Top products from r/libertarianmeme

I don't know. I think certain parts of a society need to be pulled into modern ethical norms.

I know this is anti-libertarian but I think the state needs to implement certain laws to help society behave more ethically.

I say this based on the data found in Steven Pinker's book Enlightenment Now. I highly recommend it and he does a far superior job articulating the importance of the state.

I don't want this to expand into a slippery slope argument. I think there need to be strong limits on government power.

Edit: Added Link

Ok LOL! Ha ha ha ha! Ok, since you can't be bothered to use the internet, here ya go! That was easy. Total win for me. Jeez. Do you need me to do a tutorial on how google works, too? How embarrassing for you.

Actually scratch the macro/micro difference. The best layperson Econ books are:

-Freakonomics (Revised Edition) https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0061234001/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_p6WfAbTQ50ZGZ (it has a follow up, SuperFreakonomics)

And

-The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1451651732/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Q5WfAbR3TEZTP (or anything by Steven Landsburg really)

If you like podcasts, check out Planet Money, Freakonomics Radio, and EconTalk.

Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are both available as audiobooks and done really well if that’s a thing you like.

I actually ran the numbers. If the government were reduced to a constitutional size, we could be debt-free and almost completely tax-free within about 8-9 years.

It could be much faster. In this idea I actually reduce the socialism programs by 10% per year for 10 years, but if we're OK with people having to become responsible overnight, probably more like 6 years.

At the end, the only remaining tax would be 7% on offshore drilling on the continental shelf, in waters which are not claimed by any state.

I just want to put a funny tl;dr up here - you're calling an organization that doesn't even have a leader authoritarian.

Jeremy Corbyn is a democratic socialist. Scandinavian countries are demsoc countries. They are not fascists. "Taxes" are not fascist. "Regulations" are not fascist. Fascism is hyper-nationalist authoritarianism, it has nothing to do with economics whatsoever. Different fascist regimes have had different economic systems. The point of fascism is that it's opposed to democracy and liberalism.

You're defining your terms in a dishonest way that bares little resemblance to what that word actually refers to. Everything you dislike isn't fascism, it has a real definition that is accepted in academic political science communities. [Here's the wikipedia page for fascism.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) Here's the one for economics. I'm happy to provide impartial in-depth sources on fascism and how it functions if you like, it seems to be an issue of some interest to you. Personally I found this one to be the most elucidating.

I don't know what books you've been reading in the last 15 years, but find better ones.

Please, you cant just throw the names of movements out and say "this" pick 1 and tell me why it's different from what I said. It's like when Nazis tell me "FiNd ThE GaS ChAmbeRs DoOrs." Or "ThE rEcOrDs OnLy ShOw 100k DiEd" its toxic and it's not an arguement for Nazism.

As an example.

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis https://www.amazon.com/dp/0913966630/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_9d11CbKBMASRK

ThIs Is wHy I'm rIgHt.

Throw me a weeks of research, jackass...

Your right, welfare states are not socialism, which is the point I was attempting to make, I fell short and I apologize. Also, I'm am going to have to make a point to read Anarchy in Action to understand the totality of "social justice" as I currently agree with the narrative that minority groups are being marginalized, but not by active measures or willful action, more so by taking shitty actions on good data. There is exception in area where the white supremacist movement has managed to gain power in regions by questionable tactics purposefully take shitty actions that installs the institutional racism. I disagree entirely with "social justice" on a pure economic class interpretation as in a democratic society I elect the rich with my money except in cases of "plunder" or "fraud" which we are dealing with currently. Fuels both sides of the anarchy spectrum. Now I understand that we are not Techno-primitivist so certain markets I have no choice in if i want to economically important but that choice is always there.

Would love to have a homestead and a tiny house... the market allows me to have both.

lol that's so not true. Here's an entire book on Nazi gun control. It was written by Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and Research Fellow with the Independent Institute who has argued and won three constitutional law cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hedgehog-Fox-Tolstoys-History/dp/1566630193

This is a great read on the subject.

I read this a while backb great book

https://www.amazon.com/Aint-Nobodys-Business-You-Consensual/dp/192976717X

>I do want strong public education and universal healthcare. However, I want those services to be provided with the most efficient use of tax dollars instead of that money being pissed away.

Yikes, Please read

It was reprinted in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00HKMUY5C/

The original source is listed at the bottom of the image.

I read a book, called the curse of the high IQ. Heres a link

https://www.amazon.com/Curse-High-IQ-Aaron-Clarey/dp/1522813756

Really great book that sums it all up. You should check it out.

If you can't buy what you want, become the one who sells it

Or more accurately, this.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960

I'm actually reading a book on Charles Manson, and Laurel canyon. Here's the book. All of it well documented. There was a hell of a lot more to the hippie scene, Zappa, Manson than people are told.

I haven’t gotten anything from them, but this is the cheapest custom flag I can find. And it’s amazon so if it’s shitty you can probably return it.

But you're missing his last point:

"Politicians and their corporate sponsors have tricked ordinary Americans into thinking legitimate enemies exist and must be confronted. The truth is that there are no enemies, only business opportunities."

Sure, war requires supplies, and there are people who can provide those supplies. However, when war is started purely for financial gain, that's when we hit a moral problem.

The book:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Is-Racket-Americas-Decorated/dp/1626361053/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1413326729&sr=8-2&keywords=war+is+a+racket

Read Capitalism and the Historians and you'll have a better idea what this is about. There are some stock charges against the market, and some point to the Industrial Revolution as evidence.

"It made workers worse off" - The truth is that there were many factors contributing to poverty, and industrialization was making superhuman progress against them. You also had an activist government commissioning zillions of studies on worker quality of life because for the first time ever the government gave a crap. Add to that an old-money, aristocratic intelligentsia with an axe to grind against the nouveau riche entrepreneurs, and it should be clear that there were vested interests in making the factories sound as terrible as possible. Ever wonder where we get the term "wage slave?" Industrialization was allowing non-slave labor to decimate slave labor in the marketplace, so the conservatives who favored keeping slavery had to come up with something to make their opponents look bad.

Academics also complained workers had to live in dark, poorly ventilated apartments. But the government charged a tax on how many windows you had. Incentives matter!

"It created modern (evil) capitalism" - The hard-line anti-capitalists will say that capitalism as we know it depended on the British process of "enclosure", by which previously public lands that the farmers used got stolen from them by the government and given to robber barons to build their factories on. But those common lands were suffering from a tragedy of the commons in the first place. While it was wrong to give the factory builders first dibs, it was not wrong to let the property finally be owned by someone.

There's definitely more than this, it's in that book, but let it suffice to say that the usual statist's narrative of the Industrial Revolution goes like this:

• Everybody was happy and fulfilled on their farms.
  
• The evil factories showed up and shoveled formerly happy people into putrid, soot-stained urban environments.
  
• The Nanny State burst in on a white horse with a sword and a pen, and subdued the evil capitalists with labor laws.
  
• Hooray, modern economy!
  
  The version of events not tainted by bad economics is more like this: Life was shit, someone invented machines to make it less shit. Once life started getting better, the ivory tower folks thought any hardship at all was a crime against humanity, and tried to outlaw life being shit. Fortunately the market did that for them already.