the black community from the last 40-50 years after the civil rights movement ?

There are entire books you can read about this. Here's one:


And then the rest of your post is just taking your incorrect premise and running with it.

u/TheIceCreamPirate · 34 pointsr/news

>Now, it is highly unlike that the DoJ would prosecute a 17-year-old for using Google, even if they have violated Google's TOS by doing so. Instead, the Justice Department wants to have the option to threaten people with prosecution under CFAA if they so choose, usually as part of a bigger case.

Our government has created a system where anyone and everyone can be considered a criminal if the government wants you to be. It's really, really dangerous. This can easily be turned on anyone who the government doesn't like.

I would recommend everyone read this book, it's eye opening:

u/crunchyninja · 34 pointsr/news

(I hope that's how you post links in Reddit)

Anyways, really good book, similar to Machiavelli, but with enough contemporary examples, and explanations to feel unique. Can't recommend it enough.

u/fuckeverythingplz · 32 pointsr/pics

-blacks are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana despite roughly equal usage rates (

-the bureau of justice statistics found that blacks receive longer sentences for the same crimes even when other variables are accounted for (

-"African-Americans are far more likely than whites and other groups to be the victims of use of force by the police, even when racial disparities in crime are taken into account" (

-Black men nearly 3 times as likely to die from police use of force -

If you want more information, here is a fantastic book on our systems of mass incarceration in the US called "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness."

u/thelastknowngod · 32 pointsr/PublicFreakout

> We all accidentally break the law, or reasonably ignore it when it's completely safe, all the time.

If you're interested in this topic, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent is a good read. It will likely get you angry. On the plus side though, you will also get the feeling that you're not able to do anything about it so there's that to look forward to..

u/iwaseatenbyagrue · 31 pointsr/news

The reason for this is all very simple. The Bridge people did not sufficiently pay off the right people in Uganda's government. It is very common tactic in these autocratic countries to demand payment in exchange for allowing the organization to provide aid. The reason is that the dictator has to pay off key people under him. It happens in cases like this especially, where the aid is not a physical thing like money or food, etc., that can itself be easily siphoned off by those in control. In this case, the schools probably compete with other profitable ventures controlled by key people in the government, and the loss of revenues has to be made up somehow.

Zuckerberg and Gates refused to pay up, so now they are shut down. Whatever reasons the government has come up with for the shutdown are just cover for the real reason.

The Dictator's Handbook explains in more detail the dynamics of how this works.

u/zigzagman1031 · 30 pointsr/news

If you're trying to be fancy about it you do it like this:
The Dictators Handbook

Put the words you want to be a link in between brackets [example] and then put the URL in parenthesis directly after [example](example url)

u/BeFlatLine · 30 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

As others have said, communication is key.

In addition, there are resources out there to help. He may not be receptive to this, but there are resources out there to help him deal with the stress of the job. One that was recommended to me (which I cannot personally endorse, as I haven't read it) is "Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement: A guide for officers and their families". (

There are many similar resources out there, both for you and him. In the end though, it comes down to how receptive he is, which is where the communication really needs to take place.

u/willsueforfood · 30 pointsr/progun

"No pity for felons"?

Everything is a felony.

Nobody even knows how many federal crimes exist.

Felons can be someone who had 4 ounces of pot on them. Felons can be someone who drove too fast. Felons can be someone who didn't get the right permit TO have A GODDAMN RAFFLE FOR THEIR CHURCH FUNDRAISER

So when you say you have no pity for felons, you are either being ignorant and painting with too broad a brush, or you are callous and on a moral high horse.

u/whorfinjohn · 29 pointsr/CAguns

He wrote a follow up book on this subject that basically says you can’t just not talk to police. You have to request a lawyer and only talk to police once your lawyer is present. If I remember correctly in the book he explains there have been some rulings that let them consider complete silence as admission of guilt. Been a while since I read it though so I’m sure I’m missing the nuance.

Edited to add the book

u/Buelldozer · 29 pointsr/TrueReddit

Also read Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop."

Edit: Adding link to the book -

u/redditer43 · 28 pointsr/news

> I'm not particularly worried that the government would access my phone or spy on me. I also don't have anything untoward or illegal on my phone even if they did

No, you just don't think you do: Three Felonies a Day

The nature of federal laws is that they are so broad, they can always find something to pin on you, even if it has nothing to do with what they were originally after you for. This is especially concerning for the freedom of speech. This is not a new phenomenon.

> "Show me 6 sentences from an honest man and I will give you a reason to hang him" - Cardinal Richelieu

u/AtomicFlx · 27 pointsr/LifeProTips

Exactly! There is even a [book about this called three felonies a day] (

This is the problem with the constant surveillance that the NSA and increasing police do. You are always breaking a law and all it takes is someone who had perfect information about you to look back into your NSA or even [police records] ( to find when and how then charge you with something.

Take a farmer, any farmer in the U.S. He likely has guns in his house. He also has access to truckloads of high explosive, also know as ammonium nitrate or fertilizer. So his kid is going off to college and he rents a UHaul truck. So is this now a farmer who's kid is going off to school or a crazy Oklahoma city bomber type loading a Uhaul with explosives? Sure is hard to tell the difference and its easy to spin a story for a jury. Just hope you dont piss off the wrong person or lead the wrong protest.

u/JTarrou · 27 pointsr/TheMotte

On the macro-scale, end the "drug war". Massive decriminalization of all sorts. Our legal code is a massively overgrown nest of bullshit that criminalizes every single person in the country not currently in a coma. For a rundown of the more egregious corners of this, read "Three Felonies a Day".


On the technical side, a massive increase in the number of police officers, judges and public defenders. Reduction or removal of immunity for prosecutors and police officers. Reduction or elimination of most fines, and channel the money from fines to the public defender's office.


Ban plea deals outright. Disincentivize prosecutorial overcharging.


If I really want to get into the weeds, I recommend public shaming/corporal punishment as a substitute for minor jail sentences and fines. I believe it would be more of a disincentive and more humane to the criminal at the same time.


The ideal system I would like to see would have massively frontloaded resources. Actual crimes (as opposed to silly bullshit) would be investigated with the zeal and manpower of a federal task force. I'd want to see clearance rates in excess of 90% across the board. I care a lot less about the punishment than I do about finding and convicting the maximum number of criminals. In the short run (say, the first ten years), this would massively increase the prison population, but over time it would shrink it. Something I recall from a criminology class was that the harshness of punishment had little correlation with deterrence effects, but the likelihood of apprehension was strongly correlated.

u/BathtubJim · 26 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

I would also highly recommend Radley Balko's deep dive into this very issue:
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces
It's a great read.

u/CallMyNameOrWalkOnBy · 25 pointsr/AmIFreeToGo

More than once on this sub, I've cited the book Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police. It's a bit lengthy, and covers the historical foundation of the Bill of Rights (great read if you're an American history student).

But the real takeaway is that SWAT teams bring their own exigency with them. "Exigency" is just a fancy word for urgent and unexpected circumstances that allow SWAT teams to improvise and shoot dogs and kick in doors and operate without a judge's oversight. But the book makes a compelling argument that SWAT teams create exigency, they create violence where none existed before, they create dangerous situations where none existed before.

What if there are hostages inside a bank during a botched robbery? Sure, send in SWAT. But a house where no one is in any danger? Or a house where no one is threatening anyone? Hey, what if someone is suspected of cock fighting? Just have a celebrity drive a SWAT tank into their house. WCGW?

u/ShadowLiberal · 25 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

If you really want to get technical, the average American commits 3 felonies a day due to some ridiculously vague laws (like CFAA, which for example is so broadly written it allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute you merely for violating the TOS on a website). But the thing is those ridiculously vague and broad laws that everyone violates on a daily basis are almost never enforced, except as a way to prosecutors extra leverage in plea bargains.

But I highly doubt that this was what the person quoted was referring to. They sounded like they were talking about serious crimes, not stuff that shouldn't even be illegal.

u/countercom2 · 25 pointsr/asiantwoX

You and other activists who think throwing Asians under the bus is en vogue.


I just showed you a list of problems. Are you and other activists on the streets protesting anti-Asian violence from Blacks? Thank you. You listing what whites do to Blacks is precisely my point. It's whites who have a racial problem against everyone and that includes Asians so more focus on their misdeeds instead of pinning stuff on Asians as if Asians invented
would help.

u/NoDakJackson · 25 pointsr/serialpodcast
u/MattyHdot · 25 pointsr/survivor

> Colton said he didn't view it racially

Using racially charged terms and then saying, "No, I didn't mean it in a racist way," is the hallmark of racists (SEE: Donald Trump). No one self-identifies as a racist. They see their views as justified because they aren't against a particular race; they're against crime, poverty, drugs, etc. The main problem is, they overlook that behavior in the majority groups they belong to. White frat boys doing coke at a college party are just kids having fun, but black people doing crack in a poor neighborhood are violent criminals. Colton wouldn't have labeled a struggling white stand-up comedian as ghetto, so let's stop pretending like him calling Bill ghetto isn't racist.

tl;dr Colton is a racist.

EDIT: If anyone's interested in looking into this topic more, The New Jim Crow is a great book about how racism has evolved since the days of "Whites Only" water fountains and segregated schools.

u/Zedress · 24 pointsr/Bad_Cop_No_Donut

I see you have read some Harvey Silver in your past.

u/jambarama · 23 pointsr/Foodforthought

The post cites this book. In the introduction, the author writes about these stories:

> A lawyer was indicted (probably not prosecuted, or the author would have said that) for obstruction of justice because he destroyed child pornography

> Michael Milken plead guilty to securities and reporting violations, which a judge later ruled didn't constitute a crime (though he did this to avoid racketeering & insider trading prosecution)

> Arthur Andersen accounting firm was convicted for obstruction for following normal document retention/destruction policies before receiving a subpoena in the Enron accounting scandal, the conviction was later overturned

> A professor, Steven Kurtz, was arrested for having a bunch of petri dishes and books on biological warfare, the jury didn't indict on bioterrorism but did for mail/wire fraud for breach of "material transfer authority" agreements when getting the petri samples through the mail, he plead guilty to a misdemeanor before the whole indictment was thrown out

These cases all seem to come to a common sense outcome, though the cost & stress of litigating was obviously detrimental, especially in the last case. So I'm not sure what the examples of 3 felonies/day would be, and the book's intro doesn't give much information either.

u/magnora7 · 23 pointsr/me_irl
u/homer_j_simpsoy · 23 pointsr/benzodiazepines

Dont tell the cops ANYTHING. It doesn't matter how fat he is, they're all trained the same way. Don't tell them where you're coming from or where you're going to, it is none of their business and they are looking for reasonable suspicion to search you. These people are not your friend, they exist to throw you in jail and they have been trained to manipulate you into making confessions, especially ones that are false. The same cops that are trying to elicite a confession are the same ones who tell their own family not to talk to the police and there is a reason for this.

Instead, exercise your fifth amendment right: "I wish to use my fifth amendment right to remain silent" "I don't answer questions" "I want to speak to a lawyer", "Am I free to go?" "No, I do not consent to a patdown or to being searched". If they do find something it will be a lot easier to have the charges dropped. If you don't have anything, don't put the ball in their court and ramble because they will find something in what you said to use against you. In some states you dont even have to provide your drivers license/identification unless you are pulled over while driving. This book is short and it is well worth reading because it tells you not only why you shouldn't talk to them but it also includes story after story of what happened to people who talked because they felt they "had nothing to hide". If a police officer asks if you have something to hide, say "No, I have nothing to prove to you. Am I free to go?"

If you can not find the book or afford it, this video will work as a valid substitute.

Last thing: It is legal for the police to lie to you but it is not legal for you to lie to them, this is from a supreme court ruling. The best course of action is again, say nothing other than here is my license and registration. He was trained to ask you about drugs and medication and that it what was used against you, you gave him probable cause to conduct a field sobriety test because he elicted a confession from you. He would have not been able to do this if you refused any questions. Now you see why it is not in your best interest to talk to them. Even though you were innocent and had nothing to hide, you still got busted.

u/Blythyvxr · 23 pointsr/Showerthoughts

Well if the police do happen to speak to you, only say “I want a lawyer”

u/MLNYC · 22 pointsr/worldnews

Depends on your definition of a real thing. When a country has laws that incorporate their treaties into their own law, that's pretty real, in terms of the letter of the law.

It's just that we allow our leaders (or they allow themselves) to break the law, in general, when it suits them. (See With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glenn Greenwald [2011]).

u/HyperKiwi · 22 pointsr/todayilearned

If you really want to know what's going on in America you should read the following books.

White Trash

The New Jim Crow

u/Tase_Me_Bro · 22 pointsr/politics

"[President Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to."

  • H.R. Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff under President Richard Nixon


    This is a long read, but it's well worth it if you have the time. The first section is mostly background information that is not essential to the War on Drugs sub-context, if you want to gloss over that part. About halfway through is where you get to the relevant discussion:

    >A smooth-faced, heavyset politics junkie of twenty-four, Brownell had a dream job: administrative assistant to Nixon's political manager, Harry S. Dent. Dent had masterminded the so-called "southern strategy" that pried white southerners away from the Democratic Party during the last election by playing to their fear of black power and their anger at the civil rights movement. It had transformed the GOP's image from country-club golfer to defender of working whites fed up with expensive hand-wringing over Negroes and the cities. The strategy worked, but was poorly named. Nixon's win was national, and its most visible new adherents were manifestly northern--union-affiliated former Democrats known loosely as "hardhats."

    >The White House lived by the principles of the southern strategy, and Dent's office had its own lingo. There were issues that mattered to "our" people, and those that mattered to "their" people. "Their" people were what the White House called "the young, the poor, and the black." The phrase rolled off the tongue like one word: theyoungthepoorandtheblack. The young were the longhaired student antiwar types for whom the president had open and legendary contempt; the poor and the black were leftover concerns from the Great Society.

    >Brownell daily read a dozen newspapers from around the country and clipped stories that played on those themes. He looked for stories about badly managed social programs, watched for currents of localized resentment, combed the columns for colorful quotes and juicy anecdotes the presidential speechwriters might use. He particularly kept an eye out for drug stories. Drugs were one thing the young, the poor, and the black all seemed to have in common.

    If you're interested and want a further read on the subject I highly recommend checking out The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It's an incredibly informative and well-researched discussion of this exact issue. While the book and author have received some fair criticism, it is still very thought provoking and should encourage you to "think about mass incarceration in a new way."
u/__Panda___ · 21 pointsr/benshapiro

He created this himself, this is the book he wrote:

>Amazon: Ben Shapiro: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument


And here: Youtube: Shapiro's only reason to debate the left voluntarily (timestamped)

Other than being forced to or for the unlikely chance that you've found the only honest leftist in America, here is the only reason Shapiro can find to debate someone on the left:

>Shapiro: The only other reason you should ever have a conversation with anyone on the left, is if your are in public in front of a large audience and then your goal is to humiliate them as badly as possible. That is the goal of the conversation.

u/ecumenical · 20 pointsr/badhistory

Aggravated assault is a felony charge. A number of studies have demonstrated that whites are more likely to be allowed to plead to a lesser charge, or to not be charged at all. The aggregate effect of the favorable treatment of whites is reflected in the arrest statistics. For example, see Racial Disparities in Pretrial Diversions.

For a more detailed treatment of this topic—and the "big picture"—I highly recommend reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

Edit: Here's [a BJA summary of the research]( "Research Summary: Plea and Charge Bargaining"), from 2011, that calls out the racial disparity in plea and charge bargaining.

u/iammenotu · 20 pointsr/socialism

Read Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" and it's massive list of citations and statistical research, then tell me you still believe what you've posted is the reason we have a higher incarceration rate of blacks in general, but especially young, black males.

In fact, I'm so serious about you reading that book PM me, and I'll buy the book for you.

u/AmaDaden · 20 pointsr/AskSocialScience

I've recently finished the The Dictator's Handbook. It argues that most corruption is all about maintaining power. You need to support the people that support you. In a democracy, this means helping your constituents. In a dictatorship (and even some little noticed areas of democracies like town governments) that means giving gifts to those under you who's support you need. Typically this is just free money but it could be tax breaks, cushy jobs, regulatory changes, or other positions of power.

u/Thetonn · 20 pointsr/ukpolitics

Bugger. You stole my suggestion. OP, read this book. It is great.

On a simliar bent but obviously inferior, I'd recommend The Dictator's Handbook which covers more of a political science approach, and will make you reconsider 'stupid' political actions and Freakonomics which covers economics and unintended consequences.

However, the recommendation I'm going to make, in line with my flair, is The Lion and the Unicorn, a dual biography of the greatest political rivalry in British politics, between William Gladstone (the intellectual champion of classical liberalism) and Benjimin Disraeli (the cynical strategist who created the modern conservative party and massively expanded the franchise.

On the face of it, a book about 19th century British prime ministers might not be what you immediately thought of, but it has everything. Parties being created, and destroyed. Idealism against strategy, moral outrage against cynicism, Imperialism and foreign interventions against liberal internationalism, where a candidate elected on a ticket of anti-imperialism inadvertantly triggered the largest colonial expansion in world history. It covers how British politics was created, and the strategies and ideologies that were perfect then remain in place to this day, with Neoliberalism, Globalisation and 'One Nation' effectively a bastardisation of Gladstone's economic policies, Free Trade vs Imperial Preference debates, and the original One Nation Conservatism championed by Disraeli allying the industrious elite with the upper working class populace against the liberal elite (remind you of anything...)

u/69bit · 19 pointsr/videos

James Duane's Book on this topic, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, is also a very good short read.

u/PaperbackWriter66 · 19 pointsr/Firearms

> But one thing I can't help but think is that the old idea of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" doesn't really hold water anymore.

I believe that was the point of the book "3 Felonies a Day"

u/PepperoniFire · 18 pointsr/LawSchool

> Is there any secondary source I could be pointed to that might make the whole con law concept easier to grasp?

The answer to this question is always Chemerinsky's hornbook. I outlined this instead of my textbook and it worked out very well.

u/VincentRAPH · 18 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

I'm not a police officer, but I've always heard that Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement is almost a must-have.

u/spectyr · 18 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

This, absolutely. Heck, there's even a book about this very problem called Three Felonies a Day.

u/pancakeonmyhead · 18 pointsr/FloridaMan

It was, in fact, the subject of a book:

The veracity of said book is debatable, in particular the "three a day" claim, but regardless, the reality is that there are a whole lot of things that are felonies that the average person isn't aware of. That's what fifty years of "Get tough on crime" rhetoric does.

u/mofukkinbreadcrumbz · 18 pointsr/politics

That's most of what politics is. The more good you do for the people, the less good you can do for those who control the people and in turn, the less power you have.

u/Ellistann · 17 pointsr/politics

The Book he based that off of is called The Dictator's Handbook. Its his primary source, and is fantastic.

Been listening to it on my way to work over the last 3 weeks.

Read it, or be like me and listen to it.

u/FravasTheBard · 17 pointsr/QuotesPorn

The only time that happens is when the military allows the people to storm the established regime - almost always because the established regime didn't give the military leaders enough money. Typical people cannot, have not, and will never destroy a standing state army.

Relevant CGP Grey video for clarity, but honestly the book Dictator's Handbook is much more thorough.

u/kwassa1 · 17 pointsr/law
  1. Don't go to law school.

  2. If you insist, anything by Chemerinsky is good for an overview of constitutional law. Dworkin is also interesting and pretty accessible. For an overview of the types of theory you'll learn in torts, check out Coase's The Nature of the Firm (pdf).
u/DitkasMoustache · 17 pointsr/AskReddit

Good for you! Except if you're living in the US you're already likely commiting three felonies a day.

u/Jdf121 · 17 pointsr/trees

I never said that was the case, and I'm not sure that I even see a point that you are making. What are the other things working against people? I agree, there are many factors, but you can't say something like that and not give any warrants for saying it.

My point was that, once you are in the system like that, the chances of getting out are low due to exactly what sinner13 said. I never said that was the only factor pre or post conviction; only that, post conviction, it is all but a foregone conclusion.

Check out the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It is a wonderful read on this subject as well as racial motivations of the drug war.

u/akadmks1 · 17 pointsr/blackladies

>Slavery never ended, it just got swept under the rug. All the owners had to do was to criminalize being black.

Slavery never ended, it just got modernized to fit the social and political climate of its time. All the owners had to do was to criminalize being black.

u/hga_another · 16 pointsr/KotakuInAction

> Trump orders that the IRS treats American corporations in the exact same way it treats ordinary American citizens. Levy tax on their global earnings.

He can't do that, they're doing this legally. But he can throw them in jail and likely get them convicted of various expansive Federal crimes, per Three Felonies a Day. See what happened to Joseph Nacchio when he was the only telecom executive to not let the NSA et. al. freely spy on us.

u/Blazed_Pascal · 16 pointsr/worldnews

Suggested reading: 3 Felonies a Day

Chances are, you've committed a crime today you weren't aware of.

u/EvilNalu · 16 pointsr/changemyview

There are some massive reasons why you need to care: proliferation of arcane criminal laws and prosecutorial discretion. In combination with extensive surveillance of everyone, these form an unholy trinity that allows those in power to squash anyone they want to. How does it work? Let me start at the beginning.

What is the criminal justice system? In many people's minds, it is the way that we stop the bad guys. The good guys figure out what the bad guys are doing, catch them at it, and put them in jail, right? That's the story we tell to children and many people never understand it any better than that. But it's all wrong.

What the criminal justice system really is is the machine we have built to apply legitimate civil force. It's a weapon: in every arrest, after every trial, is the barrel of a gun pointed at someone and metal cages to restrict their movement. But at whom is it pointed? And who's in the cages? That depends on how you build the machine and who is operating it.

So how have we built the machine? We've built it so that there are so many crimes you cannot avoid committing one. There are literally tens of thousands of crimes at the federal level alone. One legal analyst wrote a book arguing that just about everyone commits three federal felonies every day. Though that claim may be exaggerated for effect, the basic proposition that federal criminal law is so comprehensive and vague that nearly anyone could be prosecuted is, if we are honest, hardly debatable. But surely the prosecutors only go after the bad guys, right?

Enter the federal prosecutor and prosecutorial discretion. What this means is that a prosecutor has complete control over who to charge with a crime. Bring him a clearly guilty friend, and he could decline to charge him. Bring him an innocent enemy, and he could charge him. But wait, you say, he's innocent! Sorry, see above. No one is innocent.

Many dismiss it as a silly conspiracy theory, but let's listen to someone who really knows what he is talking about, then Attorney General of the U.S. and future Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, speaking to the U.S. Attorneys serving under him in 1940:

>If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.

And of course thousands of criminal laws have been passed since 1940. The odds of a prosecutor being able to find "at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone" have only increased. Nevertheless, one might argue that Jackson has only identified a potential problem; surely there are safeguards in place and simple politically motivated prosecutions are not a problem in the 21st century.

If you are one of those people, would it surprise you to learn that from 2001-2007, the Bush DOJ investigated seven times as many democratic officials as it did republican ones?

Alternately, how would you view the story of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was convicted of bribery amidst claims that the prosecution was politically motivated? I can tell you what 44 attorneys general thought about the prosecution - they were concerned that the case "may have had sufficient irregularities as to call into question the basic fairness that is the linchpin of our system of justice."

Now this was already a problem well before the whole NSA thing came about. But when you enable those people in control of the system to access a vast wealth of information about the activities of every person in the country, all barriers to prosecution are removed. Criminal prosecutions could easily be brought against all enemies, whether personal or political. A significant but manageable problem turns into a rampaging beast that tramples everyone in its path, and people like you sit on the sidelines and cheer on the destruction, confident that you will not find yourself being trampled. So you say only criminals need to be concerned? I suppose you're technically right, but the problem is that we live in an age where we are all criminals.

u/eco_was_taken · 16 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

Courts are still deciding this (and as other say, jurisdiction is important). There are several cases that have happened where a cop was shot entering a house and the shooter was found not guilty or released after time served.

Cory Maye shot and killed an officer when he entered Cory's half of a duplex (the wrong half). Police were doing a no-knock raid and entered the wrong house. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty. His conviction was overturned after attention to the many problems with the case were raised in the media by journalist Radley Balko. Radley Balko is probably the leading journalist covering police raids, medical examiner abuse, and police militarization so if this stuff interests you I recommend following his work.

Adrian Perryman was recently found not guilty after shooting and injuring a cop during a no-knock raid.

Matthew Stewart, a veteran with PTSD, was woken up by having his home raided by police on a tip for an ex-girlfriend that he was growing marijuana. They say they announced themselves, he said he never heard them. They were dressed in hoodies and t-shirts (one was wearing a Cheech and Chong shirt). Several of the police officers had to run back to their vehicles after shots began to get the bullet proof vests they should have been wearing which had POLICE written on them.

Stewart shot 6 officers, killing one of them. After he was apprehended and placed in jail the police began a smear campaign saying that they found photos of him dressed up as a taliban suicide bomber, that they found a bomb in his closet, and that they found child porn on his computer. The taliban outfit was a halloween costume. An ATF agent refuted that the device found was a bomb. Stewart committed suicide in jail by hanging himself. Months later the police called his family to tell them they never actually found any child pornography on his computer.

Edit: Just to clarify a little, knowingly shooting a cop is never lawful. The cases above are because the person shooting did not know who they were shooting at were police. In some of these cases when the police finally announce they are police the person thinks that the police just happened to show up to stop the people who are invading their home. They often don't even realize they had been shooting at the police until after they are arrested.

u/AndTheEgyptianSmiled · 16 pointsr/islam

The FBI conducts more terrorist plots in US than any other organization. There's a book dedicated to FBI's records of radicalizing or bribing poor and unstable citizens to commit terror (see Trevor Aaronson’s The Terror Factory).

At one point the FBI was even boasted about it when an agent admitted that a certain would-be terrorist was “a retarded fool who didn’t have a pot to piss in".

The New York Times and the Guardian have all reported on this repeatedly.

u/_chukee · 16 pointsr/MensRights

Republicans have historically taken the same stance on anarchists, communists, and "Islamic terrorists," sorry to say. Guilty until proven innocent.

I think it's important to recognize our own biases. The modern "left" has failed miserably on the issue of due process rights for men accused of sexual crimes; the right has failed miserably on due process rights for men accused of "terrorism," even though many "terrorist plots" are essentially engineered by the FBI and various intelligence agencies. This is a respectable study on the matter:

Turning Men's Rights into a strictly partisan affair and using it as a means of bolstering political parties is a sure way to divide and conquer the movement. I say that as someone who loathes Democrats and Republicans in equal measure.

u/Gunlord500 · 15 pointsr/badhistory

Well, that's actually a pretty significant problem with the prison system, historically. I'm not just being glib, it's something historians of incarceration and African American history have been saying for a long time. Long story short, following the American Civil War, when slavery was abolished, many white Southerners still needed 'forced labor' simply because there were many jobs it wouldn't be economic to hire free labor for. Thus was born the "prison-industrial complex," where newly freed slaves would be incarcerated for things like "vagrancy" and had to do labor similar to that under slavery. Naturally, this led to many social problems similar to those found under the antebellum regime. Again, it's hard to get into off the cuff like this, but this book is a pretty solid introduction to the issues, IMO:

u/Scary_Cloud · 15 pointsr/LateStageCapitalism

Ben Shapiro literally admits that he argues in bad faith. He wrote a book about it

This piece of shit should never be given a platform ever again to spew his dogshit opinions, because that's all they are. Anyone that unironically listens to Ben was probably a massive loser in school.

u/optionallycrazy · 15 pointsr/news <-- this man was found innoncent after all said and done <-- this one is made famous where a stun grenade injured the wrong child

Those are a couple of examples of it. There are 100s if not 1000s of other articles out there but at the time I cannot possible pull them all up for you.

For some good read, read this book:

It goes into details of exactly what is wrong. Again nobody is arguing that the police should be armed or that they should gain access to equipment, but the problem is how they are using it as oppose to anything else.

u/SucreTease · 14 pointsr/teslamotors

Not me, but then, I don’t know all of the possible things that might be illegal. Do you?

Or illegal activities I haven’t done, but that a cop could construe evidence of.

Three Felonies A Day

u/Frenemies · 14 pointsr/Austin

"Someone who willfully commits a crime is not "impacted" the way the victims of criminal activity are "impacted." People who commit crime subject themselves to the criminal justice system. There is no conspiracy."

If you are genuinely interested in finding out why the above statement is, at the very least, not right, I highly recommend this book:

Centuries of systematic racism (slavery, Jim Crow Laws, the war on drugs) have specifically targeted communities of color. There are a countless number of studies that show that people of color don't commit crimes at any higher rates than white people, yet they are arrested significantly more often.

So, the problem with 'the box' is that someone is more likely to get arrested than their white peer for the same crime, are then labeled 'felon' and lose the ability to get a job, and then are often forced back into the same situation which led to them getting arrested and sent to prison in the first place.

Seriously, read the book. It's eye-opening.

u/Apatomoose · 14 pointsr/history

Here's an Amazon link

And on Audible

u/sstelmaschuk · 14 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

Compassion is one part of it for sure. There's a wonderful book, Rise of the Warrior Cop, that details a lot about the mentality of police in the US over the last couple of decades.

And I think that's an issue that we do need to address, in addition to compassion, is that more and more cops are being trained to act like military staff. Which gives rise to 'us vs them' mentality that tends to lead to situations like the one that occurred in Toronto.

u/vdmsr · 14 pointsr/AskLEO

Nearly every PD has an EAP (employee assistance program) of some sort, an anonymous number they can contact in order to talk about the issues they may be having.

Many PD's have groups that meet, shooter groups, loss groups, etc.

I have posted it before and I will again each time because it is that good.

Emotional Survival For Law Enforcement is an awesome book. I bought a dozen copies over the last two years to give out to coworkers, new recruits, family members and those who just have issues dealing with stress. The book really explains a lot and what it does not explain it touches on enough that you can do the research for the answers on your own.

Education and understanding are the #1 ways to fight against mental issues, stress and depression specifically, that come from the job.

I have seen a lot, done a lot and been exposed to so many horrible things that I have no doubt if I had not read and educated myself on this topic beforehand I would have issues.

Saying you have a problem is not a sign of weakness, crying is not a sign of weakness. Last time my PD lost an officer I cried like a little girl, no shame in it, we are all human.

u/ATXENG · 14 pointsr/churning

fyi....just passing along something I've read:

You should NEVER talk to the police, especially federal agents.

You should not claim your right to remain silent, but instead exercise your right to a lawyer.

Demand gov't to provide written questions and only answer gov't in written statements

u/redditHi · 14 pointsr/Bitcoin

> I am a law abiding American citizen ... I'm not doing anything illegal

Are you sure?

>I look forward to a time when American citizens recognize our responsibility to imprison those who make a mockary of our rights established by the constitution.

Amen Brother! grabs pitchfork

u/seospider · 13 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

Glenn Greenwald, who reported the Edward Snowden revelations, argues that this decision set the precedent for the powerful in the U.S. publicly and unapologetically declaring that the law applies differently to them then it does to the masses.

u/SernyRanders · 13 pointsr/SandersForPresident

A book recommendation on a sad day for democracy:
>With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

>- Glenn Greenwald

u/GregoryPanic · 13 pointsr/politics

Yes, I do actually, because compromise would be forced as the norm and obstruction would be incredibly difficult. It also breaks up the power within congressional districts, because fewer powerful entities directly affect the voting populace.

It's about restricting the ability of congressional leaders to consolidate power within their districts, and having it come down to money.

Look at it this way, each congressperson current represents about 700,000 people (if i remember correctly). For what is considered a "local representative", that's not very "local". It makes it too easy for monied interests to convince the populace at-large of how this effective stranger thinks about xyz issues.

Break this number down to 150-200k each, and it seems a little more reasonable that community groups could have a real chance at having their voices heard. A union representing 1000 people is suddenly 1% of the vote, if 50% of people vote. That same union is a fraction of a % in a 700k district.

This results in a) more level headed politicians who can actually get to know the entirety of their district and not just rely on the big money havers, and b) better democratic representation.

TL;DR: Increasing the number of reps actually dilutes the power of an individual rep, such that they become more beholden to their voters.

edit: credit where credit is due - this book is amazing and explains in detail why a system that increases the number of reps leads to better representation. But to keep it simple - the first thing dictators do is consolidate power by getting rid of as many "key people" as possible, and when a representative represents 1 million people, the "key people" are people with the money to run ads, not community representatives.

u/mugrimm · 13 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

In addition to what others say, people constantly violate the law unknowingly and knowingly and at that level it's basically impossible to not be violating any number of laws. Three Felonies A Day is a great book about how we're all basically just unprosecuted felons at any time.

u/iownnarcs · 13 pointsr/punk

The neighborhoods are not like that because of democrats, it's because of redlining. Literally just google "redlining" and there are plenty of resources to understand what this practice is.

Institutional racism does exist. I don't give a shit what you say. Your parents are wrong, your friends and parents that believe this are also wrong too.

This is a good book to read, it will explain that yes, institutional racism does exist. it will hopefully open your mind up. Get it from the library -

u/Peetrius · 13 pointsr/globalistshills

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics By Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith

  1. For eighteen years, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith have been part of a team revolutionizing the study of politics by turning conventional wisdom on its head. They start from a single assertion: Leaders do whatever keeps them in power. They don't care about the “national interest”—or even their subjects—unless they have to.

    This clever and accessible book shows that the difference between tyrants and democrats is just a convenient fiction. Governments do not differ in kind but only in the number of essential supporters, or backs that need scratching. The size of this group determines almost everything about politics: what leaders can get away with, and the quality of life or misery under them. The picture the authors paint is not pretty. But it just may be the truth, which is a good starting point for anyone seeking to improve human governance.

    This is essentially any public choice economics class you'll ever take. It's a great break down on the real incentives of rulers and how that influences their rule, even more so it goes into detail how these incentives shape economies, policies, wars, business, and much more.



    Nonfiction- Political Science/Public Choice theory

u/gronke · 13 pointsr/videos

Feel free to find a recent video of a German police stop that went anything like that.

Meanwhile, I can find about three hundred US stops that went like that.

It's not the gun ownership or the armed populace. It's the Rise of the Warrior Cop.

u/amaxen · 13 pointsr/TrueReddit

Every citizen is estimated to commit Three Felonies a Day. If you don't think you're breaking the law, it's because you're ignorant of the law.

u/blackkettle · 13 pointsr/politics

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

It might not be a given, but it is reasonably close.

u/kafros · 12 pointsr/greece

Ο Τσίπρας το έχει κάνει ευαγγέλιο αυτό

μην σας ξεγελάσει ο τίτλος. λέει για όλα τα πολιτεύματα και εξηγεί την φύση της διαφθοράς.

u/northshore12 · 12 pointsr/FloridaMan

>He acts like he’s invading Fallujah every time he does a traffic stop. He has a notorious reputation.

This behavior seems to be increasing dramatically over the past few decades, and the trend shows no sign of slowing down.

u/HBombthrow · 12 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

You've broken the law, probably dozens if not hundreds of times. Every time you sped of the highway, or crossed against the light, or entered a "01/01/1950" as your birthday on an Internet age gate, or streamed a basketball game. In fact, one author argues that the average American probably commits three felonies a day.

Are you a terrible person? Would you think it's a little overboard for a SWAT team to bust down your door and lock you in prison?

There's a concept in the law, called "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum." It refers to the difference between things that are illegal because we say they're illegal, and things that are illegal because they're inherently wrong. Murder, theft, assault -- these are things that are inherently wrong. But things like driving on the left side of the road, or getting paid to cut hair without a barbers' license -- they're not inherently wrong, but are made illegal (with good reason) as a matter of public order.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to come to the United States to make a better life. Pretty much all of your ancestors did the exact same thing, and it's likely that you celebrate them for it.

So, think of something like online piracy. A lot of people have pirated copyrighted materials, which can be a felony. Yet I bet you don't dismiss everyone who illegally streamed a movie as a felon and demand that they be rounded up and thrown in prison. You'd probably support a system in which people who pirated are given amnesty, DRM systems become widespread, but the industry puts media into a format in which it can be accessed easily for reasonable payment. That's what people want to do with immigration -- don't brutally rip people from their homes, but develop a system by which people who are otherwise good Americans can be brought into compliance with the law.

u/anotherhumantoo · 12 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics.

There's a solid summary on the internet provided by CGP Grey, The Rules for Rulers

I think I would also direct them to this video, made in the 1940s that ISM cartoon I'm sure people are quick to point out that communism is strongly implied in that video; but really, any authoritarian regime has these problems. Freedom and liberty should be of highest importance in this country. As a country, we've absolutely forgotten that.

u/keypuncher · 12 pointsr/personalfinance

No it is a consequence of living in a country where there are so many Federal Laws, the government was asked to count them and gave up after 4 years.

When there are so many laws that no one knows what they all are, it is no longer a just society - it is a society of arbitrary enforcement where people are selected for punishment, then investigated to see what laws they have broken.

Sure, there are absolutely criminals who deliberately break laws - but most people have committed felonies without ever realizing it, and all that stands between them and a felony conviction is the fact that no one has bothered to choose them to be the one to have those laws enforced on them.

There was a book written about this a few years ago, called Three Felonies a Day.

u/ultralame · 12 pointsr/esist

Yup. Walk across the border so you can get a job and feed your kids? Clearly you are prepared to murder and eat babies.

Those asses should read Three Felonies a Day.

u/robotfuel · 12 pointsr/worldnews

>giving Glenn Greenwald a megaphone to spout his baseless venom however, is wildly unprofessional.

What specifically do you mean by 'baseless venom'?

I've watched his lectures at colleges, his debates on TV amongst the different news stations across the globe and read With Liberty and Justice for Some and not once have I ever thought his arguments were 'baseless' because he provides facts and empirical evidence that can be looked up and verified.

More recently the message he usually conveys is that he wants to shed light on what powerful people are doing in the dark. i.e. The NSA constructing a world wide, indiscriminate spy network that can be used against anyone at the whim of those who control it. Something that was considered wild conspiracy theory only 4 months ago.

How is this a bad thing? To want to inform the public of what powerful people are doing in the dark? To promote the ideal that investigative journalism is one of the main checks to power that we have?

Additionally his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" gives quite a few examples about how there is a very real two tiered justice system dominant in the US. On one side you have the very rich who do not suffer for their crimes against humanity (Cheney/Bush & their false Iraq War, HSBC Laundering Billions for Drug Cartles, etc) and the full weight of the law coming down on petty drug offenses.

I can, however, understand how one would consider the words coming from Greenwald's mouth 'venemous'. His penchant for the truth and his debate skill usually cuts to the bone. Not once have I ever seen him lose a debate. Not once. And while that in and of itself is no indicator of the truthfulness of one's words ( this scene from Thank You For Smoking comes to mind ) it does merit a degree of respect. Especially when you do look up the things he has to say and find out they are rooted in truth.

Compare that with say, someone like Rush Limbaugh or Bill'O'Reily, who seem like divisive demagouges that appear to truly spout baseless venom. Many times when you look up what they have to say it's often half-truth or an outright lie. Twisted words for twisted people with twisted agendas.

Rush and Bill seem to feed off of and appeal to the very worst in humanity - fear, xenophobia, selfishness, greed - I don't see Glenn Greenwald doing the same kinds of things.

u/AlarmedAntique · 12 pointsr/JusticeServed

>The whole "ask for a lawyer" business is kind of overstated. The only thing a lawyer will advise you is to not say another word to the police. That's the entirety of the benefit of calling a lawyer. (Also, in circumstances where it's not clear that you've been detained/arrested, the lawyer will instruct you to ask the police if you can leave, and if offered the chance, to do so).
>Edit: you should still call a lawyer, because you're always better off with advice tailored to your situation than without it. I'm just pointing out it won't stop the police from asking the questions.

James Duane of the famous Don't Talk to the Police video recommends in his book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent that you should explicitly ask for a lawyer instead of pleading the fifth. He cites a supreme court decision that makes it so the fifth amendment no longer has the protections it used to have. Explicitly stating you want a lawyer and then remaining silent is your best option.

u/anlumo · 12 pointsr/technology

There's a whole book about it: Three Felonies A Day

u/livebythefoma · 12 pointsr/movies

I'm not trying to incite a reddit riot but the idea of Racism = Prejudice + Power definition is pretty standard in sociology/anthropology, and was popularized in part by the insanely popular and well-reviewed book The New Jim Crow. Saying it is "Tumblr-esque" is an extremely nuanced and uneducated view.

u/PingPoopa · 12 pointsr/politics

The book I'm reading right now:

There's been a huge proliferation of military equipment, which is used in no-knock SWAT raids against suspected drug dealers, or sometimes even doctors suspected of over-prescribing painkillers, sometimes based on bad tips or sometimes simply at the wrong address.

Sadly, until very recently Obama hadn't really done anything to stifle this, and it's arguable that he actually advanced it. Joe Biden has been doing so for longer than he's been vice president.

u/OrtizDupri · 11 pointsr/rva

Also /u/thisisATHENS, I'd recommend taking a look at Rise of the Warrior Cop - - written by a libertarian dude, so it's not some left-wing look at the police, but it is a fairly comprehensive look at the history of policing in America as well as the rise in militarization and tactics (as well as why those don't work). I certainly don't take it as gospel but it is well researched, well written, and hopefully something that both right and left folks can agree is an issue that should be addressed.

u/olievand · 11 pointsr/Denmark

Krasnik er en idiot. Jeg havde også højere forventninger til ham. Det giver ingen mening at kalde ham nazist. Folk kan jo godt se Paludan ikke er nazist. Han er fascist og det er ikke svært at bevise. Men det kræver at man faktisk kan levere blot nogle argumenter for hvorfor. Han har ret ift. Paludans ønske om en etnisk udrensning, men ikke én eneste gang formår Krasnik at komme Paludan i møde. Paludan afviser alt der bliver påstået om ham. Endda når der tages udgangspunkt i hans egne citater. Det er ekstremt forudsigeligt. Når Krasnik ikke formår at opponere mod Paludans tomme afvisninger og ad hominem så står det sløjt til. Jeg tror at Krasnik er blevet forvænt til jobbet som chefredaktør. Han møder ikke på samme måde tosser face-to-face som interviewer længere og den der "jeg-er-så-rystet-over-Stram-Kurs"-mimik kan han godt pakke væk. Den vinder ikke en debat mod en fyr som Paludan. Han debattere fuldstændigt som eksempelvis Ben Shapiro foreslår at man skal gøre det. Ekstremt uærligt og effektivt.

u/sounddude · 11 pointsr/Libertarian

If any of you haven't read this book I HIGHLY recommend it. Especially if you like to get your blood pressure up to unsafe levels.

Rise of The Warrior Cop

u/ModusPwnins · 11 pointsr/HuntsvilleAlabama

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko may be interesting reading for you.

u/SmuckersMarionBerry · 11 pointsr/news

>[Citation needed.] That sounds like a huge generalization, across a country with hundreds, if not thousands of diverse departments.

>Honor for whom? De Blasio, with his anti-police rhetoric and white guilt appeasement, has thrown police under the bus and blames them for actions outside of polices' control.

Honor for the the democratically elected civilian official who oversees them. I don't give a fuck what you think of Obama, but a soldier should not turn his back on the President of the United States. We're a republic, not a junta.

u/r_shall · 11 pointsr/politics

Upvoted because of my love of Freakonomics. Another interesting book about this topic is The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

u/rickybeingricky · 11 pointsr/HistoryPorn

People of color, particularly men of color, born in 1970 or later have not been welcomed into society as passively as you claim. Beginning in the late 1980s and continuing through to today in some areas, Americans of color have been consciously and unconsciously targeted by discriminatory and institutionalized practices and policies that restrict one's access into mainstream society. Collectively, these practices are generally referred to as mass incarceration, though politicians have tended to sell them as a War on Drugs that is Tough on Crime.

American-style mass incarceration is quite evidently discriminatory against people of color because the War on Drugs neither reducies drug use in the nation nor reduces crime in troubled areas. In fact, it has tended to increase both. Allow me to explain.

Since the late 1980s the American prison population has boomed from about 300,000 to about 2 million. This is the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Almost all of the prisoners in America are African-Americans, as high as 80% in some areas, and they were mostly convicted of minor non violent drug offenses. This makes no sense when you consider that Americans of all races consume illegal drugs and participate in the illegal drug market at approximately the same rate (Source).

Most of these non-violent prisoners of color, admittedly, spend only a short period of time in jail. However, once released almost all of them are branded felons because American laws offer little leniency on this account for persons convicted of drug offenses involving drugs that are frequently found in poor, African-American populated areas. Once labeled a felon, a released non-violent offender who has supposedly paid their debt to society sees little opportunity for a stable life because career, housing, educational, and social opportunities are severely restricted. Ask anyone who has been labeled a felon in America and they will tell you that given such a status is like being branded with a mark of the beast that essentially establishes one as part of an often ignored and almost invisible undercaste.

The lack of opportunity for this undercaste often leads to two things. First, many of the undercaste turn to drug use as way to deal with their emotional depression onset by a perpetual and inescapable state of impoverishment. Second, many of the same group turn to crime to make money because other opportunities never present themselves. They might be seen as having the "ghetto mentality" that other users spoke of. Hopefully you can see at this point how a deleterious cycle builds. Such a cycle benefits no one and also costs an incredible amount of money to maintain.

This is obviously a simplified account of mass incarceration (this is Reddit after all). Nonetheless, I hope it illustrated how opportunity is restricted in America for a large portion of the population. The mass incarceration system is "hidden" from us because there are no federal, state, or local laws in the US that explicitly target people of color so I don't think your comment is the result of a lack of intelligence on your part. Rather, the plain and simple fact that you live as part of an inherently flawed American society and culture stands behind your antiquated viewpoint. I hope you try to learn more about this so you can help fix the county that I, for one, love so much.

Further reading: Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow

u/andgiveayeLL · 11 pointsr/news

Chemerinsky's book is the only reason I got a good grade in con law in law school

Anyone who wants to learn more about constitutional law should check this out. It is massive but utterly readable as far as law books go

u/Mikashuki · 11 pointsr/AskLEO

Emotional survival for law enforcement: A guide for officers and their families

u/Shrimpbeedoo · 11 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

Yeah I would push for the country home, that being said

> he admits that's he's not rational about this

You should buy emotional survival for law enforcement and read it together. He's showing hyper vigilance.

Seriously grab it. Read it and find the parts about hyper vigilance and ptsd. show it to him. get him to talk to someone. It is imperative if he wants to stay in this career that he balance this out.

u/Sizzlecheeks · 11 pointsr/conservatives

There's a book called "Three Felonies a Day", which makes the case that the average person unwittingly & often commits federal crimes.

President Trump, far from being an average person, was targeted by a ruthless federal prosecutor, aided by assistants that were 100% leftists, with an unlimited budget, could find nothing after 2 years of really looking.

Like it or not, that's how you can know Trump didn't do anything wrong.

u/orangething · 10 pointsr/breakingmom

Leo wife here! We have a sub that I can send over to you. It's not very active but it's good for support when you need it. If you're in my state, I'll send you a link to our group (where they will verify you).

So here's the thing, academy is fucking awful and so is your FTO period (ours was about 12 months but they recently upped it to 18 months). One thing I HIGHLY suggest is purchasing this book. It will help you understand what is happening to him and how to not fall into the situation you described. Depending on your department, your guy will have to swap shifts a few times so you'll be thrown upside down a few times over the next two years. There's benefits and cons to each one.

My advice for now? Just survive. Do what you can to keep your lives together but get through it with as little resentment as you can. It'll be over and once he's on his own, it will be so much better because he's not having to follow the exact process of whomever is educating him ex: one trainer expected you to be out of the car before him but wouldn't tell you that. Another wouldn't let Dude use the online system the entire 10 weeks because sometimes it went offline, which has happened twice in the last few years. There will be times he will want to quit and you will have (if you've agreed to do so) to keep him invested and going. There is a high rate of divorce in our community but I've also seen a lot of really successful relationships too. It's all about making yourselves come together as a family and not losing sight of it or prioritizing it lower. The ones I see splitting are the ones spitting, "she knew what she got into. This job is my life! She has to work around ME forever." Nah. This is a one way ticket to trouble. There's gotta be respect.

For holidays and events, do them on his off day. Don't start living totally separate lives. It's so easy to do and sometimes you will just have to go to events anyway but make sure you can get him to some of them. Keep as many non first responder friends as you can. Nobody will get your situation like other LEO families but it can be easy for them all to start getting negative about work or becoming an echo chamber. My husband's personality has changed and he has become more rigid because he sees so many awful things. Having "regular" friends reminds him that WoW, metal concerts, family dinners, soccer - they're all still part of who he is.

There are things you can't drive yourself crazy about and that's women who specifically creep on guys with a badge, females on shift either on his beat or dispatch, where he is at all times, mandatory overtime (it'll happen, and I tell people we will arrive an hour late to an event just in case), and sometimes when he needs space. Too much space is bad but it's shit like, today my husband had to (TW GORE/MISCARRIAGE) dig through a shopping bag of human tissue because homeless woman miscarried in a stairwell. And that's not even the worst or weirdest thing he's seen this month. You will have to decide as a team if you want to talk about that stuff or not (we do). Some wives also pretend there isn't a real threat to life (yet two guys almost got killed on shift in the last 2 months) and some pretend every call is going to be the end (though statistically chances are small and Dude went a very long time before he ever had to pull any weapon on anyone). You'll have to find a balance. We did talk about what happens if he is injured or killed in action and what our expectations were.

Anyway. I could go on forever. Feel free to PM me anytime though!

u/01formulaaj · 10 pointsr/LSAT

What's up dude. Took the LSAT in June. Went from a cold diagnostic of 154 to a 167. (Retaking in Sept for a 170+). Books I used/recommend:

Books I used but don't recommend:

Get your practice tests here (seriously, do 20+ under timed conditions while filling out LSAT bubble sheets):

Also, use

Sign up for a free account, and use their logic game explanations. They also have analytics that will track your progress and spit out analysis concerning where your weak areas are.

Good luck!

u/Sdffcnt · 10 pointsr/Firearms

Read the book Three Felonies a Day and say that again.

u/guy_guyerson · 10 pointsr/TrueReddit

What are crimes? There's a strong case that the average American commits 3 felonies per day, most unknowingly. 'Waiting' becomes 'loitering' based on the desires of any given cop. Police forces in The US make announcements that they're going to begin enforcing previously ignored laws or that particular laws will be demoted to 'low priority' (unenforced). Medical marijuana users in The US are all federal criminals. Basically no one actually knows what their state and local laws are and even people who's vocation demands they do can't agree on what those laws mean.

u/jedichric · 10 pointsr/progun

Read this. I just finished it and it is eye-opening.

The gist of it is that there are federal grants handed to localities to purchase these types of things. Why not take the government's money and buy a cool as hell toy like this?

u/studyscribe · 10 pointsr/Documentaries

Also here is a good book on the topic Three Felones A Day.

The basis of the book is that everyone commits at least three felonies every day. Most of us don't know every single law but we are expected to know and abide by every single law.

u/GoyMeetsWorld · 10 pointsr/news

Three felonies a day: how the feds target the innocent

A book describing how the average American is a lawbreaker, and prison can happen to anyone. How we treat prisoners is your business. Even if you're not in prison, their treatment reflects on us as a society.

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 10 pointsr/Christianity

If you're not outraged by our "justice" system yet, I recommend this NYT best seller.

The things the "war on drugs" has done to our society are atrocious.

u/dylanoliver233 · 10 pointsr/collapse

People such as Noam Chomsky have described the modern politician as essentially a middle manager. That is the interests of the majority actually has no influence on decisions made. Using the U.S as example:

" The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite. " The same study found that the majority had 0 impact on political decisions.

Here from that bastion of left wing'ism /s Business insider:

Another important point, democracies are not necessarily different that autocracies in how leadership maintains power:

20 min video. Enlightening , based on this book:

u/quickhorn · 10 pointsr/politics

Check out The New Jim Crow. Their numbers absolutely do matter. And we absolutely should not be removing the right of citizens to vote based on laws written by those that benefit from removing those citizens right to vote.

u/rnev64 · 10 pointsr/geopolitics

Interesting analysis.

Yet I'd like to challenge the fundamental argument : both authoritative and centralized states like Russia and the more pluralistic nation like the US, Canada or UK do not directly act to benefit their people. In all nations a governing elite forms as well a a civil service bureaucracy - and these two groups always act in ways that first and foremost benefit themselves.

There was a famous study of the US (by Harvard researchers iirc) that showed less than 1% of decision by US congress were consistent with what is perceived to be the public benefit or interest - rather it was shown that congress votes according to sectoral interests 99 out of 100 times.

All governing elites in all nations act with such similar selfish interests - but often enough these interests will also benefit the rest of the nation, it's not the intent but it is a byproduct. for example: big trade interests (corporations, share-holders, however you choose to define them) in the US want to keep the south-china seas open for trade because they profit billions off of it (as does the government/civil-service/bureaucracy - indirectly) - the benefit to American citizens in contrast is a secondary by-product.

Situation is similar in Russia: taking over Crimea is something Putin perceives as an interest for his regime but indirectly this is also in the interest of Russians because as you mentioned having Ukraine integrate with western economy weakens all of Russia - thereby worsening the economic situation and the quality of life for all Russians.

Now I am not claiming there are no difference between the western democracies and the Russian democracy (and I believe it is some type of democracy or pseudo-democracy - even if different than the "western" models) - but at the end of the day the fundamental core difference is how big the beneficiary elite is - in Russia it's tiny and in the west it's much bigger.

I believe the book "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics" does a good job explaining this idea - that ultimately the difference between a centralized/pseudo-totalitarian state and less-centralized democracies is only the relative size of the ruling elite - that's still a big difference but it's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one - as we might like to think.

u/projectvision · 10 pointsr/news

Its not flawed. It's true. And the further we get from being an actual democracy, the truer it gets.

From an actual power standpoint, lobbyists and major donors have way more influence than a vote does. Read more of the dynamics of why that is:

u/v3ritas1989 · 10 pointsr/worldnews

>Oil revenues constitute more than 98% of the government of South Sudan's budget according to the southern government's Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning


So I think you have it backwards!

They also have a lot of metals. So resources are available to theoretically sustain a 10 fold population.

According to prominent political theory(the dictators handbook), HIGH resources that can be extracted with dying slaves or just outright use foraigners to extract complicated resources like oil will lead to a higher chance of a dictator arrising due to a coup leading to policies that make the people poor, keep them stupid and unhealthy. Which in turn leads to the main survival tool of ppl beeing manual agreculture which needs a lot of ppl. All of this will then lead to high birth rates (and death rates).

u/ClarkNeily · 10 pointsr/IAmA

Great, great, GREAT question BorgesFan. Thank you!

First, I don’t find marijuana legalization esoteric at all. We lock up a disgraceful number of people for the utterly harmless “crime” of marijuana possession and sale, and as a result of our political leaders’ foolish commitment to prosecuting the unwinnable drug war, America has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Disgraceful! Also, local police are turning into quasi-military outfits, and it’s getting really scary. Please read my friend Radley Balko’s book, [The Rise of the Warrior Cop] ( to learn more.

How do we make the argument for liberty more accessible? By telling the personal stories of those who have suffered at the hands of overweening government: [Susette Kelo and her neighbors in New London, CT] (, where eminent domain was used to take their homes and businesses by force. [Sandy Meadows, who couldn’t support herself because Louisiana said she had to have a license to arrange flowers] (

The most important tip I can offer is to have empathy for your listener. This means a few things:

-Don’t treat someone like they’re a bad person or an idiot just because they disagree with you about a particular policy. They probably want many of the same results you do—a free, prosperous, and just society—and just disagree about how to get there.
-Prioritize your outrage. Some government abuses are truly appalling (e.g., the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII) while others are petty indignities (e.g., being forced to subsidize public television shows you disagree with through your tax dollars). If you equate the latter with the former, people won’t take your message seriously.
-Figure out what your listeners care about and then make your argument in their terms. For example, a social liberal might not be moved by arguments about the “nanny state,” but they may be moved by evidence that a particular policy harms the very people it is intended to help.
-Simplify, simplify, simplify. If you can’t explain your position to someone who isn’t a policy wonk, it’s not going to persuade people.
-Put a human face on the issues. It’s one thing to say that a policy is unjust; it’s another thing to show how it harms real people.

These principles are common sense, but you would be surprised at how many people ignore them.

Finally, I spent the last 15 months or so trying to distill all of this into an intelligent, accessible, and emotionally compelling package. The result is my new book, [Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government] ( Hope some of you will check it out and tell me what you think!

u/dansdata · 10 pointsr/news

OK, look, I must come clean with you:

While I was writing the comment to which you replied, I was sort of psychomagnetically attracted to writing American-style, leaving only that one giveaway "calibre" to hint that I actually am... Australian.

I'm obviously not going to start the Internet's ten-zillionth pointless gun-control argument here, we'd both be better off jamming our thumbs in our eyes... but, for further full-disclosure, I have previously said, while appearing sincere, "Look, you've got to respect their culture. Americans just love shooting each other!" :-)


Down here, normal Australian cops all have pistols.

But if one of our cops shoots someone, and the shot-person dies, then that will be front-page news nationwide. (Probably even if everyone's still alive.)

Meanwhile in the USA, most, but not all, police departments will disclose how many people their officers have shot in the last year.

I can totally see how better firearms are just better tools for police. I mean, the basic Glock-pistol concept is that it's an automatic that handles like a revolver but is even safer and has more ammo, right? OK, no problem. Or, at least, no new problem. Replacing a cop's truncheon with an expandable baton similarly just gives that cop a handier thing to whack people with, not (generally...) a higher inclination to whack them.

But... a semi-auto 5.56?! Just generally sitting around, for whoever's assigned to this car tonight? In case that weapon seems... necessary?

Are we certain that the threat we're giving these guys a "black gun" to fight is more probable that the chance that a flesh-covered robot from the future will will recover one of the AR-15s and use it to extinguish the progenitors of the human race?

Sorry. No actual argument intended.

This just looks like a big quivering pile of mall-ninjas to me. Yes, police have to deal with incredible bullshit (even super-corrupt police probably have to!), and if I were a cop I'd probably fantasise about just mowing all of those fuckin' morons down with a crew-served weapon which besides me is served by Playboy Bunnies. But I'd still have three-fifths of bugger-all chance of ever being better off, actually, because I carried a pistol and AR-whatever, versus carrying a pistol and a juice box.

I think Radley Balko has his shit together regarding this, but I'm not certain.

u/CreepyWindows · 9 pointsr/uwaterloo

Alright, if you're going to make blanket statements about my motivation to post this, I'll bite.

For one, I'm not left. I'll also note tell you who I voted for but it wasn't the liberals. I'm more in support of the democratic idea that when more people vote, it makes the system less easy to corrupt and also keeps the leaders in check.

If you want to read a book about democratic processes and why you should vote when you can, and encourage others too, "The Dictators Handbook" is great and it's only like 22 bucks.

As u/blex mentioned, of course I'm not unbias as no one is. But if your problem with a post encouraging people to vote is that "liberals do it," it implies you support parties who want as fewer people to vote, which are often more corrupt parties or parties that are only acting democratically, and not truely are (see Russia and see the book I linked).

I hope you learned a little bit on why it's important to vote, and why you should encourage others to.

u/zenontherocks · 9 pointsr/Conservative

It's either a natural right or it's not. I believe it is. You're talking as if it's not.

Look, this is always the argument. "You have to be reasonable and give up just this small part of your freedom for the good of society." And then the same argument after the next election. And again and again. And each time it's a load of horseshit that doesn't do anything but burden ordinary people, to the point they either cease activities undesirable or become criminals. So you're damn right I don't want to give another inch. It's gone too far already.

As for "criminals and the mentally ill" - We have nearly no consensus on either the diagnosis of certain mental illnesses, or which mental illnesses should serve as reason for supression of the patients natural rights. As for criminals, we are all criminals, even if we haven't been caught yet. The average American unknowingly commits about three felonies a day. We have more laws and a higher per-capita incarceration rate than any other nation in history. So yeah, I have a hard time believing that the people in charge have the slightest idea what they're doing, much less that we should give up even a shred of our freedom for their guarantees of safety.

u/hawks5999 · 9 pointsr/btc

Sounds like ignorance to me. Get off Reddit and read a book.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

u/ylan64 · 9 pointsr/europe

Well, laws are made to be broken, so that the authorities always have something on you when they want (

The Germans, loving rules, also love enforcing them I guess, even the most insignificant ones.

Of course, all I'm saying here comes mostly from stereotype and is tongue in cheek and shouldn't be taken seriously.

u/chunky_bacon · 9 pointsr/guns

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.

u/MesaDixon · 9 pointsr/conspiracy

Combine the concept behind this book with machine learning A.I. data mining everything we do and it will be possible to lock up the whole country.

Oh, wait...

u/-AJ · 9 pointsr/askgaybros

The term "racist" can be very loaded and charged, because some people (especially white people) view the label with such fear and dread that they will vigorously defend themselves against any hint of an accusation of being racist. The defensiveness masks for them the systemic racism within the culture into which they were born.

It's not always as simple as saying "X person is a racist" or "Y person is not a racist". There aren't just two options. Outside of people like white nationalists, who are overt and admitted racists (and who Trump regards as "fine people"), for everyone else, the label of "racist" is given out by others, and when it is, people usually run from it as fast as they can.

The reason I like to use it only sparingly when directed at an individual is not because it isn't true that the person being accused isn't a racist, but because the label halts any possibility of either person shifting from their position. A person labelled a racist becomes blind to even their own actual views on race, and blind to the larger existing cultural problems involving race.

Trump supporters will often respond to accusations of Trump being labelled a racist much in the same way as if they themselves were being accused, so we encounter the same problem.

If you really want to know the ways in which Trump is racist, you can just Google it, read about it on Wikipedia, or read one or two of the numerous, well-documented, thoroughly researched articles on the topic.

What I recommend instead is that, if you genuinely want to understand race in America, these three books are a pretty great place to start:

White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo

Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander

u/xynix_ie · 9 pointsr/starterpacks


Have you read anything by Michelle Alexander?

Here ya go:

Try not to use words you don't know the meaning of. It makes you sound like a moron.

u/HyprAwakeHyprAsleep · 9 pointsr/TrollXChromosomes

Whew, okay. Pulled out my actual computer to answer this.
So, a lot of what I could recommend isn't short stuff you could read in an afternoon because 1. it's depressing as fuck, and 2. it's likely heavy with the sheer volume of references wherein at least one book attempts to bludgeon you with the facts that "this was depressing as fuck." Frequent breaks or alternating history-related books with fiction/poetry/other topics is rather recommended from my experience. Can't remember if I got onto this topic through Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong or just some random book found in the library.

The very clean cut, textbook Wikipedia definition of "sundown town", aka "Don't let the sun set (down) on you here.", (Ref:, is:
> sometimes known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States that practice a form of segregation by enforcing restrictions excluding people of other races via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence.

For my intro into the subject however, read Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America. This is a very emotionally draining, mentally exhausting book though, frequently with lists of atrocities in paragraph form. I think it's an important read, one which frankly should've been covered my senior year of highschool or so, but it's a difficult one. Also on my reading list is The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration which is a surprising and sneakily hopeful title for such a depressing topic, so only guessing the narration may be somewhat more accessible.

Also, 'cause I totally didn't run to my kindle app to list out titles before fully reading your post, here's some below, and relisted one above, by timeline placement, best as can be figured. These might not be the best on each topic, but they're the ones available to my budget at the time and some are still on my reading list.

The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner's Fierce Rebellion

u/West-Coastal · 9 pointsr/history

You're probably referring to this CGP Grey video based on The Dictator's Handbook.

u/SomeGuy58439 · 9 pointsr/slatestarcodex
u/inmonkeyness · 8 pointsr/sociology

Read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. This was one of those books that I had to pick up and put down many times because of the internal rage it caused. The drug war and mass incarceration are among the biggest issues we have in the US, and we need to find a way to change the way we think about it as a society.

u/msnangersme · 8 pointsr/singapore

Fascinating and relevant book on how people get into power and remain there.

The book argues that the difference between tyrants and democrats is just a convenient fiction. Governments do not differ in kind but only in the number of essential supporters; or backs that need scratching. The size of this group determines almost everything about politics: what leaders can get away with; and the quality of life or misery under them. The picture the authors paint is not pretty. But it just may be the truth; which is a good starting point for anyone seeking to improve human governance.

u/CatholicGuy · 8 pointsr/videos

Because the bad guys are always first to follow strict gun laws. Check out the book, More Guns, Less Crime.

u/ShadowSun07 · 8 pointsr/ADHD

Sorry, I've been hammering away at a journal article. I'm tempted to write a long-ass post but . . . . Hopefully you read this all but if not add me as a friend and shoot me messages as shit goes down.

Books: Top two recommendations (off the top of my head)

  • Learning Outside the Box by Leah Christensen. Link

  • Getting to Maybe by Richard Fischl. Link

    General Tips: (also off the top of my head)

  • Read the Short and Happy Guides to each class prior to classes starting. This will give you a 10,000 ft view, which you need.

  • Get organized (aka get your wife/mom/baby jesus) to make a planner. Make sure you use the damn thing too.

  • Westlaw and Lexis will murder you with so many pretty blue links. Read the entire article (and take physical notes) before clicking a link.

  • DO NOT USE A FUCKING LAPTOP EVERYTHING SHOULD BE ON PAPER It will take forever but you will actually learn it.

  • You need to work harder than you ever have. You must teach yourself to focus. Any random thoughts go onto a note pad that you keep next to yourself at all times.

  • Make an outline from the table of contents--fill it out every Friday after all class.

  • Turn off your phone and laptop when you need to study and study in chunks. When your tired take a walk then go back to work.

  • Technology and games are the enemy. Avoid them at all costs and do not play games before bed.

    Edit Forgot to mention. Law school is about 40% confidence, 50% hard work, and 10% keeping it cool (but really hard work)
u/dbe · 8 pointsr/worldnews

>criminalizing basically the entire Internet will follow

That's the point. They make sure the framework is illegal so they can selectively crack down on anyone they want, any time they want.

Driving works this way too. Speed limits are artificially low so that everyone speeds, and they can pull over whoever they want to fuck with.

Here's a neat book that explains how every single person in America is a wanted criminal, that way the government can pick and choose who they target, any time they want.

u/AnythingApplied · 8 pointsr/comics

Right, and I didn't understand how much resistance you need to give in order for it to be entrapment. Ultimately even if your case ends up being text book entrapment (whatever that is) you still have to convince a courtroom that it is entrapment, so you're still at the mercy of the courts, so your best bet is to avoid all illegal activity (which is practically impossible).

u/mistersavage · 8 pointsr/IAmA

I'm reading a couple of great books. The Dictator's handbook ( and Rebecca Solnit's Hope in the Dark (very good book to read right now- sigh)

u/-AFH- · 8 pointsr/vzla

> Es hora de leer más y dejar usar videos de youtube como argumento

Ese video de youtube se basa en un libro. The Dictator Handbook. Bastante bueno, por cierto.

Si vas a aplicar una de superioridad moral denigrando el mensaje porque viene en la forma de video de youtube, te invito a que leas el libro y aprendas algo (Btw, en Venezuela nos aplicaron una dictadura de "manual").

u/coolcrosby · 8 pointsr/Bad_Cop_No_Donut

See, Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko at:

For confirmation of your position

u/waffle_ss · 8 pointsr/MilitaryPorn

And why is that, you don't think it's a thing? You think people can just write bestselling books about the phenomenon using a lot of hot air? I admit some parts of the book are so over the top I have a hard time believing them myself:

> In all, thirteen California counties were invaded by choppers, some of them blaring Wagner’s "Ride of the Valkyries" as they dropped Guardsmen and law enforcement officers armed with automatic weapons, sandviks, and machetes into the fields of California.

But then I read articles like this one published today all about the overuse of flashbangs by police. One of the vignettes was about a lady who got no-knock raided for selling "a plate of food and six cans of beer without a license." Sounds like a good use of deadly force, a SWAT team and taxpayer dollars to me. /s And of course the article repeated that sickening story about the baby who was badly maimed - almost died - from a flashbang going off in its crib during a raid where the perp wasn't even there. Little guy had to be put in a medically-induced coma for over a month, has already racked up over $1M in medical bills, and will have to have reconstructive surgery every 2 years until he turns 20.

Of course those are just a couple anecdotes. Look into the stats for yourself on the rise and overuse of SWAT units and no-knock raids and see that its a systemic problem. Fact is there is a sizable segment of modern police who like to dress up and play soldier, and the federal gov't subsidizing surplus weapons of war does not help the situation.

u/just_want_to_lurk · 8 pointsr/Shitstatistssay

Three Felonies a Day

> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law

u/cantrunawayfromtruth · 8 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

> a) I don't believe in unverified studies by individuals having agendas

Um, everyone has an agenda. I mean, literally everyone. Does this mean you ignore everyone?

In any case, the guy wrote a book about it. It is very thorough and citations are quite exhaustive. If you don't want to read it, fine. But he makes a completely different point than you think. It is not a political book.

But yeah, it sounds like you have already made up your mind, so there is no point in continuing this.

u/stemgang · 8 pointsr/politics

When the Pentagon Papers were released, no one went to jail. Now Assange and Snowden are fugitives, and Manning is a felon.

Reporters go to jail for not revealing sources. This was back before the media was completely controlled. Now they don't even bother resisting.

The law is a tool in the hands of the powerful, and you are committing 3 felonies a day.

Your "freedom of speech" will last exactly until you say something sufficiently offensive to someone with the power to silence you.

But sure, let's quibble about the difference between reporters and whistle-blowers.

u/cryptoglyph · 8 pointsr/legaladvice

You think you lead a squeaky clean life, but this book ought to sober you up. The federal criminal code is so expansive and so ambiguous in places that it gives US Attorneys the discretion to overzealously charge you with crimes for things you never even considered might be considered crimes.

Don't talk to the police.

u/alwaysDL · 8 pointsr/todayilearned

There is actually this really good book that came out recently called "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness". It talks about how the U.S. Justice system has become this form of racial and social control. Felony charges take you out of the voting pool for life and limit you to what what types of jobs you can and can't get. It's very interesting to say the least.

u/skybelt · 8 pointsr/changemyview

> Law makers making thing illegal because they know it'll effect minority's

Sure, check out this article which quotes Nixon's White House counsel:

> Nixon's White House counsel, John Ehrlichman, verified the intention of the War on Drugs in a 1995 interview with author Dan Baum, author of Smoke and Mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure.

> "Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure," Ehrlichman confessed. "We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue for the Nixon White House that we couldn't resist it."

The Nixon Presidency marked the beginning of the heavy criminalization of drug use. It is not a coincidence that Nixon's most famous contribution to our electoral history was the Southern strategy, designed to win Southern racists over to the Republican Party who were upset with Democratic support of the Civil Rights Movement. That's probably what Ehrlichmann meant about drugs being a "perfect issue for the Nixon White House."

I'm a little busy at work right now so won't address your other point here at the moment, but maybe someone else can find some good sources (there should be many) about police disproportionately interacting with minorities (leading to more arrests etc.). Stop and frisk would be a good example. Edit this article is as good a starting point as any for the various ways in which police disproportionately target minorities.

In general I think The New Jim Crow is an excellent account of many of these issues.

u/witeowl · 8 pointsr/theydidthemath

Here's some reading for you.

And ignoring the oversimplified and outright false accusation that "so many black men abandon their children", what else is wrong? You learn how to be a father from your father. And if your father didn't have the opportunity to learn from his father because they were property? Well, there's another difficulty, isn't there? And it's a difficulty that's not going to go away in one generation in the best of circumstances.

And why is it so far away from being "the best of circumstances"? Well, you could read Slavery by Another Name and The New Jim Crow to see how slavery actually lasted well past its abolishment and how the for-profit prison complex is preventing black people from simply "working past it". It's really such a complicated, horrible web... It's too much for me to try to discuss in one post.

But put simply: No other enslaved group, not the Irish, not the Japanese, not any other group of people has faced the same level of obstruction while attempting to rise up to equality. And if you think that these issues aren't part of the cause rather than the result of crime and drug use and poverty which results in black fathers being taken from their families... well, you're wrong.

u/bokehtoast · 8 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Check out The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, she discusses mass incarceration in relation to the war on drugs and it's relation to institutional racism. I don't know enough on the topic to answer your question but she covers it in detail.

u/shadowsweep · 8 pointsr/geopolitics

Pretty sick of people making false equivalences. Let's be objective here.

The West created an entire fake science to justify centuries of exploitation of "lesser races" that greatly influences modern day ethnic abuse

Then, one tasteless ad or starring or refusal to give a high five = Chinese are soo racist.


It's a false equivalence. It's a farce and only spread to demonize Chinese people. Another example. China builds infrastructure in Africa = colonialism/neoimperialism. It's preposterous especially since these labels come from the most exploitative group of all. I don't need to name them do I?

u/Argonne- · 8 pointsr/worldnews

Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgenderism And Pro-Abortion Arguments

This video was uploaded on the Daily Wire channel, the organization founded and headed by Shapiro.

And here's a book by Shapiro titled "How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument".

u/Aurolak · 7 pointsr/samharris

>By the way the only one of those categories that is a challenge to capitalism is the bleeding heart liberal.


Fact. The real threats to capitalism are the bleeding heart liberals, such as comrade Bono, Robert "Red scare" Redford, and Paul "little Gulag" Mcartney.


>The far left will get her hair dye at Walmart or Amazon


I recognize this rhetorical rapier well. You must be a pupil of the Shapiro method of Leftist Destruction, unquestionably. Former practitioner of the art, I am. I once found myself debating a female and I was like listen you tainted whore, you claim you are a leftist, and yet I see you are wearing shoes that where made by CAPITALISM. Heroic victory.

u/JohnVideogamePlayer · 7 pointsr/Gamingcirclejerk

I got you fam with this you will be able to argue against every libtard.

u/veringer · 7 pointsr/worldnews

> Putin is in power because he's backed by the wealthiest and the military.

Sort of, but we could phrase this is in the reverse. Putin is in power because he enables these people to remain rich and expand their financial empires. And because he distributes or facilitates the distribution of wealth and profits to key military/police factions. In a nutshell he has his hands on enough power/money to:

  • Ensure the baddest men in Russia are on his side and compensated for assuming the risks associated with the difficult wet work necessary to maintain his hold on power (assassinations, cracking skulls, intimidating opposition, etc), and
  • Keep other powerful instruments happy/loyal enough to allow Putin's continued hold on power.

    For more, watch CGP Grey's Rules for Rulers which is based on The Dictator's Handbook. There's also a conversation/video from the author at Big Think.

u/goonsack · 7 pointsr/Cyberpunk

This photo is on the cover of Radley Balko's new book.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces

u/maxtothose · 7 pointsr/slatestarcodex

> Do you have a counterpoint example of "thoughtful social justice advocacy" to help me understand the movement better?

No, I really don't. I don't think I understand the movement myself. That's why I find it plausible that there may be stronger arguments for it that we're all missing.

I may take Nathan up on his offer and read one of those books. Eventually. I've been reading too much nonfiction lately, I'm due for a break. :)

But for a very grey-tribe friendly book that does touch on some social justice issues, check out I liked that book a lot when I read it. However, it's not really a leftist perspective (like, at all.)

u/The_Paul_Alves · 7 pointsr/todayilearned

I highly recommend this book for those who want to learn about all those "terrorists" the FBI has arrested lately:

Step 1: Convince impresionable person to become a terrorist.

Step 2: Give them the training, motivate them to commit the crime and give them a FAKE device to activate.

Step 3: Convince courts to charge people who detonate fake devices with the same crimes as if they had detonated real devices

Step 4: Charge the people you groomed, trained, convinced to destroy America, who you GAVE the "devices" to, who you told where and when to go with the device and who pressed the button YOU told them to with crimes.

Step 5: Security!

Amazing book, worth the read if you are at all interested. Well cited, not an Alex Jones type book.

u/scsimodem · 7 pointsr/KotakuInAction

> So you didn't read it. Then don't comment on it.

I read it, which is how I know it doesn't say really say anything.

> Copyright violation is both civil and criminal.

Copyright violation is only criminal if you directly profit from unauthorized selling, so your example is not a criminal example.

>Laws are very simple, even in total they are quite simple.

Then how come law is a 3 year doctoral level degree and U.S. tax law alone is so complicated that the IRS help line gets a significant chunk of tax questions wrong? The U.S. tax code, printed on paper, could fill a decent sized library. The municipal code of New York city is regularly trotted out on Stossel's show, on paper, in small print, and it's still several feet high.

> The difficulty in law is how laws interact, which laws become more important when they clash, what an appropriate punishment, and most importantly, is there sufficient evidence to prove that the accused actually did X and so on and so on. If act X is criminal or not, is basically always very clear cut.

Wrong. If laws were so clear cut, then court rulings would be unimportant and any idiot could be a judge. Some laws are so vague that it takes thousands of government bureaucrats years to figure out what they mean and write tens of thousands of pages of regulations to delineate the disparate statutes into coherent regulations. The ACA, long and awful as it was, spawned regulations orders of magnitude longer and more awful to implement it.

>And the important part of the quote, is that it highlights that everyone has committed a crime.

And that's the problem.

>Not because they didn't realize it was a crime, but because they simply did not care because they don't think they'll get caught.

Really? Then I'm sure you have the entire federal register of laws, the state register of laws for your state, and the local municipal and county codes memorized to a T. You probably know the exact dimensions and measurements required of the grate that has to go over your firing barrel if you burn trash on your own property. I'm sure you also know how many inches of easement you have to give your neighbors in not planting trees. You probably also know the exact translucency rating of tinting allowed on windows and exactly how many inches of tinting are allowed on your windshield before you can be arrested in your state.

>Do you think people driving too fast are actually unaware that driving too fast is illegal as an example?

That depends. Are they driving on a marked road or do they know the prevailing speed limit of the town on unmarked streets? Do they know the local ordinances adjusting speed limits away from the marked speed depending on road conditions? Do they know what vehicle they are classed as and how that might effect the adjustment to the allowed top speed? Are there any emergency vehicles in the area? How close is the nearest school? Is any building within sight classified as a child care facility?

>Ofc they know, they just think they'll get away with it, and proportionality principle means that they usually will, because it's unproportional to install speed monitoring devices in all cars as an example.

So basically, you think that the quote means that everybody knowingly commits crimes, but that they think they'll get away with it because so few people are caught. Behold:

From the blurb:

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

Said book is Written by:

>Harvey A. Silverglate

Who graduated from Harvard Law School.

The law is not simple, and unless you're sitting on a law degree, 45 years of experience in the law profession, and a legal foundation (FIRE), I think I'm going to take this guy's opinion about it over yours.

Edit: Clarified that I meant the guy who wrote the book, not the guy who wrote the forward that's quoting what the gist of the book is, because the guy I'm debating is a case study in argumentum ad ignoratio elenchi.

u/Kazmarov · 7 pointsr/changemyview

There are serious and endemic issues facing African-Americans today. They are not fairly represented in politics, and people in the inner cities for several reasons have the deck heavily stacked against them. While it's true that through hard work some of them may get out of poverty, it's not at all comparable to the upward mobility of middle-class whites.

The reason the inner city is a crap place to live and grow up is due to several discriminatory policies, including redlining. Black neighborhoods were denied loans and insurance from banks through federal policy dating back to the 1930s. This had several effects. an important one being that black people couldn't get a mortgage in a white neighborhood, they were largely left in the urban core while post WWII whites moved to the suburbs.Since whites had much of the business capital, jobs began to leave the inner city and move out. Thus blacks were now living in a place with few jobs, and the remaining jobs were far away and difficult to access without a car. In sociology this is called a spatial mismatch.

Job discrimination is rampant and inhibits blacks from getting careers with promotion opportunities. A famous sociological study called "The Mark of a Criminal Record" (PDF) found a large racial disparity when confederates applied for jobs. In one set, both white and black individuals applied for jobs without stating a criminal record, in the other they stated they DID have a criminal record. The end result (p. 958) is that blacks without a criminal record get fewer callbacks than whites with a criminal record. In a more recent study it was found that people with "black-sounding" names had to send 50% more applications to get a callback than people with white-sounding names.

The criminal justice system is rife with racial discrimination:

>On average, blacks receive almost 10% longer sentences than comparable whites arrested for the same crimes. At least half this gap can be explained by initial charging choices, particularly the filing of charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Prosecutors are, ceteris paribus, almost twice as likely to file such charges against blacks.


Mandatory minimum sentences tend to be for crimes that blacks commit more frequently than whites. In murder cases, whites that kill blacks serve shorter sentences than blacks who kill whites, and blacks are far more likely to get the death penalty.

There are far more things that could be addressed. Blacks are packed into gerrymandered districts that were originally meant to get blacks elected to legislative office. Now they are used to ensure that most districts have virtually no black constituency. It's part of why Democrats (a party almost universally supported by blacks) have gotten more votes in congressional elections yet still are a minority in the House.

There's the issue that blacks get less pre-K education and are chronically behind their white peers. The family and economic background that black student have matters a huge amount:

>Understanding the reasons why so many black and brown Americans enter adulthood with extremely weak skills and low educational attainments is central to figuring out how to change the future. Poverty and inadequate family resources are a key piece of the problem. One in four children of color lives in poverty. Two of three black children and one of three Hispanic children live in a single-parent family. The low resource levels available to support these children’s initial development means that most come to school not ready to learn.

>The low quality of the schools black and brown children attend is another critical piece of the problem. Children of color tend to be concentrated in low achieving, highly segregated schools.


Simply put, if your parents have a bad education, they can't help you do assignments- or because they work long hours as a single parent, they're hardly around to supervise whether their children are doing academic work- or avoiding falling in with the wrong crowd. To add an anecdotal bit to this post, I was tutoring a minority kid in a school with a low local reputation. He was near tears because I wasn't able to help him finish his math homework- he couldn't do it at home because neither of his parents understood 5th grade math. Few middle-class whites have a similar problem.

Conclusion: The people at your school are mostly correct. While slavery is not a good metaphor, a hugely influential book on racism in mass incarceration has came out in 2010. It is called The New Jim Crow.

Colonialism is an appropriate term in some cases. Also, just because segregation policies and their ilk were ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean their effects don't exist here, in 2013. White flight, redlining, and spatial mismatch no longer play as much of a role in racial wealth disparity as they used to, but it's why blacks live in inner cities and whites usually aren't.

Hiring discrimination exists and there is huge amounts of research to show that it is serious. The fact that whites with a criminal record are more sought after than blacks with no criminal record whatsoever should point to a system that is rotten.

The American Dream idea that people can succeed through hard work is an idea. It is not policy, it is not a law. Are we going to fault the new generation of black teens and young adults for being in poverty, when several generations before were as well? Are we going to fault them for not getting a good-paying job, when they don't exist in their neighborhoods and they have to compete with whites on an unfair playing field?

This isn't to say that some whites aren't in the same bind. Nor is to say that all whites are racist or don't understand what privilege is. But the evidence is stark- African-Americans don't have things pretty good.

u/mario_meowingham · 7 pointsr/politics

Chemerinsky literally writes textbooks on constitutional law.

u/JSN824 · 7 pointsr/911dispatchers

There is a slippery slope between a drink to get through a really hard day, then a drink to get through a sort of hard day, and then a drink to get through every day.

I don't mean to sound alarmist about it but there is a reason alcoholism tends to run in the industry. If its just a bad day, walk it off, move on. If its more, please consider speaking to someone and getting support.

Also, I always recommend Gilmartin's Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement even though its meant for officers' it applies to first responders in general.

u/dontbedick · 7 pointsr/ProtectAndServe
u/ArbiterOfTruth · 7 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

Emotional Survival For Law Enforcement is a book that deals with this exact issue, and even describes it the exact same way as you do.

It's well worth reading, if you're a cop, or just in a relationship with one.

u/mostlyLSAT · 7 pointsr/LSAT

They are cheapest if you buy the books of ten instead of single preptests. The titles are a little confusing, so check to see which test numbers are included. Here are the three most recent (and most relevant):

Preptests 72-81

Preptests 62-71

Preptests 52-61

u/sotheysaidthen · 7 pointsr/worldnews

It's more like the girlfriend who kept cheating on you over the years with different people is now being caught doing an orgy on webcam.

History repeats itself if we don't prosecute criminals.

u/SatAnCapv3 · 7 pointsr/Shitstatistssay

They'll never allow books like that in there.

u/bready · 7 pointsr/AskReddit

So you think. I'm certain you've committed more felonies than you know.

u/KeeperOfThePeace · 7 pointsr/videos

You're launching into odd free speech strawman arguments when I never said white people shouldn't be able to talk about race. I'm only saying that on this topic, white people should consider their inexperience and measure their comments out of respect for furthering the discussion in a meaningful way. It doesn't mean "don't say anything." It means come at it as a person trying to learn something rather than a person who believes he's automatically equally qualified on the matter. It would be like me talking to a physicist about dark matter and pretending I'm his equal. I just wouldn't come at a physicist like that in a discussion because I recognize my own inexperience.

Also, I strongly disagree with you that colorblindness will ever result in a substantially positive change for minorities. I've been reading material regarding race relations, academic and not, for nearly eight years and it only reinforces the idea of deep systemic inequality. The playing field is not level right now, and it will never become level by not talking about the problem or attempting to actively solve it. The more you learn, the clearer it gets.

Here's a book to get you started on systemic inequality for blacks:

u/doc_daneeka · 7 pointsr/AskReddit

Read this first

The justice system is utterly broken. From top to bottom.

u/Looger · 7 pointsr/TrueReddit

I think it's naive to say the rich conspired in some form as an attack on the poor and middle class. However the fact is that the income gap between rich and poor is widening by nearly every metric. The rich are getting richer.

It's also extremely difficult for poor people to get by in America. Here's a good book describing the broken policies that make the cards stacked against the poor.

Tied into that is institutional racism. Minorities, especially blacks, are unfairly targeted by the war on drugs, incarcerated, then labeled a felon and stripped of their rights. The New Jim Crow describes the policies and reasons that the war on drugs is effectively enforcing racial caste in America.

It's important to gain a deeper understanding of these issues if they are to be solved. All of these issues are visible to us on a surface level, but without a deeper understanding it can seem that the rich are actively trying to bleed out the poor.

These issues are not so much an agenda as they are something that emerges from our collective behavior. For example, studies have shown that many of us who do not identify as racist still exhibit conscious and unconscious biases. Our biases affect our society. Cynicism and pointing fingers gets us nowhere. Change starts with ourselves and we are all responsible.

u/MisterMannyLaTranny · 7 pointsr/politics
u/WinoWithAKnife · 7 pointsr/politics

That's not what I said. I didn't say that now is the worst time. I said that we've been collectively pretending there is NO racism, and now more people are realizing just how wrong that is. Just because it's better than it was in the 1890s doesn't mean we've solved the problem.

A lot of white people, especially since the 80s, were raised with the idea that being "colorblind" is the ideal, but are now starting to realize that doing so ignores the fact that black people live a different experience in this country than white people. Part of solving that problem is recognizing that basic fact, which requires "seeing color", and then coming up with solutions that take that into account. "Colorblind" solutions often just give discretion to those in power, which ends up reinforcing the racial disparities that are already written into our society. (Edit: I highly recommend The New Jim Crow, which examines this through the lens of our justice system)

(As a side note, I think there's a decent case that racism in the US reached its lowest point sometime 2-5 years ago, and has increased since then. It's definitely come to the surface more)

u/TheQuakerSocialist · 7 pointsr/politics

Read "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" by Michelle Alexander:

It takes everything you think you know about the drug war and takes it to another level, all while making you rage.

u/ken579 · 7 pointsr/politics

Can we please also remember that the Controlled Substance Act came about in an attempt to combat civil equality. So groups that benefit from inequality and racism are also at play here, which could very well mean everyone that benefits from the low wages in America.

Relevant read: The New Jim Crow

u/TeardropsFromHell · 7 pointsr/news

When you make enough laws everyone is guilty of something. Once you commit a crime they can do what they want to you.

u/MarvinaFaustino · 7 pointsr/GoldandBlack

> Most of the examples given were where police used the tech to identify people at a rally that had outstanding warrants and then arrested them.

This combined with the idea of Three Felonies A Day (How the Feds Target the Innocent) can really lead to some draconian, selectively enforced punishments.

u/Steve132 · 7 pointsr/LibertarianPartyUSA

Fugitive Slaves were criminals too. So were people who harboured jews. So are people who own both weed and firearms, even in a state where both are separately legal. So are people who watch movies on streaming sites, or take an expired painkiller. So are people who run lemonaide stands or have ever traded even $1 of cryptocurrency for cash without being a licensed money transmitter. So are jaywalkers and people who run bake sales without a food production license (in lots of states).

All of the above are criminals.

What the hell kind of libertarian are you who gives a shit about people who break the laws of the state in terms of whether or not they are technically guilty of a crime? You're guilty of literally hundreds of crimes. I bet you've already hit at least one felony today.

Who gives a shit if illegal immigrants are "technically criminals"? If they aren't otherwise violating the NAP then I don't give a shit and the state can suck my dick.

u/tiger32kw · 7 pointsr/technology
u/corey_m_snow · 7 pointsr/politics

Then you are absolutely a criminal, at least by your own definition. Not having been caught for a traffic violation or other minor infraction doesn't mean you never committed one.

You're actually almost certain to be a felon who has committed crimes that are punishable by actual prison, but simply don't know you did so.

This is an interesting read on the topic:

u/JohnnyCutler · 7 pointsr/HuntsvilleAlabama

Relevant link;

> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.

u/preventDefault · 7 pointsr/ronpaul

If you think the War on Drugs is fucked up now, wait until you read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

If books aren't your thing, there's a ~1hr talk from the author free on iTunes (Ep. 98) where she pretty much sums up the entire book. Makes for a good listen at the gym or in the car.

I was always opposed to the War on Drugs based on my libertarian beliefs, but after reading that book, it really makes me sick to my stomach.

> Jarvious Cotton cannot vote. Like his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, he has been denied the right to participate in our electoral democracy. Cotton’s family tree tells the story of several generations of black men who were born in the United States but who were denied the most basic freedom that democracy promises—the freedom to vote for those who will make the rules and laws that govern one’s life. Cotton’s great-great-grandfather could not vote as a slave. His great-grandfather was beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan for attempting to vote. His grandfather was prevented from voting by Klan intimidation. His father was barred from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole.

Drug use rates are very similar between blacks and whites, but the far majority of those targeted for by The War on Drugs are people of color. Her book really makes you sick when you find out why. ಠ_ಠ

u/ThreeTimesUp · 6 pointsr/news

> Rules are rules.

Absolute BULLSHIT.

Consider what a 'rule' is. Every 'rule' is a sweeping generalization in which the promulgator of the 'rule' taxed his/her command of the language in an attempt to say what was really meant - and very, very few of us are truly skilled at that task, most especially the average school administrator, and most, most especially, School Board members whose real skills lie primarily in winning elections.

NO 'rule' can cover every single situation the 'rule' is meant to encompass - and a great many rules sweep in others that the 'rule' was never intended to encompass (see Three Felonies A Day (Amazon)).

MOST 'rules' represent a failure of the language skills and foresight of those crafting the 'rules'.


Proms have age limits for a reason.

Oh, please, great enlightened one, what IS that 'reason'?

This was an AUTISTIC boy whose SISTER volunteered to be his date.

If you cannot grasp the permissibility AND appropriateness of that, then, should you have any progeny, they are GUARANTEED to end up in therapy.

tl;dr: What would your thoughts be had it been his MOTHER who was his 'prom date'?

u/protestor · 6 pointsr/worldnews

It's the title of a decent book.

Here's a random article found at Google about this phenomenon.

It's most troubling because laws are enforced unevenly: everyone commits felonies but some groups within the population are much more likely to be targeted by law enforcement. It's an effective way to give a clothing of legality to glaring abuse of the criminal system. (an example of such corrupt behavior is the kids for cash scandal, in which for-profit detention centers bribed judges to sentence minors)

u/shade404 · 6 pointsr/politics

> All I'm saying is you legally enter a country, or legally remain in a country past your legal residency status, then yes, you can be deported.

well, yeah, but the way the codes are written these days, everyone is guilty of something (and this is very much by design)

u/TraderSteve · 6 pointsr/Bitcoin

When freedom is outlawed, freedom lovers become criminals. A well-known book titled Three Felonies a Day says it all.

u/sysiphean · 6 pointsr/LifeProTips

Not possible. Or at the least, not possible to know whether or not you are breaking any laws. At best, one can refrain from breaking laws one knows or suspects exist.

u/Danderson334 · 6 pointsr/TrueReddit

>So racism is a combination of that inherent distrustfulness, tied together with cultural stereotypes about different groups. So maybe we'll never be truly rid of racism; the best we can do is teach our children about these negative thoughts, and learn to examine those thoughts for real truth.

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you on this point. While there is certainly a personal aspect to racism, to reduce it to a mere combination of "inherent distrustfulness" and "cultural sterotypes" is to ignore the vast systemic issues that constitute true racism. Under your definition, only persons can be racist. How then are we to critique - for example - the carceral state in America, in which blacks are imprisoned at a significantly higher rate than whites. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009.[41] According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population. (Elizabeth Anderson recently wrote a very well argued book on this issue)

Any constructive discussion of race in America (which I am attending to specifically, forgive me if you are a non-American, it is the area in which I am familiar) must, necessarily, attend to systemic issues of economic exploitation, cultural devaluation, and political disenfranchisement as well as the personal prejudice and cultural stereotypes that underlie individual participation (not to discount apathy and fear, which play a significant role) in the maintenance of a system of racial domination.

Some critical race theorists whose work I find very prescient are David Theo Goldberg and Charles Mills.

(thanks for jump starting the conversation by the way, it is much appreciated)

Edit: realized they were Aussies, but I find that the point about focusing on individual prejudice rather than systemic oppression still stands.

u/marymango1 · 6 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

I'm not so sure I agree with this analogy. It doesn't address the fact that the question is flawed in the first place. The problem with it is that assumes that black people don't also organize against the crime in their communities, which happens at so many levels. There are many, many people trying to make their communties better who speak out against crime, but the OP isn't bothering to see if any such action is happening. He might not be aware of all the black people trying to address violence, but the question assumes that black people don't do anything at all.

On another level, high crime rates are very much the result of systemic forces that have existed in our country for centuries, but going into that is going to make this comment turn into a book, and the book has already been written.

u/GotTheBloodlustPerry · 6 pointsr/NetflixBestOf

I haven't seen this doc yet (just added it to my list!), but it reminds me of an amazing book I just read called The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, about how the felony and incarceration system in the US limits the rights of african americans in a way similar to the Jim Crow segregation laws. I was skeptical of the scope of the problem at first, but the book was really convincing- I'd recommend it if you're interested in learning more about our prison system and how messed up it is.

u/SerPuissance · 6 pointsr/news

[I'm not sure about that mate.] ( American PD's look more to me like standing armies every day.

u/AbsurdistMonk · 6 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them:

Among Shapiro’s rules for beating the left in confrontations are:

  • Be willing to take a punch. (conservatives tend to shy away from confrontations because the left is rhetorically violent; but it is important “to walk toward the fire.” )
  • Hit hard, hit first. (leftists stage muggings; instead of fighting by Marquis of Queensberry rules, conservatives need to accept the strategy Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”)
  • Immediately frame the debate. (“When you’re discussing global warming , for example, the proper question is not whether man is causing global warming but whether man can fix global warming—a question to which the universally acknowledged answer is no unless we are willing to revert to the pre industrial age.”)

    There are eight more rules that will allow a conservative to debate a leftist and destroy him. How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them is not just a “how to” book. It is a survival manual.
u/gregmck · 6 pointsr/math

I've been sort of recreationally fascinated by similar thoughts for a couple years now.

Some readings/topics I've stumbled across, not necessarily mathematical but aligned to your theme:

u/insecuritytheater · 6 pointsr/news

Radley Balko's book Rise of the Warrior Cop briefly touches on how rarely judges turn down search warrants. Rather depressing. Don't have a citation for which pages, sorry.

u/jjeremyharrelson · 6 pointsr/worldpolitics

This is silly. Did you wake up this morning and decide to take up geopolitics as a pastime?

Most of the readers here are too far into this to waste time giving history lessons.

If you want to brush up on the subject here are a few books to start with:

Read these books and then do your own research and look into the claims for yourself. Most of his claims are common knowledge, and have been widely reported with frequency over the past decade. They are easily researchable with rudimentary search engine skills.

Your burden of proof logic games are misguided and add nothing to such a prima facia discussion

u/SwampDrainer · 6 pointsr/Libertarian

No shit? Was this ever in doubt? THIS IS WHAT THEY DO.

u/HunterIV4 · 6 pointsr/FeMRADebates

> If every law on the books were perfectly enforced, almost everyone would be in jail.

Agreed, but this is, in my view, a problem with the law, not responsibility. We have far too many stupid laws in existence, and not enough mechanisms to eliminate them. Harvey Silverglate has an excellent book on this topic from a business standpoint, and Matt Taibbi has another fantastic one demonstrating it from a criminal vs. white collar crime perspective. I'm personally a huge critic of American copyright law, which makes most normal internet behavior illegal in some way.

>I would love it if everyone played by the rules and the rules were relaxed a bit from what they currently are and we held people responsible.

I wasn't just talking about responsibility when it comes to the law, I was talking about responsibility in a general sense. Changing your oil is a responsibility, but there's no law requiring it nor forbidding it (yet, I guess...sigh). Women should be held to the same legal standards as men, but they should also be held to the same general responsibility as men. Even if the behavior isn't illegal, if a man and women are drunk and have sex, it's usually assumed that the man was responsible for the behavior.

>Ultimately I agree with you, everyone should be responsible. Do you think that is possible with the current laws on the books? Practical?

No, but that's because we aren't holding politicians accountable. The U.S. Congress has been absolutely negligent in their duties for the past hundred years, ceding almost all of their power to the executive and judicial branch. Many of the laws you are talking about were never passed by an elected representative; they are policies of appointed bureaucrats in agencies Congress created so they wouldn't have to bother doing their job.

I'm not really arguing that people should be responsible, I'm arguing they are responsible, whether they admit it or not. Neglecting to take action is a failure of responsibility. So while I'd love to cut about 90% of federal laws and virtually all executive departments, I don't think it's an issue that's going to be addressed until people start thinking of responsibility as something they have rather than something other people will take care of for them.

u/AlSweigart · 6 pointsr/politics

The comparison to slavery is apt: The New Jim Crow goes into detail about how the drug war and spike in mass incarceration is being used not to keep dangerous criminals locked up but as for-profit social control, much like how vagrancy laws were used to lock up blacks and put them to work after slavery was abolished.

u/Geek-U-S-A · 6 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

> What new Jim Crow laws are you talking about?

Primarily mass incarceration, but also continued redlining, police brutality, etc. I recommend reading this book, it's amazing.

> What do you mean by “have this”?

Let them have their own film and simply be a guest in this space, e.g., not being a cop and dressing up as black panther.

> By letting black people “have this” does that mean no one can buy it on DVD? Or that they can’t buy the merchandise or listen to the music?

No and no (meaning you can do those things). It's mostly about respect. We should partake, not take.

u/saintofhate · 6 pointsr/GamerGhazi

If anyone wants to learn more about Number 6, there'a good book called "The New Jim Crow" which goes into detail of some of the shadiness that was engaged in. Also, Cracked doesn't mention it but this era of time is where vagrancy laws came from.

u/rpgamer28 · 6 pointsr/changemyview

> Whites don't have the ability to put their pitfalls on racism. Whites are thought to automatically be advantaged compared to blacks simply because of their skin color, so not being accountable for their actions is bogus.

It seems like we aren't even talking about the same thing anymore. You have some kind of narrative that black people aren't taking responsibility for something and it's not fair because black people can blame their problems on racism. But that is not the question that you discuss at the top of the tin.

I am talking about whether the difference in outcomes between US black people and US white people on a population level can be blamed on racism. The fact is, not much distinguishes black people from white people in this country except for the legacy of slavery and racism. The entire meaning we attribute to "blackness," and why we compile statistics on whites and blacks but not blue eyed people vs brown eyed people or brown haired people vs black haired people, is a consequence of that history, and a legacy of racism. No amount of apologetics or attempts to shift blame can elide that history.

> Does that legacy of racism get to last forever? Does it get to supersede the consequence of our actions?

Again, either we are talking past each other here, or your reasoning is difficult for me to understand. The legacy of racism lasts as long as the legacy of racism lasts, and it's still going plain and simple. Slavery lasted 300 years, and Jim Crow lasted another 100 before the civil rights movement. Even if you think that racism is over now, you don't undo that all in ~50 years.

Then recently we've had decades of the harsh punishment and overincarceration of black men, redlining, toxic mortgage loans targeted disproportionately at racial minorities... A good summary of very recent acts of discrimination is here, and a great book on our racially unjust system of incarceration is here.

Just because we all want the legacy of racism to be over doesn't mean it is, or that people asserting the bald truth that it still exists are looking for excuses for the "consequences of our actions." If anything, it's the other way around. People seem determined to turn a blind eye to the consequences of our actions as a nation, and to whitewash our history towards that end.

> I'm not getting why we can ignore the actions.

I explicitly said at the top that we can't. People obviously and trivially bear personal responsibility for their actions. But nevertheless, the difference in population level outcomes is attributable to historical and present racism within the United States.

u/okayfrog · 6 pointsr/changemyview

>Another claim made by BLM is that they are regularly targeted by police officers in an unfair manner. This can be attributed to the fact that blacks commit a highly disproportionate amount of crime.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for officers to treat all blacks poorly because blacks are more likely to be criminals? I hope you're able to see why that would be a problem.

I would also suggest reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It doesn't shy away from the fact that a larger percentage of blacks than whites commit crimes in America. What it focuses on is the fact that the punishment for these crimes are usually unfairly more harsher for blacks than whites. It also brings up the fact that poorer blacks are more likely to be targeted than poorer whites despite having similar crime rates.

There is most certainly a problem, it's just not so much in the open as in other countries.

u/boristhebulletdodger · 6 pointsr/guns

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.

u/MosDaf · 6 pointsr/criticalthinking

First: you've already taken a huge step by recognizing the problem. Some people are so bad at this stuff that they don't even recognize that they're bad at it. That's an almost hopeless position to be in. Especially people in the sciences often have a false sense of confidence about this stuff.

Second: it's damn hard and there's no easy route to getting better. You might get a CT textbook, but, honestly, most of them aren't very good/helpful.

I teach CT at the university level, and, though it's a freshman-level class, It's one of the hardest classes Iv'e ever taught. I've wasted way, way more time and energy trying to figure out how to do it well than I should have.

Honestly, I'd have a hard time giving manageable bits of advice, but here's a go at it:

[1] Get a copy of a collection of old LSATs and work through a few problems every day/week/whatever. Like this one:

These are really good little problems. They're better than the exercises in most college-level CT texts. Yes, they're multiple-choice, and short, and a bit cartoonish in a certain respect...but they're very well-crafted, and you can check the answers.

It's the so-called logical reasoning problems that are really most helpful--i.e. not the reading comprehension problems or the analytic puzzles (ten monkeys sitting around a table; first monkey passes a block to the third monkey blah blah blah)--though those are also helpful.

[2] Find and follow some people who are good reasoners. I'm mostly sort of a centrist liberal, so my recommendations will be a bit skewed, but off the top of my head:
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
Fareed Zacharia at CNN
Jonathan Chait at various places

[3] Most importantly, strive for honesty and fair-mindedness. Don't be dragged into the cesspool of rhetoric and debate. Just honestly ask yourself: what are some reasons for the thesis? what are some reasons against it? Are there any obvious problems with any of those reasons? Most people err in one of two ways: (a) they just aren't curious and don't care, or (b) they care...and so they end up getting committed to one side of the disagreement...and start consciously or unconsciously cheating.

[4] Also, PM me if you like, and I can send you some stuff and talk more about this stuff. I'm actually way better than average as a CT instructor...which means, IMO, that I still suck at it...but not as much as most.

There's no magic bullet--but you can get yourself on a trajectory toward improvement.

[p.s.: I kinda sorta disagree with chriswrightmusic, because I think that the fallacies are often of limited value, especially if not handled correctly...but I don't completely disagree with him.]

u/PrestonPicus2016 · 6 pointsr/SandersForPresident

We have to make the government's actions public and keep our private lives private. It's terrifying to see what Glenn Greenwald uncovered:

Patriot Act goes too far, FISA courts have no real oversight capacity, the whole thing is a mess.

We have to start by applying the law. If you do something illegal, as the NSA did, as many of these agencies did, there have to be consequences. This is the problem with so much of our system: no consequences. Illegally spy on Americans? No consequence. Illegally kidnap and torture innocent people because you thought they were terrorists? No consequences.

Heck, even Dick Cheney, who was wrong about almost every single thing he did as VP, still gets to go on TV and sell himself as some kind of expert. It's amazing.

When these organizations break the law, someone besides the whistleblower has to go to jail.

u/hererinchina · 6 pointsr/worldnews

Companies made up of criminals, in this case. Who else do you think actually commits the crimes?

Of course, the Obama administration also directly grants immunity to single criminals:

"In court papers filed today ... the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law."

These aren't singular "looking forward in a spirit of forgiveness" cases, as politicians like to present them. These are actions which help future crimes, as everyone gets the message that with a high enough standing, no court can hurt you. This follows a pattern going back to not just the pardoned Nixon. Glenn Greenwald, who works with whistleblower Snowden, wrote an excellent book on the subject.

u/Dark-Ulfberht · 6 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

The justice system is horribly broken. It can and does, perhaps not by design, take perfectly functioning people and put them into an endless cycle of criminality.

Let us not mention the sheer number of laws that exist, many of which are simply inane.

u/real_nice_guy · 5 pointsr/LawSchool

>That is, I don't plan on practicing law, but rather I'd look to study civil rights law and constitutional history so as to improve my prospects as a professor of political theory

Go buy this book, read it cover to cover, and save yourself the 150k of debt you'd need to go into just to take a semester/year long class in Con law.

Getting a JD will do nothing at all for your career prospects after your PhD unless you want to become an actual attorney.

u/aelphabawest · 5 pointsr/LawSchool

My school has a repository at our library for old exams - both the questions and what the professor considered a "good exam." Maybe yours does as well? Worth reading if so.

It is absolutely not a knowledge dump. The rule of thumb you'll hear a lot is some variation of IRACC (issue, rule, analysis, counter argument, conclusion). You're looking for the gaps. You're looking to apply the knowledge you learned.

You may want to read Getting to Maybe.

u/rutterkin · 5 pointsr/LawSchool

I did the Kaplan prep course and it was really helpful when I went into the LSAT. Recommended. You can probably get an old one cheap.

I also really recommend the book "Getting to Maybe," which will give you a really good idea of what law school is going to be like, particularly law school exams.

u/ambitious_eyes · 5 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

Good book for dealing with a cop's life and stress is

It is also good to give to significant others or family to help them realize what you may going through.

u/Rustic_E · 5 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

These books have helped me tremendously through the hiring process so far. I took recommendations from friends and acquaintances in law enforcement and from searching through previous threads on this subreddit.

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

Emotional survival for law enforcement: A guide for officers and their families

Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion, Updated Edition

u/DonQuixote18 · 5 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

I haven’t read it yet, but I’ve been recommended this book and have heard really good things about it.

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement by Kevin M. Gilmartin, Ph.D.

u/clobster5 · 5 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

No problem. Also, this is the book some of us mentioned. It's an important read for officers and their spouses.

u/trainyourbrainmike · 5 pointsr/LSAT

Ugh, yes, please update your materials - those were outdated in 2015. Get some of these (later ones are better, so 52-61, 62-71, and the new ones are almost definitely enough if you study properly and efficiently):

  • for 72+, you have to buy them individually (search Amazon or the internet)
  • PrepTests 62-71
  • PrepTests 52-61
  • PrepTests 29-38
  • PrepTests 19-28
  • PrepTests 7, 9-16, 18

    Superprep isn't horrible, but there is much better strategy out there. A lot of people like 7sage and the Trainer for self-study.

    Kaplan, Princeton Review, Blueprint, Powerscore, and Manhattan are all OK too, especially as classroom courses or tutoring (though that gets really stupidly expensive). They each have their strengths and weaknesses and one of them got the job done for me many years ago, but they tend to not be as highly rated on here for self-study.
u/rdancer · 5 pointsr/HillaryForPrison

The two parties are the product of the voting system. The corruption is a separate issue, having to do with elite immunity.

u/ugottabe · 5 pointsr/politics

> authorized a variety of actions that had no pretense of law

Retroactive immunity? Check.
Pardoning of lawbreakers? Check.
Widening of laws to make legal what wasn't? Check.
Criminializing those who talk about this? Check.

Now guess which country I'm talking about...

u/CaptInappropriate · 5 pointsr/videos

Did you watch the video? I watch it about twice a year, and i have his follow-up book on my phone’s kindle app.

The book’s big takeaway is you should assert your 6TH amendment rights, vice pleading the fifth, because the 6th gets you your lawyer before the cops can ask you questions, and your lawyer tells you to shutup. Too many people have it in their mind that asserting your fifth amendment rights against self incrimination is something that only a guilty person would do, and saying the sixth doesnt have that widespread perception (yet).

If you didnt watch the video. Watch it.

Imagine you had an ex who lived in the next neighborhood over, and they died. The cops talk to you because the ex is always the one who did it, but you didnt, so you answer their questions to clear your name. When they ask if you were in that neighborhood, you say “i’ve not been their for YEARS!” but the cops already have a witness who says they saw someone who looks like you with a car like yours creepin around that neighborhood on the day of the murder. You get hauled in front of a jury, and a cop and a witness say you were there, and you look like a dirty liar and risk going to jail, whereas if you HADNT said anything, the cops would have a random witness and nothing about you being a dirty liar.

Worth watching the full thing.

u/cassander · 5 pointsr/books

In a similar vein is Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. haven't read it, but it comes highly recommended.

u/huadpe · 5 pointsr/changemyview

>In this case, I don't know if I agree. This statute was clearly enacted prior to electronic correspondence being a widespread communication method and as such does not cover it. The intent of the law, however, does seem to be to cover all methods of disseminating information in written form. The courts have extended such older definitions to cover electronic distribution in other cases to comply with the spirit of the law and such an extension would seem reasonable in this case.

I'm not talking about paper versus electronic though. If there's a PDF with "TOP SECRET" digitally stamped on it, then she'd still meet that element of the charge. Rather, the question is whether mental knowledge is encompassed by the statute. Mental knowledge certainly existed when the statute was written. If she wrote the information out herself, especially given her status as an original classification authority, it's very hard to prove a violation of section (f).

>And there is where we philosophically differ and is the underpinning of why we see this from opposing solutions. I don't agree with that tradition at all -- the POTUS should be held to the highest standards given the power and importance of that position. If there is evidence that they should be tried for a crime, then they should be tried for that crime and let the justice system work the way it is intended for every American. A POTUS candidate shouldn't get a pass on potentially illegal activity just because they are a POTUS candidate; it is that selectivity and elitism that has so many people up in arms about the disconnectedness of Washington insiders.

I think the reason I find this so troublesome is that the scope of Federal criminal law is so vast that everyone is guilty of something. If you start aggressively using Federal criminal law against candidates, you're going to convict all of them of something. And that gets you the past month in Brazil. Much like if you aggressively investigated almost any ordinary American you'd likely be able to convict them of something.

u/eyeofthecodger · 5 pointsr/Firearms

Exactly. And isn't this the real issue with 1984-type surveillance? What is that book? Three Felonies a Day - How the Feds target the innocent.

u/pelijr · 5 pointsr/Android
u/ten24 · 5 pointsr/politics

This lawyer says the number is around three per day for the average American, if they were all prosecuted per the letter of the law.

It's truly a frightening read.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

u/GayMakeAndModel · 5 pointsr/bestoflegaladvice

I very much dislike selective law enforcement in situations where the prosecutor has a slam-dunk case. If it’s not practical to prosecute in all cases where someone runs afoul of the law, the government is basically putting the sword of Damocles over the citizenry’s head. Don’t you dare piss off a wealthy person or be black because that sword can fall at any time.

u/Dragonfly-Aerials · 5 pointsr/Multicopter

> So basically same old government just now with drone regulation too.

Correct. Laws for us, none for them. Accountability is the last thing that any government agency wants. They HATE having the laws applied to them. That's why government agencies give each other free passes. The FBI very rarely applies the law (they refuse to investigate crimes that local police commit) when it comes to other agencies.

That is why discretion needs to go away. If facts support an investigation, and a citizen requests one, then the investigation should be done, or else the employees need to get fired with prejudice (no chance for re-hire).

It's the only way to get accountability and justice when the government is so content to violate citizen's rights.

u/Hq3473 · 5 pointsr/Pikabu

>что в США все очень любят судиться

Ну, есть некоторые люди которые любят. Специально могут "поскользнуться" на ступеньке в магазине, например. А потом в суд.

Но в основном, нет. Большая часть людей идут в суд потому что нужно, а не потому что хочется. Например много разводов сопровождаются судом, потому что не могут миром поделить дом и время детей.

> некоторые законы написано чисто для того, чтобы поставить лоха незадачливого незнающего на деньги/срок.

На уровне штатов, наверное нет. Если не считать жестокие законы против наркоты.

На федеральном уровне - да. Кому надо, статью найдут. Но это для "особых" лиц (в большинстве случаев).

Вот хорошая книга про это -

Лично я на практике не сталкивался.

u/unclenoriega · 5 pointsr/NeutralTalk

That is a very narrow view. Maybe read this book.

u/positronicman · 5 pointsr/Defense_Distributed

This segment of the comic, on strict liability, is about a 10 minute read. Stick with it, it's worth the read!

  • Solid primer on what these legal terms mean, where they came from, and how they've evolved in the US legal system.
  • Nice historical contextualization to the larger problem of runaway, crufty law.
  • Couple of good Three Felonies a Day real world examples

  • As an aside, check out A Crime a Day for exactly what it sounds like

    This ought to make a good educational share for those hanging out in the land of the Twittiots.

    edit: formatting
u/openmindedidiot · 5 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

> Cue all the guys whining about how this will infringe on their right to peep.

[i]942.08 (3) Whoever knowingly installs or uses any device, instrument, mechanism, or contrivance to intentionally view, broadcast, or record under the outer clothing of an individual that individual's genitals, pubic area, breast, or buttocks, including genitals, pubic area, breasts, or buttocks that are covered by undergarments, or to intentionally view, broadcast, or record a body part of an individual that is not otherwise visible[/i]

Just need to find a person that cannot legally see without glasses and have another person bend over in front of them wearing a short skirt/kilt. At that point the first person can be arrested for a felony and needs to defend themselves.

u/LIGHTNINGBOLT23 · 5 pointsr/politics

>The law is a tool in the hands of the powerful, and you are committing 3 felonies a day..

And the first highest helpful tagged Amazon review said this:

>The product description of this book on (the US site) starts by claiming that "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day". So I was keen to find out what crimes these might be, that ordinary people were unconsciously committing in such profusion. Sadly, that is something you cannot learn by reading this book. As far as I can ascertain, there is literally no mention of "three crimes a day" or anything similar on any of its pages, from the foreword by Alan M Dershowitz to the index.

Come on.

>Your "freedom of speech" will last exactly until you say something sufficiently offensive to someone with the power to silence you.

Sufficiently offensive =/= illegal outright. Nobody genuinely cares what you have to say in the "free world" countries, what you're trying to actually say is those with power only hate free speech when it exposes corruption, instead you muddled your own message in conspiracy fears.

u/PhilosoGuido · 5 pointsr/Conservative

Even the sleazy NYT didn't say he lied. Nice editorializing. So they found a paperwork issue. Let 69 accountants pour over every detail of your life and lets see what they find. Hell, there are over 175,000 pages of federal regulation and even this liberal law professor estimates that the average persons probably commits 3 felonies a day and doesn't know it.

u/Singlemalt_28 · 5 pointsr/politics

It's the subject of a book written by Harvey Silverglate. Here is the summary from Amazon (*note: I have not read this book):

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

u/wcg66 · 5 pointsr/worldnews

Many people don't really know exactly what could constitute incrimination. People are committing crimes that they may think are innocuous actions of regular people. An interesting book was written on this : Three Felonies a Day :

u/Aneirin · 5 pointsr/postnationalist

Yeah, well she's a criminal illegal trespasser alien invader! She broke the LAW! Along with almost all Americans at one point or another!

u/sc2012 · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

You'd be surprised that today, it's rare to be black in an all-white neighborhood. Even education today is more segregated than it was in 1968 (the height of the civil rights movement).

"White flight" has resulted in all-minority neighborhoods in America. This results in less funding for local schools, lower property values, and fewer businesses wanting to establish themselves in low-income, racially segregated areas. This means that even grocery stores that sell fresh fruits and vegetables don't want to be in a low-income, high-minority neighborhood, limiting their access to healthful foods. Instead, they rely on the local corner store that doesn't even primarily sell food.

There isn't just an unequal standard of living, but also unequal access to opportunity. Your network (from family to your college alumni) can be so important when you're trying to find a job, but if you couldn't afford to go to college and your family has always been working class, you're already set up to have unequal opportunities compared to the kid whose parents are lawyers or doctors. Even if you look in the news today, you'll see instances of discrimination by banks, hiring managers, and federal regulations.

If you're really serious about learning more about why it's more difficult to be Black in America today, I urge you to pick up a book. Here are some of my suggestions:

American Apartheid by Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander

The Shame of the Nation by Jonathan Kozol

u/aop42 · 5 pointsr/nottheonion

It sounds like you need to do a lot of research on your own and have a lot to learn. It's not other people's job to teach you. However I would recommend this book The New Jim Crow. It also has an audiobook that I actually have and would be willing to upload if you wanted to listen to it. There were also certain practices like redlining which segregated neighborhoods, and the fact that the G.I bill which many veterans used after WWII to get homes and build capital was denied to African-American veterans. Also look up Stop and Frisk in NY. There's more to it you just have to be open to it. If you have any questions and you're seriously interested to learn please contact me. If you don't want to and just want to deny everything then please don't.

u/Politikon · 5 pointsr/TheRedPill

Yea I agree with you that he shouldn't so easily dismiss the non-violent incarceration rate that has been messing up the black family for decades. Also it's not just drug dealers that go to jail fyi. If you want more in-depth information on the incarceration problem in the US I suggest reading this book

Now, as another red pill black guy I really had to have an open mind when watching this video because in the past O'Reilly has made one too many inflammatory and crude statements toward the black community, but after watching this video I do have to admit that he makes some very valid points about the community's deep-seeded issues.

However, I would have liked for him to back up his statements with some sources. I'm also sure his assessment of the problem and the solution is a lot more complicated than he tried to make it out to be. True, the disintegration of the black family and the high rate of children being born out of wedlock play huge rolls in the issues plaguing certain black communities, but there are also other micro and macro issues at play here that we really have to delve into to get the full picture - at least in my opinion.

u/Wesker1982 · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

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.

u/Godofdrakes · 5 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

Corruption is politics.

u/TwentyLilacBushes · 5 pointsr/politics

You may have read it already, but this book ( covers grounds similar to those your post does.

I don't know anyone who has been incarcerated, so until reading it I had no sense of the magnitude of the problem, or (though I knew that black and Aboriginal people were disproportionately over-represented in prisons) of the degree to which the current legal system amplified/perpetuated structural racism.

Stunningly fucked up situation.

u/ronintetsuro · 5 pointsr/videos

Pretty sure he's doing this because his life is already over. He has a long rap sheet. The system only creates criminals, it does not rehabilitate them. Life outside is probably worse to him. And it's all on your dime.

So maybe adjust your attitude about how our system works?

u/fluffyjdawg · 5 pointsr/nba
u/Rishodi · 5 pointsr/ncpolitics

You've got that right. We can start by legalizing all recreational drugs.

u/themsc190 · 5 pointsr/Christianity

That’s what I’m saying. The laws don’t explicitly target Black people but they disproportionately affect Black people. It’s like what GOP strategist Lee Atwater said:

>Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Bonilla-Silva has discussed this in Racism Without Racists, terming it “color-blind racism.” And Bobo et al have called it “laissez-faire racism”. And, of course, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow is popular as well on the topic. If you don’t want to read a book or article, Ava DuVernay’s Netflix film 13th is insightful too. Examples abound. Take a look at the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. They’re essentially the same drug, but the former is more likely to be found in Black communities and the latter is more likely to be found in white ones, but the former has much harsher penalties. Or look at sentencing for marijuana. Surveys show that white and Black people use and sell it at the same rate, but Black people are put in jail for marijuana offenses at a rate of 20 to 50 times more than white people. So I’d point to the example of the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and broken-windows policing as ways that racism has evolved.

u/thosehiswas · 5 pointsr/The_Mueller

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

This book explains their actions read it.

u/FracturedAss · 5 pointsr/australia
u/prettymuchhatereddit · 5 pointsr/conspiracy
u/Lostboulevard · 5 pointsr/MensRights

Do they really though? I mean, at least on a subconscious level women must realize that rape culture is complete bullshit, otherwise they wouldn't go near universities. And they certainly wouldn't be comfortable getting shitfaced and going to sleazy clubs and bars. Fantasies of being raped (by some chiseled billionaire) are not the same thing as desiring to be raped, as you obviously know.

While your ideas are certainly interesting (as they come from a female perspective), I think a more mundane explanation is that feminists are running out of things to complain about, so they have to invent new crises. It's sort of like when the FBI or CIA manufacture then miraculously foil terrorist attacks by using agent provocateurs, entrapping mentally ill and borderline retarded Muslim youth in order to justify their bloated budgets.

I do think this point is correct though:

>The idea that a man wants you so much that he's willing to break the law and risk his future just to have you can be stupidly galvanizing.

Not to be unkind but a lot of feminists and women who attend "slut walks" are not very attractive. And as HL Mencken recognized a hundred years ago:

“The woman who is not pursued sets up the doctrine that pursuit is offensive to her sex, and wants to make it a felony. No genuinely attractive woman has any such desire. She likes masculine admiration, however violently expressed, and is quite able to take care of herself. More, she is well aware that very few men are bold enough to offer it without a plain invitation, and this awareness makes her extremely cynical of all women who complain of being harassed, beset, storied, and seduced. All the more intelligent women that I know, indeed, are unanimously of the opinion that no girl in her right senses has ever been actually seduced since the world began;”

u/7wap · 5 pointsr/politics

You'll want to read the book then. Or don't, because it's pretty boring. Just take our word for it. Or ask the WSJ for examples.

u/CalvinballAKA · 4 pointsr/mattcolville

I've had a lot of fun with Diplomacy, though it's definitely not for the faint of heart.

If you're interesting in more realpolitik, CGP Grey's video "Rules for Rulers" (which you may well have already seen) and the book that inspired it, The Dictator's Handbook both view politics from the perspective of power. They're very useful for both understanding real world power politics and developing a setting driven by poewr politics.

u/fgejoiwnfgewijkobnew · 4 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

>They treat parties like completely static entities.

That's really interesting criticism given CGP Grey doesn't discuss any aspects of any of the hypothetical animals running in the elections. These videos are about the voting mechanics of each system.

If you're interested in how or why politicians change their tune to reflect the electorate see Rules for Rulers which is a distillation of the book The Dictator's Handbook.

u/Cymelion · 4 pointsr/australia

>Ugh. I'm good thanks. I've had more than enough cringe watching his humans need not apply video

Read that instead then - Also great you judge people on one piece of their work - he has done many other videos on many other subjects - but ok.

>Why do you think the liberals hate scientists themselves though?

Tacit Consent.

They pull funding from STEM fields and in-turn people like the OP are finding it harder to find work in Aus - we have a major brain drain with people leaving Australia to find work in their field.

So while individually they might not even care about scientists one way or the other - by their actions or inactions they consent to a permeating culture of scientific regression in Australia from the Liberal party and its supporters.

u/shelbygt5252 · 4 pointsr/Kanye

The militarization of the police force in the United States has been an ongoing issue for years, not really sure how you can pin that on Trump. If you are curious, Radley Balko released a book about this in 2014 (Amazon).

u/Boshasaurus_Rex · 4 pointsr/news

I love me some Radley Balko. I highly recommend his book.

u/LittleHelperRobot · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

Non-mobile: Rise of the Warrior Cop

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?

u/chihuahua001 · 4 pointsr/politics

Check out

Tl;dr the average American commits three felonies per day. Anyone in the US can be imprisoned at any time.

u/samlosco_ · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

It’s not all we have right now. It’s what’s in power right now and we can change that. We have the resources to do that.

And here’s one article from a while ago stating that

Also a good book:

u/HAMMER_BT · 4 pointsr/KotakuInAction

This puts me in mind of a quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged;

>"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get It straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

>Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

More recently a book called Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent illustrated from the viewpoint of modern attorneys what Rand proposed as a philosopher. By the way, for those that object to Rand as a 'right winger' (or whatever), note that Three Felonies is written by civil libertarians in good standing Harvey Silverglate(1) and Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz.

Well, they were in good standing, except they stayed liberals while the Left moved on from them...

(1) You may know him as one of the founders of FIRE.

u/ReverendAlan · 4 pointsr/Bad_Cop_No_Donut

I have heard both, my uncle the city cop and, my cousin the county sheriff say exactly that, they assume everyone has done something wrong. And the thing is, they are right, what with 2.5 million laws on the books all of us commit 3-5 crimes each and every day.

"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to ....."

u/shaunc · 4 pointsr/privacy

You have a point, but only because the breadth of law practically guarantees that everyone is guilty of something.

u/buschdogg · 4 pointsr/JusticePorn

You're a fucking idiot.

You have nothing but ignorant assumptions that are mostly incorrect. You really sound like an awful human being from the two replies I got from you, to be honest.

Why don't you read this and get back at me:

u/elos_ · 4 pointsr/writing

"people have been abusing our privacy for all of history, so why should we want to change that now that we have the means too?! get used to it!"

If you don't value your privacy, that's fine. That's your choice. Don't you dare go around acting like you're a superior person though because you are okay with letting any random person look into every facet of your life. And dont act like for a second that we shouldn't have the right to privacy just because you decided to give yours up.

Pro Tip: We have the 4th Amendment because back in England where they did not have something of that nature, you could be royally fucked over by the government. I dont know what types of crimes people did back then so I'll use a modern example. You get caught for drunk driving. Alright, pretty bad offense admittedly. Cops could then search your home willy nilly -- they had no privacy protection, and then they find some cocaine or marijuana. They find an unregistered firearm. They find whatever they can, they'll tear your fucking house apart looking for something and those 2 nights in jail turn into 7 years in jail.

You think that's not a problem today? Okay, how about the fact that the average person commits three felonies a day. There's an entire book written on the subject. Do you honestly, after reading this, feel safe with the government having unrestricted access to your entire personal life and knowing everything you say or do on the internet or phone or what have you?

u/taystache · 4 pointsr/restorethefourth
  1. You almost certainly DO have something to hide:

  2. We the People arguably have very little control over legislation, which leaves the "slippery slope" of prohibition and criminalization of ordinary things like putting lobsters in plastic bags:
    or opening lemonade stands:
    entirely out of our hands.

    Therefore, if you almost certainly are a felon, or will become one if and when other ordinary things (diet soda, cigarettes, etc.) are criminalized, and the government records and tracks all of your communications, purchases, gps locations, etc., having "nothing to hide" today may get your door kicked in tomorrow.
u/gndn · 4 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Check out three felonies a day. The short version is that there are so many laws on the books now that it's pretty much impossible to go a whole day without breaking one. Allowing the government access to everyone's private lives opens the door for them basically go fishing - pick some guy at random, dig into his past in enough detail to find out what law(s) he's broken in the past few months, then put him in prison. In theory, it's supposed to be the other way around - the government can't start investigating you unless they have a specific, articulable reason to believe that you're doing something illegal.

u/andrewk529 · 4 pointsr/politics

Do you have any idea how many Federal Crimes are on the books?...durrrrrr

This is a great book for which you probably should read

"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance."

u/igonjukja · 4 pointsr/WTF

let me take a stab at it.

the thing is, africans brought to this country helped to build it. the u.s. would literally not exist as it does today without blacks.. they are as american as apple pie and yet many feel, for reasons like this, that they are not welcome in this country. at the same time there is a pride and a yearning for a connection to a land from which they were displaced. how to bridge these two feelings is tricky and it's something that only each person can decide for themselves.

but having brought them here some 400 years ago and having maintained their domination over them since, (again, read this) it's really not appropriate for white people, as a whole, to outline the contours of black identity. whether in how they name their children, how they dress, what they eat, whatever. even with the best of intentions, chances are that whites will step in it. Black History Month is well and good in one sense (again, the pride thing) but it also helps to highlight the subjugated position blacks have in this country for the rest of the year (the domination thing).

oh and generally speaking, slavery's having happened a long time ago doesn't mean anything. thought experiment: suppose blacks had been paid for their labor? suppose, with that income, they'd been able to own property and build wealth in greater numbers? suppose they'd passed that wealth down through generations? suppose the reconstruction hadn't happened to thwart whatever post-slavery economic progress was possible?

the point is the effects of slavery are still trickling down. and it's galling to have it glossed over the way that it is in this country. an honest accounting and an end to institutionalized racism would be healthy for the entire country, yet a modern president can't even suggest that he might apologize on the country's behalf for racism without a shitstorm.

so suggestions for animal print clothing to celebrate black pride from what i assume is a school with a majority-white administration is just dumb.

u/Landotavius · 4 pointsr/SeattleWA

>It's stupid, there're no facts backing it up

Actually there's a whole book about it. More Guns, Less Crime

u/aznhomig · 4 pointsr/guns

If anyone didn't know, the author, John R. Lott, Jr., also wrote the famous book "More Guns, Less Crime".

u/wizardyourlifeforce · 4 pointsr/LawSchool

Getting to Maybe: How to Excel on Law School Exams

Worth it just for the exam formatting advice.

u/Brym · 4 pointsr/casualiama

Cool. If you want some unsolicited law school advice, I highly recommend that you read Getting to Maybe for advice on how to write a decent law school exam. I would read it once before classes start, and again when studying for your first exams.

u/SkinnyCop · 4 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

Switching on and off the hyper-vigilance required for his job can be exhausting. Sometimes Officers get caught in a routine of not talking about their problems. I suggest you read Gilmartin's "Emotional Guide for Law Enforcement". The book is spot on about what officers go through. I would encourage you to have your boyfriend read it too. He will feel like Gilmartin has been following him around and is writing about exactly what he goes through. Read it! It saves lives. Amazon link

u/SteelChicken · 4 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

You guys who shell up when off work might want to take a look at this: Emotional survival for law enforcement

Its pricey but a good read.

u/mrstone072003 · 4 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

Emotional survival for law enforcement: A guide for officers and their families

u/BORTLicensePlates · 4 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

I'll give the somewhat standard reading list (Standard as in these are the ones that come up the most)

Calibre Press Trilogy Street Survival, The Tactical Edge, and Tactics for Criminal Patrol. I'd be willing to bet someone on the department already owns them or even your department itself has them.

On Combat by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement

That ends the standard reading list, then I recommend this as well

Me Talk Pretty One Day-David Sedaris Because he is hilarious, and has nothing to do with police work in any way shape or form.

u/Salg5873 · 4 pointsr/LSAT

Or you could buy them at bookstores. There are different sets of tests ranging something like 20 + years.

u/thaway314156 · 4 pointsr/politics

"Sorry, I had affluenza!"

Glenn Greenwald wrote a book about the whole equal laws bullshit before he was the NSA Leaks guy:

u/TimeTravlnDEMON · 4 pointsr/CFB

The guy in that video wrote a book about not talking to police as well. It's not very long and it's pretty good.

u/MyCatHasTourettes · 4 pointsr/politics

Here are a couple of books for you: Three Felonies a Day and Go Directly to Jail

u/ColdIceZero · 4 pointsr/BlackPeopleTwitter

Dealing with criminal law is a lot like the process buying a car you don't want to buy. The best situation is to get out without buying anything (being found not guilty); but like a car salesman, the prosecutor gets paid to make you pay the highest price (jail time, court fines, etc.).

The problem is that, if you're caught up in the system, then you're likely guilty of the crime. I don't mean that as a criticism of people who get arrested as being "criminal scum;" I mean that there are so many goddamn laws in this country that the Library of Congress said that it's impossible to count them all. In all seriousness, it is not at all an exaggeration to say that law enforcement in the US follows the quote attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin's secret police in the Soviet Union, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime."

There are so many laws, and so many of them that are vague, that it's impossible for anyone to be in 100% compliance with all of them at all times. A good book on subject is Three Felonies a Day. Truthfully, Americans would be in greater trouble if law enforcement had the resources to more enforce the already existing laws. But since logistically they can't enforce all the laws, law enforcement instead just focuses on enforcing the laws against niggers, largely as a continuation of the racist policies we've historically held in this nation.

So everyone is guilty of something, and now you're caught up in the system. What do you do? Well, you could have your day in court to make the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. But keep in mind that actual guilt or innocence isn't a component of the trial process. It's all about convincing the judge or jury that you're guilty. Understand that an estimated 4% of people on death row right now, those who have been convicted of capital murder "beyond all reasonable doubt," are actually innocent of the crime.

So your day in court isn't likely to go your way, especially when a lot of judges out there have the discretion to accept illegally obtained evidence. So if the police violated your constitutional rights in obtaining evidence against you, many judges will still be like, "meh, you still got caught, nigger."

So the system is most definitely stacked against you. But there is a saving grace: prosecutors are still human, which means they typically want the greatest reward for the least amount of work. So here comes the negotiation, or the "plea offer."

The plea offer is the rough result of a middle ground between likelihood of winning, likelihood of losing, and the potential punishment. As a super rough example, let's say you get busted for a crime that has a statutory 10-year jail sentence; but the case only has a 10% chance of actually resulting in a guilty verdict. So the prosecutor might say, "ok, in exchange for pleading guilty to the crime, we'll offer 1 year in jail."

That way, they still get the points for a "win" on their side, and you don't have to go to jail for the full 10 years.

However, if you decide to say "fuck that, Ima roll the dice because I have a 90% chance of getting out of here Scott free," then the prosecutor has to do more work to prepare for trial. If after your first court appearance you get the feeling that things aren't going your way and you might want to deal, then the prosecutor will be like, "aight nigga, now it's 5 years jail time instead of the 1 year we originally offered. That's what you get for invoking your constitutional rights."

So is the plea deal always the way to go? Well, that most definitely depends on your situation. I'm just saying that this is why a lot plea deals get pushed.

u/Phrenico · 4 pointsr/Bitcoin

So is jaywalking, hypocrite.

If you're talking federal crimes:Three Felonies a Day.

u/bonked_or_maybe_not · 4 pointsr/Libertarian
u/mewski · 4 pointsr/Polska

Kiedy Ben Shapiro wejdzie za mocno, Ty tu z 4 jego zasady wcisnąłeś naraz :D
> homofobem, nazistą, rasistą, faszystą, antysemitą, transfobem, ableistą, fatshamerem, catcallerem, szowinistą, mizoginem, incelem

>te pojęcia są raczej puste w treści

Słownik polecam.

BTW. Nie powiedziałem nic o nazistach? Ale rozumiem że Honkler nie ma z nimi nic wspólnego.

> jesteś przestępcą i nie powinieneś mieć prawa wypowiedzi


u/MewsashiMeowimoto · 4 pointsr/UpliftingNews

Preaching to the choir, man. You should check out Michelle Alexander's New Jim Crow.

Changed my perspective.

u/September_Tacos · 4 pointsr/CGPGrey

I'd be interested to hear Grey's thoughts on Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow. It doesn't real with false confessions, but it goes over bias in the justice system. My (cynical) opinion as to why juries exist as they do is that juries aren't formed to find truth, they are about social control and promoting the dominant mode of thought.

u/Drefen · 4 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

Why do you hate Black Lives Matter?

EDIT: For anyone that wants a better understanding of why BLM exists, I suggest you read The New Jim Crow

u/cinemabaroque · 4 pointsr/AskSocialScience

If SES has historically been driven by race I feel that it is necessary to show that SES no longer continues to be driven by race, rather than the other way around.

However, we do have evidence that socio-economic status continues to be driven by race. Two popular works that are very well cited provide excellent examples of why this is true.

The first is Root Shock, which details the multi-generational impacts of disinvestment and community dis-location. I think it is fairly intuitive that if your grandparents are made poor you, yourself, are less likely to be rich. The real implications go beyond such simplified concepts as wealth. There are real, documented, health impacts that extend for multiple generations. When you look at historic inequities that drive current living conditions it becomes obvious that race continues to be a factor in SES.

The second is The New Jim Crow, when you look at the levels of mass incarceration of young black men and the impact of having a jail record on future job prospects I think that it is quite obvious that a new generation is being forced into an underclass. In addition to this felons are not allowed to vote in many US States, which adds another burden to civic participation.

Edit: Added links.

u/JayKayVay · 4 pointsr/Advice

I'm not sure what makes you think the FBI would care about you looking into racial studies.

There are countless resources that discuss race issues you can look into.

"Black people commit more crimes than white people" - False. See next point.

"they have longer prison sentences than white people" - True. Often black people are arrested and charged more than white people, they are also more likely to get longer sentences, this is related to racial profiling and prison industrial complex.

"They have more economic hardships than white people" - True, that's how racism works. Our society is built upon white supremacy, in the US especially while black people were slaves white people were largely in power so in a position to create the laws and economy to benefit them, when slavery ended black people were left with less than nothing then faced with situations like Jim Crow laws and Redlining as well as general discrimination preventing them from working and building generational wealth. Racism and poverty are inherently linked, and there is a significant racial wealth gap.

"They are genealogically inferior to other races" - False. Race is a social construct, not biological, but in the past science was used to try to justify racism and some of the scientific racism ideas persist today. Whiteness as we know it today is different to what it has been in the past, for example Jewish people, Irish people, and Italian people were once not considered white, some Middle Eastern people today like Persians consider themselves white but others disagree, and an Indian man was seen as white.

"they have lower IQ/brain capacities than white/Asian people" - False. See above re. scientific racism.

Racism isn't just racial bias or thinking your race is superior to others, it's racial bias within our society/culture - we're conditioned to think certain ways about certain races, there are systems in place and history that means some races have more social power or influence than others - a person doesn't have to be screaming the 'N' word to be racist and simply believing all people should be equal isn't enough when society ensures we're not all equal ("In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be antiracist.” — Angela Davis).

You really need some RACE 101 resources, and to look into these issues yourself - as there is a lot to understand and race is complex, plus I don't know what you know or what you might need to know, also because I don't think I'm very good at explaining racism 101 stuff! Try these: Race, Are We So Different? or Race-The Power of an Illusion may help you, if you listen to podcasts try Seeing White – Scene on Radio, there are many great books like The New Jim Crow which will tackle some of the issues raised here. There are resources like various syllabuses that have been put together following recent issues with anti-black racism and police brutality in he US: Curriculum for White Americans to Educate Themselves on Race and Racism, Charleston Syllabus, and Ferguson Syllabus.

FYI : You cannot be 'a bit autistic', you're either Autistic or you're not.



u/enagrom · 4 pointsr/boston

You probably won't find someone to talk to you about feminism or BLM randomly in Starbucks, even in Harvard Square. Democracy center may be a good place, but I think the internet and books can be a pretty good source for to start with, so your in-person learning can be more meaningful for both you and the person who ends up taking the time to help you grow into it.

Feminism and BLM are both possible solutions to problems within society. Learning about the problems from the bottom up is a good way to have the necessary context to understand the movements.

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander is a must read. amazon link
Michelle also has a good bit of writing on the internet that is accessible.

Speaking of writers on the internet, the tireless journalism of Shaun King has had a real impact in bringing police injustice and BLM to the mainstream, so I think he is a good place to start, too. His Soul Snatchers series, particularly his most recent installment about the NYPD and Bronx DA's criminal conspiracy against Pedro Hernandez is a must read.

Feminism can be hard on the internet, too, because there are so many kinds/sects/schools of thought, but I think it's still a good place to start. I think a good launchpoint is from a context that is close to you, as a man. This guide to how feminism is relevant to men seems like a good starting point. From there, I think learning about feminism by reading articles from a feminist perspective might be a good approach. Academic analyses about feminism are boring and probably won't keep your interest. My favorite source as far as trans-inclusive, pro-gay, pro-safe space feminism is Autostraddle. Yes, it's heavy on queer lady content, but I think it's a good website with years and years and years of content so you can find things that interest you. The politics tab is probably a good place to start, as you can read about issues you may have already read about from mainstream sources, from a more casual and feminist lens.

Good luck.

u/jltime · 4 pointsr/dogswithjobs

Maybe it shouldn’t be illegal? And the only reason it is, is so that laws can be selectively enforced on communities of color - specifically, black men - and serve as a surrogate race control measure in the absence of Jim Crow Laws?

Read a book.

Specifically, this one

u/hharison · 4 pointsr/southafrica
u/howardson1 · 4 pointsr/todayilearned

I agree that many minorities were financially unstable and unable to get mortgages because of institutional disadvantages created by racism, like receiving poor education at segregated schools. That doesn't mean that financially unstable people receive mortgagees, even if they are unqualified because of reasons beyond their own control. The justice department started to enforce the CRA and fannie and freddie started to buy bad mortgages in the 90's, years after desegregation ended. The FHA offered zero downpayment loans in the early 2000's.

Their were racist institutional disadvantages facing minorities after desegregation, like [occupational licensing laws] ( ) and more importantly, [the war on drugs] ( These are some of the sources of inner city poverty. The solution is to end those disadvantages.

u/kitten888 · 4 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

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.

u/LateralusYellow · 4 pointsr/GoldandBlack

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

u/JamesCarlin · 4 pointsr/TrueReddit

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:

  • Burden It is unfair to place the burden on me to solve all of the world's problems. Only liars, thieves, con artists, and politicians (I repeat myself) make that nonsense claim.... fail.... give you the run around....ask for more resources.... fail again... etc.
  • Perfection Voluntarism advocacy does not claim pure perfection, however no government solutions can make claim to perfection either. Holding Voluntarism to a mythical standard of perfection is unfair given frequent and catastrophic government failures and waste.
  • Not Central Planning Voluntarism is not central planning. Voluntarism does not require that one become a road engineer, security expert, economist, and solver of all of life's deepest questions. Generally Voluntarists prefer to leave that up to specialists and entrepreneurs in each field to come up with creative and unexpected solutions, and in exchange for the value they give, receive value in return.
  • Alternatives Alternatives proposed by Voluntarists are just alternatives; many of them are expected to be replaced as better technologies and ideas come along, and replaced again, and again, and again. If I told you 5 methods for building roads today, given freedom to innovate, 100 years from now most of those solutions will be obsolete.


    Alternative Security and Dispute Resolution

  • Personal security: By taking personal responsibility and security into their own hands, certain low-cost measures can be taken including better locks and doors, adequate lighting, alarm systems, self-defense weapons, avoiding danger, tracking and disabling devices, and a wide variety of other means yet to be imagined.
  • Credit and Reviews: Credit and review agencies, websites, and systems are commonly used today in online transactions that take place hundreds of miles away, or even across national borders where there are no practical means of enforcement. Other means, including product reviews, credit agencies, blacklists, reputation and escrow agencies, and public records are a means of avoiding risky relationships, resolving disputes, avoiding risk, and establishing trust and reputation with potential business partners. A few examples include Google-Maps reviews, Etsy, eBay, Amazon, and even the aging Better business Bureau.
  • Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), by whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound. It is a settlement technique in which a third party reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides.
  • Collective efforts, such as a neighborhood watch or pooling resources for a neighborhood security guard, and social structures that encourage defending strangers from violence are also practical non-governmental means.
  • A Private Defense Agency (PDA) is a conceptualized agency that provides personal protection and military defense services voluntarily through the free market. A PDA is not a private contractor of the state and is not subsidized in any way through taxation or immunities, nor does it rely on conscription and other involuntary methods. Instead, such agencies would be financed primarily through insurance companies, which are penalized for losses and damages, and have an incentive through competition to minimize waste and maximize quality of service.
  • A Dispute Resolution Organization, or DRO, is a conceptualized organization providing services such as mediation and arbitration through the private sector.
  • Polycentric law (or private law) is a legal structure in which providers of legal systems compete or overlap in a given jurisdiction, as opposed to monopolistic statutory law according to which there is a sole provider of law for each jurisdiction.
  • Avoiding danger and risk, and using prudence in risky situations is another means of security that nearly everyone employs today. As I said "When in downtown Detroit, it is wise to caring one or more knives, remain aware, don't bring valuables, and don't hesitate to tell people to fuck off. Lastly, if you don't like those rules, don't #$%ing go downtown."


  • No common criminal or band of criminals who lack the pretense of legitimacy and capacity to horizontally enforce their will would be able to commit the acts of treason (Against humanity), violence, war, theft (~40% annually), suppression of freedoms, and acts of violence against humanity on a scope anywhere near comparable to that of governments.



  • Article: "Merchant law developed in medieval Europe without the involvement of the state. This is particularly remarkable given that it sought to provide dispute resolution and basic legal standards across a wide territorial expanse that included peoples who spoke different languages and practiced different customs. You can read a good discussion of it in the classic work of Bruce Benson, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State."

  • Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government (Free Market Analysis) "The history of Viking Age Iceland has lessons to teach. One is the importance of a decentralized enforcement power. Iceland's decentralized legal system managed to keep its leaders on a short leash for much of its history. Chieftains only had power if they could convince people to follow them, without the use of coercion. This minimized the principal-agent problem. Who wants to voluntarily follow an incompetent or evil leader? And even if an evil leader did sucker a few free farmers into following him, in the long run he would lose credibility."


    Recommended Videos:

  • Law without Government - Pt 1 - video (basic) & Part 2 & Part 3
  • Funding Public Goods: Six Solutions
  • Prof. Edward Stringhman: Security and Law without government (moderate)
  • Private Law - Hans Hoppe (advanced + economics)
  • Anarchy and Efficient Law - David D. Friedman - video/lecture (advanced + economics)
u/SloniB · 4 pointsr/thedavidpakmanshow

Rules for Rulers explains everything. It explains Rex Tillerson (he's Putin's key to extracting oil while empowering local rivals the least). It explains why Giuliani and Gingrich got dropped (the keys for getting into power are different from the keys to stay in power). And it explains our role in resisting the worst parts of Trump's agenda (we are they keys to power for Trump's keys to power - the legislature - and, as such, we can control them). I keep watching this video, and it keeps illustrating something new about the situation we're in. Makes me want to read the book it's based on.

u/rarely_beagle · 4 pointsr/slatestarcodex

I think a model that takes a few variables into account could perform pretty well over time and space. Central in this model would be history of being occupied. Also important is harshness of environment encouraging cooperation. Another aspect would be whether or not a Dictator's Handbook scenario is in effect. Often this takes the form of a local leader allowing a foreign power to provide skilled labor and capital equipment to help the country extract resources. In this scenario, the local government's primary job is to use payoffs and/or threats to prevent the local population from interfering or demanding a cut.

Both direct occupation and DH quasi-occupation would create a conflict between the best interests of the citizenry and the best interest of its rulers. Any increase in power of the government could result in decreases of leverage of the population. In this scenario, paying taxes, cooperating with onerous regulations, and providing information to the government could be legitimately seen as a betrayal. This would explain Seoul's unusually high anti-social punishment rate (Japanese Occupation).

I would be very curious how 1760 Boston would have scored on this test. The Boston Tea Party sometimes confuses children because it is a stark example of authorities praising anti-social punishment. Also note Greece's 20th century hardships and Omman's precarious sovereignty given Iran and SA's machinations in the area.

From wikipedia on the ongoing Qatar diplomatic crisis:

> Trump's public support for Saudi Arabia emboldened the kingdom and sent a chill through other Gulf states, including Oman and Kuwait, that fear that any country that defies the Saudis or the United Arab Emirates could face ostracism as Qatar has.

u/piranhas_really · 3 pointsr/TrueReddit

De facto slavery of African Americans actually continued after the Civil War through other legalized means:

I recommend reading Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow", which summarizes post-reconstruction-era slavery of blacks quite well in its introductory chapters.

u/EconomistMagazine · 3 pointsr/changemyview

Regression: The right of former criminals. (also disproportionately targeting minorities for crimes)

This might take the form of "all 50 states doing this simultaneously" instead of "federally" but the results are the same. In the 20th century there have been many facets of the War On Drugs (WOD) and being Tough On Crime (TOC). The first big push happened under Nixon, then the second under Reagan.

When these two popular republicans were elected they consoled white working class voters that were put off by racial and economic issues. By saying you were "tough on crime" the presidents and almost every governor and state legislature was able to target minorities, or disaffected groups and make it look like they were doing something. These policies did little good, had disproportionate racial impact, and by that I mean they mostly targeted blacks for crimes that appeared equally among whites.

New ways people were hurt and rights turned back by being TOC:

  1. Three strikes laws (more jail time for a third offense, even if you already paid society back for your previous offenses).

  2. Mandatory Minimum Sentences (takes judge's authority away and punishes people more strictly than a reasonable person would deem appropriate).

  3. The right of equal treatment for WOD or TOC offenses (see crack vs coke sentencing)

  4. Mass incarceration in general (jail time for minor offenses, jail time for non-violent offenses, private prisons paying political donation money to politicians that promise to be TOC, race bating by politicians to get whites to vote TOC even if there is no more crime than before which was incredibly common).

    source: The New Jim Crow
u/SALADkiller · 3 pointsr/Documentaries

Both very sad and interesting documentary. There is a real problem with the american justice system. I can't believe the judge told to this man's face "I hear you, and I can see you have been rehabilitated. But I will not release you today, instead I'll sentence you to a 40 years sentence"

For those interested, the book "The New Jim Crow" is a great read and explains a lot of things about the american mass incarceration problem and how black people have been targeted :

u/TreeMonger · 3 pointsr/videos

The New Jim Crow

Once in a great while a book comes along that changes the way we see the world and helps to fuel a nationwide social movement. The New Jim Crow is such a book. Praised by Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier as "brave and bold," this book directly challenges the notion that the election of Barack Obama signals a new era of colorblindness. With dazzling candor, legal scholar Michelle Alexander argues that "we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it." By targeting black men through the War on Drugs and decimating communities of color, the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial control—relegating millions to a permanent second-class status—even as it formally adheres to the principle of colorblindness. In the words of Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP, this book is a "call to action."

Called "stunning" by Pulitzer Prize–winning historian David Levering Lewis, "invaluable" by the Daily Kos, "explosive" by Kirkus, and "profoundly necessary" by the Miami Herald, this updated and revised paperback edition of The New Jim Crow, now with a foreword by Cornel West, is a must-read for all people of conscience.

u/aduketsavar · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

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.

u/weberrFSC · 3 pointsr/philosophy

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.

u/Robert_Jarman · 3 pointsr/AnarchismBookClub

I found two books, one is basically a book for everyone, and the second is the book that proves the logic of the first with a rather long table of statistics and formal math and even more historical examples,

The logic is sound and consistent. It also importantly for anarchists, affects also other hierarchies like corporations, and even can go into a lot of the discussion on racism, sexism, and similar.

I also like the book for some of the suggestions it offers. It clearly explains that the more liberty, the better, with nearly no limits on how much better the world is when more people contribute, a strong counterargument to claims of say a strong and central state is needed to consolidate something. It also talks about corporations and private institutions, and while he doesn't directly call them co-ops, he does say that democratic companies where the profits are distributed based on a formula or on a public basis improve the world and their own internal governance. And it explains why the more democratic something is, the harder it is to overwhelm it via a coup.

It also gives some ideas on how to fix the whole kaboodle, such as social networking making the profits of executives limited if the average puny shareholder has a platform to discuss and directly vote, escrow account lending and foreign aid, higher education in authoritarian countries, cell phones, and amnesties to those who cede power.


u/delmania · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> How do you square that description with his support for Trump policies that clearly clashed with his principles?

That's easy to answer, it's rule 4 of the excellent Dictator's Handbook, which is Pay your key supporters just enough to keep them loyal. The Republican Party depends heavily on the financial donations of 3 ultra-rich families to run elections and stay in power. These families despise Trump's personality, but love his policies (for the obvious reason these policies enrich them). It's not even a stretch to say that Ryan was told by the GOP leadership to support Trump to ensure the financial donations continued. I think resigning is probably the only principled action Ryan has ever taken.

u/Ekkisax · 3 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

No book will prepare you for law enforcement, it has to be touched, smelled, heard, and seen. If you're already a cop then the best thing you can do to be better is to be a well rounded human being and books can help with that.

Here's the recommended reading from some of the prior threads I was able to find in the sub.

  1. On Killing
  2. On Combat
  3. Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement
  4. Intro to Criminal Evidence
  5. Blue Blood
  6. 400 Things Cops Should Know
  7. Cop: A True Story
  8. [Verbal Judo] (
  9. [What Cops Know] (
  10. [Into the Kill Zone] (
  11. Training at the Speed of Life
  12. Sharpening the Warrior's Edge
  13. The Gift of Fear
  14. Deadly Force Encounters
  15. The Book of Five Rings

    I've read a good portion of the above listed. I highly recommend Emotional Survival and going to see one of Gilmartin's talks if he's in your area. Below are a few of my personal suggestions.

  16. Meditations
  17. Blink - Not sure if I buy it, but interesting to think about.
  18. [Armor] (
  19. Iron John: A Book About Men
  20. The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics
u/jscythe · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Read this. If you want to know what's going to happen, just look at Ethiopia in the 70's. The famine wasn't the result of drought. The famine was a deliberate move on the part of the Ethiopian government. The people that starved every year were considered waste. They weren't making any of the government's constituents money, so they weren't important enough to feed. That's where we are headed in this country. If you really want a solution, and you aren't just trolling, you need to get off your ass and teach people how to be self-reliant. Shit's about to get so bad that even your little rant will seem utterly meaningless.

u/expo1001 · 3 pointsr/BlueMidterm2018

I'll have to put it on my list. I would also recommend "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.

u/DolphusTRaymond · 3 pointsr/worldnews

There's a book you may enjoy which explains why autocrats are horrible to their populations.

u/ezk3626 · 3 pointsr/Kaiserreich

First, in reality the whole thing is fluid and political science is more of an art than a science. There is a part of me that sees government from the lens of The Dictators Handbook which views governments without any regard to ideology but only on the number of people who control wealth (democratic governments have large groups of people while autocratic have smaller groups). From that perspective I'd imagine that AutDem, PatAut and NatPop are the same sort of oligarchy with an elite group of maybe a hundred people in government, industry, military, media and religion who make all of the decisions for the state.

However in my experience there is more motivating people than merely a desire for control of the budget. Though I could never get past the pornography in Game of Thrones but it had some great thought on the subject power is power and power lies where people believe it lies. The primary difference between the three authoritarian government has to do with the stories people tell to explain power. As best I can tell NatPop tells a story of a great people and the emphasis is on the blood of the people, they are the descendants of gods and are of a different sort then other people. AuthPat is a story about a great man, the world is filled with chaos but HE brings order and so we follow HIM. AuthDem is a story about a great nation, the government is better than other governments and its laws are better than other laws.

How I understand this is to say the OTL Churchill in the UK was an authoritarian democrat. The justification for his quasi-dictatorship was not that Churchill was just such a great man (though obviously that is implied in his telling of story) and certainly it was not that noble English blood is better than other blood (though that too he believed) but primarily it was that the United Kingdom was the greatest empire in the world because its laws were just and it made the world a better place. Churchill's narrative was that they would win because their whole system was just better than those of their enemies.

We can add Totalism to the same model since the number of people who controlled the budget was very similar to that of the others. Their story is that they have set the people free and any oppose them are seeking to enslave the people, therefore everyone should give up what they have for the cause of the world's freedom.

u/sgt0pimienta · 3 pointsr/IRstudies

There are three books I'd like to add as suggestions:

  • Development as Freedom, by Amartya Sen. 285 pages, 5 hour and a half read without pauses.

  • The Dictator's Handbook, by Bruce B. de Mesquita and Alistair Smith. 300 pages, 5 hour read without pauses.

  • Making Globalization Work, by Joseph Stiglitz. 5 hour, fifteen minute read without pauses.

    For reference, the site I used says World Order by Henry Kissinger, the book we read previously, takes 6 hours to read. So these books a bit shorter.

    Development as Freedom:

    This book proposes a relatively new theory for public policy based on free agency. Amartya Sen's thesis is that the objective of governing and developing a country is to provide freedom to its citizens. He does a pretty good analysis of how a country works policy-wise and he makes a proposal to reach this free agency goal. I think this book would broaden perspectives on how to view a government's labor, on what development is, and what it should be.

    The Dictator's Handbook:

    In this book, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alistair Smith decompose multiple historical situations both in governing and in private enterprises in order to define the universal dynamics of power. It is a great book and it explains, with sufficient evidence, what a leader needs to capture and retain power in any system imaginable by redefining how we view government systems.

    Making Globalization Work:

    I have read a bit of the previous books, but only a single chapter of this one, so instead I'm going to quote a review on amazon:

    > Three years ago, I was a little freshman economics student at a small college. My World Politics professor assigned me this book to read halfway through the semester, and I am quite happy that I read it. Stiglitz is blessed with both brains and writing ability, something that too many economists do not have [...] Stiglitz does an exceptional job of summarizing much of the baggage that international policy makers carry from their past mistakes.

    >The largest criticism that people have of the book is that much of what he says has been said by other people. This is true. But those other people can't write and aren't remotely as accessible as Stiglitz is. If you're looking for a good jump-in, read this book.

u/ChristopherBurg · 3 pointsr/guns

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.

u/scarthearmada · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

> 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.

u/blargleblargleblarg · 3 pointsr/LawSchool

Buy Chemerinsky's con law treatise. Seriously. It got me an A in con law, and it's succinct and well-written.

u/missiontothemoon · 3 pointsr/LawSchool

Getting to Maybe is the answer. One-L, Planet Law School, etc. are not useful.

Read Getting to Maybe over the summer, read it again mid-way through the semester, and flip through it before your exams.

I am not affiliated with Richard Fischl, just a law student.

u/Juffy · 3 pointsr/LawSchool
u/foxeylocks · 3 pointsr/LawSchool

I recommend this book:

It was like a security blanket for me when I was a 1L. Also, I found it helpful to draft the “Rule” portion of the IRAC essay and add it to my outlines. So the first page of a topic had a box full of “rules.” Drafting that portion of an essay really helped score easy points on exams and saves time when you have an open-note exam! It also helps you solidify your understanding of the law.

Happy studies!

u/TheUnregisteredNurse · 3 pointsr/nursing

It's not enough and it never will be...Our patients demand perfection and in many ways deserve it, but that's not reality. Reality is that we are imperfect persons working in an imperfect system, making choices with imperfect information, all in the hope that we are healing/helping imperfect patients. You must draw a line between your work and your life otherwise the negativity and toxicity of the work will taint the rest of your life. Unfortunately there aren't any books that talk about managing the emotional stress you will be exposed to in healthcare. I've found that books about dealing with the stress of law enforcement are a good analog.

I recommend:

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement: A guide for officers and their families

Warrior Mindset: Mental Toughness Skills for a Nation's Peacekeepers

Best wishes; hope you find the strength and balance you're looking for.

u/TonyWrocks · 3 pointsr/financialindependence

The classic, age-old question. Money or fulfillment. For me, I balanced the two, chasing the money but at the same time finding fulfillment by looking adjacent to what I was doing to see who had a 'better' job in my industry/company.

One caution. Police officer is a very tough job, and it's not for everyone. In particular, if you have a lot of compassion for people and feel the things you experience deeply, my advice is look elsewhere for ways to help people.

Here's a great book on surviving as a first-responder. It's absolutely worth your time to read it and talk with some other officers - particularly those who are still on the beat and have been in-role for 10+ years.

u/dan_ben12 · 3 pointsr/LSAT

The drill sets are based off the Actual LSAT exams that you buy directly from LSAC. Depending on which study plan you’re using the practice sets with differ I believe.

10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests Volume V: (PrepTests 62–71) (Lsat Series)

62-71 is what is used for the 12/16 week plans I think; the 72-81 exams are used for full prep tests at the end of studying, so I’d suggest buying both.

u/adrhenum · 3 pointsr/LawSchool

You might want to try /r/LSAT or /r/lawschooladmissions for this. Most of the people over here are already in law school.

But as far as studying for the LSAT, I think the most effective thing is to buy the PowerScore books and just do practice test after practice test from the LSAC. The LSAC sells books of ten LSATs (like this one) that you should be practicing on. The LSAT is incredibly repetitive as far as skills it tests, so it is likely to be a much better use of your time to just buy some basic books then take lots of tests. Unfortunately, all too often LSAT courses move at painfully slow paces that won't be as efficient as reviewing just the issues you're missing on tests you've taken.

u/SunnySweetDee · 3 pointsr/LSAT

Mostly, you can find them on amazon for pretty cheap -

Like this one from PT62-71

This one goes to PT71 which is Dec 2013 (I believe). For even newer ones, you can buy them off of any test prep company like Manhattan for around 6-8 dollars per test.

Also, for finding answers and explanations, you can find them through 7sage online for free.

Let me know if you need any additional help finding any! Best of luck.

u/TheExchequer · 3 pointsr/LSAT
u/fidelitypdx · 3 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

> You can't say Trump doing it is okay because Bush did.

Don't put words in mouth that aren't there: it isn't good for an elected official to have conflicts of interest. I think both candidates in 2016 offered differing conflicts of interest, but that's a different story.

> I think maybe a better question is when did this sort of behavior become acceptable?

Glenn Greenwald argues in his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" that American Democracy and government fundamentally changed when Richard Nixon was pardoned. I think that's part of the answer - since that event we've really viewed the elected officials as a ruling class; thus exempt from moral and ethical conditions we apply to ourselves.

But there's also an ideological root to all the acceptance of this; core to the belief of Ayn Rand and some libertarians is that business leaders should make the best public leaders. So, if you've been successful in private business you ought to have influence in public policy as well.

With the rise of H.W. Bush (Sr.) as Vice President of Ronald Reagan, this ideology had become fully embraced by the Republicans. H.W. Bush was known as an oil tycoon, and it was expected that he could level out the oil prices through his inside knowledge.


But then we also need to backup and realize that this isn't a problem exclusive to the White House; the "revolving door" of public appointments and private business has been documented for about 100 years. This isn't a new thing, and in some ways it makes sense to have people familiar with the industry making decisions about an industry. That's a whole other topic though. Anyways, we shouldn't pretend that Trump is an unprecedented nefarious evil about to doom America because he has some business interests. The reality is that a fuckton of politicians at all levels have business interests - many would argue that's not a bad thing.

u/aletoledo · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

You have a right to remain innocent. This is a very quick and easy read. I generally hate lawyers and this guy puts disclaimers into the beginning that praise government, but i can't help but think he understands anarchy.

u/EntheoGiant · 3 pointsr/Drugs


Watch Law Professor James Duane's lecture on Never Talking to The Police.

Then, go buy his book.

Yes, that's a LAW PROFESSOR telling LAW STUDENTS why you shouldn't speak to the police.

The live demonstrations alone are worth the lecture.

u/sebso · 3 pointsr/technology

This is probably the most important video in the world, and more people need to see it. James Duane, the guy giving the talk, also wrote a book on the subject, which I can highly recommend:

u/jfoust2 · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Prof. James Duane wrote a book now, too - "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent".

Excellent read. Updated and expanded compared to the video.

The biggest problem is that as you read it, you hear him talking in that rapid-fire voice.

u/vakeraj · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

>There is no governmental department deciding how many leather boots will be made this month.

You've obviously never spent a day reading the language government bills, laws, or regulation. There are hundreds of thousands of pages of federal code alone (not even delving into state and local regulations) that govern every conceivable facet of human life. No matter what you do in a given day, you're probably breaking some government rule.

And you're going to sit there and tell me that they don't micromanage the way we live or run our businesses?

u/Flarelocke · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

Three Felonies a Day, an account by a former FBI agent about how they exaggerate things until they fit the definition of vaguely defined felonies.

u/SecretJuly · 3 pointsr/Conservative

Good book I’m in the process of reading...Talks about how our laws are so complex,vague, and convoluted that the average professional commits 3 felonies a day without their knowledge.

u/AirFell85 · 3 pointsr/news
u/HighburyOnStrand · 3 pointsr/news

You've also likely committed some chargeable fraud felony, securities/banking violation, etc. The point is with a fine enough microscope and the desire to look/charge, one can become a "criminal" guilty of serious felonies (we are talking years in jail potentially) without even trying (or even realizing it)

Suggested reading:

u/Anonymous__13 · 3 pointsr/legaladvice

So, I was in contact with a lawyer / friend of a friend who is a federal defense attorney called Harvey Silverglate, and he did indeed write a book ago this exact topic. He's very passionate and has served on the board of the Boston ACLU for many years. Here's a link to it his book:

u/ScowlEasy · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Bad behavior is almost always good politics.

There's a CGP grey video Rules for Rulers, which talks about how horrible, despotic people can remain in power for so long (hint: figure out who actually got you into power, and keep that person happy).

If articles are more your fancy this one has most of the same content.

u/Ant-n · 3 pointsr/Monero
u/readmeink · 3 pointsr/worldnews

I'm going to bank with he doesn't. It's rarely good politics for a dictator to care about the lives of the common people at the expense of his cronies who keep him in power, especially in a war scenario.

Source: The Dictator's Handbook

u/sachinprism · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

I would say that countries are really complex systems that cannot be simplified with a couple of variables into developed and underdeveloped.

I always thought that this oversimplification made sense but then I migrated from India to the US and realized that the United States is actually archaic in a lot of things that India is good at. A big example would be mobile payments and mobile internet in general - Even the poorest of Indians are comfortable using mobile wallets and more Indians have mobile wallets than they have credit cards. I think India sort of skipped the plastic money phase and went straight to mobile.

Planet Money has an excellent podcast on the topic of how and who determines the variables that make a country developed or underdeveloped -
Essentially it works just like how an inefficient, political system works - The powerful and well networked get to make the decision on what matters

Another thing to factor in is democracy and functioning of the government. There is and there never will be truly altruistic leaders. Every individual is essentially motivated by self interest. So lets a leader comes into power in a developing country, he will have a cohort of individuals whom he has to keep satisfied for him to stay in power longer. This cohort will consist of people who have the most resources in the country - Industrialists, people who own the media etc. The smaller the number of people he has to please, the better it is for him. If the country becomes developed, then there will be more people to keep satisfied and thus it becomes harder for the leader. So development is actually counter-intuitive for someone who wants to stay in power.

There are some interesting exceptions - Saudi Arabia, China etc. It would be really good if someone can explain the rationale of leaders in these countries and how they stay in power. It's difficult to rely on stats such as the Gini coefficient in these authoritarian countries - cause they may be manipulating it.

A really good book on this topic -

There is a video that explains the book perfectly. Could not find it. sorry.

Deviating a bit to reply to one of the comments....

One of the comments here say that knowledge comes at the charity of developed countries - nothing could be further from the truth. Developed countries invest in developing countries purely for utilitarian purposes. China for rare earth minerals and manufacturing, Inda and Bangladesh for clothes etc. There is nothing wrong with this. Capitalism at work. I think one thing that badly affects developing countries is "Interventionism". That is rich people thinking they exactly know what a kid in Kenya needs. This has historically lead to more inequalities and even civil wars in Africa. If you really want to help someone, just give them a small loan, they will know what to do with it.

u/illz569 · 3 pointsr/worldbuilding

Two things popped into my head right off the bat:

  • The Dictator's Handbook - it doesn't specifically cover the process of decay and decline, but it's an excellent study on realpolitik, and its look into the behavior of people with power would probably be very helpful for constructing a failing government.

  • The other one I thought of was Dan Carlin's Death Throes of the Republic. It's an audio book, and probably not as detailed as Gibbon's, but it's still excellent, especially if you want something in a different format.
u/Stephanstewart101 · 3 pointsr/geopolitics

The Dictator’s Handbook

This is a great book for understanding why governments do what they do.

u/trudann · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Response to active shooters has generally changed to immediate neutralization after Columbine: there are usually no negotiations and police go in ASAP to apprehend the target. In many areas I think the crazed gunman would have to initiate the negotiations. Often times the first response is not SWAT (they take longer to mobilize), but whoever arrives first that has a weapon.

As far as SWAT teams go, for the most part I think there are far too many in America. Even smaller communities have a SWAT team, though the chance of their need is very low. I mean.. how many incidences can a town with a population of 10,000 really have that would require a SWAT team?

As a result the teams are often under trained and to justify the expense of having one staffed and equipped the rate of no-knock raids increases. IMO no-knocks are most certainly dangerous, unnecessary and serve only to habituate violence. But unfortunately a man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail.

All that said in this particular situation I would say that Brown was looking for trouble that day and found it, but that not enough evidence has been released yet to determine if the actions of the officer were justified. I'm not sure there will be enough evidence to really ever know. I certainly wouldn't trust the testimony that his friend/accomplice in strong arm robbery would give. More video or other eyewitness accounts would be needed.

Ultimately I think communities across America need to reconsider the militarization of their police. What's far more worrisome than any of the police response to protesters and rioters so far are no-knock raids on the wrong houses. And how regular warrants are starting to be served in ways that look more and more like no-knock warrants.

A decent read on the subject of police militarization and the use of SWAT teams:

u/Firsmith · 3 pointsr/TrueReddit

This book is a great read on the subject. rise of the warrior cop

u/GrayghOst123 · 3 pointsr/news

There is a book I am currently reading that is pertinent to the subject of police policy overreach. It is called Rise of the Warrior Cop I would recommend it to anyone wondering how SWAT started as a purely anti-terrorist force to becoming used for just about everything today.

u/WaterIce215 · 3 pointsr/news

Great book on the subject of militarized police called Rise of the Warrior Cop by Ridley Balko, who did an AMA on the subject.

u/sticky-bit · 3 pointsr/amateurradio

The vast majority of police communications really need to be broadcast in the clear, live:

>"There is a tanker trailer full of flammable liquid, on fire and overturned just south of exit 9 southbound, I-95"

There are a small amount of communications that still need to be broadcast, but for officer safety need a few minutes of delay:

>"We're going to try to get to the sniper atop The Tower at the University of Texas by going through an underground tunnel"

^(Please note that the information that there is an active shooter on the top of the tower needs to be broadcast far and wide to help prevent loss of life. The tactical stuff only should go on delay. If all the comms are scrambled, they're keeping vital information from the public.)

There's a only a very few bits of information that never should be broadcast in the clear, but still need to be available by discovery under the supervision of a judge, should a lawsuit occur.

>"The rape victim's name is "

Unfortunately, the way we're moving in this country ("Burn that fucking house down!", secret interrogation rooms for the Chicago police department, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces) is entirely the wrong direction.

u/aethelberga · 3 pointsr/conspiracy
u/genesissequence · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

According to Radley Balko most of the surplus comes from the war on drugs.

u/Zeighesh · 3 pointsr/motorcycles

If we're handing out book recommendations, Radley Balko's reporting and books The Rise of the Warrior Cop and Overkill would probably broaden your perspective.

u/IQBoosterShot · 3 pointsr/politics

I highly recommend reading "Rise Of The Warrior Cop: The Militarization Of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko. I'm in the middle of it and already I feel like I'm understanding a process which had its genesis in the sixties.

u/liamemsa · 3 pointsr/news

> How the fuck is it okay for police to go in there with assault rifles and treating them like that? Even if it were weed, that shouldn't be acceptable...

After 2001, the military got a shitload of hardware. Now that the "war on terror" is dialing down, they need to get rid of this hardware. Through a government program, local police departments are able to procure military hardware at discount.

This means that small towns, who would normally have nothing but blue uniformed patrolmen walking the streets, are suddenly able to get MRAPs, military style uniforms, armor, and weapons.

And, as the old adage goes, When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

If they have an armored personnel carrier sitting in their bay, they're going to want an excuse to use it. What's a better reason than "Fighting the War on Drugs," am I right? So, all the cop guys who play Modern Warfare in their off-hours suddenly get to armor up, grab an automatic rifle, and do it for real. How fun is that, right?

It's becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between police and military.

For more reading, check out this book.

u/Orlando1701 · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

There is a study out there somewhere, I’ll try and find it and link it, which shows the cops are generally reluctant to actually use SWAT against armed or aggressive persons but prefer to wait them out. Rather SWAT is disproportionately used when it is an established fact that the target is likely to offer minimal resistance.

*Edit - I couldn’t find the original source I used in my paper years ago but it is referenced in this book which admittedly isn’t the most balanced source.

u/badmagis · 3 pointsr/madisonwi

You guys got a nice back-and-forth going here, but I'd just like to interject with a book recommendation on the history of police: Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko (

It's a well researched and footnoted book - the author explains that police as we know them are a surprisingly recent development. Mostly affirming the info in the links shared by u/Gilgong0. What I found interesting is 1) we as people only started having police when people started living close to strangers in larger cities (because before that your family and church members just shamed you and/or physically dealt with you if needed) and 2) there is not technically a constitutional basis for police (but no one is making a serious argument they shouldn't exist)

u/Javik2186 · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

Ever read the book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko?

It is a good book to read. I recommened it.
Rise of the Warrior Cop

u/DINKDINK · 3 pointsr/sanfrancisco

It's all a fabricated shame. This book does an excellent job of explaining what's going on beyond the kneejerk headline:

u/jimbro2k · 3 pointsr/technology

Read the book Amazon: Three Felonies a Day. Basically, it is impossible for any normal American to get through a single day without committing multiple felonies. The progressive discounting of mens rea by the state means that your intent or even awareness no longer matters.

u/reddit_is_r_cringe · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Then why was Aaron Shwartz prosecuted over 'unauthorized use' of MIT computers? Anyway that is one example, as I said. It'd probably help to read the article I linked.

How about piracy? Another example. Drug use?

Maybe read some of these comments

u/kronch · 3 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

The citation is Harvey Silverglate - a Harvard Law professor who published a book about it in 2011.

In general - the book was more about how mundane things we do everyday could be interpreted as a crime.

Here are a few examples:

u/antine_ · 3 pointsr/ukpolitics

Highly recommend anyone interested in this read The Dictator's Handbook - the book goes into interesting detail about the politics of how foreign aid really works.

Basically it's more often than not about paying foreign dictators for favours then it is about providing genuine aid.

u/FirstSpeakerSchrute · 3 pointsr/bestof

This shit all reads like it's straight out of The Dictator's Handbook. They have all these rules and bylaws pretty much specifically set up to raise the barriers to participation in the association and thereby keep themselves in power (however local and limited that power may be).

u/thek3nger · 3 pointsr/italy

Dato che parli di anti establishment e mi sembri una persona ragionevole, ti faccio qualche appunto che magari serve come spunto di riflessione in futuro.

La parola anti-establishment è una parola completamente vuota. Chi promette di abbattere l'establishment lo fa perché vuole diventarlo esso stesso.

Il punto è che molte delle sovrastrutture governative non sono costrutti artificiosi fatti per succhiare potere, ma conseguenze necessarie e spesso machiaveliche per scaricare le tensioni e mettere d'accordo decine di stati con molteplici interessi contrastanti. Se hai idea di quanto sia complicato fare una riunione di condominio, puoi immaginare come sia divertente accordare decine di stati nazionali.

Ciò non significa che persone in malafede aplrofittino della complessità di queste istituzioni per instaurare strutture di potere. Ma risolvere questo va nella direzione opposta al distruggere l'establishment.

Altro problema. Non è che lo spazio lasciato libero da un establishment che se ne va rimane vuoto. Bensì, come un gas qualcuno arriverà a riempirlo. Solitamente a riempire questi spazi sono suoerpotenze estere (Russia, USA, Cina) o corporazioni private (come nel caso dell'Africa, la cui frammentazione in decine di stati in conflitto è sicuramente incoraggiata dall'occiddente e fa da terreno fertile per società private che de facto sono stati negli stati).

L'UE ad esempio è il bersaglio classico di establishment per molti partiti. Anche se è vero che la commissione europea è poco rappresentativa degli stati e andrebbe riformata, L'UE è l'unica massa critica in grado di giocare ad armi quasi pari con gli altri elementi in gioco. Quando qualcuno parla di eliminarla chiediti sempre "a chi gioverebbe?".

Detto questo, ho fatto un pippone OT da cellulare. Solo perché la macro politica e la teoria dei giochi mi piace parecchio e mi piace parlarne in modo non convenzionale :D.

Magari quando torno a casa edito e aggiungo link a un paio di libri al riguardo.

EDIT: Ecco il promesso angolo dei libri!

  • The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics [Amazon] -- La fa un po' facile e non devi prenderlo come oro colato. Ma è il più "divulgativo" dei libri e getta le basi per tutta una serie di ragionamenti più complessi.
  • The Logic of Political Survival [Amazon] Stesso autore, 6 anni prima. Più formale ma un mattone da quasi 600 pagine. Per veri appassionati. :D
  • The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups [Amazon] -- Piccolo ma denso manualetto sulla teoria dei gruppi applicata ai beni pubblici.
  • The Best and the Brightest [Amazon]
  • Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis [Amazon] -- Un grande classico di politica internazionale.

    Direi che per ora basta. Se devi cominciare da qualche parte, consiglio il primo e l'ultimo. Sono più brevi, densi e divulgativi.
u/Trollatopoulous · 3 pointsr/Romania

Daca vrei sa afli cum arata perspectiva puterii citeste +
Se aplica in orice loc unde sunt oameni.

Sunt foarte multe de spus dar eu 's prea obosit momentan.

u/L8_2_The_Party · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Actually, on a serious note, I recommend this [book] ( the premise of which is that no matter what you do, the structure of the modern legal system in the U.S. is so messed up that you can't NOT break it. Also, check out the related books. Liberal, libertarian, or conservative, it should scare the hell outta ya. ;) Just sayin'

u/Reelnigga · 3 pointsr/news

>I don't remember asking them to go out and commit crimes.

I don't remember asking you to commit three felonies a day. Crime has been dropping yet prison population is increasing, the good factory job I had was taken by a prisoner making $17.85 an hour less than me. To get that job the prisoner had to be non-violent, so most likely a pot smoker is now making rims for GM for $0.15 per hour.

If you're so worried about your money why aren't you demanding that the criminals (Wall Street) that wrecked the economy pay for their crimes? Why arent' you demanding the police that confiscate property pay for their crimes?

Perhaps it's because you're a profiteer with the slavers?

u/GayMilitaryBoy · 3 pointsr/news

Seize Google's databases. Sit on them. Find illegal activity in them (everyone is a felon: ) Blackmail your way to totalitarianism.

u/dontspamjay · 3 pointsr/texas

That's almost certainly not true for you or the average person.

You should read the book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

u/VicisSubsisto · 3 pointsr/GoldandBlack
u/marcchoover · 3 pointsr/news
u/inb4_banned · 3 pointsr/Bitcoin

we are literally all criminals

in principal i agree with you though, employers dont care what you are doing with your money, and more importantly do not have the ability to trace your money movements on the blockchain since adresses are not people and bitcoin is pseudo anonymous:

u/Panaphobe · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

I haven't read it yet, but I've heard that Three Felonies A Day is a really good book on this topic.

u/malvoliosf · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

That's just it: people who the cops like get "put that away"; anyone they don't like get arrested.

And I don't say that to criticize the police. In the abstract, people the police don't like are generally people who need arrestin'.

But you can see how the situation degenerates. If everyone is guilty of, say, three felonies a day, then each one of lives totally at the sufferance of the people in power.

> There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
> — Floyd Ferris

u/SolidSaiyanGodSSnake · 3 pointsr/rage

It essentially comes from the vagueness of many laws (therefore open to interpretation). Stuff like unintentionally walking onto federally controlled land, conflicts between state and federal laws, wire fraud by lying or exaggerating about something on the phone, and yeah lots of copyright bullshit. If you are interested you can read this book:

u/Opheltes · 3 pointsr/florida

By one count, the average person in this county commits three felonies a day. By your logic, no one should be allowed to vote.

u/pixl_graphix · 3 pointsr/news

The issue here is the disconnect between the perfect surveillance state and perfect law.

All forms of surveillance state are biased against the citizenry because of a very flawed way we make laws. Simply put, in the US, no one really knows the actual number of laws that apply to a citizen day to day. We do know the number is in the 10s to 100s of thousands. We are talking about laws just past days ago to laws from the date our country formed. There have already been countless cases where law enforcement wanted to make a case against individuals and dug around in books to find the exact one they needed. Three Felonies a Day touches on this with the federal government.

The problem here is you are using the most obvious felonies such as murder as you're example, but really murders are rare. This system will be used as a method to assess a huge number of tickets for mundane things. And with the disparities we already have in our legal system, they will be used to a much greater effect in places that do not have the money to fight such tickets.

You really have to understand the history of how US laws were allowed to be written by the supreme court. Lots of laws have been 'allowed' because enforcement was difficult, when enforcement becomes easy the law needs to be assessed.

u/myrealopinionsfkyu · 3 pointsr/politics

Did you know the average human commits three crimes that the government could consider a felony per day?

Laws have become so complicated and vexing that if the government wants to make you a felon they can.

u/2TM-XdT-uDq-Lsu · 3 pointsr/houston

Well, maybe there are certain circumstances where the prosecution of an offense is of sufficient community interest that an unrelated lesser offense on the part of the victim is treated as if it were out of bounds for investigation or at least prosecution on due process grounds or by offering the victim official immunity in return for their testimony. For example, it'd be a bad thing if victims of human traffickers were deported before they could testify.

Three Felonies a Day description: "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day."

Should reporting a crime and cooperation with the authorities in prosecuting it be an invitation for one's life to be investigated, taxes audited, etc?

u/Rufus_Reddit · 3 pointsr/news
u/SecureThruObscure · 3 pointsr/Conservative

Yes, I have.

Your article only talks about wrongly accused crimes, what about crimes that shouldn't be crimes? What about the expansion of federal laws to the point that accessing the internet incorrectly is a crime?

u/icallmyselfmonster · 3 pointsr/changemyview

But not all crimes are immoral, you would be placing undue difficulty on people who are generally good but commit crimes that affect nobody.

Also if you start to eliminate most crimes, even minor divergence from the imposed norm are magnified. Until a person like you is impacted.

EDIT: the book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent might be of interest to you.

u/AFTRUNKMONKEY · 3 pointsr/news

This is true. Although it applies to all aspects of life in the US.

Three Felonies a day discusses this.

u/electrickoolaid42 · 3 pointsr/DarkNetMarkets

The average person commits three felonies a day. Are you prepared to face the consequences for those you've committed?

u/flsixtwo · 3 pointsr/worldnews
u/fstorino · 3 pointsr/technology

> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.

u/Uncle_Father_Oscar · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

"It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

Just one example of a law that probably everyone has violated. Did you hold the windex exactly 6 inches from the surface you were cleaning? No? Then prison.

u/Ordinate1 · 3 pointsr/worldpolitics

> Well they shouldnt be committing felonies then.

u/goodsam1 · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

and yeah this seems like it could be solved by a congressman who makes his laws about removing/streamlining the code of law.

u/tob_krean · 3 pointsr/wisconsin

> This is probably true. But it has nothing to do with people going to prison for crimes they actually committed.

And which crimes are those? Running a red light in Florida on a short yellow? Buying crack instead of cocaine? Driving while black?

And what crimes did you commit today but went home in peace because not too many people are looking for what you may be doing or that you don't stand out in a crowd. How many times have you been frisked for walking around a large city?

Let's get this straight. If you murder some one, if you rape or beat someone, if you rob some one, fine, do the crime, do the time.

But what "time" is that? More than someone of a different sex, race, or religion? More time than someone who can rip off 1000's of people. More time than someone who affects the health and welfare of 1000's of people? How about those who can do it "legally."

> No offense taken.

Good, non intended. (Edit: Also note, the rest of this below is not directed -at- corduroyblack but to the community and society at large, he just happens to be the one I'm talking with about it.)

> I see where they're coming from.

Again no offense, but I doubt it. At least I doubt it in a "walk a mile in their shoes" sense.

I seriously doubt it based on your interactions in the original clusterfuck Belmont thread when others were calling you out to walk a mile on their shoes and you took serious offense, and I doubt it now.

And that doesn't make you a bad person, but either life experiences or some other factor would suggest that you have selective sympathy, but not empathy. And empathy doesn't mean approval either. But no, from your comments, I think you draw a very concrete line where you end, and where you picture other people begin and to what degree you can imagine trading places with them. It seems to be who you are which is why I phrase it the way I did.

> I just don't care.

Then you are part of the problem. You may have very good reasons. But you are part of the problem. Until we stop, as a society and pretend like these millions of individuals are literally just millions of cases of "individual choice" and not a symptom of much larger problems, then we are not likely to do anything about that.

> I worked with incarcerated individuals and juvenile delinquents for years.

And I worked with people who could have become delinquents but either there was someone there to make a difference (like myself), or their environment was a lot more stable than many other people -- which again justifies nothing per se, but approaches it from a macro level. Anecdotes are great, they help us identify with a problem, but neither your nor my experiences could account for an "1 in 8" statistic.

> They're the reason I don't do criminal law now.

No, I think that reason would be that if you were a public defender, then the system is screwing you as well and you have my sympathies.

If you weren't, then perhaps that job is something that most people don't have the stomach for long term. There are also plenty of people who work in difficult situations like that and still believe in their fellow citizen despite being betrayed by individual ones. I'll give credit where credit is due to those people because not everyone can and they may more than either you or I.

> I have little sympathy or patience for people making excuses for their own adult behavior.

And you know what I have little sympathy nor patience for?

The excuses that we make as a society that suggests that some people need to play by the rules and other people will never, ever have to play by the rules no matter how hard you try and catch them. And that seems to have a very direct correlation with money and power. So each election cycle we go for those who are "tough on crime" and shy away from actual problem solvers because it might take "my money" and give it to someone else. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but its a classic example.

I think the hyper-focus on the "individual" past a basic lawfulness is ridiculous and any of your response does not account for why we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. When we see the basic social contract fail, you honestly are going to get into the individual "excuses" as the root of the problem?

Its the same reason why micro-economists may not make good macro-economists nor understand the larger regional, national or world economies. I can appreciate you were a lawyer with a difficult time. My condolences. Still doesn't refute anything I've said. I'd say if your heart wasn't in that field, its best you did give it up and move on for your own sake. Your personal experiences still don't answer the question of why we have 1 in 8 African American men in prison.

> Excuses are like assholes: everybody's got one and they usually stink.

You're right, they do. And the trite "personal responsibility" excuse for explaining a larger social problem stinks equally as well. So do thought terminating "catchy phrases" And suggesting that people are making "excuses" when in fact we will have to unpack all the baggage that we as a society have before we can roll up our sleeve and as how "we" collectively went wrong, instead of asking where "they" went wrong and just suggest they "stop doing that."

Then "maybe" we might start getting somewhere.

u/CrossSwords · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

This is selective prosecution/enforcement at its finest. There are tons of federal crimes and regulations for corporations, and only a handful of federal prosecutors. So if you piss off the administration they will find a law that you have broken and make it stick.

u/dethkon · 3 pointsr/news

Sure thing. Study and WSJ Article

u/Wikitrollfaceman · 3 pointsr/technology

There is a whole book written about it:

u/joyhammerpants · 3 pointsr/cringepics

Yeah you're right, no one innocent has ever been to jail. Clearly if the police accuse you of something, its 100% chance you did it, let's just get rid of courts! But seriously, there's a lot of people in jail for bullshit offences. You can be thrown in jail for not paying child support on time, and they still expect you pay while locked up. We have prostitutes and nonviolent drug offenders all together with rapists thieves and murderers in some cases. Just because you commit a crime (in a country where apparently on average people commit 3 felonies a day without knowing it, check out the [book] ( ). Doesn't mean you should be dehumanized, especially since we will likely start locking up political prisoners soon enough.

u/nubbinator · 3 pointsr/guns

It is racist when you don't consider why it occurs and, instead, associate it with blackness and black culture when, in fact, it has more to do with poverty, policing, and racialized, if not flat out racist, policy and policy enforcement.

I'd check out some books like The New Jim Crow, The Condemnation of Blackness, As Long as They Don't Move Next Door, Punishment and Inequality in America, Prisons of Poverty, and Punishing the Poor. I know of very few criminologists who would say that crime is a racial thing, instead, it is the enforcement of crime that is racial and it is the income disparity between blacks and whites that causes us to see higher rates of crime amongst blacks in America.

u/anderander · 3 pointsr/news

Sounds good but in practice...

In reference to stop and frisk tactics in New York:

> Weapons were seized in 1.0 percent of the stops of blacks, 1.1 percent of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4 percent of the stops of whites.

> Contraband other than weapons was seized in 1.8 percent of the stops of blacks, 1.7 percent of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3 percent of the stops of whites.

First result when I googled "stop and frisk success rate"

The downright low success rates of these tactics were detailed in the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

u/nimbletine_beverages · 3 pointsr/politics

The criminalization of counter culture and free thinkers is just a happy side effect of the effort to implement a formally colorblind but effective racial caste system.

Seriously, read this book

The opponents of civil rights simply shifted their focus into being "tough on crime." This obsession with so called 'law and order' has been massively successful in its aim, even civil rights democrats embraced it.

u/elliottpayne · 3 pointsr/Blackfellas

Must reads:

Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

u/automaticfantastic · 3 pointsr/malefashionadvice

You can start with books like this?

u/Alienm00se · 3 pointsr/technology

Its that exactly. I recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander for anyone interested in the topic.

u/dsilbz · 3 pointsr/soccer

> The US is responsible for vast numbers of human rights reforms around the world as it usually puts some standards in place when doing trade deals with other countries/regional associations.

And the U.S. also operated the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prison where the U.S. routinely tortured inmates and subjected them to humiliating acts of sexual abuse.

The U.S. also operated (and still does operate) a series of underground interrogation sites (black sites) where we conduct "enhanced interrogations" that the U.S. Senate had even determined to be torture.

The U.S., the "land of the free", has a higher percentage of its population constrained of their liberty (in jails/prisons) than any country in the entire world. The U.S. incarcerates its black population at a rate higher than South Africa during apartheid, the most openly racist regime in the modern era.

Despite the Geneva Convention banning the targeting of hospitals in war, the U.S. stormed the hospital in Fallujah in the first days of the Iraq war in 2004, and the assault on the hospital was even broadcast on the front page of the New York Times.

The U.S. runs Guantanamo Bay, where the U.S. holds individuals under indefinite detention despite never formally accusing them of a crime, in violation of a host of global conventions on the rights of the accused.

I could keep going and do this all day.

Don't get me wrong; I was born, live, and work in the United States. I legitimately love it here, and think we've done some great things. At the same time, it's incredibly naive to claim that the U.S. is responsible for "vast numbers of human rights reforms around the world" through trade deals or whatever.

The reality is that the US, like most western nations at this stage, has a pretty brutal and horrifying history of rights abuses.

u/happydepressedguy · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Good lord. Someone needs some Michelle Alexander in their life. (For context: she wrote The New Jim Crow and is one of the scholars featured in Ava DuVernay's documentary 13th. If you haven't seen her work, you need to.)

u/SpicyDragoon93 · 3 pointsr/Blackfellas

The best book you could possibly read is a book called 'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander. It's about America's racist criminal justice system.

u/imVINCE · 3 pointsr/PoliticalHumor

Eh, while I appreciate your reasoned approach to the issue, I think you’re misrepresenting the severity of the issue of racial disparities in policing. I can’t recommend The New Jim Crow highly enough as a meticulously researched, data-packed analysis of the issue and its historical precedents.

u/areyoumydad- · 3 pointsr/politics

Ben Shapiro is an ideologue. He doesn't desire progress; he's a professional agitator.

See, e.g.: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them

I'm open to ideas from all sides of the aisle that are based in reality and solve problems. He's a rabblerouser and ideologue with no genuine interest in advancing the cause of the human race. But I'll defend his right to speak as much as anyone else because that's one of the - if not the most - important foundations of our nation.

u/I_am_the_night · 3 pointsr/OutOfTheLoop

>No, it isn't disingenuous, and it is a similar thing.

You think moose and people are as different as men and women?

>There are people riding this wave, calling themselves something other than human.

Trans people still call themselves human.

>Calling yourself something other than what you are is, what it is.

The majority of scientific evidence indicates that it is more complicated than "penis=man", but I wouldn't expect Shapiro to be familiar with that research given that he dismisses psychology, sociology, and the aspects of other sciences he disagrees with (like climate change, which he denies frequently).

>Whether you call yourself a woman, when you're biologically a man, or you call yourself a moose, like he said.

It's really weird that you think those two are the same

>She said she thought that the Boy Scouts should allow girls who call themselves boys in.

Trans boys, yes. And the Scouts agreed with her.

>If I call myself something, it doesn't make it so.


>She didn't know what she was talking about, by the way, and he did engage her argument. Her argument was that the Boy Scouts should allow females in, he said the Boy Scouts have a standard, you have to be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. That's him addressing her argument.

Right, and then when she tried to address that point and counter it, he cut her off.

>What would that book be?

This one.

>Apart from some hyperbole, there's nothing wrong with that article.

Hyperbole is a very generous interpretation of that article, in my opinion.

>The left in general seem to want to replace god with government.

You keep thinking that.

>Compulsion, is fascism...

No, it isn't. Compulsion is not automatically fascism, unless you think having laws that are enforced by police are automatically fascism.

>I don't think YOU know what fascism is...

I know what fascism is. I've read quite a bit on the subject. I'm not an expert or anything, but I'm inclined to agree with Robert Paxton, who states that fascism is:

>"a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion"

Which sounds a lot more like Trump than Obama, and it certainly sounds nothing like anything Ben Shapiro was talking about.

>but the third most certainly is. Being fired for free speech, in order to silence someone.

James Demore wasn't fired for exercising free speech, he was fired because he wrote an essay saying that women were biologically worse at computer science despite no evidence to back it up. Google is a private company, and they are totally within their rights to fire someone who says that a massive portion of their workforce is biologically incompetent.

>I didn't say anything about him not supporting Trump. But just so you're clear, he didn't support or vote for Donald Trump, until he saw all the good things he's doing.

Well I'll hold my breath until Trump does more than maybe 1 or 2 good things (the space force is a good idea).

>I don't worship at his feet, just clearing up some lies and misinformation, you seemed to be spreading. Maybe you were doing it unknowingly, but I still had to set the record straight.

Good job on that.

>Again, he doesn't engage disingenuously and doesn't use "arguments designed to "own" liberals". He does debate people. I suggest you watch one of his debates and actually listen.

I've listened to his debates and read some of his books. I'm still not impressed, and stand by what I've said.

u/caferrell · 3 pointsr/DescentIntoTyranny

Besides this book, I would highly suggest that everyone read "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radly Balko. Read Balkow's book to see how American police have evolved into the occupying army that they are now thanks to bad legislation and too much power

u/sonyka · 3 pointsr/ShitRedditSays

> The police force in this town has tripled in the last dozen years. They have also transformed from the approachable servants they are supposed to be into highly militarized and aggressive shitbags.

Somehow this bothers me the most.

Like, honey, the police force in every town in America has tripled in the last dozen years.
They have all become highly militarized and [even more] aggressive.
This has been going on for

Where the fuck were you?

u/E-bin · 2 pointsr/Polska

> Kiedy Ben Shapiro wejdzie za mocno

Niezbyt mnie ułomek Shapiro interesuje, znasz się widocznie lepiej na nim niż ja.

>Słownik polecam.

Ok, to na podstawie słownikowej definicji wyjaśnij dlaczego nazwałeś ten materiał faszystowskim xD Zresztą obawiam się że większości tych wydumanych pojęć nie znajdę w konwencjonalnej encyklopedii.

> Nie powiedziałem nic o nazistach?

powiedziałeś o faszystach, nie wiem czy to dla ciebie aż tak wielka różnica.


Zaraz, czyli linijka pod tym, że nie mówiłeś nic o nazistach porównujesz mnie do nazistów? To dobre :D

u/Pvtmiller · 2 pointsr/benshapiro

"How to debates leftists and destroy them" written by Ben Shapiro.

Additionally, the two YouTube videos that Neil referenced were published on the Daily Wire's YouTube page, a publication that Benjamin is editor-in-chief to. Presumably he has editorial control over the titles of things posted there.

u/cuentafalsa1234 · 2 pointsr/argentina

> Podés creer lo que quieras. Yo no dije "falso". En lo que a mi concierne, Cristina puede haber hecho exactamente todas las cosas que Nisman denunciaba y aún así no hay delito constituído. Si leyeras la denuncia, se desprende una sola conclusión posible. Queda muy claro que ni la miraste.

Pero el pacto se firmó. No es que lo pensaron nada más y no hicieron nada al respecto. Es un poco más complejo que tu ejemplo sobre matarme. Obviamente que planear algo y no actuar no es delito, si fuera por cada pensamiento oscuro yo estaría preso hace años. El tema es que acá se actuó.

Y la verdad es que no soy abogado ni se tanto de derehco, y la denuncia como decís es floja, y muchos lo dicen. pero eso no quiere decir que, como decía, no sea verosimil. Escucharlo a D'elia (un tipo que se trajo 1 millon de dolares en cash de Cuba para armar la contracumbre contra Bush en Mardel, y lo reconoció!!!) conspirando con Rabbani, me parece que es algo que al menos da para sospechar, más allá del trabajo de Nisman.

> Claro, y es totalmente imposible que alguien de una facción cualquiera opuesta al gobierno haga esto para generar exactamente esa impresión.

Sería la primera vez en la historia del mundo que se hace algo así para desestabilizae a un gobierno que se termina en seis meses y que ya está muy débil por los miles de quilombos que creó por todos lados. No es que estamos hablando de Néstor en el 2006.

> Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Lee la denuncia. No tiene nada de "Verosimil". Los hechos que Nisman dice que indicaban culpabilidad no sucedieron. Eso es la definición de inverosimilitud.

Andá más allá del documento de la denuncia, y decime si no tiene aunque sea una pizca de verosimilitud.

Además yo no estoy habalndo con el diario del día después. Si el gobierno si hizo ese pacto, incluso si no lo llevó a cabo (a pesar de haber hecho su parte y aprobarlo en el Congreso), ellos no podían saber que la denuncia era una garcha juridicamente. Por lo que tiene sentido que hayan querido prevenir que hablara o que la presentara. O por lo menos tener una excusa para salir a embarrar la cancha.

Ahora, si no hicieron el pacto no tiene sentido nada de eso, obviamente. Pero que lo hayan aprobado en el congreso me da una cierta pauta de que no era una mentira de nisman. Insisto, a pesar de lo choto que pueda ser su escrito.

> Lol yo le doy muy poco crédito, vos estás diciendo que se auto-generó una crisis política a propósito.

Es lo que viene haciendo desde hace 8 años. Te doy solo dos ejemplos.

  1. La crisis del campo. Ella la podría haber desarticulado cualquier día, pero presionó, insistió, jodió, hizo marchas, provocó a los ruralistas, creó la guerra con Clarin. Por qué? Porque políticamente se benefició con eso, le permitió crear y darle forma al relato.
  2. La crisis con los holdouts. Podría haber pagado cualquier día. La cláusula Ruffo no era tan seria. Pero incluso si te la querías tomar en serio, van 3 meses del 2015 y podía pagar el 1 de enero. Por qué no lo hizo? Porque los Buitres son el enemigo perfecto, y la crisis política alrededor de eso le reditua, porque puede culpar a los yankis - un enemigo muy querido en argentina - y crecer políticamente.

    Y así hay mil más.

    > A ver ¿Qué bibliografía me recomendás?

    Te recomiendo varios de mi biblioteca personal:

  • El autoritarismo competitivo, de Steven Levitsky. Analiza muy bien las nuevas "democracias" autoritarias, sobre todo en las exrepúblicas soviéticas, y en algunas zonas de América Latina.
  • Nothing to Envy: Real Lives in North Korea. Este libro es excelente. Una corresponsal yanki en Korea del Sur cuenta la historia de 6 o 7 desertores norcoreanos – muchos igual muy nostálgicos de su vida en aquel país –que cuentan el régimen desde adentro. Te pone la piel de gallina, y también te hace ver otro lado del regimen.
  • Finding the Dragon Lady Este cuenta la historia de Madame Nhu, la primera dama de Vietnam del Sur antes de la guerra. Una hija de puta impulsiva y caprichosa que generó tantos conflictos que casi casi que aceleró la guerra. No es un libro muy profundo, pero es muy divertido y si te gustan las historias de dictadores o democracias altamente imperfectas está bueno.
  • The Dictators Handbook Este está escrito en tono muy gracioso por dos politólogos de NYU, pero básicamente hace un trazado y exhibe elementos comunes en varias dictaduras alrededor del mundo. No es un libro académico ni mucho menos, es para leer en el baño casi, pero la verdad que está bueno y tiene su valor.
  • Why Nations Fail Este creo que es un libro fundamental. Habla sobre el origen de las naciones, sobre la maldición de los recursos naturales, y sobre como el mismo sistema político lleva a que muchos países no se desarrollen. Es un libro super conocido, y vale la pena.

    Tengo algunos más, pero tengo el Kindle sin batería y no me acuerdo del nombre de todos. Pero los dictadores son uno de mis temas favoritos.

    No con eso quiero decir que Cristina sea Kim Jong Un, ni Madame Nhu, o Saddam Hussein. Nomás digo que toma elementos de ese tipo de regímenes y que su aplicación de algunas estrategias parece de manual. Nada más.

    > Es meramente estar medianamente informado. Lee la denuncia. Es descabellada, mal escrita, vergonzosa.

    Como dije antes, vos te remitís nomás al documento.

    Edit: corregí lo que dije sobre los buitres, había puesto cualquiera.
u/Draestyn · 2 pointsr/CringeAnarchy

This is actually true. Liberals have decreased brain volume in the right amygdala.^1 They have lesser brain function in the prefrontal cortex that suggests many of them may have hypofrontality, which is what causes laziness. Conservatives score higher in conscientiousness/work-ethic. Liberals have a poor understanding of what is harmful due to their lack of brain development. This is partially what causes them to be score highest in criminality.^2

Social liberals in particular (social justice-types) tend to have too much empathy such that they are incapable of rationalizing their way to their own morality.^3 Instead, whoever victimizes themselves is the most moral to them.^4 If you disagree with them, it is such that "you are immoral" and they result to insult and make character assassinations. It is a fact that too much empathy leads to immorality.^5

A good way to fight this is to engage in moral arguments with them and prove them to be immoral instead of having cause-and-effect arguments which the right prefers to have.^6

[1] Brain structure

[2] Liberal criminality

[3] Liberal vs. Conservative on empathy & morality

[4] PC Police and Social Attitudes

[5] Too much empathy leads to immoral and irrational behavior

[6] Debating leftists

u/PRbox · 2 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

Thanks for the recommendation. I've got a lot of "left-leaning" books (well, some of them) on my list now that all sound interesting, and Debt is definitely a high priority because people keep recommending it.

Have you read any of his other work? Bullshit Jobs sounds really interesting but a couple reviews said the original article he wrote on the topic pretty much sums the book up in a much lower word count.

A few of the books on my to-read list in case anyone sees this and is interested:

u/Hoihe · 2 pointsr/hungary
u/DoYouEnjoyMy · 2 pointsr/LateStageCapitalism

I recommend this book. It will explain why that will never happen

u/DrunkenEffigy · 2 pointsr/politics

You know how I know I'm talking to a moron, cause you hyperfocused on the one word that offended you and ignored the 3 links provided on your other questions. Also cause I pointed out that you can name any country and find corruption problems with it. I love the fact that the second article you linked included that graphic and you didn't notice because I'm guessing you didn't bother to read it. Note even countries on the low end of the corruption spectrum aren't squeaky clean (U.S. see pharmaceutical lobbyist). As to systemic corruption problems in central and South America I personally believe it to be a problem with specific resource contribution overshadowing citizen contribution as covered in The Dictator's Handbook.

You specifically are a racist because you believe corruption happens because they are Latin-American. By the way the first article you linked was actually talking about the improvements in Latin-America dealing with corruption. But I'm guessing you didn't read that either because you are a low effort racist and you liked the headline. Also you ignored my answers to your other two questions.

u/Veganpuncher · 2 pointsr/Adelaide

I'm sorry I missed it. Edward Luttwak's legendary Coup d'Etat, and de Mesquita and Smith's The Dictator's Handbook are also good sources if you didn't make it.

Machiavelli is, of course, the Baseline for the aspiring tyrant.

u/TheFifthPageOfReddit · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

So I'm by no means an expert on this, but a while back I read a book called The Dictator's Handbook that goes into why executives and monarchs do this to their companies/counties.

A condensed version of the book can be seen by watching this CGP Grey video.

The TL;DW version of this:

Nobody rules alone. Executives have to answer to their board of directors, who in turn have other people they have to answer to and so on and so forth. These people have the power to throw you out if you don't please them.

How do you please people best? Bribe them. Give them incentives to keep you as top dog. How do you get the resources to bribe? Pillage your country/company for wealth.

You shower your immediate underlings with gifts and benefits and they won't oust you. Partially because they're in a good situation from it. Partially because if they do there is a risk that they'll get culled in a change of power (fewer people = more wealth for each person).

As a result top executives who find that they cannot get the resources to give to their underlings by improving the company will instead just grapple for anything they can get a hold of to keep their position.

This is of course a simplified explanation and the book goes into it way better.

u/switzerlandsweden · 2 pointsr/brasil

esse episódio foi baseado nesse livro, vale a leitura

u/MercuryEnigma · 2 pointsr/CGPGrey2
u/Beyond_Earth_Rising · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

You can start here. Then move onto here to address what you just said. For fun you can then move onto here. Once you've got all that under your belt you can learn how politics really works by reading this.

Good luck! But I urge you not make comments like "Nazis were left wing" until you've combated your ignorance with those books! Don't do it for me, do it for yourself and your country!

u/pocketknifeMT · 2 pointsr/politics

Can you name a more competent leader on the African Continent?

He was quite effective and even good, in a dictator's handbook sort of way.

He probably was killed over his credible plan to tank the petro-dollar. That's something any American administration would literally kill to stop.

u/SomethingInThatVein · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

Your assertion that there is absolutely no state-sponsored influence on any facets of American media, and that there are no power players who involve themselves in advertising, is obviously, categorically false. Your argument is founded solely on either naivety or misinformation. I'd recommend to everybody seeing this read The Dictator's Handbook, NY Times best-selling Dark Money, and maybe even Pulitzer-prize winning Black Flag for a more in-depth study on the complicated issue of how exactly we're manipulated and exploited.

u/JollyGreenJesus · 2 pointsr/politics

This isn't a phenonema that's just restricted to US presidents.

Throughout the ages, whenever a ruler's health would start to fail, the essential supporters that he relies on would start to scramble to figure out how to replace him.

The Dictator's Handbook does an excellent job of explaining this, with a respectable number of historical examples. (I'm in no way related to the production of this book, it's just a really good book.)

u/WiseCynic · 2 pointsr/progressive

For the answer to this and other important questions about American police, please see the book titled "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko.

The paperback should be out soon.

u/tacoman359 · 2 pointsr/news

There's a major communication issue regarding people and institutions/systems, especially on liberal forums such as reddit.

The system of the police force in this country has a culture. It is not a culture that is on the whole reasonable or helpful for the ordinary citizen. The same problems exist in the legislative system, judicial, executive, and our government in general. The culture in law enforcement exists primarily to maintain the status quo, and make money. They make money by busting people for drugs (this is the top focus of nearly every police department), and they maintain the status quo by inciting fear in the citizens (particularly the lower classes, who have the most incentive to fight for change). At the individual level, I doubt very many cops think they are "inciting fear", but that's why we need to get a lot smarter about the way in which we think about systems. Systems have properties that individuals do not (this is known as emergence

It's not that only bad people go into these jobs, or that these jobs always turn people into bad people. But these two factors play a huge role in defining police culture and political culture in America (and many places around the world, and throughout history).

When we blame the individuals (all this "police are scumbags" talk) for the issues, we get nowhere, because culture goes much deeper than individuals (though many times, police are scumbags, and expressing that emotional response is perfectly valid on some level). The whole way that we look at law enforcement in this country (especially starting with the militarization of the police force in the '80s) is terrifying. People are viewed as subjects who need to be controlled, rather than citizens who are a part of this country and have a say in it's direction forward (this is looking more and more like idealistic bullshit, but we're supposed to be a democracy after all).
Here's one source, but you'll find many others with a quick google search:

Tldr; I rambled, and tried to touch on too many different things without saying any one thing in a concrete manner. But it's not only about these particular officers, and it's not only about police officers in general. It's about police culture, and there are clear trends in the way we are being policed that we should be very concerned about.

u/gonucksgo · 2 pointsr/magicTCG
u/mack-the-knife · 2 pointsr/WTF

I highly recommend anyone who want to more about this to read "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces"

It does a good job explaining how it has come to this

u/conn2005 · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

I wish there was more big (L)ibertarian cops. Might result in a drop of taser abuse, shooting peoples pets, militarization of cops, arresting people for victim-less crimes, ect.

u/n00bsauce1987 · 2 pointsr/progun

Also I have to say not in terms of race relations, but in general, America has supported the militarization of our police. Below is some reading that if you want to learn more about this phenomenon, it's here to consume. Such a pro-active response which includes the use of military force from our local police is not necessary as /u/Llanita suggested.

Column: The militarization of U.S. police forces via Yahoo News

At SWAT team expo, protesters decry police militarization via Al Jazaeera America

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America via CATO Institute

How Cops Became Soldiers: An Interview with Police Militarization Expert Radley Balko via Vice

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces via Amazon

u/hexag1 · 2 pointsr/politics

Check out Radley Balko's new book on this very subject:

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces

u/FionaFiddlesticks · 2 pointsr/politics

It's actually an excerpt from a book! Check it out here:

u/blackhawk61 · 2 pointsr/police
u/Lebo77 · 2 pointsr/videos

Check out the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko. The no-knock raid is a HUGE departure from how warrants have been served for hundreds of years. In fact, the British used similar tactics briefly and it was seen as such an infringement on rights that it was cited as a cause for the American Revolution.

u/squidkiosk · 2 pointsr/news

I recently started reading Radley Balko's "Rise of the warrior cop". If you haven't read it yet I really suggest it:

It's a really in-depth look at how our Police forces became so Militarized over the last few decades.
I think head shots at protestors is a garbage move on their part, even if it is their training. that just bullying mentality paired with firepower.

u/joedonut · 2 pointsr/newjersey

Use of SWAT for situations that don't require it, and are a mere excuse to keep the 'team'? Balko wrote a book about exactly that.

u/nsjersey · 2 pointsr/newjersey

You guys should read this Radley Balko book from 2013.

u/Alien_Evidence_Tech · 2 pointsr/UFOs

A lot of it, yes.

It's not much different than today. The same as the "terrorist" threat. Two good books on the subject are Satanic Purses and Ghost Plane: the CIA rendition program

Before 9/11 the Blind Sheik was operating throughout America, while his disciple Ali Mohamed was kicked out of Egypt, (Egypt warned the Americans) and he came to work for the FBI & the CIA.

You could ask John O'Neil about it but he died, after he was offered a job in the Twin Towers (subsequently dying on 9/11). He had tracked Bin Laden & Al Queda better than anyone, but was ordered off it by the CIA.

He then tracked USS Cole operatives back to Yemen, linking Mossad to people they didn't want to be linked to. Ambassador Bodine tried to repeatedly shut him down and there was a Mossad plot to kill him.

Forced out of the counter terror chief of NY for FBI, he left behind his 30 year career under pressures, lured out with the head of security position at the WTC building. And he died there. 2 weeks after taking up the position.

What has the "fight" on "terror" done for most everyone? They've done a great job manufacturing events. and the majority of actual events are not even Muslim extremists. So in the end, the gov gets total control over the people, strips rights, increases power and divides the populace.

If you read those books I mentioned, and look over John O'Neil's story, you'd realize security services have a bead on everyone. Hell, in a German mosque, the operatives realized they were spying on friendly country agents, because they were so full of spooks.

Not unlike the 'Cold War', where they had taps on every communist support group, but used the 'threat' as a means to subvert civil rights, follow around, tap the phones of MLK, attack & spy on citizens and use the story outwardly for worldwide support and chess plays.

It's a game, a big stage play that creates good guys and bad guys, but the winners stay the same and the losers are always those who don't wanna play, or haven't signed up to.

>Unsurprisingly, the study confirms the role of the military industrial complex in perpetuating the decades-long state of panic. The text shows how "the defense industrial complex, not the Soviet high command, played a key role in driving the quantitative arms buildup" and thereby "led U.S. analysts to … exaggerate the aggressive intentions of the Soviets."

u/cwmoo740 · 2 pointsr/news

Did you know that the FBI employs 15,000+ informants working on terrorism cases?

Did you know that the reward for an informant successfully recruiting someone to commit a terrorist act runs up to $100,000?

Some relevant parts that scare me:

"agents have helped people suspected of being extremists acquire weapons, scope out bombing targets and find the best routes to Syria to join the Islamic State, records show." - from the NYTimes article.

Did any informants approach Omar while he was being investigated by the FBI? We know at least one did, according to the nytimes here:

If so, did they help him pick a target, and his wife is now being blamed for helping him scope out the club? Do you think there is an informant who would try to persuade someone to commit a terrorist act for up to $100,000 but then fuck it up and accidentally set off the loose cannon that was Omar and then never tell the FBI about it?

u/RaikerCat · 2 pointsr/worldnews

And the agencies that are charged with this job also can't so shit either. The FBI "stops" terrorism because they manufacture it by giving stupid people bomb making material.

u/elj0h0 · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals
u/a1will · 2 pointsr/restorethefourth

Great read, the FBI "creates" terrorists from burnout teenagers all the time.

u/furluge · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

> TL;DR: Stick to 2D, and you won't have any legal issues. In the absolute worst case you'll be hit with an obscenity charge, but even if you are, you can contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and they will defend you for free.

This isn't a very sane analysis of those cases. Nothing you've posted doesn't prove it's not illegal. It clearly is and has survived scrutiny) under several cases. It's just that, similar to piracy and myriad other stupid laws, you are very unlikely to be prosecuted unless you are already being targeted. The same way you aren't going to get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt unless you are caught doing something else too.

However, and this is the important part, companies and very public entities don't have the luxury of fading into obscurity the way citizens do, and they already have leverage on them in the form of business licences. If they're big enough they might be able to bribe themselves out of it but they can't exactly afford a public media blitz that they distribute child pornography. That's why you are going to see this stuff being banned on platforms and censored by translation companies, because even if it's likely that the private citizen isn't going to get nabbed for this sort of thing that's not a risk anyone is willing to take with their company and investor's money.

*Also you are sorely misrepresenting the ruling in the Christopher Hadley Case. What happened in that case was the court re-affirmed that Hadley could be charged under the PROTECT Act of 2003 as long as the material was deemed obscene. That's why he plea bargained after that determination, because he knew full well his material would be deemed obscene and he'd be convicted anyway. Here's a quote from the case that makes it very clear. It's not a separate obscenity charge. It's another provision under the same law which has the same penalty, and you still get put on the sex offender registry as well.

>This conclusion has minimal impact on this case given the almost complete redundancy of the conduct criminalized by subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) with that of subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2). The observable differences between these subsections are (1) subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) incorporate the Miller test as essential elements, whereas subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) do not; (2) subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) include the “appears to be” language in relation to “a minor;” and (3) subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) encompass a broader list of sexually explicit conduct.
>The indictment in this case simply charges Defendant with violations of subsections 1466A(a) and (b). There is no reference to whether Defendant is being charged under subsections 1466A(a)(1) or (a)(2), or (b)(1) or (b)(2). The conduct outlined in count one states sufficient facts to allege a violation of § 1466A(a)(1), and the conduct outlined in counts two through four state sufficient facts to allege violations of § 1466A(b)(1). Because subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) incorporate the three-prong Miller test for obscenity, these portions of the statute are not overbroad in violation of the Due Process Clause. The conduct alleged in the superseding indictment delineates violations of those constitutional portions of the statute; therefore, Defendant’s argument that the entire superseding indictment must be dismissed based on overbreadth must fail.

It also follows in line with the Whorley case's finding.

>But in making his argument, Whorley ignores the language of § 1466A(a)(1), which prohibits visual depictions of minors only when they are obscene. See 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1)(B). Ashcroft itself noted that obscenity in any form is not protected by the First Amendment. See Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 245- 46; see also Miller, 413 U.S. at 24; Kaplan, 413 U.S. at 119. Thus, regardless of whether § 1466A(a)(1) requires an actual minor, it is nonetheless a valid restriction on obscene speech under Miller, not a restriction on non-obscene pornography of the type permitted by Ferber. We thus find Whorley’s as applied constitutional challenge to § 1466A(a)(1) to be without merit.

u/bames53 · 2 pointsr/hearthstone

These terms are not new. Yes, these terms can be applied to deck trackers. Yes, under these terms Blizzard could ban you for using a deck tracker the same as they always could. No, informal statements from Blizzard employees don't provide any kind of defense should Blizzard decide to ban people for using deck trackers.

Blizzard probably won't ban players en masse for using deck trackers, but it is very handy for them to have bannable offenses be common-place; Any time they want to ban someone for whatever reason they can just ban them for common-place ToS violations. It's like Three Felonies A Day: there are so many federal laws that everyone is routinely and unknowingly breaking them, so any time the feds want to target someone they can always find an excuse.

u/iamadogforreal · 2 pointsr/sysadmin

Im not a libertarian actually, I just don't believe in strong IP laws because they've been shown to stifle innovation and having all techies scared shitless of copying some CSS is unhealthy. Thankfully, webdevs have no such issue.

Defending the IP system in the USA is asinine and you know it. Wait until a patent troll comes for you and tell me how wonderful it is. Or how copyright is never ending because congress just moves up the dates.


and Lessig's famous essay:

u/ME_RARELY_COMMENTS · 2 pointsr/pakistan

The book he got his concepts and stuff from

The Dictator's Handbook

If someone knows where I can get a hard copy of that in Pakistan, pls lemme know.

u/unquietwiki · 2 pointsr/PropagandaPosters

Before Reagan's election, the US was seen soft on the Russians, weak from Vietnam, and overrun by liberalism and black people. Post-Reagan: we talked about nuking the Russians; invaded Grenada; garrisoned in Lebanon; bombed Libya; fed weapons to anti-communist Nicaraguan rebels; began a 30 year campaign of blocking tax increases; and started throwing black people in jail en-masse for drug possession.

Mad as Hell was a good read on this. I plan on reading The New Jim Crow, which also touches on the Nixon-Reagan "War on Drugs"

u/Rhianu · 2 pointsr/Alabama

Actually, their ancestors DIDN'T start out in the same socio-economic situation as everybody else. In fact, there isn't even a standard starting point for anyone. Each continent had different natural resources, and those people who happened to be lucky enough to be born on continents with better and more plentiful resources became more prosperous. The only reason white people became the most prosperous race is because Europe had better natural resources than any other continent on Earth (though Asia was a close second). The book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond reveals the absurdity of racial meritocracy.

Also, legal rights mean nothing if those in power still want to keep you down. The book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander exposes how white politicians have used all sorts of creative and underhanded methods to keep black people uneducated and poor, despite the passage of apparent equal rights in the legal system.

u/TomTom3009 · 2 pointsr/democrats

Don't know what you are specifically looking for, but I would venture into the area of sociology more if I was you since you are starting to see a pure financial/economic analysis of the world is incomplete:
Hottest book right now is Evicted:

Just won a Pulitzer.

More books focused on poverty and societal issues:

The New Jim Crow, more focused on racial inequality:

If you are looking for more historical stuff biographies are always good.

u/Arrrmin · 2 pointsr/de

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

u/AnarchoEpictetus · 2 pointsr/philosophy

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.

u/Scrivver · 2 pointsr/GoldandBlack

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).

u/Hynjia · 2 pointsr/Anarchism

Wanna know a trick? can read a book...and...not finish it...

I sometimes approach books and I'm like, "holy shit, I'm gonna die." Then I realize that if I don't like it, I can...just...stop and never pick it up again if I want. That is a thing I can do.

And by god, I freakin' do it! The Dictator's Handbook is boring as hell. And I just don't care what the author has to say. Who gives a shit what Adam Smith Knew? Just a few books I've not completed because I'm just not interested.

So! Go! Read! And be interested in the content! Because if you're not, then there are so many other more interesting books to read!

u/patrick_work_account · 2 pointsr/books

I just finished The Dictator's Handbook and it is one of the most insightful books on politics and power that I have ever come across.

u/BaronBifford · 2 pointsr/ask_political_science

NB: I recommend this video and this book. They're amazing.

u/redalastor · 2 pointsr/canada

There won't be because the point of the money is to be a bribe to be stolen. If Trudeau just came out and said he was bribing such and such dictator people would react just like they do for the sales of weapon to Saudi Arabia. Instead he says he giving charitable help and looks away as it is stolen.

If you are interested in the details there's a great chapter about it in The dictator's handbook.

u/ltethe · 2 pointsr/technology

I recommend The Dictators Handbook

For something to take the twinkle out of your eye when it comes to local government. I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I'm just tempering your sparkle for local government.

Another example would be China, where the "Federal" government is much more highly trusted then the local branches which have corruption leaking from every angle and no recourse from the locals except to make a trip to Beijing and implore the Party to come to their aid.

u/zayelion · 2 pointsr/theredpillright

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita : The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics
>For eighteen years, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith have been part of a team revolutionizing the study of politics by turning conventional wisdom on its head. They start from a single assertion: Leaders do whatever keeps them in power. They don't care about the “national interest”—or even their subjects—unless they have to.
This clever and accessible book shows that the difference between tyrants and democrats is just a convenient fiction. Governments do not differ in kind but only in the number of essential supporters, or backs that need scratching. The size of this group determines almost everything about politics: what leaders can get away with, and the quality of life or misery under them. The picture the authors paint is not pretty. But it just may be the truth, which is a good starting point for anyone seeking to improve human governance.

This book explains so much in such a minimal amount of time it is scary. Every complete piece of idiocy corruption good and bad deed, why capitalism or socialism or communism or liberalism or anarchism in any political system. It was written before the current political climate but makes mention to our current major players. I wonder why? If anything just watch CGP's video. Morals have nothing to do with much of anything important.

> “Simply the best book on politics written…. Every citizen should read this book.”

-CGP Grey (

> "In this fascinating book Bueno de Mesquita and Smith spin out their view of governance: that all successful leaders, dictators and democrats, can best be understood as almost entirely driven by their own political survival—a view they characterize as 'cynical, but we fear accurate.' Yet as we follow the authors through their brilliant historical assessments of leaders' choices—from Caesar to Tammany Hall and the Green Bay Packers—we gradually realize that their brand of cynicism yields extremely realistic guidance about spreading the rule of law, decent government, and democracy. James Madison would have loved this book."

-R. James Woolsey Director of Central Intelligence, 1993-1995, and Chairman, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, July, 2011

u/Teantis · 2 pointsr/InternationalDev

Oh also when you go to college try to look in your school's econ department or poli Sci department for a professor who works on development projects. Many professors, especially at elite schools do as part time consultants advisors or whatever. Take their class, get involved with them as much as you can, and generally show interest in what they're working on and stuff. See if you can get them to include you ad an assistant or whatever in your breaks if you can afford to spend a break working for free or very low pay (or even shell out your own travel) that will be good (obviously unfair but such is life). Connections and being able to show your merit up close to people who personally know hiring managers etc., will trump any resume or academic preparation.

Another very accessible book is the dictator's handbook by Bruce Bueno de mesquita, who is a leading development academic but the book is written in plain English and not a lot of academic jargon.

u/bajum_bajum · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

Foreign Aid is such a complex topic.
I found that de Mesquita's tongue-in-cheek book "The Dictator's Handbook"
( has an interesting angle on that topic. When focus is on the motives of the aid givers, some seemingly absurd results and situations seem less absurd.

u/Slick424 · 2 pointsr/collapse

Read a book

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

It explains very well why democracies are better places to live and why autocrats are incentivised to keep the general population in crushing poverty.

u/slitherrr · 2 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

I could go through this line by line with responses, but I don't really have the energy, and it's not really why I posted the video anyway--his treatment of horseshoe theory is less important than the concept's illustration (even though I think your particular treatment isn't completely fair-handed). I'll just throw in a couple of reactions, with the caveat that you can probably ignore them and take, "He uses shortcuts for concepts he's built up elsewhere that make sense in context" as my point and leave it there.

The first point to throw out is that Coffin himself uses "thought leader" as a particular shortcut for "person who exists to popularize concepts in trade for social currency", and continually recognizes the hypocrisy of also being someone who is popularizing concepts in trade for social currency (just not in this video). We do all exist in capitalism, after all, so pointing this out is just as (in-)valid as calling out someone who hates the free market for buying food at a grocery store.

Specifically at: "Millions of people died in communist revolutions and communist regimes." If you paid attention to those, they... really weren't movements of the left. You certainly have a point that movements spawned from ideas from the left can be co-opted by fascists, but that doesn't make those fascists leftists, it just means co-option is easy.

This is why violent revolution is contraindicated, by the way, at least, if you're trying to achieve a democratic result. I recommend a treatment of the topic here by CGP Grey (, which is itself a distillation of this book by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (, but the major point is that if you want to bypass Democracy while co-opting a populist idea, backing your movement with the military is a great way to do it (as in, the precise tactic of pretty much any government with the Communist label that has achieved majority power to date).

u/shogun333 · 2 pointsr/HouseOfCards

You have to have the right attitude to watch the show. If you're a little child and someone tells you Santa doesn't exist it's depressing. However, there's eventually a satisfaction to growing up.

HoC is just a show but it is (IMO) a more sophisticated type of media than just a Disney movie with cartoonishly obvious good and bad. Hopefully it grows your palette as a consumer of media and if nothing else expands the healthy scepticism you hold towards politicians and authority figures in our society.

My view of politicians is that they are all manipulative little Underwoods, whether they are on your side or the oppositions. Underwoods are always the ones that rise to high office. The reason why the free countries like the US are lucky is that their system does a reasonable job of aligning the interests of the people with those of the selfish, monstrous leaders. I recommend this book if you want to read more. There's no important difference between US leaders and Saddam or Gaddafi. It's the system and society that surrounds them that leads to such different societies.

u/techno_mage · 2 pointsr/politics

> So much shit already went down before he was elected. What makes you think its over now?

"The Dictator's Handbook" Pg. 195 Chapter 8, People in Revolt.

A successful leader always puts the wants of his essential supporters before the needs of the people. Without the support of his coalition a leader is nothing and is quickly swept away by a rival. But keeping the coalition content comes at a price when the leaders coalition depends only on a few. More often then not, the coalition's members get paid at the cost of the rest of society. Sure, a few autocrats become hall of famers who make their citizens better off. Most dont. And those who don't will spend their time in office running down their nation's economy for their own and their coalition's benefit.Eventually things get bad enough that some of the people tire of their burden. Then they too can threaten the survival of their leader.

Although not as omnipresent as the threat posed by the risk of coalition defection, if the people take to the streets en masse then they may succeed in overwhelming the power of the state.

TL:DR : trump fucked up by going against the Intelligence Community, people who literally can watch him 24/7. It starts a trickle, which quickly turns into a stream. this isn't the end I'm sure.

video that explains this

Same Video but Starting at "taxes and revolts"

u/basscheez · 2 pointsr/guns

More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott

u/wrayjustin · 2 pointsr/politics

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...

u/newlawyer2014 · 2 pointsr/LawSchool

I totally concur with OP, supplements are supplements, not replacements. Read the case book, then read the relevant chapter from the supplement to ensure you got everything you were supposed to get out of it. Once you are getting everything out of the casebook in the first pass, you can discard supplements entirely if you like.

Best supplements, in my opinion:

u/Nora_Durst · 2 pointsr/CatholicDating

> My lsat was pretty good (175) but my gpa was only a 3.37, which makes me a splitter for most of the top schools. Do you think that's the sort of thing that comes up during interviews? Or is it something I should bring up myself to address? I don't have any real excuse, since my general academic performance was consistent throughout college as opposed to me falling ill or having a bad first semester or something.

Kudos on the high LSAT score! I honestly think you could see some serious scholarship money with that. I wouldn't bother bringing up the low GPA unless you're directly asked about it. What schools are you applying to?

> This is gonna be a bit of an odder one, but what is the number one thing you wish you had done before going to law school? I've got a solid 10 months or so before I trade all me free time to become a lawyer, and I definitely want to make the most of it.

Honestly, I think the best thing you could do is relax as much as possible. If you want to do something law-related to beef up your resume a little, you may want to consider doing some volunteer work at Christian Legal Clinics of Philadelphia or another legal clinic over the summer. When you begin applying to post-1L internship opportunities, every little bit helps. If you also have the time for some light reading, consider checking out Getting to Maybe: How to Excel on Law School Exams. Although I've personally never gotten around to reading it, I know other people who have raved about it.

u/xaelyn · 2 pointsr/lawschooladmissions

Priorities, in order:

u/Popov_Caught_It · 2 pointsr/LawSchool
u/earlierson · 2 pointsr/LawSchool

The majority of the advice you'll get from this sub is different versions of "BE FREE, YOUNG GRASSHOPPER."

That being said, definitely enjoy yourself. When August rolls around, its time to start looking at syllabuses and getting your life together. But you should spend the time you have doing whatever makes you happy.

I read Getting to Maybe, I liked it. Not sure how useful it is, but... might be worth checking out.

u/tonyb486 · 2 pointsr/LawSchool
u/rhino369 · 2 pointsr/LawSchool

Buy this book now (either on kindle, kindle app on your tablet, or next day shipping).

It's a good explanation about how to approach an issue-spotter law exam.

u/Blue_Blood · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Sorry for the cut and paste below. I typed it in response to another person's question regarding the same issue, but that person deleted their post before I could post my reply:

There are many officers who get it right the first time, and put in the hard work to get through a marriage. I know know all three of them (joke).

There is a slightly higher prevalence of divorce statistically among officers. IIRC it's even higher among correctional officers. I'm now happily married, and I don't forsee that changing.

I think your desire to stay married has a far greater impact on your divorce potential than does a career in law enforcement. If you read through my response earlier, it certainly wasn't my ex-wife's fault that I changed. Does your current wife support you having a law enforcement career? Are you open with her about the very real changes that can occur in you?

Read and have her read Emotional Survival in Law Enforcement. I found it to be an excellent help, and addresses some of the psychological issues at hand.

u/righty · 2 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

If you haven't, read Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement. You can read it in just a few hours. I don't believe it is absolute gospel, but it is a good starting point.

If your dept. has an employee assistance program, speak to them.

u/larocosgirl · 2 pointsr/AskLEO

LEO spouse here.

My advice to you: read " emotional survival for law enforcement." Get a good understanding of hypervigilance. Understand that even when he's off duty he'll still be eagle eyed and spot things you wouldn't have noticed. Get used to sitting with your back facing the room when you go out to eat. Also, you may have to stop eating at your favourite pub because he's arrested half the kitchen staff.

When my spouse was on shift (he's a detective now), he enjoyed bringing in my cooking and his shift reported enjoying eating it. Give him some time to get settled into his shift and become more familiar with the force's operating procedures and his shift mates.

You can't go wrong with communication and that may be hard for him. There are going to be times where he doesn't want to, or he simply can't talk about what happened on shift. Also, it isn't your responsibility to carry the burden of those things and he probably won't want to unburden himself to you. Seriously though, reading the book can help a lot.

My spouse says that is is important for him to maintain friendships outside of law enforcement. That gets more and more difficult as he becomes immersed in the "brotherhood." He won't work the same hours as other people and it might be difficult to schedule those social times. But those the importance of those friendships is that they remind him that he is not just a cop. If you don't work to maintain those friendships, pretty soon you'll find that the only friends you have are other LEO's and their spouses. While the LEO family ( and trust me, it will be your family) is great, it doesn't give your spouse a chance to put 'put down his badge.' He needs that kind of break for his own well being and your's too.

u/wildcard235 · 2 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

Wow, I tried and the cheapest copy I found was over $30 for a used paperback. :(

Edit: Found a link to it at Amazon where it is only $20 and ordered it. Thanks again.

u/graeme_b · 2 pointsr/LSAT

The link is broken right now, but the June 2007 LSAT is normally free:

Otherwise, you can buy a book of ten LSAT preptests on Should be enough.

u/BunboBurgins · 2 pointsr/LSAT

You're going to learn that LSAC is VERY protective of their information, so there aren't really any free online resources for old tests. You're probably going to have to pay one way or another. I would recommend buying one of the practice books that have 10 tests in them, like this one here:

u/Ericad161 · 2 pointsr/LSAT

If you're referring to previous tests administered I believe there's over 80 available now. You can get them pretty cheap used on Amazon or at Barnes and Noble. They are called the "10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests Vol. ____" . I have provided a link to one of the test books here , the used ones start at $5

u/Corey11824 · 2 pointsr/LSAT

When I said "51 onward" I was referring to PrepTest 51 and onward. PrepTest, commonly abbreviated as PT are previously administered LSATs. Every LSAT is released as such, except for those pertaining to the February administration. The most recent PrepTest is number 77, which corresponds to the LSAT that was administered in December of 2015. Each PrepTest contains the four officially scored sections of the LSAT plus the writing sample question, it however does not include the experimental section as this would compromise future LSATs. When you purchase the LSAT PrepTest volumes, you do not receive explanations, only an answer key and percentile conversion chart to each exam. However, the LSAC has released a book called SuperPrep II which includes 3 PrepTests, of which is there not only an answer key, but official explanations to each and every question, explaining why the right answer to each is the, well right answer. Although the LSAC does not have an explanation for all of their PrepTests published, there are many forums, websites and even published books which will do so for you. For example, The Princeton Review will be shortly releasing "LSAT Decoded" which will explain all of the answers in corresponding LSATs(PrepTests) I listed the following books that I purchased and recommend. Go to your local bookstore and read a couple pages of the Prep Company's book and see if their method of teaching works for you, if not, find another. Lastly, I would like to say that it is of absolutely no trouble for myself, I am more than happy to help, and thus I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour! :D

I posted the links to the books I bought and have been enjoying, please take caution before purchasing it from these links, as I posted the Amazon Canadian links as I live in Canada. Anyway, I believe either the Kaplan Premier 2016-2017 or LSAT trainer are an absolute must, although you could get away with not getting a prep company strategy set, I strongly encourage getting at the very least a comprehensive all in one. Any more questions or concerns about anything related to the LSAT please feel free to send me a message/reply.

u/_Sheva_ · 2 pointsr/politics

He already wrote that book.

'With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used To Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful'

I am sure Dick Cheney is mentioned once or twice. He was already well aware of the Dick's crimes when he wrote it.

u/sjmdiablo · 2 pointsr/politics

I read Glen Greenwald's With Liberty and Justice for Some and Matt Taibii's The Divide back-to-back this year. The raison d'être of the law has changed from ideas and needs springing from the philosophy of justice into a weapon to maintain the status quo, something cruel and indifferent.

u/bign00b · 2 pointsr/canada

This is a good video I watched a while back:

It's obviously for American law, but interesting.
While googling for it I found this article by vice:

The guy has apparently also written a book:

Any Canadian lawyers know if this is mostly applicable to Canadian law?

u/Lee_Ars · 2 pointsr/politics

> Wouldn't that defeat the entire point of the fifth?

"The Department of Justice has now served official notice that it believes the courts should allow a prosecutor to argue under any circumstances that your willingness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege can and should be used against you as evidence of your guilt." That's from James Duane's book. He's the "never talk to the police" attorney.

Further, Salinas V. Texas really fucked things up for everyone by establishing that "...the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause does not protect a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights."

So, yes, unfortunately, taking the 5th can indeed be used as evidence of your guilt—especially in civil matters, or in a deposition where you haven't been arrested and Mirandized.

u/MHOLMES · 2 pointsr/MMA

You should read "Three Felonies A Day".

u/KLafayette · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

This had me rolling my eyes so hard it must've looked like a seizure. Now, are you trolling or just ignorant? Because I can guarantee you, (yes, you), have committed criminal actions, felonies even, and most likely had nary a clue. Perhaps this will give you some much-needed perspective:

Frankly it saddens me that you, and those who argue similarly stupid shit, are free to post on Reddit while countless poor bastards rot in cages for victimless crimes, some for so long they wouldn't know how to use the device you're posting from.

Or maybe you're kidding and I missed the joke, in which case I apologize. Unfortunately I can't tell, because there are plenty of people out there who genuinely believe this bullshit, and who deserve to have their eyes opened to the consequences of living in a functional police state where such petty things as what you consume, whom you consensually bang, and what pictures you look at online can land you in prison.

u/foobarr · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Eh, there's a nice hill on the way to work. Last week I technically ran a couple miles an hour over the speed limit after not perfectly timing my breaks/downshifting. Ok ok, I was really just jamming to music and missed it.

Anyway, I'm pretty damned sure everybody's broken some law and on a regular basis. Books have even been written on that subject.

If you mean people who try to mind the law and fail, there's lots of us.

u/thebrightsideoflife · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Wait.. you don't? Maybe you haven't read this book

u/Lamechv2 · 2 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

Have you read three felonies a day? The person has probably broken numerous laws, and her being a criminal is something the defense would want to bring up. Hence, pleading the fifth is probably a valid option. Yes, if the prosecution wants he can get an order to testify, but it might scare him/her off. Regardless, there is no reason to be nice to someone forcing you to testify.

u/nickb64 · 2 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

There's a book about it.

u/oneofmanyshills · 2 pointsr/politics

It's as hard as getting your friends to install Snapchat or Skype.

If they want privacy, it literally couldn't be any easier. Regardless, if you love big brother and want them collecting your selfies or sexts, be my guest.

I'm not giving up my rights and data when such free and simple solutions are readily available.

Even if the book title is hyperbole, government overstepping their bounds, parallel construction and tacking on charges has been well documented time and time again, which is also what the cited book goes into detail about.

u/BTC_Brin · 2 pointsr/progun

Harvey Silverglate told us all that we commit an average of Three Felonies A Day.

u/throwaway1dhsaujik · 2 pointsr/legaladvice

Sometimes impossible. US law system is so out of wack almost everyone breaks multiple laws a day.

Read more about it if you like

u/n0ahbody · 2 pointsr/news

He's right. Every fucking thing is a 'crime'.

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior...

Politicians create conditions where the government isn't functioning properly. They cut taxes and then say there's no money for schools, for example. There's no money for after school programs for kids. Then they tell the police to take care of any problems that arise from that.

They get paid by lobbyists to create these laws.

The voters say "look at all these problems, I'm not paying to fix them, fuck that, just hire more police. And let the police fund themselves by seizing people's cash."

u/BlackSuperSonic · 2 pointsr/pics

Thanks for the response.

Then let me be clear, I think the country has made great strides in the last 50 years. But, we still do have state racism within our justice system. If you are interested in learning more about the role of institutionalize racism, I encourage you to read

u/MeVersusShark · 2 pointsr/politics

If anyone is interested in how the War on Drugs is wrong and the criminal justice is flawed, read The New Jim Crow. Excellent book.

u/kragshot · 2 pointsr/WTF

This is a cool all should also take a look at this book: "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Era of Colorblindness.". It also says a lot about this issue.

u/petit_mal · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

there's all sorts of literature about living in a "post-racial" society. "the new jim crow" by michelle alexander comes to mind.

u/platocplx · 2 pointsr/hiphopheads

This shows the divide.

This is a full study on it from pew.

This speaks about police and justice reform that is needed

This talks about racism that happens to Asian people.

And if you would like to educate yourself more about race in the US.
these books are a great start

Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class

So You Want to Talk About Race

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide

White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America

I see where this convo is going. And I will reference you to literature that will help for you to expand your knowledge on race and class in this country. There isn’t a reddit post in the world that can wholly give you the full picture on what’s wrong with race in America but these books give you a great starting point. Good luck.

u/live_free · 2 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

The situation you presented is clearly a catch-22 though. If these things are felonies what reason would a person have to seek help when they could be easily locked away for doing so?

I understand your burden argument. But you must know it costs, on average, 44k/year to incarcerate a person. That seems, in my view, to be a far larger burden then forcing them to seek help and providing them with the basics to start their life. I am also in favor of a Basic Income for this reason, it is simply cheaper than the alternative.

I disagree with your point that legalization/decriminalization would increase use. In fact the study of Portugal proves that contention is incorrect. We could, in theory, still coercively get these people to mental health and social workers. Because sure locking them away solves the problem temporarily, but what happens when the get out with a record? They're not going to get a job that is for sure. I reccomend you read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

This is in part why our recidivism rates are so high, you leave people with little other choice and prison in this country is obviously used to exact revenge not rehabilitate people.

u/percussaresurgo · 2 pointsr/samharris

If you really want to have an understanding of this topic, I think you should read this book. It explains everything in painstaking, referenced detail that I don't have nearly enough the time or patience for.

u/ilovekingbarrett · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

ah, you're looking for the statistics. i can oblige.

>Do you not see how the welfare system correlates at all?

nobody sees how the welfare system correlates at all. it's a non sequitur with no argumentation actually presented, going on about lyndon b johnson, when it's clear the problems are actually a) much more difficult and complicated than nthat, and b) much less to do with lyndon b johsnon.

but i digress.


    >“These killings come on top of other forms of oppression black people face. Mass incarceration of nonwhites is one of them. While African-Americans constitute 13.1% of the nation’s population, they make up nearly 40% of the prison population. Even though African-Americans use or sell drugs about the black rage hillsame rate as whites, they are 2.8 to 5.5 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than whites. Black offenders also receive longer sentences compared to whites. Most offenders are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses.”

    of course, the education system and the structures of capitalism are all parts of the problem. they are simply one element of a racist system. the police and justice system form another, extremely important part. i don't see what this has to do with a "welfare system" from lyndon b johnson being the problem, i don't see why you can't figure out that your "sigh, if only black people would listen to me" story doesn't make you sound like a fucking dickhead. but let's move on.

  • Black-on-Black homicides have decreased by 67% in 20 years, a sharper rate of decrease than white on white homicide.
  • According to FBI statistics 7361 Blacks were killed by fellow African-Americans in 1991. In 2011, it dropped dramatically to 2447 African-Americans.
  • Among Black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are the lowest in more than 40 years.
  • Five times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites.
  • Controlling for other factors, including severity of the offense and prior criminal history, white men aged 18-29 were 38% less likely to be sentenced to prison than their Black male peers.
  • African Americans were two times as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.


    why is this relevant? it shows the black crime rate is decreasing. if the black crime rate was the primary factor in why police target and kill black people, we should expect that the rate of police killings of black people should decrease too. and yet, they aren't.

    here's also a key link.

    institutional/systemic racism is not magically confined to one area or one cause or one system. but that doesn't chagne the fact that cops killing people is the problem, and as mapping police violence proves, is uncorrelated with black crime, or violent crime in general.

    perhaps you should read The New Jim Crow so you can actually understand the issue before you start talking bullshit. to be honest, your argument is so unclear that it's hard to argue directly against what you're presenting, instead of arguing at what you seem to be supporting.
u/hislord1 · 2 pointsr/politics

Silly me, I'm such a peasant with my [conspiracy theories] ( You are lord god almighty with your masters degree, what do I know and what does [Michelle Alexander know about HRC's racism] ( This is obviously a conspiracy theory funded by Karl Rove!

u/mr_dude_guy · 2 pointsr/uncensorednews

This is a poor format to have this discussion.

There is a great deal of research into this subject that will be difficult to summarize in a Reddit comment but I will try.

The first is that most schools are funded by local property taxes if you live in a poor area your schools get less funding then the rich areas.

The second is that Drug Laws are disproportionately enforced in poor areas leading to ridiculous incarceration rates. And even after you get out we put a lot of effort into making it almost impossible to reform yourself after you get a criminal record. Almost all crime can be traced back to poverty related issues.

Poor areas are used for tax generation through the Justice system in many areas leading to breakdowns in trust between the police and the community. This also helps feed in to the poor get poorer cycle.

I am not going to bother listing all the evil shit we did before the civil rights era that resulted in most black people being poor in the 70s.

This is all fairly thoroughly documented and researched. If you want me to look up sources/documentaries on these please ask and I can find them for you.

I would recommend this as a good starting point if you are curious.

TLDR: In the past it was public policy to make black people as poor as possible, and In our current system if you get poor you tend to stay poor even if the originating factors are removed.

u/pithy_fuck · 2 pointsr/Destiny

/u/NeoDestiny If you're interested in a book discussing the justice system's unintended consequences on black youth I strongly recommend The New Jim Crow.

u/ionstorm20 · 2 pointsr/Trumpgret


But that's from so long ago.

You're right but still after MLK's days.

But that's not a reputable source, it's only hearsay.

Damn, got me there guess I only have hearsay sources.
But that's not real racism you start to type that's only against illegal immigrants and Jews.

Oh well, guess I don't have any statistics.
But those are the outliers...

Guess I'm all out of links.

u/portabledavers · 2 pointsr/IsItBullshit

Not bullshit. Read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander for more info.

u/el_chalupa · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

A reference to this, I assume.

(Coincidentally, I have a copy I got for free in a criminal procedure class, but have yet to get around to reading it.)

u/Manungal · 2 pointsr/OldSchoolCool

Serious question: you complain to a friend about the weather being 110 degrees, and your friend says "that's nothing: it's 130 in the Persian Gulf right now." Be honest, your response is a) "wow man, thanks for that perspective. Really changes how I feel about going outside today." Or b) "how the hell does it being 130 degrees in Bahrain make 110 degrees any more comfortable for me right now?"

So it was bad for Black people in the 50's and 60's. White people need to stop saying that.

A problem that's fairly new is everyone can see how everyone else lives now. The data is in: systemic racism is not a debatable point.

When young disenfranchised Black people reach out to young disenfranchised White people only to have young disenfranchised White people lash out with inanities about the 60's, it makes all of us less safe.

Yes, things have gotten worse for young white people since the 60's. Things have gotten better for young Black people since the 60's. Black people are still fighting for things White people don't even have think about.

Y'all know there's been civil rights books written for our day since MLK, right? Read some Eric Lamont Hill or some Michelle Alexander for chrissake.

Most importantly, White people turning a blind eye to systemic racism (or worse, punching downwards) ensures two things: that the people in power stay in power, and that violence will happen.

It is a fundamental strategic reality that if you kill Martin Luther King Junior, you will get Malcolm X. People will be heard one way or another.

u/Upvotes_Your_Comment · 2 pointsr/offmychest

You are basing your argument from your conclusion. Let's take this in order.

> You can create hypothetical future scenarios as much as you'd like (ignoring the reality of alcohol and crime) but it is fantasy.

Advocating for policy changes that are sensible and match what other civilized countries are doing is not a fantasy. Calling it such shows your inherent contempt for change, for whatever reason.

> Drug users have a huge economic need and maintaining a drug habit with a work schedule is next to impossible. Often drug users must resort to criminal means to supply very expensive drugs on a reoccurring basis.

Perhaps you've been victimized by a drug user. I am sorry if that is the case. But the crime of theft, robbery, or worse, is separate from the crime of drug possession, purchase, and use. Those truly are without a 3rd party victim in the way theft and robbery are not. Although you will not believe it, I promise you that the majority of drug users are not criminals apart from their drug use and are not addicts either. You are conflating addiction with use, a common mistake. Here's a start on that

> Often dealers are allured to the money but get attracted to the drugs. They begin to use also. Suddenly you're carrying a gun to 'protect yourself from others', which is often sold behind doors. Now you have a powerful, drug addicted, fearful person with a gun watching their back. No wonder so many lives are lost in the fight for revenge or money.

Again, these crimes are separate crimes. That drug sales and use led to them is obviously a problem with drugs, but if drugs were sold in Wal-mart next to the beer and wine, there might be a different story. If drug addiction was treated like alcoholism, there might be less crime, less criminals, and less economic waste.

Your explanation for the downward spiral that accompanies drug use is not untrue, but your characterization of a "culture" is racial and not cultural. I do not see the above arguments suggesting that changing the laws will fix everything, merely that changing the law is an important first step.

> he US has the highest incarceration rate in the world just because a single culture won't accept that the laws that exist today apply to them. You started off your argument that if we changed the laws all of the crime would stop. These same laws have applied to other races, many very poor, and only one group hasn't changed.

White drug users outnumber or equal black drug users in almost every drug category. Yet incarceration rates are heavily shifted towards blacks because if unequal policing, unequal charging, and unequal sentencing. These are accepted truths of TODAY. You don't need to take my word for it..

Your view is clearly inherently biased against one race and based on false suppositions about the facts and speculations about cultures you cannot know about. Hispanic communities have suffered the same downward spiral as black communities, perhaps just not in the neighborhoods you've seen.

u/dontrubitin · 2 pointsr/racism

Louis CK addresses this question more concisely than I will be able to here. John Scalzi also explains it using exceedingly nerd-friendly language.

It sounds like you are pretty new to deeply thinking about issues of racism; I commend you for seeking to learn more, and recommend you start with some reading. Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? is a particularly accessible and informative introduction to issues of race and racism in the US. The New Jim Crow is also great, it thoroughly and clearly demonstrates the racism inherent in the current US criminal justice system, and is a great illustration of how contemporary racism is less about individual bigots and more about institutions that systematically oppress people of color.

Here is how I have found it helpful to think about issues of race and racism, as a White person: I think it is easiest to explain using a different form of privilege as an example – being able bodied. I am an able-bodied person, which means I experience the world a certain way. I don’t really notice if any of the doors I go through have a button to automatically open them, or if I have to go up a step to get into a store, or if there’s enough room between tables at a restaurant I’m in for a wheelchair to navigate. I don’t have to notice those things as I go about my business – they aren’t relevant to my life, so why would I? I am operating in a world that was built by people like me for people like me, which means it is very easy for me to live my life in it. But for someone in a wheelchair, all those doors and steps and aisles I blithely walk through actually do present a big problem to their ability to live life as they want. That doesn’t mean it’s my fault, or the fault of other able-bodied people, every time a building doesn’t have a handicapped accessible entrance. For the most part we didn’t build this world, we inherited it. But it does mean that when someone, or a lot of someones, who are differently abled than I am raise an issue as a problem for them, I have a responsibility to listen to them, and trust that they know their own lives and experiences better than I do.

In many ways, being white in America is like being able-bodied. The systems I operate in were designed by people like me, and the majority of them are still run by people like me. It would be really easy for me to live my life oblivious to the fact that people who look different than me have a very different experience of America than I do. The only reason I know that’s not the case is because I’ve spent years working with and becoming friends with and caring about people who don’t share my race and class (I work in public education in a large urban school district). I see my male students get stopped and frisked for no reason other than they are Latino males. I see them get followed around by suspicious security personnel when I take them on field trips to public places, in a way that I have never in my life been followed. I’ve seen my Black colleagues have to present ID or additional proof to gain admittance to places that I don’t (most recent example would be when checking into a hotel for a conference, I just had to give my name, my colleague had to present ID). The list goes on. Any one of these things in isolation would be easy to brush off, but the fact that they happen over and over and over again makes it impossible to pretend it’s a racially neutral coincidence. And I know I am only seeing a small glimpse of the picture, because at the end of the day I’m still not experiencing any of this directly, I’m only witnessing it – and I’m sure there are plenty of times when I don’t even notice because it is so routine.

The fact that we live in a systematically racist country is hard to accept, because we all want to believe that we are in sole control of our own destinies – I worked hard to be successful, therefore anyone who struggles must not be working hard enough, right? If I still just interacted with my own family and the people I went to school with – people who, like me, are all white, middle class, college educated, straight, and able bodied – I’m sure I would think that way too. But the more time I spend with people outside of my own demographics, the more impossible it becomes to pretend my naïve version of reality is all there is. Again, that doesn’t mean institutional racism is my fault, it just means that I have a responsibility to learn from people who are different than me and from their experiences, and to do what I can to make it better – hence my choice to work in public education, which is possibly the least lucrative option I could have chosen after graduating MIT. But I love my work and feel lucky that I get to do it, because I believe it brings us one step closer to an America that lives up to its promise of equality for all citizens, and I can’t imagine anything more worthwhile.

u/GonzoGourmand · 2 pointsr/Drugs
u/whocaresguy · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Heard good things about the book "The New Jim Crow"

u/Yetimang · 2 pointsr/technology

Dude there are thousands of studies out there. The way that the criminal justice system has targeted black people since the Civil War is hardly a controversial claim anymore. Check out The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. Great primer on the subject if you need to get up to speed.

u/Yawehg · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Fatherlessness is a product of mass incarceration, and mass incarceration has always been the end result of a deeply racist pursuit of justice (or control, if you're really cynical).

Okay, now hold your butt cause I'm gonna get hot. Is affirmative action a piddling government bandaid? Absolutely! It's a throwaway remedy to a racial group that's been locked out of every beneficial social program from the New Deal to the GI Bill to the housing subsidies of the 60s and 70s.

Redlining, loan denial, threats of violence, and questions of political expediency barricaded black Americans from the policies that literally created the middle class in the 20th century, and they have been relentlessly policed in their own communities for more than 60 years. That's the real elephant in the room in these conversations, but it's been there so long we've gotten used to treating it as another piece of furniture.

The New Jim Crow is a great book about mass incarceration if you want to take the time. (Wiki)

The Case for Reparations is a journalistic review of redlining, loan discrimination, and outright theft stretching back more than a hundred years and cascading through today. Unabashedly radical but imposingly well-researched, it at times speaks directly to the concept of fatherlessness and the idea that "the kind of trenchant racism to which black people have persistently been subjected can never be defeated by making its victims more respectable."

The wiki article for African Americans and the G.I. Bill, is something I found illustrative as well. Good reference list too, particularly When Affirmative Action was White.

u/matthc · 2 pointsr/worldnews

For further reading on how everyone commits multiple felonies a day without realizing it, check out Three Felonies a Day.

u/debored · 2 pointsr/AskHR

Yeah. Have you read 3 Felonies a Day? Talks about we all break so many laws every day, the vast majority of us without meaning to. And the whole ' more prisoners per capita than any other nation' thing.

u/jefftickels · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Excluding AnCap in the following (I thought this was obvious because I specifically called out weak government in my op, althought I quoted the "ideal ancap" part too, so I understnad the confusion.):

> It basically does, since it eliminates the apparatus that would enforce the laws.

Unfounded assumption. You're assuming a small government would have no way of enforcing its rulings, but that isn't the only scenario. State governments do the vast majority of regulating in the country and they somehow manage to enforce their rulings despite their relatively small size (when compared to federal government).

>It removes the legal basis for pursuing crimes, or for rendering appropriate remedies.

This seemed to be aimed at the ancap argument. Based on the other responses here, I cant make an argument that would convince you otherwise that isn't the same as many of the other posts.

>Small governments have small bodies of law, which is a problem.

This I definitely disagree with you on. We have far to many laws right now and they are more or less designed to put the government in a perpetual position of power above the citizens. Look at whats happening with Yates v United States right now. The case revolves around the criminal charges brought against a fisherman who had a catch with fish too small, threw the offending fish back into the water (presumeably expecting to just pay the fine as he had already been cited at the time) and wound up instead getting arrested and charged criminally for violation of Sarbanes-Oxley. Check out 3 Felonies a day (the title is a bit of a misnomer).

Tax law is another area where we have let the IRS engage in more or less unchecked mission creep to the point where even educated people need to resort to a paid resource to do it properly (or be liable to the most belligerent institution in the US government).

Edit: misplaced a parenthesis and it broke the whole second half of the post.

u/Maleficent_Cap · 2 pointsr/slatestarcodex

>And inconsistency: Realistically, as I am a law-abiding member of society, this kind of constructive possession would not be charged to me, because the police have better things to do. But at any point that could change. They could decide to enforce this against me on a whim. If I break any other laws, they could deploy this against me to get me a harder sentence. These things have happened, frequently. And so, my goal was clear: establish whether or not I can legally own firearms, and if not, how my at-the-time girlfriend could legally own them without me being guilty of constructive possession.

OP, you just described the U.S. legal system in a nutshell right here.

Lets say a gangbanger does a drive by.

That's ALREADY 40 counts of criminal activity, just for the one action.

Shooting at a residence.

Discharge of gun within city limits.

Discharge of gun within an incorporated area.

Discharge of gun from a moving vehicle.

Discharge of gun WITHIN a vehicle.

Discharge of a gun with intent to cause harm.

Etc, etc.

What these laws are, especially constructive possession you're alluding to, are called "rider charges", that is, they dont have any effect in your day to day life until you become accused of some crime, and then they all come out to play.

These charges, are designed to avoid the "No double Jeopardy" laws in the constitution, as well as avoid having a person be found not guilty of murder and attempted murder and then be perfectly free.

It goes like this:


Court case A without rider laws. The person shoots at the house to try to kill someone. They are only accused of that. If found not guilty, they go free completely.

Court case B with rider laws. The person shots at house, blah blah.

They are found not guilty of trying to murder someone, but they are found guilty of shooting in city limits and from a moving car.

Instant felon status, deprivation of gun rights, long prison sentence.


Did you know that over 80% of cases in the U.S. never make it to trial? Nearly all of them plead out. Even lawyers who are low-tier will tell you to "take the deal". Everyone makes bank off this system.

The justice system gets money in payment from the defendant as "reparation", which usually is the form of pulling it from friends/family of the defendant since they have no job and no income, and thus have to beg.

The lawyers make bank because of this revolving-door of clients who all take plea deals and thus lighten their case loads so they can take more clients and more quickly.

The DAs make bank because their rates of "successful cases" goes through the roof and that gets them tons of money from the state, as well as re-election into that position by the constituents. The rally cry of "im tough on crime!" is omnipresent for DAs, no "Im FAIR and REASONABLE" here.

There are so many laws in the U.S. lawyers don't know them all. There are so many laws that to be even modestly competent you have to educate yourself in a quasi-lawyer format.

And you know the saying, the more laws you make, the more criminals you create.

Now watch this video below. It details what you do and don't do. Only give information to police that they need. Think about Nazi interrogations of british soldiers "you can have my name, rank, and number". That's fucking it. Every other question they ask, don't lie, don't tell the truth. Say nothing. If you're not under arrest, you have no reason to respond. If you're under arrest, you have the right not to respond. The worst clients are the babblers.

In this video you'll note the Dunning-Kruger effect at work on that fat asshole who calls himself a detective. He somehow always has a guilty party in his presence 100% of the time. Given that we know has released thousands of convicted-but-innocent people through evidence or better lawyers, given that we know people WILL PLEAD TO LESSER CRIMES AS GUILTY TO AVOID LONG JAIL SENTENCES, he's likely full of shit.

Yes, people who are INNOCENT will take plea deals for lesser crimes to avoid the threat of going to trial and receiving a full 20 years, both for the original crime and all the "rider charges" it may come with.

This is how DAs gets their high conviction rates and look good. Its how 80%+ of cases never make it to trial. Its how innocents are COERCED daily into taking plea deals.

All those crimes in the book of law become a weight which threatens to crush even the innocent, who will admit to things they've never done in order to have a fraction of their life back when released early.

>Debtors' Prisons: Life Inside America's For-Profit Justice ...

>Inside America's For-Profit Bail System

Dont make the mistake of thinking this is uniquely U.S.ian. Canada is moving towards this already, especially in the realm of digital communications. harassment, and "causing offence".

Rather, after it melts and blows apart the toddlers face.

Their defense? "the toddler should've known to get out of the crib when we threw that in there". Seriously.

>STOSSEL: Too Many SWAT Raids - YouTube

To justify their equipment and costs, SWAT raids are being perpetrated for anything from being accused of selling weed to being a mass murderer. And they get the wrong house frequently.

Lots of dead dogs in their wake, including dead military veterans who grab their AR15 to defend their house/life from invading people with guns.


On your subject of hunting, OP, you can get your SoT and FFL07 I beleive it is, in order to have "dealer samples" of legitimate machine guns made after 1986. But that's ONLY if you can prove that you're a legitimate business.

For instance, with that hunting license, the students would've had to have bagged a few deer, and should've bought/owned some "legitimate hunting rifles" first. That is, a rifle which holds 3-5 rounds of 30.06 or .308, e.g. rounds used in the military since WW1 but also for hunting.
After that, they could buy their AK variants and whatnot, because they have a "good faith" show that they owned the "correct" hunting gear before grabbing these others.

The system is literally a game.

LLet mike schmidt regale you with the gamey nature.


Right now a California Sheriff is being investigated for "pay for play" concealed carry permits. That is, in this location they have sole discretion over whether you can obtain one, and as such they are ostensibly to make a judgment on whether you have need/good faith to own it. Again, this is a law where "if you carry concealed you're a criminal... UNLESS you pay money to the state then its okay". Just like your hunting exemption.

The notable part of this issue is the Sheriff basically being accused of only giving out CCWs to people who contributed to the sheriff's campaign with money.

In other words "you help me get elected, I give you CCW".

In San Francisco its largely similar since only about 3-5 CCWs are given out a year, and that's to wealthy people or friends of the department.

u/ThatFargoDude · 2 pointsr/politics

That article is based on this book about how everyone unintentionally commits several felonies every day. When everyone is an accidental criminal the state has free reign to oppress people arbitrarily. Enforcing all laws is literally impossible and if it were possible it would cause society to collapse because everyone would go to jail.

u/iltl32 · 2 pointsr/politics

You've probably committed a felony today. Do you have a complete disregard for humanity?

That's the attitude I'm talking about. "I'm perfect and everybody else is a dirty sinner." Great way to be.

u/eek04 · 2 pointsr/TumblrInAction

The average American supposedly commits Three felonies a day, so sure, they are.

(I'm not too sympathetic to the case in question, but I am extremely afraid of "If you don't have something to hide, the police should be able to look at everything." That way lies a police state, including police using blackmail to run the politicians.)

u/ralph-j · 2 pointsr/changemyview


People might get used to surveillance, but that just means that they will adapt their behaviors to fit a society under total surveillance, instead of feeling as free as under a society without surveillance. It encourages groupthink and conformity: no one wants to stand out. With everything you do, you have to think about how this could potentially be perceived (or misunderstood) by others. Especially since most of us aren't even aware of the full range of things that are potentially illegal.

In the book Three felonies a day, the author makes the case that it is impossible to live your life without doing many otherwise innocuous, but technically illegal things. Everyone becomes a target for selective law enforcement/prosecution.

Edit: a word

u/redbeard0x0a · 2 pointsr/Dallas

Kind of like how most people technically commit ~3 Felonies a Day just going about their daily life.

u/ursuslimbs · 2 pointsr/videos

No person can confidently say they don't violate any federal law.

u/arjun101 · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

A lot of people drive over the speed limit, 'because its the most practical and effective thing to do.

And in fact, laws today are so complex and strange that people arguably commit roughly three felonies a day.

u/Zifnab25 · 2 pointsr/politics

> So, if I understand you correctly, in theory, the government could pass a law that exempts itself from all laws and making everything the government does "legal" but still requiring citizens to obey the law and breaking the law by citizens would still be punishable.

I don't know how such a law could stand up in court, but as Teri Shavio taught us, Congress can author and pass pretty much anything it wants.

> Ive said before and Ill say it again: If the government does it, its legal.

Functionally speaking, if you do a thing and you are not apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted, it is legal. What the legislature writes is only a small part of "making a thing illegal". If, for instance, Congress defunded the IRS and removed any form of enforcement of the tax code then failure to report and pay taxes would be as illegal as invisible jaywalking. Ain't no one gonna catch you, so you're free to do the thing.

And there are a lot of laws that go - functionally - unenforced. There's even a book Titled Three Felonies a Day which explores all the laws that non-government officials violate every day, with the vast majority of us failing to undergo prosecution.

So it's a much more complex problem than just "Government officials are unaccountable". There is a general question of how to identify violations of law and enforce those violations. The topic is easily as controversial as the passage of laws, themselves, as most people won't support a law if they think they'll be marked as violators but may well be ok with a law if they believe they are functionally exempt.

u/RenegadeMinds · 2 pointsr/canada

> I have nothing to hide.

That doesn't end well. Have a look at "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent". Whether you know it or not, you do have something to hide.

u/OneOfDozens · 2 pointsr/politics
u/FattyRoyale · 2 pointsr/gunpolitics

By expanding what constitutes a felony or misdemeanor domestic abuse. By making criminal defense unaffordable. By making laws so vague, only the wealthy or powerful can defend against spurious accusation. By making criminal many activities which should not be. Here’s a great primer to start on the subject:

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

And btw, many states have misdemeanors which carry possible sentences long enough that the 4473 considers them felonies.

u/tableman · 2 pointsr/todayilearned
  1. Police officers have been caught using their systems to bully their ex lovers.

  2. US government plot has been exposed whereby they would use the porn habits of political opponents to discredit them.

  3. You have broken federals laws and you don't even know it. In the future it will be easier to convict you of crimes you didn't know you commited using better data processing software. source

  4. If you start speaking out against the government, example you don't like something Trump or Obama does, the government will have a record of every action you have ever performed to fuck you over and black mail you.

    The CIA blackmailed Martin Luther King.
u/mnemosyne-0002 · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Archives for the links in comments:

u/rwwman50 · 2 pointsr/eagles

Older book but very interesting read.

When everyone is a criminal, the people who decide who to pardon hold supreme power.

u/EnterTheStory · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

And they can put anybody away if they want: the typical American commits 3 felonies a day.

unless you have deep pockets for good lawyers

u/RamonaLittle · 2 pointsr/TrueReddit

>I'm not talking about assessing risk, I'm talking about knowing something is illegal and still doing it.

But we have to discuss risk assessment, because people do illegal things all the time. "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day." And beyond US law, it sounds like you're saying people also need to make sure they're not violating laws of all other countries with which their country has an extradition treaty. That's an awful lot to ask, especially of a teenager or someone with a mental disability, don't you think?

I mean, heck, you were in this thread about the king of Thailand. So you know that under Thai law, it's illegal to insult the king of Thailand, and you can get up to 15 years in prison. Did you know that the US has an extradition treaty with Thailand? Did you research how it might apply to reddit posts? Do you refrain from insulting the king of Thailand on reddit for fear of being extradited, or did you assess the risk as low?

Because once we've established that risk assessment has to be considered, then it's entirely appropriate to consider evidence that someone's ability to assess risk is impaired.

>And I don't think folks should not be subject to going to jail because they have a depression.

Even if expert witnesses testified that the person is likely to commit suicide? Then you're advocating for the death penalty even though the judge didn't impose it.

u/bitusher · 2 pointsr/Buttcoin

> there is no point on having laws,

Laws should exist. unethical laws should be subverted. There is no uptopian future, war is eternal, new laws will always be created and old laws always be subverted.

>if anyone can decide which laws are unethical and should not to be obeyed

Every individual can choose to decide to subvert the laws if they believe they are unethical and deal with the consequences in doing so.

> It only provides a way to make illegal payments

Bitcoin , like physical fiat , is very fungible , so it can be used for whitemarket purchases as well .

>including ransom, trading stolen cards and identities, laundering stolen money, running all sort of scams, corruption, sabotage, murder, ...

Like popular fiat currencies, yes.

>people were staking their lives, the two sides had to hide or fight,

Agorism and Counter-economics is a form of war too , with a lot at stake.

>You cannot expect to live within a society in peacetime while ignoring its laws

If you don't believe that everyone ignores laws all the time and this is the status quo we currently live in, with or without bitcoin, than you are delusional .

>expecting the government to protect you "right" to break its laws

no one is suggesting this. i expect states to try and regulate and eventually attack bitcoin more directly.

u/branzalia · 2 pointsr/news

Technically speaking, you're a criminal too. Whether you've been convicted or not, you've committed crimes, so you're a criminal.

The system is designed for this. Border crossing is not a felony and we don't take children away from people convicted of misdemeanors. Even felons almost always keep their kids.

u/Bumgill · 2 pointsr/FreeEBOOKS

Yeah, as the other guy said. This book is about how many felonies the average person commits daily.

u/ashez2ashes · 2 pointsr/news

That quote of "3 felonies a day" is from a book with a misleading title where examples are never even given of these "common felonies". The book is about high profile politicians.

u/PantsJihad · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

There is a great book on this subject, highly recommend it:

u/The_model_un · 2 pointsr/funny

I don't know how true it is, but this book covers the idea for the federal government.

u/bubbajohnson_8z7 · 2 pointsr/Bad_Cop_No_Donut

So you looked up pictures of dud 12 gauge shells, fired .270 brass cases, and muzzleloader bullets... only the box of Winchester .40 cal rounds are ammunition.

>Dude broke the law. He's not innocent. Not saying that the raid wasn't overkill, but he did break the law.

People break the law all the time, in fact, you broke several laws today. Guess you deserve to be bent over and have a broom handle shoved up your ass. What they did to this man is ridiculously disgusting. They swat raided a family expressly to terrorize them. They significantly damaged his house and possessions. They are prosecuting him for having a few rounds of miscellaneous "ammunition". Do you have any idea of how many Americans have at this moment a loose round of ammo unknowingly wedged in their ass crack? Don't bother contemplating on the number of car trunks with a loose round rolling around, it's a shitload. Oh he broke the law alright, a petty infraction of an immoral and unjust law.

>Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier reserves such harsh tactics for ordinary citizens. When NBC News anchor David Gregory violated the gun-registration law last year by wielding an illegal 30-round magazine on live television, he was not arrested.

Notice that David Gregory didn't get bent over and swat-teamed. He too broke one of your precious laws, but apparently they don't apply to a house organ of the authoritarians.

u/from_the_sidelines · 2 pointsr/politics

There's a great book on this subject called "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent."

u/011101110 · 2 pointsr/restorethefourth

The fact that the NSA is being governed by a court appointed by an unelected official is disturbing in and of itself. The fact that they are legally violating the 4th amendment is terrifying. I fully understand the NSA.

As for what you could be doing wrong, take a look at this book called three felonies a day.

It is unbelievable to me that a (I'm assuming) United States citizen would be unconcerned about an unauthorized secret organization that scoops up all of the worlds data and does unknown things with it. At the very least you should be concerned that your data could be acquired by a hacker and used to manipulate your entire life from top to bottom. With the profiles that NSA is reportedly building, anyone with sufficient social engineering skills could rip your life apart and destroy any semblance of sanity you currently have.

u/nabiros · 2 pointsr/changemyview

I think 3 felonies a day is probably a bit of an exaggeration but I think it's absolutely true that every adult in the country unknowingly commits felonies regularly.

u/ArbysMakesFries · 2 pointsr/SocialistRA

Again though, when entire categories of crime are being created for expressly political reasons, and when daily life is so overcriminalized in general that practically anybody can be jailed at cops' and prosecutors' discretion, focusing on whether or not any specific person is being jailed "for political reasons" is already missing the forest for the trees. The broad scope of political repression in the US as enforced by agencies like the FBI is impossible to gauge in real time, except to the extent that information about programs like COINTELPRO has been leaked or declassified — after all, we only know the scale of Soviet repression because of similar leaks and declassifications by the USSR — but even on a more immediate level, despite my right to free speech I'd be genuinely terrified of what might happen to me if I were to put a "fuck the police" or "cops are gangsters" bumper sticker on my car, not just at the hands of cops themselves but also at the hands of cop-sympathizing civilians.

The genius of the US system as a matter of PR is that my formal "freedom" to express political views like that in theory can coexist perfectly well with my actual unfreedom to express them in practice, and plenty of US nationalist ideologues (maybe even the same ones who'd gladly smash my taillight for an anti-police bumper sticker) would still gladly argue that the formal freedom is what defines the US as a society, and the actual unfreedom is irrelevant.

u/gossipninja · 2 pointsr/news

Yeah, part of me thinks felons being banned should only apply to violent crime, especially when you account for the 3 felonies a day theory.

u/eddycaplan · 2 pointsr/politics

Ironically, Three Felonies a Day is mostly about how unfairly broad the law is to white collar defendants. A sample review from the Amazon page:

> Thought this book would be about the common person getting rolled by the feds. Instead, it's a bunch of stories about Wall Streeters and politicians that get nailed; people I couldn't care less about. Couldn't relate.

u/p3llin0r3 · 2 pointsr/books
u/justinmchase · 2 pointsr/videos

Read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness for details, it is very thorough, well sourced and the reasoning is very sound.

The two main ways (but not limited to) that laws are selectively applied to people of color are related to drug possession laws and forfeiture laws.

The basic premise is that studies have shown time and time again that white people use drugs at approximately the same rate or higher than people of color, yet the laws are highly disproportionately applied to people of color.

Forfeiture is another form of disproportionate application of law, where people are profiled by the police and are then searched under threat of violence and then the police take their cash.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want another good book that explains the scam in an even broader historical context then try reading The Peoples History of the United States.

u/climberking2000 · 2 pointsr/trees

Is this when we all share our anecdotes and draw conclusions about the ideal behavior from them?

Seriously, this depends on

  • The cops in your area
  • What you have on you
  • Race/Gender/Looks
  • The whims of fate

    Without a study with significant sample size, we're more or less just full of it. As of now all I can say statistically is to hope you're white (sorry, but it's true). Those links are lazy searches, but there are good books that support it.

    Anyway, this is just one of those things which in the absence of good empirical data you just have to play to your strengths. If you don't know the law (and you should, the basics aren't hard) then perhaps the honesty attempt will help with nice cops, there are certainly anecdotes to support that. If you geek out about the difference between detainment and arrest, do your best lawyer impression.
u/singularityneuromanc · 2 pointsr/circlebroke

If anyone thinks racism is gone, check this book out. It's not an affiliate link, just want to spread awareness.

u/Qw3rtyP0iuy · 1 pointr/China

You almost went to Juvie? I've had a friend sent to military school because his friend smoked a little weed. He didn't do shit, but he spent 2 years in military school. The internet's not really the place to talk about how you were abused as a child. There are tons of groups like DEFACS.

If you're into video game design, then check this out: I just pirated the appropriate Adobe software and I'll make a "China Spa Business Simulator" this year.

Don't worry about the law, do whatever you want. You probably break the law every day. Stop stressing about it.

When I was still trying to figure out what the hell I was doing in China, I wrote a children's book and had it illustrated for just one kid. You could make and sell homeschooling materials online, make an informative website, do something related to what your major should be. Just don't be fucking stagnant. Don't let next year come around and you say "Well, I did earn 80,000rmb last year teaching English... so that's something"

You're a young adult, you should start developing.

u/mcherm · 1 pointr/law
u/TheNakedGod · 1 pointr/EDC

It's not actually hyperbolic. The problem with federal law is that there are so many(10,000+ no accurate count) along with government organizations(FDA/FAA/ATF/EPA/ect) regulations and edicts and many of them are intertwined and can increase the severity of a state misdemeanor or even something entirely legal by just fulfilling certain criteria. That coupled with laws hundreds of years old(most inherited from English Common Law) compounds the issue. The problem is that you don't even know you're committing a felony, nor do law enforcement or even most attorneys as the laws are so obscure. No one is actually arrested for these felonies because of this, but the entire fact that they are committing them is what makes the entire system so farcical and prone to extremely selective enforcement. If "they" for some reason want to find something to arrest you with, it would be extremely easy to do so with all of the unknown laws and statues.

My area of study is Criminal Justice, I learn about this kind of stuff every day, it would be funny how bad it's gotten if it wasn't so sickening because of the larger ramifications.

u/sethg1 · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

Three Felonies a Day: The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

u/inthemud · 1 pointr/trees

If it was not the trees, she could have said he abused her. Or she could have claimed rape. Or she could have turned him in for any number of crimes real or made up. Downloaded any movies? Any songs? Ever? Had sex outside of marriage (illegal in some states)? The list is literally so long that there are libraries dedicated to storing and cataloging them (go visit your local law library to see what I am talking about).

Laws create criminals, not the other way around. The fewer the laws means the fewer the criminals. The reverse is also true. That is why America has the most criminals because we have the most laws.

It is one of my favorite things to do is show people how they are breaking the law. Within 24 hours of knowing anyone I can point out a number of things that they could go to prison for. My mother, who has never even had a speeding ticket, challenged me on this once. Within 15 minutes I pointed out so many things that I had her concerned that the FBI was going to come and bust in her door. Read the book Three Felonies A Day to get a better understanding of how the American legal system is so screwed up they have made criminals out of everyone. All anyone needs is a motive and it is easy to get someone thrown in jail.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as any judge will gladly tell you. To say that he decided to take the risk is no different than me saying that you are taking the risk for all the crimes you are committing every day whether you know about them or not.

u/daryltry · 1 pointr/nfl
u/coolcool23 · 1 pointr/news
u/BCSWowbagger2 · 1 pointr/NeutralPolitics

> But if you actually read the book, Silverglate (a white collar defense lawyer) isn't making the argument that normal people routinely commit felonies accidentally, much less argue that we commit three of them a day.

Umm... here's a quote from the introduction of Mr. Silverglate's book (ETA: which you can apparently read on Amazon! yay!):

>Today, in spite of Jackson's warning, it is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

Leading up to that thesis statement, Silberglate tells, in the opening pages of his book, of a trucker who was out deer hunting with his son when he found some apparently abandoned shell casings, sold them for scrap (for $84), and then was sentenced to two months in prison for stealing from the federal government -- quite by accident. His argument is precisely that normal people routinely commit felonies without realizing it. The link I gave (the one citation in my post!) listed several more such cases.

You have wildly mischaracterized Mr. Silberglate's thesis. You then accused me of doing it instead. Perhaps you disagree with the thesis, but you are wrong to say that the book made an entirely different argument. Where did you get that notion?

u/brightlancer · 1 pointr/nottheonion

This sounds like a great opportunity for everyone to read "Three Felonies a Day" (Amazon link, sorry, also available at libraries and used bookstores) by Harvey Silverglate, describing how much of our daily lives is actually criminal and how severe the punishment can be for No Big Deal crimes like, dunno, sharing your password to an online account.

It's one of those It Could Never Happen To Me things until you or someone you love is arrested and charged, and you can't pay the bail and the lawyer says fighting it will cost more than you earn in a year and now you're looking to plead out just so you can go home to see your kids.

u/tocano · 1 pointr/Libertarian

> I fully support an individuals right to smoke so long as it does not interfere with my right to clean, unpolluted (by cigarette smoke) air.

I see. I misread your original comment. I thought you were saying risk to themselves.

But going back to your original comment:

> If there is a risk to those not choosing to assemble then their right is trumped.

What if it isn't a "risk", but a mere inconvenience?

> do not break the law

Easier said than done

> If I do not break the law then a police officer has no power over me whatsoever.

I think that's tragically naive, but even assuming you were right, what if they assert their power anyway? Or if their assertion of power is out of proportion with the crime/infringement? I submit that there is an insufficient framework for holding police accountable in the event of them wrongfully or excessively asserting their power.

u/IridescentAnaconda · 1 pointr/politics

Given that the average American commits 3 felonies per day, I guess you agree that everybody belongs in jail? Maybe even you do.

u/ghostnappalives · 1 pointr/TopMindsOfReddit

Like, say, non violent felony convictions which have been repeatedly proven to disproportionately target minorities and strip them of their legal rights to vote?

Closing polling locations in minority population centers, perpetrated organized campaigns of voter suppression against minorities (such as banning bringing anyone as a passenger to their local polling station) are another tactic, but mostly the fact that our criminal justice system is organized so basically everyone commits 3 felonies a day and felonies remove your right to vote and, surprise surprise, this is basically entirely enforced against minorities is the bigger deal since it's ACTIVELY RESTRICTING THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE that means calling the US "the free world" is completely wrong.

And that's without even addressing the concentration camps full of refugees currently along the southern border. Because nothing says "freedom" like forcing people to drink out of a toilet for following the proper legal procedures to enter this country.

u/noposters · 1 pointr/BlackPeopleTwitter

There's a great book on this topic called Three Felonies a Day

u/CommentArchiverBot · 1 pointr/RemovedByThe_Donald

YUH! Great idea!11!!1

Fucking shill

-mercurymarinatedbeef, parent

This subreddit and bot are not in any way affiliated with the moderators of /r/The_Donald. Direct questions about removal to them.

u/Popular-Uprising- · 1 pointr/PoliticalHumor

Yea. It's a thing. You're guilty, even if you don't believe it. Tyranny isn't locking EVERYBODY up, it's being able to lock ANYBODY up any time you want.

u/RexMcRider · 1 pointr/MensRights

It's actually quite difficult to not commit a felony. Every person reading this today has (due to the extreme volume of laws, regulations, codes, court cases about all of those, etc.) likely committed 3 felonies, completely unknowingly, this very day.

I suppose this has to do with how much faith you have in the US Court System. At present, after looking into this and other things, I have absolutely none.

u/frameddd · 1 pointr/moderatepolitics

Just responding to your steel man case: If its true (or anywhere close to true) that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, then punishing people just because they don't respect our laws isn't something we do, or want to do. That's probably for the same utilitarian reasons you articulate in your pro case.

u/reiduh · 1 pointr/btc

Actually, almost every charge against me had been dropped by the prosecutor; the one that was pursued ultimately became "disorderly conduct" which was granted "time served"… but if you want to get technical then pretty much everybody is a criminal. I at least don't have a single speeding ticket / moving violation (on my record); but there again, I guess you're right that we're all criminals in this regard, too.

To your question, it involved confined spaces; I asked my boss for an attendant, as OSHA stipulations AND common sense demand… boss told me we were "understaffed all week - just do it anways."
Stupidly, I just "did it, anyways."

His demeanor and year of passive aggressive abuse was what my lawyer said I "had no chance of winning being a young white male."

Thanks for your intrigue.

u/osocialista · 1 pointr/brasil

Esse problema não é só nosso, recomendo o livro
'Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent'.

u/scattershot22 · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

> You can eliminate the vast majority pretty easily by reading the headings.

Or, we could get rid of laws that are never enforced.

> I would love to see a citation to that

There's a great book on the topic.

> Therefore, crimes are not created through the CFR; that would only come through the US Code.

But increasingly, federal regulations ARE being enforced with criminal penalties. Congress passes broad laws, but each of those laws bring regulations. Often, congress will not confront a difficult issue in their lawmaking, leaving it up to a regulator to do as they please. And as noted here, the SCOTUS defers to regulators when congress is vague frequently.

Worse, many of these regulations don't require intent. If you simply did the prohibited act without knowing, you could be looking at jail.

Related...don't you ever wonder why the EPA carries guns?

> If it's your address, you're the person to whom it's directed,

Not if it's not your name. See the book.

> You can look at the headings and see which ones apply to you.

There are, in all, 200 books of federal regulations--80K pages. What you advise is just not practical. At all.

> Or you could do ten minutes of googling if it's a simple business

How about you spend the 10 minutes and find out all the implications for me to import a 100W laser cutting machine from China? Or, spend 10 minutes googling and tell me all the implications of selling a bottle of whisky I distilled out of state? And then I'll tell you if you missed anything.

These are both extremely simple issues. And each will take $2000 of consultation. And even then, the lawyer will tell you he cannot give comprehensive guidance on the topic.

> I'd love to see an example of that because the way you've described it would be an ethical violation for the attorney.

You don't read the news much, do you? Source Source

Google has pages and pages of these types of stories.

> I would love to see a citation to that.

Here you go

u/frodaddy · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

> action of breaking the law is a violent act

Wait, so, anytime you break the law, you consider it a violent act?

According to this book, the average American commits 3 felonies every day. Would that mean all Americans are violent if they commit so many violent acts?

u/pevinsghost · 1 pointr/electronic_cigarette

Oh, he won't, because the message won't really get out and change anyone's minds. If it had a chance though, they'd find a reason.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

As the title suggests, it's a book about how Americans commit an average of three felonies a day. The federal government gave up on just counting the federal level laws, said it couldn't be done because it changes faster than they can figure it out.

If there's more laws than you can count, you definitely can't know the laws, and if you don't know them, you can't avoid breaking them.

So anyone causing trouble can be targeted and prosecuted for something even if they're a saint.

"Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." Lavrentiy Beria

u/jdkeith · 1 pointr/Shitstatistssay
u/unfair_bastard · 1 pointr/Documentaries

do you have any earthly idea how many crimes you "do" on a daily basis?

shut the fuck up and read it

u/zardwiz · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Was the pace of legislation really so slow that it was reasonable to expect Athenians to know and comprehend the law, or was there a point similar to the modern "most adults commit three felonies a day"?

The root of my question is whether ancient legislators were any more honorable or sensible than modern-day ones, and if not whether they understood the risk they were posing to their fellow citizens.

u/Ampage86 · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

"committing a felony" on its own hold very, very, little weight with me. Considering you probably committed Three felonies yesterday, I think most would prefer if you were judged by the circumstances and intent of the felony over the simple fact that is was committed.

u/ObnoxiousFactczecher · 1 pointr/politics
u/Bankonthis · 1 pointr/h3h3productions

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent - Harvey Silverglate

Our laws are becoming less and less definitive; more vague in order to ensnare the smartest criminals while entrapping the innocent.

Just on the subject of a criminal broken justice system.

u/lixoman100 · 1 pointr/DotA2

Your argument as for this being criminal activity is debatable. After all, everyone is a felon these days, so it would be up to a judge to decide. So my point about them being sued about it stands as before; if they aren't, then it's irrelevant.

People aren't losing money unfairly unless they can't read, but that's their responsibility.

Valve, or "the vulnerable" as you refer to the "victims" of their "criminal activity", do not need a random Reddit post to come to their rescue. Again, if someone feels negatively affected by Valve's activities then they are free to sue, which is something very popular in certain parts of the world, and is where a lawyer would be necessary.


If you want to help Valve, send them an e-mail and forget about it; it's their responsibility if they ignore it. You can already rest peacefully knowing you did everything in your power to help poor Valve survive the onslaught of criminal charges coming their way.

If you want to help people harmed by Valve's practices, contact them and help them sue, or start a class action lawsuit.

If you want to just randomly bring "awareness" to the issue (which everyone likes to do for every pointless thing ever) then rest assured that everyone who cares is aware, and that everyone else is just going to keep ignoring it.

If you don't fall in either of these three points then what you're doing qualifies as shitposting. Which is usually fine around here, but in your case it's just repetitive.


Well, arguing was fun, but I'm gonna do something else with my time now. Have fun on your future shitposting!




> lawyers become lawyers (to safeguard) the vulnerable

Good jokes mate, et cetera.

u/themusicgod1 · 1 pointr/canada

> You can't even understand or make the simplest of syllogistic expressions.

This is demonstrably false, but we'll ignore that for the moment.

> I never said it would! lol @ bunk.

> > I would feel a lot safer knowing there was constant documentation attesting to the fact that I am innocent of whatever crazy shit someone dreams up to accuse me of.

The problem here is that you're presupposing that documentation is honest. Which it can't be in a systematically compromised infrastructure with sufficient mass surveillance. Let's see if we can break this apart.

  1. There was constant documentation (we agree here)

  2. That the documentation attests to the facts (we disagree here)

  3. That the documentation facts include that you are innocent (though in fact, they can create crimes to charge you with especially post C-51 but that's neither here nor there and not particularly relevant)

  4. That if someone accuses you of something (as something we probably agree has some chance of happening)

  5. that the facts will be accessible by you (doubtful on my part, but we may as well agree)

  6. and that the truth contained within them will therefor be accessible by you (probably agree contingent upon 5)

  7. and that your innocence as ascertained by the truth contained within them will be accessible by you (agreed contingent upon 6)

    So what we are really disagreeing about is whether or not the constant documentation will actually, in fact, 'attest' "to the fact".

    There is no syllogism here even worth considering because we disagree on the premises of your argument. The reason that the documentation is not honest is the kinds of things that mass surveillance allows: control of the infrastructure that is used to secure said documents.

    By the way it is not up to me to offer a syllogism/argument. It's up to you to justify yours.
u/n1ywb · 1 pointr/amateurradio

The average person commits 3 felonies a day and doesn't even know it

u/psychoalchemist · 1 pointr/Christianity
u/etherael · 1 pointr/CryptoCurrency

> Incorrect, I understand cryptography and how it is used in Bitcoin very well. You would be served well by stopping to assume things.

I've read your history, this is flatly false. I encourage anyone else reading this conversation on the sidelines to do the same, this person has no idea how cryptography works and has continuously stated that the state has the power to pass laws that will in some way warp the material of reality such that those who wish to perform cryptographic operations are somehow no longer able to, because they're now "criminals" in having done so. As if this matters, and as if [all his countrymen are not already at any rate] (

> the rest would simply be criminals

Like this.

Please, baghold those government bonds right into the dirt, your misery will amuse me when the turn comes.

> Stopping Bitcoin use does not require cracking cryptography at all, only identifying users.

Which requires breaking cryptography to those that do not wish to identify themselves.

u/FlatusGiganticus · 1 pointr/news

Have you read Three Felonies a Day by any chance?

u/work_acct12345 · 1 pointr/blog

> I wouldn't want them using my google history from today against me...though I'm not sure we'd have to worry about something like that, but who knows.

This article from the Salt Lake Tribune list some figures on the NSA data center in Utah. The quote that jumps at me follows

> "That is far more storage than you would need to store what’s on every hard drive owned by every American, much less any database anywhere,’’ said Allan Friedman, a technology-policy specialist and fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

If the feds have the ability to store every datapoint they ever collect, why wouldn't they? They already have enough storage for everything today, and physical storage will only get cheaper moving forward. On to the crux or your argument.

> Maybe not surveillance on a single place or individual person, but we have constant police surveillance throughout our towns. 99% of the population will never commit a serious crime, yet they're constantly observing the actions of all of the public just in case that one "boogeyman" happens to show up. You may not be the one dealing drugs, but the policeman is still driving down the street you're walking on and sees what stores you go into. Thats the way I see this, your actions may be noticed, but if you've got nothing to hide then the information they gather on you will be completely irrelevant and useless to their cause.

I respectfully disagree with these points. It is impossible for a police force to have constant surveillance everywhere in meatspace, the logistics of that would be ridiculous. With regards to the second point, there are so many laws on the books that it is impossible to not break them, as Harvey Silverglate details in his book. In the real world, this is no big deal, precisely due to the lack of constant surveillance by the authorities. In the digital world, however, the authorities have enough data to reconstruct every move you make, and keep this data forever. Further, this data is much more precise than what a police officer would see driving down the street, more like what a detective assigned to follow 3 feet behind you at all times would see. And now we know that this huge network of "3 foot behind detectives" (PRISM) has, for all intents and purposes, infinite notebook space (data centers) to write record your actions. Practically, this means that the executive branch can arrest whoever they want by selectively enforcing some laws and not others.

This story from Wired summarizes many of these points more eloquently than I just did.

u/stringliterals · 1 pointr/pics

Have my up-vote for a thoughtful articulate response. I honestly wish your last statement was true, but not all laws these day are moral. There does exist an overlap between illegal and moral on the truth tables. This is an interesting (but slightly off-topic) read:

u/learhpa · 1 pointr/changemyview

The government may not be looking to arrest you for downloading the latest tomb raider game, but it IS a crime.

So some day when they want something from you, they can use their knowledge about that to blackmail you.

The average American commits three felonies a day. Do you honestly think that any agency is sufficiently incorruptible that, with the knowledge needed to go after anyone they want, they will refrain from doing so?

Worse yet, what happens when these agencies start blackmailing the legislators into doing what the agencies want? Mass surveillance gives them the means, how much do you trust them not to develop the desire? Even if they're not doing it now, eventually they will. And once they do, democracy is dead.

u/DocMerlin · 1 pointr/gifs

Thats ok, most dads are criminals, nearly everyone in the US is without even knowing it.

u/EvilStig · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

Three Felonies a Day talks about this and how the only reason anyone is not in jail is because nobody's decided to prosecute them yet.

u/thetrooper424 · 1 pointr/worldnews

Read this book and you'll understand how the feds can get anyone and everyone for something eventually if they have a big enough budget.

u/Eurynom0s · 1 pointr/DoesAnybodyElse

There's a gigantic difference between leaving it up to a judge to decide mens rea in a murder case, and putting people in situations where it's literally impossible to be compliant with one law without violating another law and then leaving it up to prosecutorial discretion to not unreasonably use that to dick people over.

u/star_boy2005 · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Well, lets see, here's one book you might want to read sometime. Or this article. Or this one.

> “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. … That is not an exaggeration.” -- John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor, in a comment to the Wall Street Journal.

u/greenbuggy · 1 pointr/technology

Average American commits 3 felonies a day. Are you really going to bullshit us that you're going eagerly give the DA every shred of evidence they need to lock you away, take away your rights and cost you thousands of dollars in court & attorney fees even if you aren't convicted? And don't give me any of that "if you don't have anything to hide" bullshit, the legal system still puts the hurt on plenty of innocent people or people who committed "crimes" that don't have a victim.

u/PDK01 · 1 pointr/ProtectAndServe

There are so many laws out there, it's hard to stay clear of them all.

u/deelowe · 1 pointr/TechNewsToday

The targeting of individuals is but an infinitesimally small part of the problem. The issue is with the data that's collected and stored for later analysis, which appears to be just about everything at this point. This means what you do today can be scrutinized tomorrow. Laws are not written this way and public opinion changes over time.


u/farmingdale · 1 pointr/immigration

I assume you have never ever in your life even once broke any law, regulation, or ordinance even the ones that counteract each other. If you have then I hate to break it to you, but you are criminal.

See this for more information:

u/RhodiumHunter · 1 pointr/linux

> I have nothing to hide.

You do and just don't know it yet.

u/jeremt22344 · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Not breaking the law is pretty difficult. Not getting caught breaking the law is fairly easy most of the time for most people.

u/Unshkblefaith · 1 pointr/changemyview

I think he is referring to this nonsense. This site is largely culled from this book and is full of little more than sensationalist nonsense. In each case they claim that you may have committed an "arguable felony" but the pretexts are all so thin that the charge is nearly impossible to convict. The "real-world" examples they provide also ignore large parts of their context and are deceitfully manipulated to reinforce their premise.

u/NoahFect · 1 pointr/Seattle

Clue time: you're not the one who decides whether or not you have "nothing to hide." The government does that.

You probably commit a couple of felonies a day, just like the rest of us. We're just lucky that those laws don't count, I guess.

u/zirzo · 1 pointr/worldnews

>Re: It takes a lot of bad behavior to get to prison,

Three felonies a day

u/grundlesmoocher · 1 pointr/Futurology
u/ChuanFaFist · 1 pointr/politics

Yep, and most people don't realize the "Three Felonies a Day" theory. There are literally too many laws.

u/CyricYourGod · 1 pointr/gunpolitics

The State does not mind its own business with anything. They care about what you do in your bedroom, at your job, at your church, with who you love, what's in your wallet, how you spend your money... The State does not let people mind their own business. I bet every single thing you did today from waking up in bed to visiting the movie theater had government involvement (be it regulation or subsidization) in some way and you probably broke several laws unintentionally (for which you can get fined or put in jail for) and its only by good grace with authority that you haven't been arrested yet.

Some enlightening reading:

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

u/GoodMotherfucker · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals
u/IAmNotAPsychopath · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

or autistic... Also, everyone regularly breaks the law whether they know it or not. Ever hear of the book 3 felonies a day?

u/hghroidQ · 1 pointr/confession

It's virtually impossible to live life without breaking the law. Age of consent is a bullshit arbitrary statute, and pedophilia is sexual attraction/acts with prepubescent children. If this person is worried about her/his friend breaking a meaningless statute, I'd recommend reading "Three Felonies A Day", and getting over it. Pedophilia is completely irrelevant to this situation.

If they're both consenting, I'd suggest minding your own business.

u/filberts · 1 pointr/politics

No. This is absolutely wrong. We are all committing crimes every day. MOST of which harm nobody. Three Felonies per day.

We should be up in arms about this. If it were illegal to grow tomatoes, nobody would say "Its illegal federally, sucks for him." Bullshit, we need to change this.

u/rmxz · 1 pointr/privacy

It's probably a very good approximation:

The average American inadvertently commits three felonies a day.

u/Maubie · 1 pointr/The_Donald

It is impossible to put a dozen prosecutors in a room, give them the full power of the United States Federal Government, an unlimited budget, allow them to investigate whatever and whomever they want and not have them come up with all sorts of shit to charge and prosecute. There are just too many laws and they are just too complex for this not to be the case.

I will refer you to Harvey Silverglate's Three Felonies a Day.

I fully expect one or more people to get Scooter Libbyed. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better and it could be that the only people who can stop the NeverTrump train are the millions who voted for him, standing up and saying enough.

u/monkeydeluxe · 1 pointr/AmericanPolitics

Read this book..

u/OpenVault · 1 pointr/Foodforthought

>Wherever he is getting his statistics from, they are flawed.

He cited this book for that statistic:

u/Koozzie · 1 pointr/politics
u/meatblock · 1 pointr/Marijuana

Have you seen this? The New Jim Crow

u/RicoDePico · 1 pointr/ImGoingToHellForThis

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

u/tryingtobecivil43 · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

I will look into Thomas Sowell. In fact, I will order one of his books right now. Which do you recommend?

Edit: Looking in him now. I find a lot of what he says to be rather "meh", but I'm going to give his book a shot. However, is he the only black scholar you read? We aren't monolithic and many well educated scholars would agree with many/some of his views.

In return, I ask that you look into "The New Jim Crow", which goes over a lot of what I've grazed upon, but from a much more eloquent and educated woman than myself.

I'm not saying technology alone was to blame. I'm saying that what people seem to not understand is that when black communities were hit, it had a larger impact, because black communities were not on a level playing field. Racism, especially systematic and institutional racism, added an extra set of challenges that white americans never had to face. As a black american, I acknowledge there are some issues in my community. But I also understand how things got to be so bad and that we cannot expect the government to fix it, the same people who really helped fuck it up. Same thing with Native Americans. Things are bad, but they didn't just get bad for no reason. We really have to take a nuanced look at history.

I linked some great sources, you should consider having a look.

I also suggest maybe rethinking relying on Ann Coulter.

"If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream. It’s a personal fantasy of mine.”

  • I don't have to explain why a woman who believes this is a problem. It's also simply not true. More white women voted republican, especially this year.

    “A lot of people are upset when I talk about Mexican child rapes, Muslims clitorectomies, Muslim honor killings…white people don’t do that. America is not used to these types of crimes. We are bringing in cultures where child rape is very common.” -

    male circumcision. Perhaps different reason, but child mutilation is wrong. Also, the catholic church? Lots of child rape.

    "In 1960 whites were 90% of the country. The census bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner. One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been.”

  • Compassionate overlords?

    “This is a country created by white people…I am a Native because I am a descendant from settlers.”

    Correction, this country was stolen, then recreated by white people. Only natives are native americans.

    Basically, not to knock you, but this woman is part of the reason racial divides exists. I like to think we have a lot more in common than not, but rhetoric like Ann's unnecessarily furthers the divide. I'm sure there are much more reliable and less hateful conservative voices.

u/glabius · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

If you really want to know, read "The New Jim Crow" it explains the phenomena rather eloquently.

u/Wagnerian · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

Michelle Alexander, author of 'The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness' -
>If anyone doubts that the mainstream media fails to tell the truth about our political system (and its true winners and losers), the spectacle of large majorities of black folks supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary races ought to be proof enough. I can't believe Hillary would be coasting into the primaries with her current margin of black support if most people knew how much damage the Clintons have done - the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes. There's so much more to say on this topic and it's a shame that more people aren't saying it. I think it's time we have that conversation.

u/bellevuefineart · 1 pointr/news

That is the most racist and ignorant comment I've read in a long time "The way we FIX African Americans is by supporting them with contraception and encouraging them to marry". WOW. You can just go bury your head in the sand now. Wow. That took my breath away and left me speechless. No wonder we have the BLM movement.

You should really read this book if you really are reading political science books. It's called "The New Jim Crow". And BTW, the Seattle Police Department is using this book to train their officers. A couple of takeaways from the book are 1) certain demographics do not commit more crimes. Period. That's a fallacy. 2) We have created criminals by labeling them as such 3) We have created an economic and judicial system that creates "criminals".

There are many takeaways from the book, but it's highly recommended reading. Blacks don't need "fixing" as you state. The system we've created needs fixing.

u/mightcommentsometime · 1 pointr/politics

> 67% of all black children have single parents. Usually the state acts as a surrogate while the fathers are in jail.

And here is a very well researched book explaining why:

Institutionalized racism is still a huge problem. But it is not a failing of the victims, it is the fault of the oppressors.

Now, stop deflecting (if you're capable of that) and answer the question: how much "blackness" makes one more prone to violence?

u/grizzlychin · 1 pointr/AskReddit

> This is a breakdown of the percentage of those on welfare by ethnicity. Now take a second and think about it. An easy stat to find, 72.4% of America is White verses 12.6% is Black. Are you starting to understand yet? There is an astronomically larger amount of white people than black people, and therefore by STATISTICS, it shows that a much, much smaller proportion (which is what is tested in statistics most frequently) of White Americans are on welfare than the Black American proportion. Even furthermore these actual data, show that, of the people on welfare the Black percentage is STILL HIGHER!!! Q.E.D. You are completely wrong. Period.

Thanks for the updated data. You are correct - my previous assertion was inaccurate. The link I included had old data, and since it, blacks have overtaken whites in their share of welfare claims.

And I do understand proportional statistics, thanks for that. My question to you is: Why do you care so much that they're black? Let me guess - it's not racist, it's just that, you know, blacks are like, lazy. Everyone knows that.

There have been some interesting books the past several years, including The New Jim Crow, which show some evidence that racial profiling has resulted in higher incarceration rates for minorities, which leads to higher percentages of single mothers, which leads to more welfare recipients proportionally. Food for thought...

u/fuckswithboats · 1 pointr/POLITIC

>Historical context is irrelevant.

Says the guy who thinks the only racism is anti-white racism.

> Jim Crow has been gone longer than 95% of blacks have been alive.

Read this and let's discuss.

u/AnArabFromLondon · 1 pointr/comedyhomicide

Also read a book about racism because it's clear your state's education system clearly fucked you - read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, Director of the Racial Justice Project of the ACLU, 4.5 stars over 3 thousand reviews. It was banned from US prisons from fear of causing riots.

u/CisforChicago · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Thank you for engaging in a discussion.

I want to emphasize that I am not excusing Stalin. In fact, in no way did I suggest something like that. All I wanted was for someone to be more weary about passing judgement.

However, I would disagree with you about our prisons. It is my opinion, and that of many other scholars, that it is designed specifically to subjugate poor and minority populations. Both in the word of the law and in its execution. I would refer you to The New Jim Crow for a very good primer on the subject.

There are legal scholars who disagree, but I think the evidence is overwhelming. Now, I am not a legal scholar, so take from that what you want.

And I am aware of Holodomor. I grew up around the Ukrainian community in Chicago. I know people who know personally about Stalin's attrocities. To clarify the comment, I meant post war Soviet Union did not have famines or extensive hungers. At the time of Stalin's death, virtually no one died of starvation. And another thing, he oversaw the largest economic growth ever. But when I say that, I'm not defending him, and it isn't even the point. I really want to emphasize that we need to be more critical of our own transgressions.

u/Socrathustra · 1 pointr/unpopularopinion

Here is a direct link to the book. Seriously, you should read this. It is one of the most accessible books on the subject, and it's not merely "white men are all evil." It is a summary of good, mainstream scholarship. You will only come out better for having read it.

u/MuvHugginInc · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

What are your thoughts on the contents of this article?

Are you familiar with the book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness? (

u/helonias · 1 pointr/trashy

But I also want to reiterate that when people refer to something as a "social construct", we don't mean that it's completely fake and meaningless.

Money is a social construct--cash isn't something that we can find growing on a stalk and the fact that we value some metals and rocks over others is basically arbitrary--but it's still a real thing and someone's relative access to it can have huge consequences for their quality (and duration) of life. In the same way, while the modern conception of race was invented rather than discovered, it has real consequences for people. If you want to read more about that, I recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

u/elduderino616 · 1 pointr/dankmemes

The short answer to "debunk the statistics" is that due to a wide range of factors, people of color are MUCH more likely to experience poverty and as such much more likely to resort to crime. (They also experience the effects of poverty differently, in part due to unequal policing practices.) The economic piece the biggest, but there's a lot going on, so like I said lots of great books on the subject if you're interested, Rothstein's is a good place to start. I would also recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

u/slicedbreddit · 1 pointr/politics

In the New Jim Crow (one of the most important books I have read in recent years, HIGHLY recommended), the author lays a great deal of the blame for the continuation and expansion of the war on drugs and the resultant bloated prison system and discriminatory criminal justice system at Bill Clinton's feet.

u/Lard_Baron · 1 pointr/worldnews

You'll be interested and disgusted by the content of the New Jim Crow

download it for free here

u/adga77 · 1 pointr/AskMen

Same actually. I picked up this book yesterday and I'm excited to crack it open.

u/plusroyaliste · 1 pointr/FloridaMan

Yes, really.

The truth is there's simply no way to separate American law enforcement from its historical purpose of suppressing minorities and the poor.

Richard Nixon outright said, on tape, that the government needed to come up with a way to single out blacks without appearing racist and that the way was a war on drugs.

u/robswanson1032 · 1 pointr/PoliticalOpinions

> In my opinion, the fact that many of the people who voted for Trump also voted for Obama should showcase that there wasn't any racial intention behind the casting of their vote, rather the welfare of their country and their family was at the forefront.

I've thought a lot about this phenomenon over the past two years and while it would seem that way on its face, (how could voter animated by racial grievance to back Trump have voted for Obama in 2008 or 2012?) I think the answer is more complex.

I think this ignores the types of campaigns Obama and Trump ran and the political atmosphere that existed at the time of their election. One of the ways Obama was able to thread together the winning coalition he did was his ability to allow his racial identity to serve as a stand-in for concern for minority issues. Meanwhile, while campaigning and governing, Obama didn't have to talk at length about culture war issues because maintaining high turnout among African Americans was not a concern of his campaigns. Additionally, his opponents, McCain and Romney, did not substantially contrast themselves with Obama on racial/identity grounds preferring to portray their difference as ideological disagreements on the direction of Federal policy. This allowed Obama to portray himself as a populist defender of all working Americans standing up against wealthy plutocrats who just wanted to gut the welfare state to give tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations.

In 2016 on the other hand, Clinton (who knew that maintaining Obama levels of turnout among non-whites was going to be critical to victory) needed to make a more concerted effort to emphasize her progressivism on social and racial issues. Trump also played into white identity politics far more than either McCain or Romney did.

For non-religious, non-college educated white voters (textbook Obama-Trump voters and critical components to the latter winning OH, IA, MI, WI, and PA) who tend to be economically progressive but still prone to cultural and demographic anxiety, the election in 2012 was a choice between an incumbent who campaigned on helping working people and a pro-business conservative but the election in 2016 was a choice between a multicultural America concentrated mostly in cosmopolitan, global cities that spoke of a future that was unfamiliar and perceived to be hostile to their values and an outsider who promised to MAGA and address their anxiety through his actions and rhetoric. That would seem to explain why Clinton caused certain voters anxiety about the state of American culture and its demographic future in a way that Obama, paradoxically, didn’t (at least not enough for some to vote against him).

> You claim that the two sides of racism are not equal and that racism against non-whites is worse than that of whites because it is systemic, thus having a greater affect on the livelihood of those affected. Are you suggesting that we have laws that discriminate or pick favorites based on skin color? I've heard many people speak of systemic racism but I don't quite understand the notion of its existence. Or are you suggesting that those in power are white supremacists? Please elaborate on how America is home to systemic racism for me.

Sure, let me go into more detail about each point I made before because I think it will better explain where my thinking on this has been and where I come down.

So, first, I want to clarify what I mean when I say "racism" vs. "bigotry." Bigotry is simply the act of casting prejudice on another person based on their membership in a characteristic group (race, gender identity, religion, first language, national origin, etc.). Anyone is capable of being bigoted towards anyone else, for any reason. In fact, bigotry (or at the very least suspicion towards people not like yourself) is pretty universally human and a clear byproduct of how evolution has shaped our understanding of tribal identities to favor familiar groups and avoid (or treat with suspicion) unfamiliar groups as a means of protecting oneself from danger. As I said in my parent comment, judging any individual without knowing anything about their personal views or beliefs, on the basis of a non-mutable trait, is a textbook example of bigotry and anyone who argues that it's something that only applies to certain groups and not others is incorrect.

"Racism" on the hand is when systemic and institutionalized (and often subconscious) discrimination occurs across a myriad facets of life in a society that positively benefit the majority ethnic/cultural/racial group at the cost of the minority group(s). In America (and other countries with a history of European colonization and settlement like Canada, Brazil, Australia, and South Africa), this means a legacy racial caste system that has it's roots first in slavery, then in outright discrimination, segregation, and apartheid, and now in the effects of several centuries of divergent basic human rights, access to public services, educational attainment, etc. between the majority and minority racial populations that perpetuate the negative consequences of such overt discrimination into future generations.

Since the 1960s, there hasn't been negative discrimination against racial minority groups explicitly written into law. However, given that there has been European colonization and racial discrimination in North American since the end of the 15th Century, we've only had less than eighty years out of several centuries to rectify the crimes of the past and develop a truly post-racial society. It's not really a surprise that we still have a long way to go. This also says nothing of the ways that Americans of color have suffered systemic discrimination in the years since the Civil Rights Movement even if such racial discrimination was technically prohibited by law.

Just take a look at the wealth gap between white and black Americans or a glance at de facto segregation with the racial dot map and see the ways that redlining, loan discrimination, over-policing, sub-par educational opportunities, disparate sentencing, mass incarceration, and discriminatory hiring practices still perpetuate institutionalized systemic racism against Americans of color even to this day.

To tie this back to bigotry against whites vs. bigotry against non-whites. When a white person calls a black person the N word, it's not simply a prejudicial personal attack between individuals. It carries with it the entire centuries long legacy of systemic racial discrimination, violence, and oppression that defines America's racial caste system. As opposed to simply being a bigoted statement, it is a reminder for nonwhite Americans that for most of this country's history, the narrative that was re-enforced from womb to tomb was that they were sub-human and fundamentally inferior to people who believed themselves to be white. The gravity of such a legacy is why, in the American context, bigotry against a white person by non-white people doesn't carry the same baggage with it and therefore inherently should not be treated with the same severity and to equate it as such is to deny how bigotry against non-white people by white people is backed up by the legacy of institutionalized, systemic racial discrimination.

Finally, to your question of whether I'm suggesting that those in power today are literally white supremacists, the answer is certainly not. In fact, when most scholars nowadays talk about "white supremacy" and "systemic racism" in the American context, it's mostly meant in the ways that deep-seated subconscious attitudes towards people based on their race or ethnicity color (no pun intended) individual interactions between Americans that results in sometimes subtle (not getting a job interview based on one's name) and sometimes not so subtle (unarmed black men getting shot by the police) outcomes that when measured at a societal level, depicts consistent discrimination against Americans of color.

u/1Mudkip88 · 1 pointr/GaybrosGoneWild

I would highly recommend reading “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander. I had to read it for one of my classes freshman year of college and it was extremely eye-opening! It’s also written in a way that’s easy to understand and like the author wants to help and teach us.

u/oduss3us · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

I've even meaning to read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander and this conversation inspired me to finally order a copy.

u/oolalaa · 1 pointr/ukpolitics

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.

u/superportal · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> 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:

u/farr_rubin · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

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?

u/glibbertarian · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

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

u/Anen-o-me · 1 pointr/GoldandBlack

> 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:

u/Matticus_Rex · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

> 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).

u/PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 1 pointr/changemyview

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.

u/Troyd · 1 pointr/politics

Sounds like you have a handbook - is it for dictators?

u/freshthrowaway1138 · 1 pointr/worldnews

haha, well don't get too attached to reason, I'm not that kinda guy.

I would say that we actually aren't in an unusual situation. It's pretty standard and just go back through modern history to find other similar actions in smaller countries that have experienced instability.

The idea that a civilian holding a weapon will cause the military to pause is ignoring the reality of the survival instinct. It will always be easier to kill someone who has a weapon. People in the military are taught to remove threats, if you have a gun then you are a threat. If you represent a threat against a fellow soldier it will bring down the boot faster than you can imagine. A single image of a dead soldier at a protest and you will have a very strong backlash.

As for acting against protesters, it would be smarter for Trump to ramp things up slowly. The key to remaining a populist leader is to be able to increase the severity of your actions. If you increase too quickly then you have nothing to use to show that you can go further. It sounds odd but it's how to retain control. Also, by increasing tensions slowly you can control the narrative. Right now he is losing a bit of control over the story but not too much; but if the protesters harm a police or military member then he can retake control of the story. This will allow him and the Congress to push for stronger measures to ensure their long term power.

The retention of power is the key. The GOP and republican voters support the actions of Trump, only the noisy Left are upset to any degree. Sure, some politicians will play the centrist card, but they won't actively move against Trump because they are seeing where the wind blows. The Republicans know that their time is limited, demographics are changing the political landscape. They will have to pass new laws and regulations to ensure they stay in power. Trump is a part of that plan.

Further reading:

The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

u/LeinadAlbert88 · 1 pointr/argentina

Sacado del libro The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

> Autocrats aim for the rate that maximizes revenue. They want as much money as possible for themselves and their cronies. In contrast, good governance dictates that taxes should only be taken to pay for things that the market is poor at providing, such as national defense and large infrastructure projects. Taking relatively little in taxes therefore encourages the people to lead more productive lives, creating a bigger pie. Democrats are closer to this good governance ideal than autocrats, but they too overtax. The centerpiece of Reaganomics, the economic plan of US president Ronald Reagan (1981–1989), was that US taxes were actually higher than this revenue maximizing level. By reducing taxes, he argued, people would do so much extra work that government revenue would actually go up. That is, a smaller share of a bigger pie would be larger than the bigger share of a smaller pie. Such a win-win policy proved popular, which is why similar appeals are again in vogue. Of course, it did not quite work out this way in fact.

> To a certain extent, Reagan was right: lower taxes encouraged people to work and so the pie grew. However, crucially, in democracies it is the coalition’s willingness to bear taxes that is the true constraint on the tax level. Since taxes had not been so high as to squash entrepreneurial zeal in the first place, there wasn’t much appreciable change as a result of Reagan’s tax cuts. The pie grew a little, but not by so much that revenues went up.

u/hipsterparalegal · 1 pointr/books

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics:

u/EnderWiggin1984 · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Reccomended reading:

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

Youtube summary:

Follow up:

Author Ted Talk:

Academic work that lays out Selectorate Theory:

u/hexalby · 1 pointr/AskMen

If your politicians are not doing what you expect them to do, it means the group you are part of is too inconsequential for them to be significant in their acquisition or hold on power.

So the resources that would be used to win the approval of your demographical block are used to win the approval of the segment of the population critical to their success.

Since their objective is to win they have to promise this critical segments more than the competition, so everything that is spent on you is wealth that their opponents can promise to the critical segment, winning over the politician that is trying to please you.

The solution is to find a party where your support is critical to their success. This holds true whatever your personal beliefs are.

If yo want a better explanation I suggest having a look at the book the dictator's handbook or if don't have time to read a big (and honestly) fairly heavy book this video is an interesting summary.

u/LurkerInSpace · 1 pointr/Documentaries

No, I'm saying that political leaders have similar incentives in most societies, and that this often leads to poor behaviour. This book is a good summary of why this happens.

No two individuals are the same, but we know that if we want a job done that offering money is a good way to get a whole variety of individuals to offer to work for us. That doesn't mean they are "all the same" though.

u/brennanfee · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

> YES! The people had a choice to choose anyone they wanted, based on his platform, supported by Lobbyist A or not, and they didn't.

You are just simply wrong. The system, as described, is broken. No matter who tries to run only a supporter of Lobbyist A is the result. Over and over again, year after year.

> Right, which is why the parties represent exactly what they've been representing for the past 150 years and have never changed at all.

The change we are talking about only began in the last 50 years.

> If the people want Jared, and Jared isn't supported by any lobbyists, they can elect him anyway. That's possible!

No, the reality matters. In our example, Jared might be part of the Owl party or even outside party. What's "possible" doesn't matter... only what happens given the reality of the workings of the machine. With FPTP, Jared will have no chance. Code and Pepsi rule the "soft drink" market. No challenger will come along and take first or second place ever again. The fact that it's "possible" technically but impossible practically is what we are talking about here. They simply wouldn't allow it. That's how we define monopolies and duopolies - not by what's possible but on how things actually function. Of course, given our pro-business government we allow them to retain their control without encouraging real competition because that's what the business want - who cares if it is no longer capitalism as a result. We no longer seem to care about monopolies or unfair competitive practices because the businesses own the politicians.

> I read the stupid paper. It's not very convincing.

I never referenced the paper, you did. This is a more fundamental concept then that paper. [Besides, it was a peer reviewed paper so making it sound like just a one-off is disingenuous.] Where we are at an impasse is the method used to determine the form of government.

> Stop treating me like a child. It's unbelievably stuck-up.

Reflect on your viewpoint. That's what adults do. You have mistaken my willingness to use your definitions as tacit approval of that definition. You keep dodging the fundamental question because you are clearly WRONG on the fundamental question when using your definition. That is very child-like behavior. Still, I apologize for getting snippy, it is uncalled for regardless.

> He supports PR for the UK because people vote for actual parties there, unlike here where they don't.

That's a painfully simplistic view of what he "supports".

Finally, I'll note yet again you dodge the question of what method to use to determine what a government is. You maintain the structure is enough. Yet, when provided clear examples both in the world and through the thought experiment that your definition becomes untenable you refuse to reflect and examine the more established definition or viewpoint. As I have said repeatedly, having the vote is not enough. In our thought experiment the structure is sound (you have yet to indicate a problem with it)... and yet, it is clearly a system to deny the people what they desire. It has clearly been manipulated to prevent the people from having real control or say in who they vote for and the policies produced as a result. Democracy in name only; autocracy in result. Might as well just get rid of the vote. [Which is coming, that's where we are headed. Once the labor force collapses, the people will no longer be necessary and autocrats will simply rule.]

In a functioning democracy, you should be able to see a link between the vote tally and the seats and policies created. When 55% of the people vote monkey and 45% vote tiger... your legislation should be as close as practicable to a 55/45 split. The policies created should than reflect a compromise between the views of monkey and tiger. Owl is is still screwed in this example and so still produces an issue. Again fixable.

The only reason we have lasted with this imbalance so long is due to the checks and balances and the Bill Of Rights. The genius of the founders was to avoid that centralization of power and a corruption of the people's basic rights. But as I have said, they failed only in addressing one issue; defacto control by outsiders through the party system. As I have said, they were just unaware that that outcome is inevitable with FPTP. During their time, FPTP was the only known method. Genius is always weighted within its time; it is unfair to use the knowledge of today to reflect on their inability to "see" it. Our problem is that even people today aren't aware that there are better ways.

u/themaninblack08 · 1 pointr/worldnews (mostly for an overview of how systems of society drive behavior for better or worse) (mostly for the understanding on how economics developed into political power in the context of taxation to pay soldiers)


And given the context, probably Hobbes.

u/Sdoraka · 1 pointr/europe

I was not referring to party coalitions, but in a more generic way about the needed group of people a leaders needs to get/stay in power. I was thinking in terms defined in "dictator's handbook"

u/Go_Todash · 1 pointr/worldnews

This goes on everywhere, throughout time. For anyone wanting to read more, I recommend The Dictator's Handbook . When I see these stories now, I recall passages from the book. For some quotes:

u/Noplanstan · 1 pointr/AskMen

The Dictators Handbook: It definitely made me more cynical but realistic about politics. CGP Grey did a video based on the book so check it out if you’re curious.

The thesis of the book is basically all rulers/politicians can only survive by being selfish and paying off those who support them. In dictatorships, these are generals, businessmen and bureaucrats. In a democracy those are the constituents who elect you. Those who do not vote do not matter which is why in the US politicians cater to the whims of the Boomers rather than Millennials. Boomers vote, Millennials don’t. Doing something for millennials is something not done for boomers (aka the people who put you in power) and makes it more likely that boomers will elect someone who has their interests at heart. If you want a better explanation check out that video! It’s fantastic and I’ve watched it countless times.

Also Millenials, please go vote! If you’re dissatisfied with politics this is the only way to change things!

u/the_normal_person · 1 pointr/CanadaPolitics

The Dictator's Handbook is a fantastic political science book. Not just about the politics of dictatorships, but the politics of democracies, small municipalities, and businesses as well. Super cynical, but provides tonnes of really great examples and case studies.

On of my favourite books period.

u/wonder_er · 1 pointr/Libertarian

using something "society" wants as enough impetuous to force everyone to pay for it is dangerous.

For example, the USA seems to be at war all over the world, for very bad reasons.

I wish I could opt out of paying for the military. If the government had no funds to make payroll, we'd make very different foreign policy decisions, very quickly.

Re: the justice system - it DOES serve those with money already. Just instead of paying for the courts directly, people with money pay a lawyer who can usually get them a tolerable outcome.

If you don't have money (and sometimes if you do) you still get ground under the heavy hand of "justice".

Very, very little criminal justice activity is regular small-crimes prosecution (like robbery). It's not lucrative enough to justify the police spending their time on it.

I recommend Three Felonies A Day for a better dig into courts.

Another good read is Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Also, full disclosure, the way the courts should function is great! I love what their goal is. But the way they do function is often such a gross perversion of justice it makes me think that a private courts system would do it better, if no other reason then it couldn't be so over-the-top predatory.

If you want an even stranger read, check out Market for Liberty. The authors sketch out what a private courts and police system might look like.

u/fapingtoyourpost · 1 pointr/neoliberal

>I thought I was having a discussion with you.

You are, and I'm happy for it, but the way those two posts contradicted each other reminded me of the way people arguing for the sake of the crowd argue, and if this was going to be that sort of conversation there'd be no point continuing it on a dead post.

Since you want to keep talking, I'll confess that my argument's kind of a niggle. There's plenty of reasons why a female president would be a good thing. There's that story from the Lean In introduction about the first female executive at Google having to walk all the way across the lot while pregnant, and that being the reason they put in parking for pregnant employees, with the argument being that you need diversity at the top because some problems are only apparent to the people who have to actually suffer from them. There's the fact that if it actually happened it would mean that sexism has less of a hold on this country than it used to. There's the argument you made about Margaret Thatcher, that having a woman occupy the highest office in the land would give little girls and boys powerful women to look up to in heir history books. All things being equal, a female president would be better than a male president.

That said, you're arguing that even if things aren't equal a female president would be best, and not just best, but most progressive, and from the arguments you've made you seem to want this for purely symbolic reasons. I hope you're exaggerating when you say you'd vote for Anne Coulter, but even if you are it seems to only be a matter of degree. There are pragmatic reasons to want a woman president, but "the US is slowly falling down the list" is not one of them. America isn't sexist because it hasn't had any female presidents, America hasn't had any female presidents because it's sexist. Installing a female president without diminishing sexism is like changing the definition of unemployment and then claiming to have lowered the unemployment rates. The symbol is not the thing.

u/noclevername · 1 pointr/whatisthisthing

Surplus military hardware that is sold to local police. Here's an interesting book on the subject.

u/buckyVanBuren · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Probably Radley Balko. He keeps a close eye out on cases like this and has just released a book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces, concerning this subject.

I am currently reading it and it is enlightening.

Amazon link

u/The_Old_Huntress · 1 pointr/daverubin

Shen Bapiro wrote a book called How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them. Yeah, I think it's safe to assume he does name those

u/marinqf92 · 1 pointr/benshapiro

>I agree, I'm just saying that there was a very easy and reasonable answer he could have given.

This is the name of his Amazon book, How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument. He doesn't just like them, he personally endorses them. Any reasonable response claiming he doesn't like them would be a flat out lie, and that's why he never claimed to dislike them.

u/SideraX · 1 pointr/france

Ok, j'avoue avoir un peu exagéré et simplifié sur cette expression.

Je suis pas d'accord par contre sur le fond. Oui bien sur la majorité des êtres humains sont capables d'empathie et l'utilise, on serait pas ou on en est aujourd'hui sans ça. Là où je suis pas d'accord c'est de dire que les positions de pouvoirs sont maintenu par des gens si différents de la personne lambda.
Par contre maintenir une position de pouvoir oblige un certain changement de comportement, c'est aussi ça qui est prédit par la théorie des jeux.

C'est vulgarisé ici :

Edit : tiré du bouquin : )

u/the_other_brand · 1 pointr/TrueReddit

No, that's a very broad overview of the latest findings in the Political Sciences on how Dictatorships work. The Dictator's Handbook is a pretty informative book on the structure and ,holding of power. Power is rooted in voting blocs for Democracies and money for everything else. Any structure used to maintain or use power results in governance.

This governance structure is something deeply wired into humanity. This was the conclusion to another book I read called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. The premise of the book is that there has to be a reason why Homo Sapiens came to be the dominate Homo species on this planet. And it was the best guess of the author that it was Homo Sapiens ability to collectively believe in fictional structures that allowed them to unite in groups bigger than tribes. These fictional structures are what we today would know as laws, governments, states, nations, corporations, etc.

It was a long way around, but in short you can't separate government and power. One concept always induces another. Its a fundamental part of human nature.

u/captainahob · 1 pointr/technology

Every form of government on this planet has to bend to the will and respond to the needs of the “Keys to Power.” If you haven’t read the book yet, you should. This CGP Grey video is quite well done and explains.

Also you should remember that good leadership has existed and will exist again in this country. How about offering a fucking solution instead of regurgitating the same old speech?

I would propose we get somebody who promises to suck corporate cock, like Trump, but is secretly on the people’s side. Once they get elected they do a 180 and become the next trust buster. An education revolutionary. An energy revolutionary. Somebody to really give these fucks what-for and give the power back to the people.

u/GetsTrimAPlenty · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

So legitamcy, like others have said.

Then other things from the Dictator's Handbook:

  1. It helps keep their supporters in line
  2. It helps them get money

    2 is fairly straightforward. Current efforts to help democratize autocracies like to demand changes in governance in exchange for loans; Since giving loans / debt forgiveness without changes doesn't result in change, commonly. So an easy answer for a dictator is to just throw a sham election and say: "See? I'm all democratic n' shit". If they're sneaky enough to do the rigged election right, then they can meet the letter of the terms of the loan / debt forgiveness and immediately get themselves more money.

    1 is a bit of a walk, but in summary: dictators need people to rule (someone to run the police, someone to collect the taxes, etc), so they pay their supporters to keep them in line while stealing from the populace. But their supporters are also those that are most likely to work to overthrow them, so a ruler needs a way to keep them in line in addition to the rewards I mentioned. One easy way is to show that they're replaceable, you get replacements from the population that supports them. A sham election can then be used to show a wide range of support from the populace; This isn't very convincing to any thinking person, but does create uncertainty about how popular a leader really is (since there are some actual supporters in that 90%+ voting rate that the election returns) and thus how unlikely it would be to stir up a rebellion to overthrow the leader. This balance of "carrot" and "stick" helps to keep the supporters in line and off balance.

    Good overview by CGP grey. It doesn't cover the election per-say, but it does get you used to thinking like this.

    Also since I'm less than half way through the book there may be other reasons, but these were the reasons I've come accross.
u/unsolvablemath · 1 pointr/thedavidpakmanshow

The dictator's handbook... is a great explanation.

u/lee61 · 1 pointr/im14andthisisdeep

>War is a result of the ruling classes conspiring to set the masses of their nations against each other while they sip champagne together and laugh."

I think the point is that war is another tool of diplomacy and at the end of day don't really affect those in power. This picture can almost be a 1:1 comparison when talking about countries that experience civil war. After the war is over you will normally see that the new ruling class would still keep previous rulers.

>Think also about how many brutal dictators and fanatics act in what can only be described in blatantly evil ways.

Dictatorships tend to be evil not because people are evil. It's because to stay in power in a dictatorship, you have to give benefits to a small coalition. This picture hits closer to home in countries and nations that have or had a small coalition.

> You think that every time they decide to go to war against them it's merely a lark, that they're secretly dining together behind the scenes while the stupid masses duke it out? You think they're all a bunch of bloodthirsty sociopaths who enjoy sending people to war, that it doesn't weigh on any of their consciences at all?

I think the point is to show that soldiers, especially in small coalition countries, tend to be stepping stones in a larger game they don't really have much play in.

Here is great book that gives historical context and examples.

If you aren't a fan of reading then here's a great video that is based off the book

u/BlueLightSpcl · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Political Scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita provides some insight into this question in The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

His work uses game theory to look at who leaders depend on to stay in power, and how large those factions are relative to the general population amongst other things. I found it to be an interesting and accessible read.

u/0deDau · 1 pointr/Quebec

(Toi aussi t'as lu The Dictator's Handbook? Excellent bouquin que je recommande à tous ;) )

u/nickik · 1 pointr/asoiaf

I am more in the renly camp myself. As in I dont think he is a idiot.

> Why? Because the people of Westeros follow power, charisma and leadership

That is false. The people do not matter much. This is fudalism, not democracy. The amount of people that matter for your 'election' as king are about 1-5% of people.

Renly gained support because had a big house behind him, good relation with another big house. This much power draws more power.

These lords knew that if the where in the winning groupe the would get favers, casels, lands tax releases and so on.

Stannis expected people to follow him, not because he would grant them faver just because it is right. The simply fact is, ranly understand how feudalism works, stannis does not.

> They criticize him for being slow

I agree that the slow play was probebly a good one. A robert like stick against Kings Landing would probebly have been just as effective. I dont think that it really mattered, both the slow and the fast way would lead to victory.

> Renly's men truly loved and believed in him, Renly could make friends like no other.

That is not really importent. Its about the money. Do you think Randly Tarly like the Lord Blowfish? Do any of the Lords of the Reach like Tywin? No. Non of this really matters a huge amount.

> getting rid of men like Varys and Littlefinger who did not work for the good of the realm

Again why do so many people talk about ' the good of the realm', nobody (almost) nobody cares about 'the realm'. They care for themselfs, there power there money or some other think like LF overcomming his inferiority complex. Renly does not fight for the good of the realm, stannis does not fight for the good of the realm, and so on.

Why is it so hard to understand that in feudalism nobody cares about the cood of the common man. Its about the what the people in power want.

> knew what it took to be a King

Its called using your own power to gather a winning colition.


Renly was a pretty good player, he had a good starting position ie. having the faver over his brother and getting storms end and beeing born one of the top 5 familiys.

Renly would have easly taken King Landing from the smash Tywin between him and Robb. He would probebly not have to fight with robb, much more lickly the would have come to terms. Renly would not have started a war with Dorne, while the Dorne and the Reach dont like each other neither renly nor doren would push for war.

Renly would probebly had governed a stable kingdom. He spending his time having fun, not fighing pointless wars. He was also not cruel, in the sence that he would hurt people for fun. I think as far as feudal kings go he would have been as good as any.


Some might be intressted in actual analysis of dictatorships and how they can be analysed. I would higly recomend the work of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.

Some easly understandable podcast here:
> The Political Economy of Power (
> Bruce Bueno de Mesquita on Democracies and Dictatorships (

If you are more the reading type, his most easy to read book, witch is his theory explaind for non sientists:
> The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics (

This stuff might sound borring, but I would really recomend it, if you are into the poltics part of Game of Thrones I cant belive you would not enjoy this stuff.

u/GeauxMik · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/bkenobi · 1 pointr/news

if you want to know more history on the subject, read "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" it talks about all this stuff