Best non-us legal systems law books according to redditors

We found 459 Reddit comments discussing the best non-us legal systems law books. We ranked the 112 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Non-US Legal Systems:

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/ozan_varol · 182 pointsr/IAmA

Great question. I think Thailand is a textbook example of how military coups can beget future coups, which something that I consider at length in my book [État-Ozan-Varol/dp/019062602X/]. Over time, coups can become an acceptable way of doing business and correcting deficiencies in civilian politics.

Thailand's culture of coups also stems from frequent power vacuums in the country. As Aristotle put it, nature abhors a vacuum. When politics are deeply polarized (as they are in Thailand), power vacuums emerge as a result, and the military is more likely (and able) to step in to fill the vacuum.

Is your thesis available online somewhere? I'd love to take a look.

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/hostilewesternforces · 67 pointsr/history

I think so, too.

The US decided that, instead of being all imperial and trying deal with long-term occupation, we'd go with something different. Free trade! Everyone can trade with everyone else, and we'd protect the shipping lanes.

Also, we'd grant full access to our markets, which was the largest to survive the war, and our cheap, abundant resources. This pretty much made it so that imperialism in Europe and Asia was no longer necessary.

This was all done to basically bribe the rest of the world (including Japan) to be our allies against the Soviets.

/this historical interpretation brought to you by

Edit: Quick rundown by him here:

Edit edit: Relevant excerpt:

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/Vritra__ · 50 pointsr/geopolitics

I'm still with Christine Fair in saying that the entire goal, and existence of Pakistan is essentially to oppose India as the primary reason why India and Pakistan hate each other. Really the hate is a Pakistan military policy, otherwise, without competition, the entire military rule of Pakistan falls.

I honestly don't know why I'm being down-voted. This a fairly common, and accepted idea that Pakistan's real power, and influence does not come from the civilian government, but rather from the Military. That is in a Republic policy is driven by a civilian government, but it is absolutely evident that Pakistan's policy fundamentally, even under civilian rule, is driven by the threat of the military. And the sole purpose and goal of the Pakistani military complex is to oppose India. That is extremely evident in their behavior. Otherwise the military complex, and the vested power fails. That is why you have so many coups in Pakistan throughout its history.

The fundamental reason why Pakistan hasn't developed and progressed as a Republic is precisely because the PakMil complex sees it as detrimental to its power and influence within the country.

I suggest people read the article I posted below and read Christine Fair's book Fighting To The End.

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/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/__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/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/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/Explosive_Eroticism · 15 pointsr/ukpolitics

I read one of his books for my degree and plagiarised was influenced by much of its commentary, so I have a personal debt of gratitude to owe Anthony King.

u/[deleted] · 15 pointsr/worldnews

> Saudia Arabia's basically said if Iran gets nukes, Pakistan will sell some of theirs to them.

Let me add a little more nuance to what you said. It is correct that Saudis have said that.

What is not well known, Pakistan is Saudi's back stopper in case things go titsup in RSA. Notice each year, RSA gives some 2-5B$ of aid to Pakistan. That doesn't come without strings. The tacit understanding is that the rent boys will do as told.

And in the RSA air force, there are a number of PAkistani pilots that are good on the F16s that are being denied to Pakistan. Notice that Pakistan does not complain too much on the US's embargo on the F16 spares and parts? They practice in RSA through the hiring of pilots in the military.

RSA provides teh money and the cover.

Pakistan,the mechanic and delivery boys of KABOOM

What's not to like about it?

And they're a notch less than ISIS, that's about it.

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/Apatomoose · 14 pointsr/history

Here's an Amazon link

And on Audible

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/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/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/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/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/MoustacheAmbassadeur · 10 pointsr/europe

i am not a german and honestly look around you and ask yourself, was this first invented in the US?

and it was, 80% of the time. look at your calender on the wall for example, the coating, the production methods, the chemical refinery of the colors, the software it was made of, the software of the production machines, the printers, the cutting machines, the delivery systems, .. that just one fucking calender

from social progress to technology to arts to science - the US is leader in every single one of these areas. the EU is very close but it is not formally one country so no. you would bend over and let a dictatorship known for the production output of socks fuck you?

that is hilarious

i recommend you:

Ian Morris: Why the West Rules for Now

Peter Watson - Ideas: History of Humankind

Peter Zeihan Talk:
the book to it -

Andrew Moravcsik - What is a Superpower? What is Power? Why the EU is the 2nd Superpower of the 21st century.

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/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/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/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/wardsan · 9 pointsr/norge

Denne boka tar for seg dette:
Skrevet av broren til Tino Sanandaji.

Han argumenterer for kulturen som har blitt formet i Skandinavia på grunn av mange faktorer, blant annet kjipt vær/temp og mangel på mat.

Dette har gjort at det nordiske samfunnet historisk har vært homogent(ikke nødvendigvis i etnisitet, kultur er viktigst). Folk har villet det samme, og trukket i samme retning. Tillit innad i samfunnet har vært veldig høy. Det har vært høy arbeidsmoral og bra samarbeid. Et eksempel er at det for mange år siden ikke bare var å hente seg mat i skogen. Man måtte planlegge/rasjonere maten for vinteren med hardt arbeid på sommeren og høsten. Alternativet var døden.

Det argumenteres for at den nordiske modellen fungerer bare i Norden på grunn av den kulturbakgrunnen vi har.

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/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/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/transformer2709 · 7 pointsr/india

You really need to read this book.

> Fair argues that the Pakistan Army’s revisionist agenda is restricted not only to wresting Jammu and Kashmir from India but also in preventing India’s “inevitable if uneven ascendance” in South Asia and beyond. Unlike conventional armies which seek only to protect territorial boundaries, the Pakistani Army, Fair argues, has taken upon it to protect the country’s ideological frontiers as defined by Islam.

> Seen from Pakistan’s perspective ceaseless attempts at taking Kashmir by force appear rational even if they are not so in terms of the real world challenge it faces from India. Fair argues that for the Pakistan Army, defeat does not lie in its failure to win Kashmir despite its numerous unsuccessful attempts; defeat will be the point when it stops trying. Therefore, failed attempts are just “honourable and brave Muslims” fighting against “meek, pusillanimous and treacherous Hindus”. Fair, who has extensively researched the Pakistan Army’s publications, has found this to be the common theme in writings of senior army officers. Pakistan Army Green Books are replete with arguments of why the Hindu Indian army poses a threat to a resource-wise weaker, but conviction-wise stronger Muslim Pakistan. Even though this portrayal is incorrect, as the Indian army is multi-religious, it is accepted and propagated because it fits in perfectly with the Pakistan Army’s ideological fight.

u/IgnatiusCorba · 7 pointsr/The_Donald

That was indeed awesome. Here is a link to the book if anyone is interested.

u/Chuuume · 7 pointsr/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns

Source: pages 118-119 of this book

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/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/usernamename123 · 6 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

First Nation? Second Thoughts by Tom Flanagan is probably the most representative book on the conservative (small c) view of Indigenous issues; I know some people have a negative opinion towards Flanagan, but this work is great by most academic standards and I think it's a must read for anyone interested in Indigenous issues.

Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State by Alan Cairns. This was Cairns response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal's people. Again, I think it's a must read to learn more about the various perspectives about Indigenous issues.

Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom by Taiaiake Alfred. Alfred is probably the most "extreme" in terms of his vision for Indigenous peoples in Canada, but he's a must read.

Unjust Society by Harold Cardinal. This book provides the greatest insight into why the White Paper was met with opposition from Indigenous peoples and to Indigenous issues in general (it's a little older, but if you were to read one book out of all the ones I recommended this would be it)

Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics by Donald Savoie. I haven't read this one yet (I hope to soon) so I can't speak to how it is, but I've been told it's a great book. It basically looks at how the federal government has become increasingly centralized into the PMO

EDIT: If you go to university/college and have free access to academic journals you should look in those. There are so many interesting articles and are less time consuming than books. Here's a directory of open access journals, but keep in mind not all of these journals are of "top quality"

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/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/lolgcat · 5 pointsr/circlebroke

Everybody on the web (and plenty of people IRL) compare things they dislike or disagree with to Hitler/Auschwitz. Reductio ad Hitlerum.

u/dansdata · 5 pointsr/worldnews

You'll probably find a lot of things in online-newspaper-article comments that'll make you want to hang yourself too, but the rather large number of people who're pinching the bridge of their nose and wondering what the hell they ever thought they were doing voting for Tony aren't the ones commenting in those places. :-)

The whole astonishing-hatred-for-Gillard thing is, ONCE AGAIN, Australia being a pale shadow of the USA. Look at what US right-wingers say about Hillary Clinton, and bing, there you go, Julia-hatred before the carbon paper.

(Hillary's pretty god-damned horrible in objective terms, but utterly wonderful compared with more popular candidates there, at least until Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken are real presidential prospects.)

The Kevin thing was... well, OK, he really is a prissy perfectionist who's an absolute bastard to work with. That's not why he got kicked out, but it's why all of the people nearest him disliked him, and shit like that's what dooms your political career.

(The Dictator's Handbook has an interesting and highly defensible explanation of why people stay in power: . Boiled down, it's the duh-quote "only the people who do what is necessary to stay in power, stay in power", but there is of course more to it than that.)

u/Godofdrakes · 5 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

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

Corruption is politics.

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/ArchangellePao · 5 pointsr/enoughsandersspam

HuffPo even plugs his book, where he wants to import the political system from the greatest country on earth... New Zealand.

Maybe he should go back there instead of Canada or Britain like he's been "threatening"?

u/BrianBoyko · 5 pointsr/LegalAdviceUK

I have to warn you, it was the folly of a young-and-stupid idiot. I couldn't find anyone interested in publishing it, so I self-published on Amazon. Couldn't get an editor, so it's got typos galore. And I'm pretty sure that it's about 10 pages of mildly interesting travelogue before it hits 90 pages of dry-ass game theory. Truth be told, I wrote it before I was diagnosed with Aspergers.

Caveat emptor:

u/chaitanyakunte · 4 pointsr/india

Does her book has any proofs or tales quoted out of context?

Attention whoring is the term we should for such writers.

If her book is good enough, with research, valid data, it will auto sell, without need of any media marketing.

People might be interested in this book:

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/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/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/sphere2040 · 3 pointsr/news

Dude, your clown nation of Islamic republic of Pakistan fosters a zoo of radical islamic terrorists and exports them to all countries in the region and beyond.

To understand how fucked up your clown of an army please read Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War.

If your clown army has been fighting them for 12 years, as you claim, they must really be incompetent. Why the fuck are they fight then for 12 long years? You cant have it both ways. You cant say you are fighting them and then claim plausibl denaibility. Some one in your fucked up country is giving them safe haven. Just like OBL, just like MO.

People of Pakistan are being taken a wild ride by the pakistan elite/army and the religious Islamic nut bags are just fuel on the fucking fire. Wake the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

u/UnboughtStuffedDogs · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Yup, you can have an oligarchy nested in your republic.

u/depleater · 3 pointsr/politics

Thanks for the response. For anyone reading, the books thenamestiki referenced (which both look worth a read):

  • Oligarchy (Jeffrey Winters)
  • The Enduring Debate (Canon, Coleman, Mayer)

    If you can explicitly identify the Princeton-or-Harvard study you mentioned, I'd also be interested in having a look at that.
u/quantumcoffeemug · 3 pointsr/politics

It's literally the title of a book about political theory for laymen, specifically on what's called selectorate theory. They chose the title to be provocative, but it's actually a very insightful and interesting tract on the internal logic of political strategy. I'm not implying that Republican policies are dictatorial; sorry if it came across that way. Perhaps I should have included a link to the book for clarity.

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/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/Cartosys · 3 pointsr/ethereum

Excellent paper. Required reading for anyone fascinated by the implications of The DAO and blockchain tech in general. I do want to mention the similar case and proposal for a new(er) democracy structure in the brand-new book Crowdocracy which gets even more in-depth on how future governance will work.

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/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/ask_csques · 2 pointsr/worldnews

>>terrorists living in Pakistan who came from Afghanistan caused the attack

Number of sources of your claim is NULL.

Keep believing your ignorant propaganda fed to you

>>Kashmir is a very complex issue Pakistan army is wrong in using terrorists but both countries claim the territory to be theirs.



Kashmir is not a Issue, There is no BOTH, It is India.

period, nobody has any right on Kashmir expect India

This is what the Pakistani Propaganda is

Full video link below.

Here is something to counter Pakistani Propaganda about the fictions lies floating around in Pakistani Minds.

Pakistan begged the USA for it's intervention into Afghanistan in the pretext of Indian incursion.

Most pakistani claim that, the USA's war is has left Pakistan as a victim, but that is far from truth, Pakistan Begged the USA in 1970.

Glad that It will Clear something up.

You see Pakistan Is not a country and it's people are dumb and brainwashed, not few, but all of them, by the army.

It is a feedback loop, first they brain wash and then they act to justify their actions.

Hence Pakistani people will remain dumb and brain washed by army run schools.*Version*=1&*entries*=0

u/WaitWhat_ButWhy · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Wow. Thank you for the recommendation.
Link to book for anyone else interested:

u/Sword_of_Apollo · 2 pointsr/philosophy

“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." --Immanuel Kant, Preface to the Second Edition of the Critique of Pure Reason

Kant refuted "proofs" of God's existence, not to show that belief in God is untenable, or to show the triumph of reason over religion, but as part of his project of attacking the efficacy of reason in metaphysical issues. He wanted to show that reason can't cope with the question of a deity, just as he had purported to do with other fundamental concepts in his "antinomies of pure reason."

Kant was a profound turning point in the history of philosophy. It was his influence on the intellectual life of the West that was primarily responsible for making non-rational "forms of knowledge" (faith/emotion-based beliefs) respectable again, after the Enlightenment.

I recommend a book called The Ominous Parallels. It really shows the power of philosophy to shape history.

u/Neospector · 2 pointsr/news

> It's a view defended by Princeton political scientists

It is not.

/u/LouDorchen should listen to this too because I'll cover both of your points.

"US is an oligarchy, not a democracy" is the title given to it by the BBC blog section, "Echo Chambers" (subtitled, "Blogging global opinion, clearly"). The actual title of the study is "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens", and "oligarchy" is only mentioned three times in the entire text, and only as a comparison made by Jeffrey Winters in his book, Oligarchy:

> Most recently, Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of “Oligarchy,” in which the wealthiest citizens—even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States—dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth and income protection.^1

As I replied here, a bad system is not an "oligarchy", and calling it an "oligarchy", as in, "we're screwed because the rich rule" is what's being edgy.


Cambridge link cited by the BBC article

Full study text

"Oligarchy" by Jeffrey Winters on Amazon

u/jacobsimon818 · 2 pointsr/ask

In fact, judging by the summaries of those two books I would recommend to you, Winner Take All Politics and Oligarchy

u/barongavin · 2 pointsr/IntlScholars

Good read! Thanks for the link.

I was a little underwhelmed with the argument presented. I find the comparison between 1989 and 2011 to be not terribly useful. The author pointed out that transitions to democracy in 1989 were aided by their proximity to democratic Europe, while the Arab Spring revolutions were more distant. I wish there had been a more in-depth discussion of the role of geographic location in democratization (if it is, in fact, important), because it came off as a throwaway point without much support.

As a whole, though, I enjoyed the article, although it didn't include much that I hadn't read elsewhere already. BUT! The book the author wrote has now jumped to the top of my reading list. Can't wait to get my hands on a copy.

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/prageng · 2 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

Have you ever read Governing from the Centre, and if so, how relevant do you think it still is?

u/_eleemosynary · 2 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

I'm trying to remember and I can't -- it has something to do with the way he restructured cabinet to create subcommittees, or perhaps with creating the "p & p" committee that effectively replaced cabinet as the core decision-making body. In any case, the key text that explains the whole history is Donald Savoie, Governing from the Centre, but I seem to recall some interesting stuff can be found in John English, Just Watch Me

u/diehard1972 · 2 pointsr/Demographics

Many inputs got the world to 7.7 Billion.
But the limits of population levels are mostly politically based. e.g., water/food shortages vs. proper water/food usage or Reclamation cost vs. the technological investment.

The past efforts of population control by the likes of the Ford Foundation, World Bank, and Rockafeller Foundations combating Communism, which resulted in the focus on the poor in India and Asia has the all too common "unintended consequences." Read "Unnatural Selection" by Mara Hvistendahl 2011(?)

I also find that Climate groups also have a large component that feels population levels are too high. Thus wanting elective and even non-elective family sizes. Which I find cynical and sad.

So, in the end, the population by 2100 will begin to decline, which is a modern first. Now I hear that the economic model of continuous growth and consumption must change or a Malthusianism must be regulated or replaced. But until then we'll have winners and losers of societies that are perceived to overgrown, too large, or dangerous. \

I feel that we, as people, are the Ultimate Resource. And that there are little limits to humanity as a whole. Look at one mans efforts: Elon Musk. Changed the world, will likely populate a planet.

Currently, if we can even sustain populations at 2100 thereafter will require many changes in a long history of geopolitical thinking. e.g. In the book Accidental SuperPower, the author noted that Russia invaded Crimea and Ukraine due to the next military-age male population being the smallest since the late 1800s. Thus they had to act now to provide a buffer to historical invasions.... Shits fo'reals!

u/theBYUIfriend · 2 pointsr/exmormon

I second this. Before I left the church, I never gave much thought to this since it seemed to be a given. One book that I have read after leaving the church has, in fact, transformed how I see the U.S.

In short all of the advantages that have allowed the U.S. to be in the position that it is in is rooted in is unique geography that is not found anywhere in the world. I do not agree with all of the authors conclusions on the implications of those advantages but it is worth a read.

u/happy_K · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Check out The Accidental Superpower for the population / demographics stuff. Peter Zeihan.

For the oil stuff,
Way more data than needed but suffice to say that petroleum revenues in any given year represent about 1/3 to 1/2 of Russia's federal budget, 1/2 of exports, and about 10% of total GDP. That's not Saudi Arabia levels of dependency, but it's up there.

u/BananaRepublic_BR · 2 pointsr/Kaiserreich

There's a a DK book titled "The Politics Book". It briefly goes over a vast array of political figures and their key "political idea", so to speak. Its not particularly detailed/comprehensive about the ideas it covers, but it does give a solid introduction to the key concepts of said ideas. For example, there are sections on Confucius, Karl Marx, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Sun Tzu, Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Gabrielle d'Annunzio, Friedrich Nietzsche, James Madison, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, etc. It covers many different political thinkers over 2500 years of human history. Its a great place to start if you're interested in figuring out your political identity.

Wikipedia is also a great place to read, as well. There are thousands of pages on different political ideologies, figures, and parties.


Edit: Its a little expensive, but worth the price of admission.

u/seanosullivan · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

You could look at something like the DK Politics Book for an overview of a lot of different concepts and problems within politics. It's in the style of an encyclopaedia, which means it's pretty neutral.

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/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/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/dogGirl666 · 2 pointsr/bestof

> But it would suck the least for the USA

Sounds a lot like what ...
The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disorder
Peter Zeihan
says. I'm sure these are common ideas, but his 2 books really lays it out clearly with recent references.

u/OleToothless · 2 pointsr/geopolitics

Hi there Genecio -

Normally we would discourage this type of post as the moderator team has placed links to many solid sources of information in both the sidebar and the Wiki. However, it seems that many people do not know about this so:

  1. Here's a list of Think Tanks

  2. Here's a list of News and Informative websites

  3. Here's a list of scholarly journals

  4. And lastly, here are some links to past AMAs that we've hosted

    As to the video you linked, that's Peter Zeihan. He's a pretty popular and influential American author. His most famous book is called The Accidental Superpower and if you liked that talk he gives in the video, you'd probably like the book. It's less dry than many other books on the subject, which I appreciate.
u/tsundere_salad_bar · 2 pointsr/politics

So, the first thing I'd suggest is starting to look past what "conservatism" means, or even considering this new Trump-Bannon-Right as "conservative."

I've been shilling this particular article since it was published in May, and it appears to be coming true.

Along with recommending Zeihan's book: The Accidental Superpower, I believe Trump and those advising him are trying to:

  1. Disentangle the US from the rest of the world, period, in a GLHF sort of way. We would for example no longer guarantee the free flow of commerce with our Navy, etc. We'd have our inner circle of besties but basically abandon NATO, the IMF, the WTO the UN, the Partnership for Peace, most bilateral trade treaties etc. This will be the most painful part.

  2. Rearrange the American economy into one of almost entirely domestic production and consumption, and lock in partners to provide what we cannot, like rare earths. Again this is going to be excruciating for a while.

  3. Provide top-down, big-government heavy subsidies to the working class - which is anathema to 20th century GOP orthodoxy.

  4. Move the GOP past the culture wars, period.

  5. Promote the yes, I'll say it - supremacy of American culture. Whether this is racial or not is up in the air, but I've seen an example of something like this first-hand in moving from CA to TX. Texans distrust people who move here that want to change it, or don't acclimate to the culture. Start slipping in some y'alls in your speech patterns, eat at Whataburger, buy some Texas Flag stuff or a truck, and get interested in guns and you are "in" regardless of what you look like (and I am pretty gd Asian brown). Whether civic nationalism wins over ethnic nationalism is legit my only fear now. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

    5a) They cannot stand 'multicultural globalism' with a passion, please see that bit in the politico article about where the Dems are going, i.e., a supranational, multicultural, technocratic elite. Bye bye unions, UberSchool for all!
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/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/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/chazthewolf · 2 pointsr/JoeRogan

You don’t properly understand what a Meritocracy is or would be.

Here’s a couple of books defining a Meritocratic system.

u/Illumagus · 2 pointsr/INTP

Radical left-wing meritocrat. (Much further left than liberalism, and advocating Statism - 'intelligent design' of society.)

Similar to the vision presented in The Venus Project, or the logos society depicted in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

If you're interested in learning more:

u/Concise_AMA_Bot · 1 pointr/ConciseIAmA


Great question. I think Thailand is a textbook example of how military coups can beget future coups, which something that I consider at length in my book [État-Ozan-Varol/dp/019062602X/]. Over time, coups can become an acceptable way of doing business and correcting deficiencies in civilian politics.

Thailand's culture of coups also stems from frequent power vacuums in the country. As Aristotle put it, nature abhors a vacuum. When politics are deeply polarized (as they are in Thailand), power vacuums emerge as a result, and the military is more likely (and able) to step in to fill the vacuum.

Is your thesis available online somewhere? I'd love to take a look.

u/empleadoEstatalBot · 1 pointr/vzla



> # The odds of a military coup in Venezuela are going up. But coups can sometimes lead to democracy
> Image
> A man holds the new 100,000-bolivar note, right, to demonstrate its resemblance to the 100 note, in Caracas on Nov. 9. The new bill is worth about $30 on the official market and $2 on the black market. (Federico Parra/AFP)
> The news that Venezuela has started defaulting on its debts raises an important question: Can the current regime survive the likely economic fallout? Over the past few years, Venezuela has effectively become an authoritarian country. During his term in office, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has cracked down on dissidents by force and run roughshod over the country’s democratic institutions. Maduro has handpicked cronies to head a constituent assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution, disabled the opposition-controlled parliament, and made it prohibitively difficult to unseat him.
> In such circumstances, as I argue in my new book, “The Democratic Coup d’État”, the domestic military plays a key role in determining whether a country will move to real democracy. Where the military sides with the regime, as large factions of the military did in Syria in 2011, the dictatorship often reigns supreme. But where the military sides with the people, democracy becomes a real possibility. Here’s how that may work out in Venezuela.
> The Venezuelan opposition is hopelessly ineffective
> In a different world, the political opposition might be able to take advantage of Venezuela’s dire financial situation. Now that the government is actually defaulting, rather than just seeking to delay debt payments, it is going to have a very hard time borrowing more money on international markets. Venezuela has already had a hard time keeping the lights on. Over the near-to-medium term, things are likely to get significantly worse, generating opportunities for political dissenters.
> However, the political opposition in Venezuela has been unable to come together to work against the Maduro government. Opposition parties suffered an unexpected electoral loss in the regional elections earlier last month. They remain hopelessly divided, having spent more time and energy fighting each other rather than Maduro’s regime. These fractures within the opposition have provided momentum to Maduro.
> Now, the military is a key player
> With the opposition paralyzed, the most realistic threat to Maduro is his own military, which, until now, has remained loyal to him.
> Maduro is well-aware of the looming threat from his armed forces. Like his predecessor Hugo Chávez, Maduro has engaged in strategic engineering to ensure that his military stays loyal. He has appointed cronies to the military’s top brass (elevating 195 officers to the rank of general in a single day), showered them with substantial privileges, and appointed an “anti-coup” committee to purge officers with questionable allegiances.
> These strategies may have reduced the possibility of a military coup, but they have not eliminated it. The benefits doled out by Maduro have mostly gone to the military’s top brass. The mid-level officers and rank-and-file have been marginalized by Maduro and continue to languish along with the rest of Venezuela’s population.
> As a result, these soldiers have a significant incentive to reconsider their loyalties. Discontent has already been brewing among the ranks as growing numbers of officers join the uprising against Maduro. Aware of this dynamic, the opposition has been deliberately courting the sympathies of the domestic military, with Julio Borges, the head of the opposition-controlled parliament, asking the armed forces to “break their silence.”
> Still, don’t expect change right way
> At this point in time, a full-blown coup is unlikely because the current levels of discontent within the military’s ranks don’t appear to be strong enough. If a small cabal of isolated officers decided to go ahead with a haphazard coup attempt, it might even strengthen the regime. Maduro could emulate the tactics of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who utilized a foiled coup attempt against him in July 2016 as an excuse for intensifying his crackdown on the political opposition.
> Yet, as Maduro’s stranglehold continues to intensify, disenchantment with the regime could reach a tipping point where a critical mass of military officers decide to abandon ship. If ordered to escalate the use of force on civilian protesters, the armed forces may refuse regime orders and let the revolution take its course or even turn their arms against the very government they’ve been tasked to defend.
> Look at what happened in Serbia, Romania, and numerous other countries
> In Serbia, the dictatorship of Slobodan Milošević collapsed only after his military withdrew its support from his government following persistent street protests. Deprived of military backing, Milošević had no choice but to acknowledge defeat. In Romania, the revolution against the Ceauşescu dictatorship was made possible only by the withdrawal of the military forces tasked with suppressing the rebellion and protecting the regime. Although the military initially sided against the civilian protesters, they were eventually overwhelmed by the tide of discontent and quietly stepped aside to enable the overthrow of the regime in favor of democracy. As I demonstrate in my book, other countries as diverse as Portugal, Mali, Colombia, Burkina Faso, Britain, Guinea-Bissau, Guatemala, Peru and the United States have all undergone democratization after their military forces turned their arms against their authoritarian governments.
> A coup against Maduro could lead to a transition away from authoritarianism. However, it might also generate significant side effects. Other cases of transition suggest that Venezuela might struggle for a long time with the reverberations of the inevitable social and political turmoil that a coup would produce. The coup may also beget future coups, particularly in an already coup-prone country like Venezuela.
> Vladimir Lenin was no democrat. However, he got one thing right: “No revolution of the masses can triumph without the help of a portion of the armed forces that sustained the old regime.” The Venezuelan military is the levee that’s keeping the democratic movement at bay to protect the Maduro regime. Only if the military breaks can the river of democracy jump the banks.
> Ozan Varol is a rocket scientist turned law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School. His new book, The Democratic Coup d’État,” was published by Oxford University Press. You can follow his writing on his website at

u/Dokky · 1 pointr/badunitedkingdom


I shall be starting:

'Wanderings in South America' by Charles Waterton soon.

Followed by:

'The British Constitution' by Anthony King.

u/scott1369 · 1 pointr/worldnews

I read UNSCR 80 [].

India was an abstention. India never agreed to it.

What India did agree to was the original resolution 47 [] according to which Pakistani nationals and armymen should withdraw from the state.

In her book Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, [] Christine Fair writes:

" is also true that Pakistan never fulfilled the first requirement, to demilitarize, on which the rest of the process hinged (Ganguly 2001; Nawaz 2008a, 2008b; Whitehead 2007). Oddly, while many Pakistanis continue to insist that the plebiscite be held, Pakistan was not enthusiastic about the idea when India first suggested it in 1948(Wirsing 1998). Equally important, most contemporary Pakistani commentators have forgotten (or simply choose to ignore) that Pakistan-not India-failed to fulfill the first, necessary, (if insufficient) condition for the now much desired plebiscite, making Pakistan unable to blame India alone for its failure to meet subsequent obligations. It should be noted that in my varied interactions with Pakistanis in and out of uniform, I have never met a single individual who can recount what UNSCR 47 actually demanded of both states even though many Pakistanis continue to insist on its implementation."

It may be noted that even if India were to agree to a plebiscite as per UN resolutions, it has to be held in the whole of the state, which includes the part under Pakistani control and the part ceded to China. []

The Sino-Pakistan Agreement (also known as the Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement and Sino-Pak Boundary Agreement) is a 1963 document between the governments of Pakistan and China establishing the border between those countries. It resulted in China ceding over 1,942 to 5,180 square kilometres (750 to 2,000 sq mi) to Pakistan[citation needed] and Pakistan recognizing Chinese sovereignty over hundreds of square kilometers of land in Northern Kashmir and Ladakh.

I realize that there's some controversy regarding this. Pakistanis claim that they never controlled those lands. Whether or not they controlled it, it formed part of the land under consideration by UN. Chinese have told India that it was an agreement between two sovereign nations and to forget about it.

Why did Pakistan cede a huge part of the land it regards as unfinished agenda of Partition?

Why has Pakistan annexed the area of Kashmir under its occupation? Why did it assume that this is what the population wants? Why did it not hold a referendum ?

If the plebiscite were to be agreed:

(a) would they get the land back from China?

(b) unpopulate area occupied by them of their own nationals and allow only Kashmiris to participate?

In 1954, Pakistan and US signed a mutual defence assistance agreement. Nehru withdrew the plebiscite offer to Pakistan. []

Why didn't Pakistan agree to the terms of the UN council resolutions from 1950 to 1954?

Why does Pak offer "moral" support to those who conduct terrorist acts in India? []

u/Krackor · 1 pointr/Libertarian

I haven't read this yet, but I'll just leave it here...

u/tkyjonathan · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

I really cannot explain all the concepts in a quote.. nor a picture.

btw, this was a better explanation of what happened in Nazi Germany than the book 'ordinary men'.

u/goodschiff · 1 pointr/Kossacks_for_Sanders

As Jeff Winters says in his book "Oligarchy" oligarchs are interested in the preservation of their wealth. One kind of threat to them is other oligarchs, another is masses of people, another is government that wants to take away their wealth.

As Bernie Sanders said, sitting behind Trump at the inauguration were billionaire after billionaire after billionaire. One most prominent is Sheldon Adelson who will be "directing" Trump's middle east policy. Rebecca Mercer and the Koch brothers are three behind-the-scenes oligarchs pulling the strings. Mercer is particularly involved in picking cabinet members. Look them up. And, yes, there were/are many oligarchs behind Hillary.

For a nuanced explanation analysis of oligarchy try Winters' book:

Or go to Cambridge Univ press, if you don't want to use Amazon.

u/powderjunkie · 1 pointr/CanadaPolitics

I am saying that Putin is genuinely popular in Russia. That is not the same as saying the Putin regime is a paragon of democratic liberty. Nor should it be taken as praise. Donald Trump is genuinely popular too.

EDIT: If something is wrong with Levada, then perhaps US-based Pew is non-fraudulent enough?

Putin isn't the only example of a popular hegemonic autocrat where elections provide(d) just the veneer of democracy. Those which immediately spring to mind include Alberto Fujimori, the ruling parties of Malaysia and Singapore, and Hugo Chavez. I would suggest this book on the topic which most research libraries will have.

u/n4ggs · 1 pointr/geopolitics

As a percentage of GDP only two central African nations make less off of trade with other nations. The American economy is Americans buying goods and services from other Americans.

Global trade could end tomorrow and the US economy would chug along. Everyone else would enter a dark age.

u/Uraveragefanboi77 · 1 pointr/Ask_Politics

Yes, but your reasons are completely wrong.

Just read “The Absent Superpower” by Peter Zeihan. It gives a much more in depth response than any comment here, by someone who has worked with many government officials.

There is the absent superpower, but I also recommend the one that came before it:

Edit: No idea why the first one has such a longer link address

u/564sdfgdfg · 1 pointr/europe

this meme video is based on his book maybe that helps

youtube algorithm know some shit since it has recommended me the video

u/pipperdoodle · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

Haven't read it myself, but I think this book would fit the bill.

u/MatthijsZeven · 1 pointr/NoStupidQuestions

For an academic competition, I had to study the different political views throughout history and I read the coolest book. There is another covering the philosophy as well. They are called the politics book and the philosophy book, respectively. There is even an economics version. Here is the politics one.

u/postnapoleoniceurope · 1 pointr/politics

The Dictators Handbook ( is an excellent intro to why even the worst dictators limit how genocidal they are.

After all, why do dictators outfit their riot control troops with anything but machine guns? Yet, the give them water cannons and pepper spray all the time, and only if they have to do they resort to killing people.

u/sigkate · 1 pointr/rpg

I recommend The Dictator's Handbook for ideas on how to run any domain where the PCs are rulers. It proposes a theory of power called Selectorate Theory, which posits that the only difference between autocrats and democrats is the size of the winning coalition required to stay in power, and what a leader has to do to keep them happy, that is, to make sure they are rewarded.

u/olivepudding · 1 pointr/books

The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith

The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan - insightful/informative book about the role climate change has played in human civilization

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/James_Solomon · 1 pointr/liberalgunowners

I normally wouldn't respond further, but I actually did write up a summary of a relevant book so I could discuss it with other people, and I think you might benefit from it.

I just finished The Dictator's Handbook, which explains selectorate theory to the layman.

You can read about the finer points and implications of selectorate theory by yourself, or watch this CCP Grey video on the Rules for Rulers which covers selectorate theory. The relevant point here is that if the situation ever got so back that government sanctioned right wing death squads started hunting Demcorats, you'd be screwed either way. No revolution can succeed when the essential supporters of a government are being satisfied by policies, favors, and rewards.

The Russian Revolution would not have been successful if the Tsar had not banned vodka and lost a third of government revenue during a long and taxing war. It didn't matter that the people hated him before the vodka ban and more afterwards; his key mistake was alienating the army. Without pay and painfully sober, they saw had no issue with gambling for a change in masters. Until that moment came, there could not have been a February Revolution.

So if your coworkers were ever emboldened to the point of hunting Democrats, they'd have the backing of the best funded and most advanced military in the world. You can shoot your coworkers, but shooting the US Army is something else.

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/Dyolf_Knip · 1 pointr/todayilearned

I'm reading a book, The Dictator's Handbook, which does an excellent job answering exactly that question. Basically, all the people who were in a position to kill him were benefiting from keeping him in power. They knew it, and Shaka knew it. They wouldn't turn on him unless the rewards*%success of supporting someone else made for a more attractive offer.

Really a fascinating piece of work. Doesn't simply divide up history into "democracies" and "dictatorships", but argues that it's all a question of how many people's support are necessary for a ruler to stay in power. With democracies, obviously you need a lot of voters, though just how many can vary wildly from 51% down to just a few percent. With autocrats like this, it's usually little more than a couple military leaders and control over a few financial instruments. The population in general can go hang itself for all they care. Indeed, for modern autocracies whose money comes mostly from selling off natural resources to foreign corporations, the people actually populating the ruler's own country are often totally dispensable and little more than an occasional source of trouble.

u/europasol3 · 1 pointr/Conservative

Some in the Democratic Party call Nordic Countries socialism.. I am saying they are not socialist by definition.

So technically yes it is brainwashing to believe Nordic Countries are socialism and that is a tactic of the left today in the USA..

I DO believe socialism is inherently evil.. and we shouldn’t be making romance with the word and theory. shall I explain? The definition of socialism is: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So if you are implying that believing socialism is evil by definition is a brainwashing then I have to strongly disagree. Its morality.. I believe in morality..

This means theft in my opinion.. theft.. I think it’s evil to steal something from someone who didn’t produce it and give it to someone who didn’t produce it..

Steven Crowder presents the argument very well in the video below.

Please watch this video because I don’t have the time to type it all... thank you.

I can not recall one true successful true socialist state.. the Nordic countries gained their wealth thorough capitalism and some one else in this thread explained it also.. about Norway’s trillion dollar energy fund.. there’s also a great book on the topic too..

Let me state one more time...
Socialism by definition is evil

u/BanPuli · 1 pointr/Libertarian

May I suggest a book about that specific subject?
Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism

u/End-Da-Fed · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

WOW that's a lie.

  1. [Highest taxes in the world] (

  2. [Highest rates of abuse towards women] ( in a developed country

  3. [Free education is substandard globally] (, and a [second source] (

  4. [Highest rates of death from cancer for a developed country] (

  5. High taxes and average wages [triggered bank warnings over exploding personal debt] (

  6. [Productivity is substandard] ( spelling trouble funding thew welfare state in less than one generation.

  7. Excessive anti-depressives consumption;jsessionid=72onp8ie4ojr6.x-oecd-live-03?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/9789264183896-38-en&containerItemId=%2Fcontent%2Fchapter%2F9789264183896-38-en&accessItemIds=/content/book/9789264183896-en&mimeType=text/html)?&_csp_=45f4df11dc99cd2019aa9aa30865f74f

  8. [Fallen] ( from fourth-wealthiest country in the world to the fourteenth-wealthiest country in just 23 years.

  9. [Some of the highest] ( inequality in Europe, only the top decile of earners own between 65 and 69 percent of the country’s total wealth. Basically the rich are paying for almost the entire welfare system.

  10. [Awful cultural norms] ( like crappy tundra weather, awful food, piss poor housing availability, and a near impenetrable language.
u/MForMurderousness · 1 pointr/canada

I wish I had enough money to buy a copy for every Reddit user.

u/Gonso · 1 pointr/worldnews

Yes, I'm Swedish.

Their are 8 major parties competing for power. Two blocks and one outsider.

There is the "red-green" block consisting of the Social democrats, The green party and the Left party (formerly the communist party) These currently hold power with a minority of the vote, supported by the "opposition".

Then there is the "Alliance" made out of the Liberal party, The Moderates, The Center party and the Christian Democrats.

Then there is the third option, the Swedish Democrats, whom have been isolated due to being labled a "nazi alt-right" party by the state controlled media (they want to limited immigration and have fiscal responsibility) Currently polling at 20-30% of the vote, depending on who ordered the poll.

I'm guessing that the Swedish Democrats will be the biggest party after the 2018 election, with about 30% of the vote. This will breakup the "alliance" and create a new left-center block consisting of the:
Social Democrats, Green party and Center party. Basically paving the way to hell with good intentions.

The future looks bleak.

If you're interested in modern Swedish political history I recommend reading this book:
Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism

u/Minardi-Man · 1 pointr/NeutralPolitics

There's a book specifically on this subject that you might find interesting - "Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism". The author is Nima Sanandaji, a Swedish-Iranian/Kurdish author, and the president of the think tank European Centre for Entrepreneurship and Policy Reform. He is also a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and the Centre for the Study of Market Reform of Education, both in London. He is a co-founder of the Stockholm-based think tank Captus, which he headed as CEO for several years until 2011. He has conducted research at Chalmers University of Technology, Royal Institute of Technology and Cambridge University, and holds a PhD from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (in polymer engineering). His earlier work, "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism", also deals with the topic.

The book is partially an examination of, and a response to, the discussions regarding the possibility and desirability of implementing the Nordic model of democratic socialism, as popularized and propagated by Bernie Sanders and his supporters during the presidential election, elsewhere, including the United States. The gist of the book's argument is that what American liberals like about Nordic societies is not a product of socialism, but rather has more to do with their unique culture—and free markets—than with their welfare state policies.

He argues that the culture in place in Scandinavia allowed it to achieve the bulk of its current prosperity and equality early on, before the introduction of third-wave socialist policies and the expansion of the welfare state in the second half of the 20th century. According to his data, everything that Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and other leading Democrats admire about Nordic countries already existed in the middle of the twentieth century, when these societies had small public sectors and low taxes. In fact, and I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of the book's argument, these outcomes seemingly can be found in the United States, too, among a specific group of people: Americans with Nordic ancestry. According to the book, today, measured by GDP per capita, Danish Americans’ living standards are 55 percent higher than those of Danes; living standards of Swedish Americans are 53 percent higher than those of Swedes; and Finnish Americans’ living standards are 59 percent higher than the Finns’. Even for Norwegian Americans, who lack the oil wealth of Norway, living standards outpace those of the Norwegians by three percent, which the author presents as an argument in favour of his thesis that the prosperity of the Nordics is not a product of their policies.

The overall line of argumentation the author presents along this and his other works is that there is nothing magical about the Nordics which, like most other countries, have thrived economically in periods of free market reforms and have stagnated when taxes and government involvement in the economy have increased.

Personally, I do not have a very strong opinion as I find the argument over whether this approach would benefit a country like the United States to be strictly academical, but I do find Sanandaji's writing and research to be rather convincing.

u/Washbag · 1 pointr/worldnews

> Scandinavian countries is pretty socialist

Absolutely not.

>but we are still doing pretty good.

I recommend this book:

and listening to this podcast:

u/StatistDestroyer · 1 pointr/Libertarian

> Welfare states raise standard of living.

No, they didn't, dumb fuck.

Source 1

Source 2

Full book on source 2

The Nordic model isn't better. Learn basic economics, you dipshit. People from those countries earn more when they come here than they do in their native countries. The income of most US states is higher when adjusted for purchasing power than most of those other countries. Literally any attempt to look at the data disproves these ignorant leftist talking points.

u/Lepew1 · 1 pointr/AskALiberal

Yes, good threads. Was away taking son to a pre collage event, and only had a chance to respond now.

Agree with you that there are perhaps degrees of socialism. Some favor strict definitions in which the government owns or controls the means of production. I like a more operative definition in which need is the basis for reward. A society for which from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs largely holds is intrinsically Marxist. So say we have Sweden with a 70% tax rate, in which your government controls a greater share of your earnings than you do, and has program after program that falls under from ability to needs, that society would be more Socialist/Marxist than capitalist. A society in which you, the individual, control the bulk of what you earn is capitalist. Progressive taxation throws a huge monkey wrench into the mix, because it applies a Marxist standard to the rich, and a capitalist standard to the poor.

You rightfully point to the intrinsic difficulty in testing out approaches, when you question how relevant is comparing the US to Germany. One can see trends, and study those trends over many societies over time, and my personal experience is the trend of socialism is to impoverish nations.

The answer to the Scandinavian people question is to contrast prosperity prior to socialism to that after, and I think we do see a decline in standard of living, which indicates for that population set the people are worse off. What socialists like to do is highlight the central abuses prior to socialism and gloss over the comparison of before and after. The essays I have read on this topic have convinced me that things got worse. This NR piece, and the book that goes into greater depth on the subject considers how socialism impacted Scandinavians. I heard the author on the radio going into this at length and it was well documented.

u/USobserver · 1 pointr/sweden

> Ord har betydelser.

Lyft näsan från ordboken nu.

> Om ord tillskrivs vilken betydelse som helst av vem som helst blir konversation, meningsutbyte och utveckling i det närmaste omöjligt.

Reductio ad absurdum, sluta larva dig

> Jag vet att du inte vet vad planekonomin innebar eller att planekonomi och den långa raden av politiska utrensningar som skakade hela det ryska samhället inte är samma sak men än en gång, ord betyder saker. Planekonomin handlade i första hand om produktionsmål för tackjärn, järnmalm och kol, kritiskt viktiga resurser för industrialisering och sedermera kriget mot Tyskland. För det ändamålet var planekonomin effektiv.

Är du på riktigt?

Det är trivialt: Planekonomin i sig var slaveri, repression och massmord. Du kan inte stoppa dom sakerna i olika små fack och låtsas som att dom inte hör ihop även om det står på olika ställen i ordboken.

Det är skillnad på vad ordboken säger och vad utfallet blev.

Saxat rakt från wikipedia sidan om din fina femårsplan:

> the collectivization created a large-scale famine in the Soviet Union in which many millions died.

Vi pratar alltså om miljoner människor som helt enkelt dog som en del av planekonomin.

Men visst, "planekonomi" är ett ord som du kan rabbla fram. Grattis.

Här har du alltså egentligen diskvalificerat dig ur en seriös diskussion eftersom du inte har koll på grundläggande fakta i det du skriver och dessutom förringar du folkmord.

Nu är vi dock lustigt nog tillbaka till mitt ursprungliga inlägg där du har bevisat mig rätt på fler än ett sätt:

Det är precis samma mekanism bakom svälten i Ukraina 1932/1933, miljoner döda som försäkringskassans slöseri med skattepengar i dagens Sverige:

Folk tar helt enkelt dåliga beslut i kollektivistiska system. Dessutom leder det troligtvis till passiv och självgod dumhet ...

Sen vill du ha en separat diskussion huruvida den svenska utjämningspolitiken har skapat ekonomisk tillväxt. Det är nog en diskussion som är lite för komplex för dig med tanke på att du spyr ur dig kommunistisk propaganda från 1930-talet.

> jag kanske har en bakgrund inom ekonomisk historia?

Argument from authority, mera trams från självgode dig

Det är ju extra lustigt eftersom du dels inte kan din historia ordentligt och dels inte förstår grundläggande koncept som korrelation/kausalitet eller statistisk analys eftersom du skriver:

> Det jag däremot hittar är att de stater i USA som har högst andel människor med skandinaviskt ursprung är lite mer välbeställda än genomsnittet, dock har de fortfarande en genomsnittligt lägre hushållsinkomst än den i Sverige.

Jag pratade om en grupp (svenska invandrare i USA), då kan du inte börja jämföra hela stater.

Det här är ju pinsamt eftersom det var en av få konkreta saker som du har sagt men dessutom har du fel i sak eftersom enbart delstaten Minnesota (där flest svenskättlingar finns enligt denna karta) har en högre BNP/capita än Sverige. Dom andra relevanta staterna har ännu högre BNP/capita (North Dakota, Delaware, osv) ....

Här är en annan ganska bra artikel som också jämför just inkomster mellan Sverige och olika amerikanska stater som visar samma sak.

Hur var det med faktan nu? ; )

Det här är faktiskt ganska grundläggande saker ...

Jag orkar inte lista alla fel som du rabblar upp ...

> [Citation needed] - Jag tror du hittade på det här rakt av

Återigen bevisar du mitt första inlägg om tillit i samhället: "En tjuv tror att alla andra är tjuvar. En lögnare tror att alla andra är lögnare. Och agerar därefter."

För en djupare analys av just svensk tillväxt i relation till ekonomisk utjämning kan du läsa en bok (inte en ordbok alltså utan en bok som faktiskt har med ämnet att göra).

(Jag hittade också en förenklad online resurs här)


> If Americans with Swedish ancestry were to form their own country, their per capita GDP would be $56,900, more than $10,000 above the income of the average American. This is also far above Swedish GDP per capita, at $36,600. Swedes living in the USA are thus approximately 53 per cent more wealthy than Swedes (excluding immigrants) in their native country (OECD, 2009; US Census database).


> Rather than being the cause of Sweden’s social strengths, the high-tax welfare state might instead have been made possible by the hard-won Swedish stock of social capital. It was well before the welfare state, when hard work paid off, that a culture with a strong work ethic and strong trust and social cohesion developed. As discussed above, the modern system has eroded some of these norms.

Jag tänker inte ta upp upp allt här men i princip hela boken går ut på att bevisa att ditt påstående är kategoriskt felaktigt:

> Traditionellt har vår ekonomiska utjämningspolitik varit den enskilt största faktorn till Sveriges ekonomiska styrka.

Nej, det är helt enkelt inte sant.

Citat igen:

> Another popular notion is that Sweden´s phenomenal growth rate is closely tied to a period dominated by Social Democratic party rule and high taxes. In fact, between 1870 and 1936, the start of the social democratic era, Sweden had the highest growth rate in the industrialised world. Between 1936 and 2008, however, the growth rate was only ranked 18th out of 28 industrialised nations (Maddison, 2010).


> The rapid growth of the state in the late 1960s and 1970s led to a large decline in Sweden’s relative economic performance. In 1975, Sweden was the 4th richest industrialised country in terms of GDP per head. By 1993, it had fallen to 14th.


> Sweden developed state welfare provision during the first half of the 20th century, but the welfare institutions were financed by relatively low taxes. As noted previously, tax revenues were still only around 21 per cent of GDP in 1950 (Ekonomifakta, n. d.). Interestingly enough, the impressive social outcomes of Swedish society were evident already during this period. For example, in 1950, long before the high-tax welfare state, Swedes lived 2.6 years longer than Americans. Today the difference is 2.7 years (SCB database; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). It is also interesting that the relatively even income distribution in Sweden pre-dates the expansion of the welfare state.


> A comparison of historical rates of income inequality in Sweden, the USA, Canada, France and Netherlands shows interesting results. Already by 1920, well before the existence of a welfare state, Sweden had amongst the lowest levels of inequality within this group of countries. Roine and Waldenström (2008)

Du försöker förenkla saker genom att säga:

> När socialismen rotade sig på allvar i Sverige (dvs senare hälften av 1800-talet [...]

Du kan inte bara rabbla saker ur ordboken om när arbetarepartiet grundades (1881) utan du måste jämföra deras faktiska politik (staten/skatterna/"utjämningen" växte rejält först efter WW2 och var som störst på 1970-talet) med vad utfallet blev vid det tillfället, dvs. det gick gradvis åt helvete ekonomiskt ju mer staten växte, såpass att sossarna runt 1980-1990 själva började montera ned stora delar. I början (1800-talet) var sossarna ute efter andra saker som allmän rösträtt och kunde inte påverka ekonomin i stort. Dessutom påvisar jag tillväxt innan partiet ens grundades!

Till och med socialdemokraterna övergav själva sin egen socialistiska ideologi (dvs. dom gav slutligen upp sin lilla dröm om att äga produktionsmedlen) på 1980-talet( Kanslihushögern) eftersom statens svällande storlek med höga skatter och omfördelningspolitik dämpade just ekonomisk tillväxt. Så hur kan det vara den största faktorn till "ekonomisk styrka"? Trams!

Svensk kultur och hårt arbete byggde Sverige! Folkhemmet var en acceptabel kostnad (fram tills nu när andra ska åka snålskjuts).

När man nu ska förstöra den svenska demografin och kulturen som gjorde Sverige framgångsrikt så kommer det gå som det går helt enkelt.

Dom andra sakerna som du tar upp (bostadsmarkad, "klyftor", osv) är småpotatis jämfört med det. Precis som tackjärn är småpotatis i relation till folkmord.

Till skillnad från postmoderna historieförfalskare så förstod socialdemokraterna själva precis vad det handlade om:

Citat, Tage Erlander i Valfrihetens samhälle (Tiden 1962), s. 82

> Därför kan vi angripa arbetslöshetsproblemen på ett helt annat sätt, i medvetande om att det vi gör är en sak som i varje fall inte influeras av skiljaktigheter i hudfärg eller religion utan att våra insatser får sin motivering uteslutande med tanke på arbetslöshetsfrågan själv. Därför bör vi måhända vara litet mera ödmjuka när vi nalkas det här problemet än vad vi många gånger kanske är.

Ödmjukhet ... kanske vore något för självgode dig som silar mygg och sväljer kameler?


u/Yozki · 1 pointr/worldnews

You should read The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics to squash any remaining faith on the human race regarding politics.

u/InfamousLegato · 1 pointr/news

I recommend checking out this book if you have the time.

I'm not advocating screwing over the citizens of Flint, I'm pointing out that it is the unfortunate reality of the situation.

u/losttestPR · 1 pointr/PuertoRico

Si vistes los dos videos, veras que no es trivial; es basado en un libro llamado "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics"

Dudo que el 99% entienda como el poder opera exactamente, tienen algún tipo de imaginación. SI fuese trivial como tu dices no existiría ese libro tan famoso que te abre la mente a como es el juego de cartas realmente. La gente se cree que pq ve "House of Cards" son la hostia en politica y a pesar que es muy buena la serie le falta pa competir con libros como este.

Pero bueno estoy seguro que no vas a ver, ni los video pq eres PNP y hablo de RR en el titulo cuando esto aplica a todos los politicos. Es una lastima pq el contenido de esos videos es un buen resumen del libro, CGP Grey se tomio la molestia de resumirlo en 2 videos en un total de 25 minutos para los vagos que no leen o las personas que no tienen tiempo. Pero bueno seguimos con la ignorancia que es mas ventajosa en estos tiempos.

u/DaSaw · 1 pointr/answers

The board represents only a very small subset of the shareholders, and the number needed to keep a CEO in place is smaller still. They can make more money on salaries from "jobs" (read: bribes from the CEO) than they can from their share of dividends. So they pay a CEO a lot of money, and in exchange they are paid a lot of money.

Source: Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alistair Smith: The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics.

u/Amtracus_Officialius · 1 pointr/WhatsMyIdeology

I HIGHLY recommend "The Dictators Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics" as an introduction to my outlook on power structure. From my interpretation of the text, it shows how politics often boil down to incentive systems, and how they are manipulated by the actors within.

Amazon link:

u/MetaMemeticMagician · 1 pointr/TheNewRight

Reactionary Thought

Chartism – Thomas Carlyle
Latter-Day Pamphlets – Thomas Carlyle

The Bow of Ulysses – James Anthony Froude
Popular Government – Henry Summers Maine

Shooting Niagara – Carlyle
The Occasional Discourse – Carlyle
On Heroes, Hero Worship & the Heroic in History – Carlyle

The Handbook of Traditional Living – Raido
Men Among the Ruins – Julius Evola
Ride the Tiger – Julius Evola
Revolt Against the Modern World – Julius Evola

Reflections of a Russian Statesman – Konstantin Pobedonostsev
Popular Government – Henry Maine
Patriarcha (the Natural Power of Kings) – Sir Robert Filmer
Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler
Hour of Decision – Oswald Spengler
On Power – Jouvenel
Against Democracy and Equality – Tomislav Sunic
New Culture, New Right – Michael O’Meara
Why We Fight – Guillaume Faye
The Rising Tide of Color – Lothrop Stoddard
Liberty or Equality – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Democracy: The God that Failed – Hans-Hermann Hoppe



Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
Basic Economics – Thomas Sowell
That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen – Frederic Bastiat***
Man, Economy, and State – Murray Rothbard
Human Action – Ludwig von Mises



u/adlerchen · 1 pointr/europe

The book that this talk promotes is actually pretty garbage though. It's short on on citations and reliable figures. It uses a lot of Statfor internal data, that I don't think has been reasonably vetted. It makes a good read while drunk though.

That being said, kudos to Zeihan for being one of the few people who actually gets the big picture vis-à-vis coming american strategic independence and the russian crisis. The problem with his predictions is that you can't expect people to always be rational actors though. Emotions get in the way, and sometimes people do stupid things.

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/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/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/MeritocracySupporter · 1 pointr/meritocracy

I think it comes down to the human condition. Human’s aren’t exactly rational. They generally emotional, impulsive, and ready to accept whatever they’re told by authority figures. Humans are believers, not thinkers. On top of that, virtually nobody knows about meritocracy as a political system, so it’s simply not part of the public consciousness in the same way capitalism and communism are. Speaking of which, I think you’re spot on in your analysis of those ideologies. Capitalism is a system of unequal opportunity and unequal outcomes. Communism is a system of equal opportunity and equal outcomes. Meritocracy is a system of equal opportunity and unequal outcomes – the best of both worlds.

Reading this and some of your other posts makes me think you’d be very interested in this book, and others by the same author(s). It examines meritocracy as a stand-alone political system, a modern version of Plato’s republic:

If you like it be sure to check out the god series by Mike Hockney. It constitutes a rationalist theory of everything, it examines and refutes all other ideologies, religions etc.

u/panchjanya · 0 pointsr/worldnews

Please do read a bit more - Kashmir is just a proxy, root cause is religious. After Kashmir it'll be Punjab, then other states. Pakistan is a terrorist nation and has been involved in terrorism since it's inception.

"We will wage 1000 wars against India" - Bhutto


u/xkcdFan1011011101111 · 0 pointsr/geopolitics

Did you watch the video I linked above?

The Russian education attainment is sky high because during the cold war the Russians made higher education a priority to achieve technological parity with NATO. This educational system was state-funded (ie the Soviet Union paid for it).

The Soviet Union collapsed in the late 80's/early 90's. Not only did the Berlin Wall fall down, but the Soviet Union ran out of money and control. They made massive cuts to their education system. Russia is still a nation with a weak economy, almost exclusively reliant on oil exports.

Peter Zeihan's analysis is that the Russian education system has yet to recover to its former glory from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the video I linked, he mentions that the youngest Russians who benefited from the Russian education system at its peak are in their 50's now, and the Russian male life expectancy is only in the mid 60's.

I would recommend reading Peter Zeihan's book to see his analysis.

TL;DR: The Russian population has a high tertiary education attainment percentage due to the cold war; Russia is different now. The Russian education system underwent massive funding cuts when the Soviet Union collapsed, and funding levels haven't come close to recovering. It is hard to pinpoint sources for these things, so I'm relying on Peter Zeihan's analysis.

u/TheChadillac · 0 pointsr/politics

Peter has talked about a lot of these things happening for awhile! He has a great way of putting things into simple terms.

The Accidental Superpower:

u/1vaudevillian1 · 0 pointsr/worldnews

Can anyone read the article?

North and South don't care about the prize. Boon said we don't need a gold star we want peace. Give the gold star to trump.

Ugh. This comment section reads like:

hur dur dur dur. Trump is great and helped.

Trump did shit all nothing except a twitter war.
If you have any clue about politics and the times lines and events that happened under kim you would understand better.
Here watch this:
or you could read the dictators hand book. You can buy it here:

Read up on some of what has happened under Kim.

Kim was western educated.

He comes into power after his fathers death.

He has to then solidify his power or he will be disposed of, plain and simple. He has a brother you know.

This means he has to play the game. Continue with the old way forward.

But he has a plan. Kill brother. Kill Generals that would stop him. Continue with nukes to make sure no one can stop him and save face. Spout off rhetoric just like his father.

I can almost guarantee he wants to move NK to be more like China. There is huge GDP to the south and huge GDP to the west. He wants in on it. This will make him more rich and his loyal generals. Not only that it will pull the nation out of poverty and starvation.

NK is literally one really bad growing season away from millions dying, this is bad for any regime. The only thing that NK really has for export is rare earth elements and everyone needs those. Those require huge investment and know how to acquire.

Going forward after the deal is signed, you will see China coming in and helping build infrastructure to help with transportation and moving goods around faster to build up faster. The reason why China would be the one to do this; for several reasons. They don't want to become a democracy. They don't want those ideals. Also China has always been worried about the fall of NK, millions of people coming into China would be a disaster for them. The south will help with financing.

If anyone deserves a nobel peace prize it would be Dennis Rodman.

u/jonawesome · 0 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

A dictator is a fundamentally bad thing. The best interests of all leaders (dictators or democrats) usually reside in getting/staying in power. For democrats, that means keeping a winning coalition of the people at large happy, but since a dictator has only to keep a small group of powerful supporters happy (usually a military, or a group of rich elites), they have no direct motivation to invest in public goods that benefit the population as a whole when keeping just a small inner circle happy is so much cheaper.

This is not to say there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Altruism is rare, but it does exist. Lee Kuan Yoo, the former leader of Singapore, is the best example modern history has of someone with near-absolute power who used it mostly for the betterment of the people. The problem is that hoping for altruism is playing the lottery, with pretty bad odds since it usually does take some level of ruthlessness and conniving self interest in order to become a dictator in the first place. It's hoping that someone chosen for his lack of niceness might turn out to be nice after all.

Democracy doesn't function very well without democratic institutions. It needs a system where it's beneficial for all involved to maintain the system as opposed to exploiting it. Military leaders have to feel that they're better off supporting the ruler than strong-arming them. Lower class minority groups have to believe that the system is close enough to them to not be worth rising up against. Everyone has to feel that following the law is better than bribing officials or ignoring the rules, without the necessary threat of force for it. It's hard to get there, and especially when democracy is put in place from the top down. If the power of a leader is guaranteed by American military aid, then the leader has a bigger motivation to appease the American military than to invest in public welfare. If a democrat draws support from anything other than a winning coalition of the populace, democratic institutions will lack enough power to enforce stability through democratic means.

I think your question could be asking two different things: "Can dictators be good for the people they rule over?" and "Can keeping dictators in place be good for American interests?"

The answer to question 1 is a near-unequivocal "No," though there are a few counterexamples. The problem is however that replacing them is extremely difficult.

For question number 2,the answer is often "Yes." Be careful not to confuse the two.

It is however worth remembering that even the most successful democracies had a lot of difficulty getting there. Most European countries had monarchs slowly give up more and more power over time, and have had several different political systems over the years. The initial governments put together after the American and French Revolutions were failures. The American Revolution began in 1776, and Washington was inaugurated in 1788. One could reasonably argue that America didn't have working democratic institutions until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Remember that (and the progress made in Tunisia) whenever someone writes off everything about the Arab Spring.

If you're interested in the motivations for public welfare for dictators and democrats, I would suggest reading [Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's The Dictator's Handbook.] ( It explains the way that preferences affect systems in an easy to understand way with great real-life examples.

u/JeffersonClippership · 0 pointsr/Whatcouldgowrong

If you're asking that kind of question you're too stupid to understand the answer but if you wanna try to understand, read these books

u/johnnywatts · 0 pointsr/malaysia

>Explain that. Even the US of A couldnt run away from corruption.

We don't need a perfect system. We only need a system that makes it incredibly inconvenient and difficult to abuse.

No nation is corruption free. However, the US's system is far better than Malaysia's when it comes to curbing government power. To get any new law done at all you need to go through 4 stages of checks (House, Senate, White House, Supreme Court).

Remember Trump's Muslim ban? Overturned by the courts. Not even the President who controls the most powerful military in the world can do anything about it. It's why TIMES magazine named Putin the most powerful man in the world, not Obama at that time. Putin can do anything, Obama has to beg the House, Senate and Supreme Court for everything.

On top of all that you have 50 state governments. All of which has their own armed forces (National Guard and State Reserve system), and have the right to ignore Federal law and protect their own state. It's how marijuana can be illegal on the Federal level, but if you go to Colorado you can smoke until you syok.

Compare it to Malaysia's system, where somehow you had a PM who is also Finance Minister, and almost ended up with the PM holding absolute power. Power is highly centralized in the hands of the Federal government, and thus the PM.

>As for lack of natural resources as a reason for failure, I disagree. There is this theory called "resource curse". Its the contries with a lot of natural resources who are doomed. They get susceptible to colonisation and corruption.

This one my theory is based on The Dictator's Handbook and CGP Grey's The Rules For Rulers (also based on the same Handbook):

The summary is that all government power is based on the distribution of Treasure since no man rules alone.

In a resource rich nation, the Treasure is said resources, and if the government is able to keep the extraction of resources going, and makes enough Treasure to keep everyone happy, it will be stable.

In a human rich nation, the Treasure is the talents of those humans. The Treasure is based on increasing the amount of Treasure those humans generate (tax dollars). If the government keeps the humans happy, and get a lot of Treasure from it, it will be stable.

Malaysia is neither one or the other. And it falls into a valley where revolution and bloodshed is cyclical once it starts.

u/nut_conspiracy_nut · 0 pointsr/thedavidpakmanshow

To anti-Trumpgeniuses I would like to point something out:

Start with the blog

The look up the book:

Note that it was published in 2011.

Now let's read the description:

> 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.

If you make the conclusion: let's keep government as small as humanly possible - yay! Good for you.

If you conclusion is: red team sucks, blue team rocks, then OMFG!

I can't even! How? How do you not see or smell the fucking rotting sperm whale in the room?

You know, red team, at least in name is the government opposition party. Blue team is all for more government. It is not even symmetric ...

u/Chaos20X6 · 0 pointsr/MURICA

he also sells a book with a pretty revealing title about how he doesn't know dick about arguing in good faith. Or what leftists are, for that matter.

u/NeverMissAWorkout · -1 pointsr/ukpolitics

My view that the EU is bloated comes from this book.

I rate Anthony King highly.

u/devil27 · -1 pointsr/worldnews

>Why can't they? Maybe provide some proof.

Official aid from the US has to go through the congress and is recorded. If you are claiming that aid came in from non-documented sources please provide evidence.

>There is just as much proof here. The US would never admit to any of this because Zia is responsible fore exporting extremism to other muslim lands.

No there is not. You are just being nostalgic. They did admit to funding the 1953 coup in Iran and many coups in Latin America. So any evidence to back your claim would be nice.

>He was hated by the US but they still needed Pakistan as a buffer zone. But they absolutely hated Bhutto.

Evidence please.

>Proof that Ayub Khan started islamization?

Try reading some research literature regarding this. In this book some evidence regarding what I claimed is presented.

u/Aelar · -1 pointsr/russia

It is my opinion that рокировка undermines the country and harms it, greatly.

I of course believe that democracy helps most of the people most of the time. See Why Nations Fail and, for that matter, The Dictator's Handbook.

u/spirit_of_negation · -1 pointsr/edefreiheit

"Dictator's handbook"

Geht die Gründe warum Diktaturen sehr cucked sind überzeugend durch. Kurz: Diktator muss um an der Macht zu bleiben die Interessen des Volkes weniger berücksichtigen und die seiner unmittelbaren Lakaien mehr. Kriege zu gewinnen ist viel wichtiger wenn man abgewählt wird wenn man sie verliert, während Diktatoren oft an der Macht bleiben, auch bei Niederlage weil sie die wichtigen Institutionen vollends kontollieren. Entsprechend haben demokratische Anführer oft größeren Anreiz an Schlagkraft.

Edit: Stellt euch den einfältigen Cuck vor der das hier runtergewählt hat. Gottes Versehen.

u/lostadult · -1 pointsr/politics

> I still think she legitimately cares about the country and wanted to make people's lives better.

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but I doubt that she actually cares about people. She clearly cares about some things. However, this doesn't mean that she cares about you even in the abstract, because - let's be honest over here - power doesn't work this way. Here's a quick guide on how it works. Enjoy. :)

Edit: Those down voting me should really read the book CGP Grey references and the classics as well. All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again;

u/seius · -2 pointsr/politics

> force the rest of the world at gunpoint to trade favorably with us?

I dont think you understand that we buy more of the worlds goods than they buy from us, if a trade war erupts, we have the technological skill, the labour, and the land full of resources to turtle it out, the EU is about 30 years off from being able to defend themselves equally, and the rest of the world is a clusterfuck of loose alliances that at best would hold out for a decade of cold war.

Not only that, but the world is dependent on us for food production, military innovation, and technological goods and services. I would love to see the world try to compete, because competition breeds excellence, we would probably win a technological race.

> All it takes is the other major players deciding otherwise for the jenga pieces to start teetering.

Even worst case, there is no way that Eurasia would be able to extend their influence into our hemisphere, let alone invade, the US has some of the most ideal geography on the planet for defense.

I highly recommend this book in the subject:

> Empires don't collapse overnight.

They also sometimes look like they are about to collapse and then go through a second renaissance keeping on for 200-400 years longer.

u/jamesbwbevis · -2 pointsr/collapse

A lot of people think this, but they don't actually understand how some of these current European systems operate and how they got their.

I encourage people to check out this book , it explains this myth that Europe's socialist tendencies have actually worked to benefit rather than hinder , the function of their economies

u/casualguitarist · -8 pointsr/benshapiro

If you're Ben's fan and consider yourself to be a "centrist" or mostly unbiased esp after this interview then you're at very high possibility an extremist.


What Ben displayed here was his and his fan's general habit of self-victimization, in an continuous attempt at normalizing fringe political views that have overlaps with even more extremist ideologies like white/"westernized" nationalism, religious extremism at the very least.


He accurately called SOME of the conservative polices (anti abortion laws) extremist and barbaric. If they had discussed economics or global warming they'd probably agree on everything and the interview would've been just like 99% of appearances on Fox news or probably even CNN on certain times. (imagine setting the bar that low..oh wait).


Even if you disagree with the above. Consider that Ben was EXTREMELY dishonest about the question on the political discourse topic when he does this often . (im ignoring his anti arab tweets and other crazy nonsense here). Everyone with a clear brain would think twice before calling him a "centrist" or expert at anything outside selling his "image" and brand.

u/caesarfecit · -24 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as I'm concerned, nearly the entire school of postmodernism rises from rotten soil (largely German idealism, Continential philosophy, Marxism, and phenomenology) and is thoroughly anti-rational. One of my favorite philosophy books, The Ominous Parallels examines how German idealism and postmodernism gave rise to totalitarian political philosophies (especially the Nazis) and how even post-fascism, post-modernism is still pushing people in the same direction.

In essence post-modernism argues that because nearly all human knowledge has its ultimate origin in some subjective judgment or observation about the world, therefore all human knowledge is subject to subjective interpretation and criticism. It seeks to undermine rationality (man's primary tool for making sense of the world) by declaring everything to subjective and/or a social construct - to be interpreted by the viewer in any way they see fit. As if all history is just the story we agree to tell, all science is just people's best guesses, economics how we steal from each other, and philosophy the lies we tell to justify the world being how it is.

My next big beef with post-modernism is their willful exercise of obscurantism. The term refers to the deliberate use of vague, unclear, or jargon-heavy language for the purpose of concealing the true meaning of the text, rather than just saying it in clear and understandable prose. Derrida is practically the poster-boy for this, and he learned from Heidegger the card-carrying Nazi.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I'm one of the most voracious readers I've ever met. I'm the kinda guy who reads philosophy for fun, and I've read a lot of it. And every time I've tried to read post-modernist texts, I've walked away in frustration as I had no idea what they were actually trying to say. Their logic is invariably impossible to follow, their texts filled with bullshit and filler, and their actual ideas to be thin gruel and trivial at best, or flat out wrong at worst.

The unsophisticated and uncritical often mistake obscurantist texts for having profound deep meanings that ordinary person just doesn't understand. I consider that bullshit. To me, obscurantism is the hallmark of the intellectual fraud. The purpose of language is communicate clear and consistent meanings, not to distort, confuse, and hide meaning. Unfortunately it has a long tradition in bad philosophy - Kant was a past master of the art.

To me, Foucault is a thinly-veiled Marxist sadomasochist. Kant (the ultimately ancestor of postmodernism) an OCD-sufferer who undermined rationality in order to attempt a reconciliation of science and Church dogma. Heidegger a nihilistic Nazi. And as for Derrida, I think he's one of the biggest frauds of them all. I haven't seen a single idea of his that I think has any merit and I consider his boast that his work is impossible to criticize as proof positive that he is a fraud, and worse, a dangerous fraud.

To me, philosophy must come correct and be written for the purpose of being understood by most if not all who read it, or else it's simply not philosophy worth reading. If you can't or won't communicate the meaning behind your thoughts clearly, then you have no business calling yourself a philosopher or having your thoughts taken seriously.

> ". . . anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity, by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial."

-- John Searle on Deconstruction