(Part 2) Top products from r/Libertarian

>Veterans unemplotement is currently around 30%, so I would argue that the provate sector is that shallow. Some businesses are very helpful and respectful towards the men and women who have served this nation, but most, sadly, aren't. And you're right, college degrees do not automatically create success. But, college grad. unemployment is around 4% right now, while non-college educated people have an unemployment above 10%.

Even if we sent all of those unemployed veterans to college (or all of the other non-college educated), they would still face a stagnant job market with a college degree. That’s why we must seek policies that favor robust, but sound, economic expansion. Even if we assume the private sector is that shallow, which it’s not, the best way to force their hand is to generate so much growth that demand for labor outstrips supply. Siphoning more and more of their operating capital and/or increasingly regulating every corner of business simply cannot logically have this effect.

>These are not jobs added, and they would be jobs whether the tax rates on the rich are 1% or 50%.

These are jobs added/maintained. It’s simple supply/demand in this case: when more people can afford yachts, cabins in exotic locations, expensive cars, and other luxury items, demand increases. Given the prospect of profit, supply responds by increasing as well. Supply increasing doesn’t mean only existing firms expand, it also means new firms open in hopes of soaking up some of the increasing market. By taxing, you’re diminishing the demand for these products by reducing the amount of consumers who are capable of purchasing these luxury products. When demand falls, supply must respond as well: downsizing, layoffs, bankruptcies, etc. The reason is simply that the demand market for these goods can no longer sustain the existing crop of suppliers. This concept applies across the entire economy over every sector. Some firms would stay, but more would fall the more we reduce income.

> Why should we all be slaves to the rich? Why should all of oour jobs depend on what they choose to pruchese or not purchase?

We’re not slaves nor are all of our jobs dependent on what they choose to purchase. I’m only highlighting that wealthy individuals do fully/partially support certain sectors of our economy. Enormous sectors of the economy are largely supported by lower-income individuals as well: Goodwill Industries and other discount clothing retailers like TJ Maxx, McDonalds, Dollar Tree, flea-markets, etc. all quickly come to mind. Similarly, large portions of our economy are supported by the middle class” most automotive companies, casual dining restaurants, Polo Ralph Lauren, American Eagle, etc. come to mind. Importantly, though, this only represents the consumer side of our economy and not the more-important capital-investment side, but I’ll just leave it at that for now.

>They were going into bankrupcy and then government came in, and loaned them money, which they payed back, and are now workign at a profit for. Government was not in control of them under teh Bush years when thigns got fucked up to shit. Obama's stimulus package saved us from a depression, but if it was bigger, I would argure that it could have saved us from a recession.

They didn’t pay all of it back. The government still owns large shares of GM and Ally Bank, for example. Tax payers are expected to lose over 25 billion on the former. The amount of worldwide derivative debt is even larger than in 2008 (ie, the “too big to fail” banks are only bigger). All of this was only made possible by government attempting to circumvent the natural market regulation, the profit-loss incentive, which would’ve punished the firms with real bankruptcy for their mistakes and allowed their capital to redistribute to more efficient uses. Instead, their inefficient and dangerous activities were only reinforced by government, and thus they will continue until market forces ultimately win out and another bubble bursts.

Furthermore, our economic instability far pre-dates Bush and Obama. The prevailing economic philosophy, Keynesianism, in this nation has largely been unchanged since the Progressive era and all of our woes have simply been compounding. The only difference really is that the philosophy has been painted red or blue, Republican or Democrat, and called “conservative” or “liberal”. We won’t fix the economy until we fix the philosophy, which is why a large number of libertarians favor the polar-opposite philosophy of Austrian economics.

Ultimately, I think a lot of the disconnect here, as it is with the rest of the typical capitalists and the anti-capitalists is a misunderstanding of real capitalism and the result of capitalist policies. The GOP has done a wonderful job of completely misrepresenting what it means to stand for free-markets and the Democrats have done an equally wonderful job of exploiting that flawed portrayal. For that reason and since we’re limited to responding to only specific pieces of the larger argument in defense of capitalism, I strongly recommend you read these books to understand where we’re coming from. The first three are available for free (Bastiat’s are both less than 100 pages as well). These five books, along with several others, are what turned me from a born and raised neoconservative war-mongering Republican to a Libertarian today.

• Frederic Bastiat’s The Law
  
• Henry Hazlitt’s Economics In One Lesson -- refutes a long list of common economic fallacies
  
• Frederic Bastiat’s That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen
  
• Tom Wood’s Meltdown -- examines the cause of the 2008 housing crisis
  
• Burt Folsom Jr.’s New Deal or Raw Deal -- examines how government stimulus does not promote recovery
  

>Sure the prizes are different in name and origination but for all practical purposes it is the Nobel "Prize in Economic Sciences". My point, however, still stand. Are you saying the members of the comittee that decide the Riksbank prize are ridiculous idiots then?
And, I don't know too much about Coase, but I was under the impression from what I have read that:
"Economists before Coase of virtually all political persuasions had accepted British economist Arthur Pigou’s idea that if, say, a cattle rancher’s cows destroy his neighboring farmer’s crops, the government should stop the rancher from letting his cattle roam free or should at least tax him for doing so. Otherwise, believed economists, the cattle would continue to destroy crops because the rancher would have no incentive to stop them.
But Coase challenged the accepted view..."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Coase.html

In essence he weakened the case for government intervention and showed optimal results could be accomplished with it.

Yes, Coase challenged the accepted view. He did not actually support your argument, as you had first claimed. He also did not show that optimal results could be accomplished by a "free market" in pollution.

>Sure there isn't a complete free market anywhere in the world right now, but there sure are varying degrees of how free the markets are and the freer ones tend to perform better.

This is received wisdom. It is incorrect.

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313434706&sr=8-1

I start with some basic economics since often what people feel they have a foundation in, based on courses in college, is sometimes ... off target. I don't want to assume, so you may disregard them, but just in case.

Basic Economics:

• How and economy grows and why it doesn't
  
• Lessons for the young economist
  
• Economics in one lesson
  
  Financial Crises/Housing Bubble:
  
  
• Meltdown - Anything by Thomas Woods you can get your hands on is great
  
• ABCT
  
  Federal Reserve:
  
  
• The Case Against the Fed
  
• End the Fed
  
  Great Depression:
  
  
• America's Great Depression
  
• Politically Incorrect Guide to The New Deal and the Great Depression
  
• The Forgotten Man
  
• New Deal or Raw Deal?
  
  This one on pollution and private property is useful when you start getting into the issue of how to deal with pollution in a free market.
  
  And as another "starter" book, I've always been a fan of The Incredible Bread Machine - (It was one of the first books I read about the problems of govt intervention)
  
  And Time will run back is a fiction book, but I like it because it really conveys economics through the sense of cause-and-effect.

>The key difference is that the government controls corporations in China instead of the other way around.

that's interesting. I can't speak to the truth of that claim. but there is a lot of Propaganda in the US and Canada that the opposite is true. Corporations in Canada and the US are literally writing laws now. More so in the states. And there is a concerted effort my right wing media to promote this as a good thing.

>The whole concept centers around getting some people to become super rich first to act as the engine for economic growth

That sounds like the route that south Korea took in the 70's and 80's. This book talks about it.



http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321403002&sr=1-2

Have you heard about this?

> What I don't hear about much though is what will happen once the Federal Reserve Bank is acually abolished.

If this topic interests you, I highly suggest you read Ron Paul's End the Fed, used copies go for as little as a penny on Amazon. The last chapter he talks about how the entire system is built on the Fed and we can't just dismantle it cold turkey, so he gives some suggestions on how to phase it out over time.

> What will my paycheck look like?

The fed is the master of inflation. Inflation is one of the cruelest of taxes. It helps the rich get richer while it destroys the savings of the middle and lower class. Without the Fed, currencies would only inflate at a rate of how fast gold and silver could be mined, which is a very low rate. Most likely savings in increased productivity would outpace inflation meaning your paycheck would have more purchasing power. This is what happened from most of the post-civil war era till the end of the 19th century.

> What will my investments look like?

There would be less booms and busts in the market place making investing more lucrative.

> What will minimum wage be?

Ending the Fed wouldn't change the minimum wage, only congress can set that rate, however as mentioned above, productivity would outweigh inflation making the purchasing power of the dollar worth more.

> Will there be competong currencies, and if so won't that complicate evem the simplest financial transaction?

If congress allows competing currencies with in the US then sure, but more than likely the government will want to keep their monopoly on "coining" (more like printing) money. In this case they will convict people who try to use competing currencies, which they already have. BitCoin is out of government's jurisdiction so it will be interesting to see how that pans out. As mentioned in another comment, credit card companies can easily perform currency transactions with east at little or no cost to the consumer- CapitalOne already does on an international scale for free.

> but a century or so of economically leading the planet is a pretty tough trend to beat. How will ending the fed improve that trend?

The booms and busts of the 20th century are bigger and greater than ever. I wouldn't consider this an improvement over the 19th century business cycle. Pretty much you need to choose your damage. Enormous booms and busts that occur every 7-12 years and devastates an entire economy (as the US has shown since 1913 when the Fed was created), or smaller more frequent (3-5 years) booms & busts that are more industry specific and don't detriment the entire economy. I don't know about you but I'd rather end the fed and deal with smaller industry specific booms that occur more often than the big ones fueled by the Fed that cripple the economy.

You strike me as reasonably intelligent person, who just so happened to get caught up by the neo-con/RINO propaganda. I started out as a toe the party line republican myself so I know where you're coming from.
I think a good economics refresher is what's called for first here.
I highly recommend "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell and if you're up for it check out r/austrianeconomics.
If you really think Paul's ideas on the Fed are oddball, I encourage to at least skim over his book "End the Fed".For some economic brilliance you can absorb right now, check out Milton Friedman, a nobel prize winner and genius thinker.

no, trade restrictions are there to safeguard budding industries in a rising economy. only when their industry is strong enough to compete in the global economy does it make sense to allow competition from the outside. why allow competition from the outside? because if you don't let them in, they won't let you in. if you really care about whether you are right or not then you should at least read this book and decide for yourself. he proposes a very convincing argument. bad samaritan

the book answers a very important question. why does the western world want everyone to have a free market economy when they did not rise to that position with a free market themselves?


>And that just happened magically based on its geographic location? Hardly.

no it's not the location. it's the reliable english speaking port with english laws that the western world can trust when doing business with. after traveling half way across the world, you want to dump your goods at a reliable place and be on your way. you don't want to deal with bribing the locals and things like that. that requires addition expertise and labor and have much higher risk. your response to me really shows that you have not thought about it thoroughly at all.

also, im not going to ever argue with anyone here again. i don't think i've received a reasonable and well thought out answer yet. basically the responses have been, i'm right and you're wrong. i thought like you guys too in my early 20s. i saw the same videos you did. i didn't do any research at all. as it turns out, persuasion is a skill that is not necessarily related to logic or facts. you should not so readily believe what you see. someone spend 100s of hours crafting that message that you just absorbed in 1 hour. you can't fully understand the message's true nature in 1 hour.

If you're at all willing to look into it. Please find a copy of The Fairtax Book. It's a very easy read, and may completely change your viewpoint.

The Fairtax has so many great effects beyond a change in the collection process of taxes. It makes it completely transparent and voluntary. The current Fairtax bill also makes it much more difficult to levy new taxes, but makes it easier to decrease them.

Please ask any questions about it. I personally think a change in tax policy can have the most positive benefit to our country of any issue we currently face. The Fairtax, in my mind, makes the most sense.

If your coming from the left I recommend In Defense of Global Capitalism

If your coming from the right maybe For a New Liberty (free online) or Rollback


Other classics:


Anarchy, State, and Utopia -Academic Philosophy, tough read

Economics in One Lesson - Econ, easy read

Man, Economy and State (also free) - Econ, tough read

As for critics of Libertarianism there are tons of them, from idiots like Naomi Klein and Michael Moore to well respected economists. I would check out someone like Amartya Sen. If you read about criticisms of the free market or capitalism for the love of god read someone who is actually criticizing capitalism and not corporatism.

Rand was a very polarizing figure, but if you divorce the philosophy from the individual, she actually did bring something to the table. At the risk of sounding like an ad, if anyone is truly interested, check out Objectivism in One Lesson by Andrew Bernstein. It's a lot easier to follow than The Virtue of Selfishness, which is the closest thing I could find to a manifesto by Rand herself.

I would recommend seeing the total picture of Objectivism, and seeing it is a superior ideology than libertarianism (or that Objectivism is in a way libertarianism, plus much, much, much more). Objectivism focuses on ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics which freedom absolutely depends on.

Atlas Shrugged
http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145

The Virtue of Selfishness
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_the_virtue_of_selfishness

Capitalism The Unknown Ideal
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Unknown-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Rand-Library-Volume/dp/0452011019

There is a significant difference between libertarianism and Objectivism, and people need to look hard at both sides and choose.

I think this is one of the very best videos on it, from a Georgetown Professor: http://youtu.be/vScOpGjGB7c?t=2m59s He is speaking and writing for people specifically like you.

His book is probably the best introduction to libertarianism that there is: http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-What-Everyone-Needs-Know/dp/019993391X (Oxford University Press). You buy it (it's pretty cheap) or find it online (pirated).

mikerz85 gave a good overview but if you want to go more in depth, read The Fair Tax book. It's actually pretty interesting and it really shines a light on how out of control the US tax code has become.

That's pretty close. We obviously do have a "right" in the US to a trial by jury, but just like the right to vote, it is not a natural right of human beings. What we do have a right to is to protect ourselves from violence, and to hold those who commit violence against us accountable for their actions.

How we decide to hold those who violate our rights accountable is the process by which we enforce rights, and can take any number of forms. For example, let's say you and I agree beforehand that any future disputes we might have we will take to a wise, Solomon-like king. Or perhaps we decide to settle our disputes based on the outcome of a magic 8-ball. Regardless of how we choose to enforce our rights, so long as we are actually agreeing to this process, our rights will not be violated. Robert Nozick has a good discussion on this in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Now, one might say that trial by jury is the form that our justice process takes, which we have all agreed to as a society. But clearly, the process of determining the judicial process, which I described above, never took place. In short, the fact that the social contract theory is bankrupt means that nobody is, from a rights-based perspective, obligated to serve as a juror. To demand otherwise is to claim ownership over the time and labor of other individuals against their consent.

I've read it and it's pretty good, if you like romantic comedies.

Try this.

https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145

• Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
  
  
• The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
  
  
• A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  
  
• Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises
  
  
• The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard
  
  
• The Free Market Reader: Essay in the Economics of Liberty, by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ed.
  
  
• Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman
  
  
• Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
  
  
• The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith
  
  
• The Constitution of Liberty, by F. A. Hayek
  
  
• Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy, by Thomas Sowell
  
  
• Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville
  
  
• Anthem, by Ayn Rand
  
  
• A Nation of Sheep, by Andrew P. Napolitano
  
  
• Meltdown, by Thomas E. Woods
  
  
• Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises
  
  
• A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul
  
  
• Rules for Radicals, by Saul Salinsky
  
  
• Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson
  
  
• Liberty Defined, by Ron Paul
  
  
• With Liberty and Justice for Some, by Glenn Greenwald
  
  
• We Who Dared to Say No to War, by Murray Polner and Thomas E. Woods, Eds.

I just got Ron Paul's book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship" in the mail the other day. It's a collection of foreign policy speeches he made in the House over the years with updated commentary. Can't wait to read it.

Side note: You can see the book displayed to the left of RP in the reddit.com Interviews Ron Paul video.

SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | The Myth of Natural Monopoly | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Description | Buy 'How Capitalism Saved America | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo': http://amzn.to/1GUXmEK --- My website: http://www.vforvoluntary.com/ Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/ The 2006 Steven Berger Seminar: Thomas DiLorenzo on Liberty and American Civilization http://mises.org/events/86 June 5-9, 2006 LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE - CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 3.0 MP3 files of this lecture series 1-5: http://www.mediafire.com/?lol1q61emb1ac98 6-10: http://www.mediafire.com/?bmrem3dswc...
Length | 1:06:14






****

^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)

Eliminating all taxes or eliminating income tax?

Pretty good read on eliminating income tax and IRS.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fair-Tax-Book-Goodbye/dp/0060875496

By eliminating the income tax code, prices fall on everything consumed (which has the cost of the tax code for producers built into it). You add a national sales tax of like 18% I think (around the amount prices would fall) and everyone gets most of their paycheck now, prices are the same, government is still funded, and no need for IRS or tax preparation, tax collections, etc.

Even covers the poor by giving everyone a prebate (a check to cover sales tax on "essentials") every year. Suggests that employees of the IRS could still be retained to implement this process.

tl:dr - by eliminating tax code and instituting national sales tax, you get rid of shelters, loopholes, special interests. prices stay the same, everyone receives a 'bump' in income by taking home nearly all of their pay and government is still funded.

You're both arrogant and willfully ignorant.

Post all the regulations you want, and post all the positive effects they've ever had if you want. It doesn't change my argument one bit, that government regulation is neither the best nor the most moral way to fix problems. You don't want to acknolwedge the great, great harm that regulations do? I can't stop from sticking your head in the sand. You may want to read a little, though, and educate yourself, so that you know what you're talking about. Start off with Thomas Sewell's Basic Economics, then we'll have an educated discussion about the harm that comes from government regulation. Next you can read Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (it's free online). Then maybe you can open your eyes and "see reality" the way it really is. Perhaps you'd benefit from a reading of Bastiat's That which seen, and that which not seen, since you like to point to existing laws so much.

The thing about the market is, it adapts, it changes, it retains choice. Doesn't use violence or coersion, or jail people just because they want to take a drug, but the FDA says, "no". Who is the one who believes in absolutes?

I think we're done here, until you feel like educating yourself about economics a little bit.

I think the best intro book to Libertarian Economics is still Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazzlit. Nathaniel Branden told me Ayn Rand wouldn't bother explaining economics to him, but told him to just read this book. It's unfortunate that if we are going to have required reading in public schools, that this book isn't required reading also.

Of course Atlas Shrugged serves as a great intro as well.

> Have you read any Ayn Rand? Yes. If so, what is your opinion of capitalism? That has literally nothing to do with the previous question.

Ayn Rand wrote a book called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

> I also don't believe that laissez-faire capitalism leads to the most happiness for the most people.

Then how can you include "libertarian" in the label that describes your political philosophy when one of the primary tenets of libertarianism is capitalism? Me being a libertarian and you being a "left libertarian," how are our political philosophies even remotely comparable?

> No. Communism is not "total government".

I will concede it's possible that anarcho-communists have changed the meaning of the word; I'm talking the modern understanding of the word. e.g. Soviet Union/North Korean communism. As an example, the word liberal is commonly used to describe a statist/authoritarian position, thus we need "descriptors" to define the previous meaning such as "classical liberal" (libertarian) and "neo-liberal" (neo just means "new").

So I understand your point, but my questions were more about pointing out that its a complicated issue. I also get frustrated when I hear politicians simplify complicated issues by saying things like "Its working" or the opposite. Then again, they are politicians: this is what they do.

If you start with the opinion that it is a lie, and go looking for evidence to support that opinion, I'm sure you'll find some. But it will just be the other side of a bunch of rhetoric, not a useful picture of the real story.

May be of interest: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

Not everything I'm going to list is really libertarian per se but I think they do give important context for the libertarian/broader right wing movement

Economics in One Lesson. It's repetitive but gets the point across

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a philosophical perspective

IThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's difficult to call Heinlein a libertarian but this book definitely is. Also where the 'rational' part of my flair comes from!

There is No Alternative. I'm not sure how many people would consider Thatcher a libertarian but she's an important part of the history of the modern struggle against socialism that I think is overlooked in the United States

The Fatal Conceit. One of Hayek's must read works. A much shorter one that is I think just as important, Why I Am Not a Conservative

Atlas Shrugged. I'm not saying it's a good book or that you don't know of it but it's worth thumbing through just to see what all the hubbub's about. Prepare yourself for a latent S&M fetish.

Capitalism and Freedom. Maybe reading this will help you figure out why Naomi Klein seems to hate Friedman so much. Also very good and much more digestible is his television series Free to Choose and the similarly titled book

The Communist Manifesto. Provides good context. And maybe a chuckle.

The Law - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594315/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1936594315

Economics in one lesson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0517548232

That which is seen and is not seen - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453857508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1453857508

Our enemy, the state - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E28SUM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001E28SUM

How capitalism save america - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400083311/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1400083311

New Deal or Raw Deal - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416592377/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1416592377

Lessons for the Young Economist - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550880/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550880

For a New Liberty - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610162641/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1610162641

What Has Government Done to Our Money? - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146997178X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146997178X

America's Great Depression - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146793481X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146793481X

Defending the Undefendable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550171/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550171

Metldown - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596985879

The Real Lincoln - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463

The Road to Serfdom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320553/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226320553

Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226264211

Radicals for Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586485725/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1586485725

Production Versus Plunder - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979987717/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0979987717

Atlas Shrugged - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452011876

The Myth of the Rational Voter - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691138737/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=0691138737

Foutainhead - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452273331/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452273331&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20

Anthem - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281253/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452281253&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20

There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!

Ok, sure, but Rand was definitely talking about the former. She literally wrote a book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931

> My teacher is a extremely progressive

That's going to be awesome!

I'd read New Deal or Raw Deal

The apparent change of those who think it is justified is actually less than the margin of error of the poll. The change in those who think it's politically motivated is just over the margin of error.

Biggest change is among Republicans, who previously thought Trump should cooperate, but now don't.

Also they only spoke with 1,101/235M+ Americans of voting age

How to Lie with Statistics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Kp38Ab9T1YZET

Good read.

Dude, if you're going to even try to engage in a discussion about economics, I'd suggest you actually read an economics text book first so that you can at least try to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Here's one.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-Pilgrims/dp/1400083311

Differs in that it has a commitment to the truth and isn't agenda-driven.

Again, [A Foreign Policy of Freedom] (http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001) will go a long way.

EDIT - I understand you to be asking, what ought we do about the current threat of ISIL rampaging through our interests over there. To me it is evident that the US is unable to solve any problems in Iraq, let alone restore and maintain a peaceful, stable government. So any solution must come from the people who live there. How odd...

Liberty Defined by Ron Paul https://smile.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1VT8J25TDUGQM&keywords=liberty+defined+ron+paul&qid=1555784579&s=gateway&sprefix=liberty+defined%2Caps%2C140&sr=8-1

Different results than what? You're assuming the lack of government will be better, when we see clearly that extreme lacking of government makes life heinous: http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-1

This is why I talk to people like you with such disdain. The arguments here are well-established, and carefully crafted, you just never took the time to go read them.

Someone WILL have a monopoly of power. Warring tribes have designated soldiers to both protect the tribe from other tribes, and to enforce their own code of conduct: no theft or beating children, etc. Show me an instance where some group won't seize control of power and demand that their imposition of power be recognized as a monopoly.

I'll assume you want something akin to a "return to a state of nature." But our governments came from a state of nature. Everything you see around you has developed from the ground up, sometimes is works, sometimes it doesn't. The instances where it doesn't work will eventually fade and die, and the instances that do work will be copied and propagate. Why do you think you know so much better? I strongly believe you to be both foolish, wildly ignorant, and arrogant. You think simple solutions will fix complex problems. But that's so unrealistic. A big part of me simply doesn't care what the solution to some problem looks like, so long as it improves our living standards and allows people the chance at happiness. What else should we be striving for? Freedom from government at the cost of our life-expectancy? Fuck that, and anyone who thinks like that.

If you really want to do yourself a favor, and have any foothold at all for a conversation like this, go read a book. I suggest you start with this one: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375719331&sr=1-1

Three books I'd suggest, in the order I'd read them:

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek

Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

Outside the libertarian canon, Rousseau's On the Social Contract and Rawls' A Theory of Justice should be on everyone's reading list. Rawls and Nozick are probably the two most influential political philosophers of the late 20th century and understanding their arguments about the justification of property rights and the original position are the ABCs of modern political debate.

https://smile.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607/

There are a myriad of solutions and literature on the matter.

Just because there exist government monopolies on the services you listed doesn't mean that it wouldn't be handled by the market.

People like order, don't they?

Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know is a very good place to start.

It's been a long time since I read it, but this book breaks down the expected amount if you want the move to be revenue neutral. Their estimate may be a bit high now due to the recent income tax cuts but it should still be pretty close.

He earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Arizona, and is Associate Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University.
He is the author of several books Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know and blogs at bleedingheartlibertarians.com

His new book, Against Democracy critically examines the merits and demerits of democracy and makes a case for epistocracy, "the rule of the knowledgeable".

Podcast interview http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-176-jason-brennan-on-against-democracy.html

You may be interested in the book How to Lie with Statistics. This and other techniques are discussed in depth.

Which reminds me...

Moon is a Harsh Mistress is an excellent book!!

Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know https://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-What-Everyone-Needs-Know/dp/019993391X/ref

Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal

http://amzn.com/0451163931 ಠ_ಠ

This one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0452011876/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1422375266&sr=8-2&dpPl=1&dpID=512cw5PKi1L&ref=plSrch&pi=AC_SY200_QL40

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529

​

Come back when you finish

• Frederic Bastiat's Economic Sophisms
  
  
• John Stuart Mill's On Liberty
  
  
• Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent or On Anarchism
  
  
• John Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Justice as Fairness: A Restatement
  
  
• Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia

https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/reading

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/5y49nz/as_a_hs_sophomore_i_would_like_to_venture_into/den54ll/

https://www.amazon.com/Law-Legislation-Liberty-statement-principles/dp/0415522293/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

https://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553/ref=la_B000AQ6W60_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503059047&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503059077&sr=1-1&keywords=nozick

https://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Political-Philosophy-Will-Kymlicka/dp/0198782748/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503059099&sr=1-4&keywords=contemporary+political

https://www.amazon.com/New-History-Western-Philosophy/dp/0199656495/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503059282&sr=1-1&keywords=new+history+of+philosophy

http://econlog.econlib.org/

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/

This book discuss how it worked out for Pirates.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441

Educate yourself

For $10 you can get Liberty Defined which is everything you're looking for and more.

If the fruit of your labor belongs to someone else without your consent, you are a slave. Taxation is ethically unjustified, and has only to do with power. As far as states go, well functioning democratic ones are usually less terrible than autocratic ones.

If you want to see how a plausible set of institutions could be made without the use of the tax-slavery system, you could check out this book by David Friedman.

How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo is a fast read that covers all of this well. The Myth of The Robber Barons by Burton Folsom is more in-depth.

> Let's say I offer a man a thousand dollars to shoot an innocent person, and then he does.

The problem is the man with the gun, not the briber. Take away the gun, and no one will care how much people give in bribes.

Take away the power of government to print trillions of dollars and bailout firms, and the malfeasance goes away with infringing on our liberties.

In other words: this

1. If Mr. Janitor is employed by Mr. Park, then his salary is the appropriate way to compensate him for any and all services he provides. Mr. Janitor using the government to point a gun at Mr. Park's head to force him to pay more is not appropriate.
   
   
2. Is a good reason to greatly downsize the military. Read Ron Paul's A Foreign Policy of Freedom.
   
   
3. Actually, wealth gap or not, the vast majority of all federal spending is in four areas. The first, the military, I addressed above. The other three are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These do not help the wealthy in any way since they don't need them--they can easily pay their own expenses. However, the wealthy are forced, through threat of violence, to pay the expenses of others. That is simple theft and it needs to stop.

From what I can tell, seems like it's because of "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo, an Austrian economist and fellow of the von Mises institute.

He's a libertarian that makes claims about Lincoln being tyrannical and paints him as a "paragon of wickedness, a man secretly intent on destroying states' rights and building a massive federal government."

The persecution complex of some libertarians plus DiLorenzo's call of destroying rights (even though the South was destroying the most fundamental right according to most libertarians - the right to one's self), makes it easy.

It's almost like when some liberals first read/hear things by Howard Zinn.

> We also fought a war (see the first point) to ensure the freedom of those restricted by this edict. The war turned-out to be just, though the suspension of habeus corpus was abominable.

My eyes bled reading this. I recommend you read some non-revisionist history of the Civil War, because it most certainly was not fought over slavery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_-U1YA978

http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377375879&sr=8-1&keywords=the+real+lincoln

Are you unfamiliar with the arguments of anarcho-capitalists on this topic? Have you read The Machinery of Freedom? Or The Problem of Political Authority? I'm not saying I agree with them altogether, but this seems like a rather shallow criticism.

>100% of the fault is with the corporations.

ಠ_ಠ He really should read this. Man he is a retard and so disingenuous. People on the left don't even like this guy, because he lies so much.

> the capitalist class (which brings you your iphone, reddit, a robust internet, tv, whatever the fuck else you shit on

All the technologies you claim are created by capitalism are actually the result of public sector research and government funding, lol (in fact almost all technologies are the result of public research, not private sector research): http://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/

> But for capitalism, you'd be in a mud hut picking through your shit for leftovers. Capitalism is what has brought people out of extreme poverty. Not govt programs.

Wrong again!

>its the corporatist class (your beloved government getting cozie with big business) which benefited from the US govt "saving the economy."

The Capitalist class wouldn't even exist anymore were it not for the bailout! That's what you fail to understand! The "corporatist" class is just capitalism in the real world. Capitalism and government will always collude because Capitalism relies on a capitalist state to violently enforce private property claims. And what's with all this nonsense about blaming "corporatism" anyway? A minute ago you were singing the praises of Capitalism but suddenly we're corporatist not capitalist!? Which is it!?

> One question I have though is regarding internet equality. Specifically, if Libertarian is for zero government involvement in business, that wouldn't a Libertarian say that if an internet service provider wanted to prioritize or slow down traffic for certain websites, then it is their right to do so?

Yes, generally (if they should is another issue, of course). Though we would also say that the reason there is no competition between ISPs is because of government regulation. In areas where ISPs actually compete with each other, their service generally tends to be quite good.

>any limiting of the internet, be at speed or censorship, might as well be another form of oppression.

Someone inconveniencing you is not oppression. When the ISPs start shooting people in the streets for uploading the wrong YouTube video, you can call it oppression.

> I believe that the right to own guns should not be taken away from us. But to me, background checks, psychological screening, and training are not exactly bad.

So, you're okay leaving the decision of if you have that right to a government bureaucrat that, I promise, does not let their own political or personal views influence their decisions at all?

Would you be okay with a government bureaucrat pre-screening and approving your reddit posts? You know, just to make sure they aren't terrorism. Make sure you fill out the paperwork right and everything will be fine, I promise.

> I tend to think that corporations generally shouldn't be allowed to fund campaigns.

Corporations are run by people, why can't I run my company the way I want, including supporting whomever I'd like?

And what actually constitutes "funding campaigns"? Can I put a pro-Rand-Paul logo on my website? In the lunch room? Can I show up on TV and say I'm voting for Rand? Can I put up a YouTube video talking about how I like Rand's policies? A TV ad?

Do you want to live in a country where a CEO posts a nice video of how Rand's policies will impact their business, and then gets thrown in jail for illegally contributing to his campaign?

> A corporation-backed candidate would have the advantage in any campaign when compared to smaller, independent candidates.

Historically, this is not true. The overwhelmingly vast majority of elected officials are not backed by any corporation, let alone large ones.

The reason presidents, senators, and representatives are often supported by corporations is--surprise surprise--they want the politicians to pass laws that harm their competition (remember the only way monopolies can exist?). Libertarians say that legislation like that should not be passed, and, consequently, corporations will have no incentive to attempt to influence elections.

> What are your views on the "no-fly" list debacle?

No due process; if it's not illegal, it's immoral.

> If a business is allowed to deny service to a person for one of the above reasons, aren't their rights being violated?

As a guy who's not straight, let me tell you: I don't want anti-gay people making my wedding cake. I want them to voluntarily put a big huge sign in front of their store that says "NO GAYS" so I know not to accidentally give them my money. Forcing them to serve me is absolutely unethical.

> Even if they aren't being violated based on that service alone, wouldn't the ability to do this eventually lead to groups of people being shunned or outcast, thereby violating their rights?

No.

> Most Libertarians would be for allowing immigrants into the country and creating a path to citizenship for them, right?

We already have this, it's called "legal immigration." It's hideously dysfunctional, like all government programs, but it exists and does not need to be "created."

> I've seen little on this sub to determine whether or not a Libertarian would be for allowing Syria refugees into the country.

Because libertarianism is not a cures-all-the-world's-evil-with-this-one-weird-trick philosophy.

Some problems are hard, sorry.

> I am pro-gay rights and gay marriage, and can't really pinpoint a "common" Libertarian sentiment on the topic though.

Historically libertarians have been ridiculously pro-gay rights and gay-marriage (well, and anti-government-being-involved-in-marriage, but that's another story).

> I am of the opinion that with a basic education, future generations will be able to obviously create more informed thoughts, decisions, and figure out better future for themselves.

You're young and naive, we get it.

> Wouldn't a national standard aid in this goal?

No, absolutely not. Teachers are supposed to be subject matter experts. Why the hell should a bureaucrat who knows nothing about a subject be telling an expert how and what to teach?

> I can't really make an informed decision regarding student loans.

They're a huge clusterfuck caused by massive government distortions of both the higher education and student loan markets.

> If the current idea is to tax the rich more to pay for a higher education and make it free. Which is a noble goal, but taxing this rich (to Libertarians I'm sure) would be a direct violation of rights.

And, more importantly, wouldn't solve the problem. The market distortions were caused by government intervention--throwing even more money at it will only make it worse!

> Other views I hold, that would contradict a Libertarian's, are that vaccinations should be required (I believe you're putting others in danger by not doing so)

Look--"required" means, to the government, "we will send people with guns to your house and force you to, and kill you if you resist." Are you okay with enforcing vaccination in this manner?

Sure, the government may start with nice letters, but eventually CPS and the Swat team show up at your house, take your kid, and vaccinate him against your will. And then, oops, it turns your kid was allergic to the vaccine just like you've been telling them for the past 15 months, but the bureaucrat (who can't be fired and has legal immunity) fucked up your exemption paperwork and now your kid is dead.

OTOH, if a private school had a policy that kids needed to be vaccinated--no child murder.

I'm sure you think I'm being extreme, so here's an example: the media has recently claimed that 307,000 veterans have died while waiting for care since 1998. If that were true, that would be ~1,500 dead/mo. Or, to be dramatic, one 9/11 worth of dead every other month. That's a lot of people. The VA disputes this on the grounds that, and I quote: "[the database is] unreliable for monitoring timeliness or determine if a record represents a veteran’s intent to apply for VA health care." Their defense is that they are too incompetent to even attempt to keep track of if people are even seeking care. Consequently, they can't even tell us what the real number is.

Do you want those people to be responsible for safely vaccinating your child? I sure as hell don't!

> I do not support the death penalty

AFAIK most libertarians don't. Some do, though.

> As you can no doubt tell, Im a very ill informed on the details of Obamacare, Foreign Policy, and other broader topics. I am trying to fix that though.

You should start with some economics classes. Having a real understanding of even the most basic economics will get you much further than knowing trivia about specific policies like Obamacare.

Here's a good popular-level intro: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529
But you should take real classes, too.

> Now, on candidates, I'm surprised at the anti-Bernie sentiment in this sub.

Socialism is literally anti-libertarianism.

> As I understand it, Libertarians are for starting everyone on common ground, but then leaving them to their own devices afterword, regardless of whether or not they need help.

No. Libertarians are for not forcing anyone to help someone else (and to help their way or you are going to prison).