(Part 2) Top products from r/AskLibertarians

Brink Lindsey has a new book called The Captured Economy that goes over this.

The Captured Economy: How the Powerful Enrich Themselves, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality

And an episode of EconTalk on his book.

>Kevin Carson and I'm hooked

(Me too! I've been listening to him while at work lately!)

Another great source would be to look up libertarian philosopher Roderick Long. He writes for the Center for A
Stateless Society (where Kevin is) and the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog (bleedingheartlibertarians.com); he also writes a good amount on the labor movement and has a paper (however I haven't read all of it) called Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class that might give an insight into his work (I'm not as well read on him as I would like, but you can also find some lectures of his on youtube, like this one How (and Why) to Be a Free-Market Radical Leftist).

I think in general you could read libertarian economists as this is a common theme, maybe some of Friedman's work, etc.

If I run across something today, I'll try to edit to let you know, but hopefully this will help get you started.

Edit: You might be interested in this talk given in the 90's at the Institute for Humane Studies (Race, Class, and Gender | Roderick T. Long, Jacob T. Levy, David E. Bernstein, & R. Richard Geddes)

Found an article Long wrote: Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now

I think nudge is pretty great.

You’re welcome. I also want to share this book with you: Kindly Inquisitors.

Probably not. But you also have a positive obligation to do most things that liberal democratic states tell you to do.

For a scary look at how close we've come to accidental nuclear detonations, check out the book [Command and Control] (https://smile.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1524942940&sr=8-2&keywords=nuclear+accidents) by Eric Schlosser or the [documentary] (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5598206/?ref_=nv_sr_1) based on it. These systems or similar ones still exist and the chance of an accident is non-zero. The fact that nothing serious has happened yet is due to the incredible safety system built into these machines or dumb luck, depending on how you look at it.

>On what basis are we assuming a libertarian conception of freedom exists?

>How do you think we decide what should and should not be a right? I think we engage at least some degree of ethical reasoning to do this.

Easy, rights are natural and inherent to human beings. Going agaisnt that would be restricting what human beings are naturally capable of, whether through a state or through harm. Thus freedom exists.

Think of it like this. You have an island with no one else on it. Anything that you can do on the island is a right.

Oh and don't give me the "but people live with other people" nonsense. Obviously they do, but we're talking about a way to show what a right is and what a right isn't and in order to do that we must eliminate all other moral actors from the equation. You can't ask for a definitive way of showing rights and then deny any kind of scientific method in the process of finding it.

>However, what if the individual was raised to be religious, or raised in such a way that the outcome was decided for him (thus his autonomy violated).

He still has the ability to choose. I was raised christian, and although I still think religion is important, I consider myself atheistic.

>Then freedom of religion does not exist,

You severely misunderstand what freedom of religion is. This seems to be more of a problem with projection, because I only see this kind of argument from people who believe in social planning. Here's how the logic goes: I, as an individual, do not have freedom because I can be affected by the outside world, therefore the world is a battleground of people trying to influence each other as a zero sum game. Now you could be argumentative and say you don't believe that but that's the underlying logic that you're using. Essentially it's power politics, which is why a lot of people who believe in this also make statements like "everything is political." It's an attempt to legitimize their authoritarian behavior by claiming people influence each other anyway, so why not just have complete control over everyone' lives?

Freedom of religion is being able to choose for yourself which religion to follow and no one stopping you physically or practically from doing so. Freedom of religion is not having the right to isolate yourself and not be influenced at all. Although individuals do have the right to self isolate, they don't because that would be harmful for them. And they do not have the right to not be influenced because that's impossible.

>Then freedom of religion does not exist, and that which does not exist does not need protection.

Here, let's play that game. Whoever suppresses the other first wins. Oh, that game ends in people dying, sometimes in the hundreds of millions? Better not play that game then. I mean really, you're undermining liberalism and advocating for authoritarian societies, do you think there's going to be a happy ending for you? Or are you hoping that you'll screw over as many people as possible to make your life just a little bit better and gain some semblance of power that will be taken from you the second you are no longer necessary.

>Also, on what basis should we value a libertarian conception of freedom if we use to make our lives worse?

The problem with this is that you personally do not believe that. You think you're making the right choices in your life, you just don't think anyone else is. So what are you exactly? Some kind of special human capable of seeing the flaws in others and showing them the way to true enlightenment? It's a power fantasy that you've projected onto your politics. You're not better than anyone else, and stopping people from making mistakes will only end in you making mistakes for them.

>wouldn't the state be right to weigh into the private lives of citizens and prevent people from taking drugs

But what is too far? I drink coffee and smoke? These are bad things for me, but should the state intervene. You can't draw a line that isn't arbitrary. And plus, people take drugs because there's something else wrong. I know because I grew up in a town with a severe meth problem. The state intervened but all it did was drive them underground where they couldn't get help. You have no idea what these people need and neither does the government. Leave it to the local community to help them rather than trying to apply your stupid and short sighted ideas so that everyone suffers from your mistakes.

>subscribing to bad ideas (e.g. holocaust denial),

I consider your beliefs to be harmful, is that a line we can draw? Should I be able to suppress you? Any line you draw will be arbitrary because beliefs, although can be based in reality, will always have bind spots and thus will make mistakes. And who the fuck is even a holocaust denier, what, one out of every million people? We both know this will be taken much further, you just don't want to say that because you already know it will.

>being reckless with money, etc, etc.

How many bodies does socialism have to produce before you change your mind? We're at 100 million at least, 260 million at most, I think 100 million is enough for me. And sure, maybe you don't actually believe these numbers to be the case, but you just advocated for censorship of holocaust denial, shouldn't we, by your own logic, silence people who deny the horrors of socialism and attempts at communism as a bad idea that we need to repress?

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccASsjhhgP8

You need to sit down and listen to this audio book. I know, it's long, but it's the best summery as to why the ideas you're promoting are not just wrong, they resulted in tens of millions of people dead. You want to be well read? You want to hear the best argument against authoritarianism? This is it. This book is the single most well constructed, well sourced, and well written argument against your ideology. I got through it, and I will never advocate in favor of authoritarianism. There is no argument that you could make because the results have been so terrible it's too great of a risk to attempt another instance of authoritarianism.

Edit: You can also find the abridged version here https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Abridged-Experiment-Investigation/dp/0061253804

I can't personally recommend the abridged version because the book as a whole is pretty packed. You can't take away anything without losing some of the punch of the argument. But if you won't sit down and take your time with the full version, then at least read the abridged.