Best political philosophy books according to redditors

We found 870 Reddit comments discussing the best political philosophy books. We ranked the 243 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Political Philosophy:

u/Muskaos · 615 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Read this:
This is written by a guy who has the #1 best selling book on Amazon about SJWs: SJWs Always Lie.
The biggest and most important advice I can give is: NEVER APOLOGIZE

u/vitrael2 · 215 pointsr/The_Donald

SJW Rule #1. SJWs always lie,

SJW Rule #2. SJWs always project

u/Frankly_George · 58 pointsr/KotakuInAction

> Isn't this what Correct the Record actually did? And in a way, still doing?

The three laws apply:

  • SJWs Always Lie

  • SJWs Always Project

  • SJWs Always Double-down
u/User-31f64a4e · 38 pointsr/MGTOW

Of course. This is exactly as described by Vox Day in his book

  • Social Justice Warriors always lie
  • Social Justice Warriors always project
  • Social Justice Warriors always double down
u/Ibrey · 35 pointsr/askphilosophy

I think you will learn the most by reading five textbooks, such as A History of Philosophy, volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; or something like Metaphysics: The Fundamentals, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, and An Introduction to Political Philosophy.

If what you have in mind is more of a "Great Books" program to get your feet wet with some classic works that are not too difficult, you could do a lot worse than:

  • Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, often published together under the title The Trial and Death of Socrates. Socrates is so important that we lump together all Greek philosophers before him as "the Presocratics," and this cycle of dialogues is a great window on who he was and what he is famous for.
  • The Basic Works of Aristotle. "The philosopher of common sense" is not a particularly easy read. Cicero compared his writing style to "a flowing river of gold," but all the works he prepared for publication are gone, and what we have is an unauthorised collection of lecture notes written in a terse, cramped style that admits of multiple interpretations. Even so, one can find in Aristotle a very attractive system of metaphysics and ethics which played a major role in the history of philosophy, and holds up well even today.
  • René Descartes, Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy, not so much because modern philosophers have widely followed his particular positions (they haven't) but because he set the agenda, in a way, with his introduction of methodological scepticism.
  • David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I think Elizabeth Anscombe had it right in judging Hume a "mere brilliant sophist", in that his arguments are ultimately flawed, but there is great insight to be derived from teasing out why they are wrong.
  • If I can cheat just a little more, I will lump together three short, important treatises on ethics: Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and Anscombe's paper "Modern Moral Philosophy".
u/BenDSover · 34 pointsr/politics

Conservative Republican Ideology:

  • Faith in supposedly God-ordained tribal customs, rituals and the ability of prejudicial common sense to emotionally recognize truth without the need of critical thought.
    • Fundamental to conservatives is NOT philosophy and science, but dogmatics - a system of principles laid down by tradition and religion as incontrovertibly true.
    • Natural intuitions and "common sense" prejudice - combined with strong will power and charisma - are what is essential to perform one's duties in life.
  • Conviction in a transcendent order based on natural law, tradition, and religion: That society requires hierarchy - the naturally inherited orders and classes of authority, obedience and wealth.
    • The proliferation of liberal, democratic values necessarily undermines competition and the “cultural” distinction of the worlds superior elites.
  • Commitment to keeping innovation constrained by these convictions in the familiar, with skepticism of the puzzlingly rational, mathematically calculating theorizers.
  • Belief that conservatives are victims of a modernity in need of a literal “revolution” - a return to an ideal, natural way.
    • Lead by the media and universities, the modern condemnation of certain ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ - viz. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. - is an onslaught against the “traditional categories and natural way of describing things…” and a witch-hunt against the conservatives who defend as much (Scruton, 128-129).
  • A disposition to fight for their communities faith.
    • A “gut-response” mentality of bivalent absolutes (e.g. good/evil, yes/no, true/false, us/them etc.) with a large set of non-negotiable traditional faiths and a skepticism of rationality leaves the conservative with little but aggression and hostility when challenged.

      Conservatism seeks a neo-feudal society with a "natural" hierarchy of authority determined by the inheritance of wealth amongst those "proven" to be strong (not theoretical ideals guaranteeing everyone equal rights), along with a small government with a fierce military power to maintain the order and protect the property of the wealthy, superior class. It is the epitome of a pessimistic mentality formed by peoples faithful, anti-rational commitment to traditional institutions and their hierarchy of authority and obedience.

      Conservatism emphasizes authority over individual liberty or equality, and duty over rights. It is pessimistic in its philosophy of human nature, believing it is unalterably ignorant, weak, corruptible and selfish. Hence, acting according to this assumption is not a vice but the virtue of being a “realist”; contrarily, vice is held to exist in those “idealist” who hold an optimistic philosophy and believe the world can be improved and that such human qualities can be checked. Correspondingly, a nearly universal quality of conservatives is an instinctive fear of change and a disposition for habitual (not creative or thoughtful) action. And from this conjunction follows a harsh skepticism of abstract, intellectual reasoning.

      Truth is believed to exist solely within the revelations they inherit from their traditions. Beyond that, the world is understood to be mysteriously complex and beyond any individuals further understanding. Thus, says conservatism, it is not possible that anyone could rationally produce any principles that would improve upon tradition and the operation of societies “natural” order. Any attempt to do so by the radical intellectual is rebuked as arrogant and regarded as offensively corrosive to our very existence.


      Once one understands this, the actions of Trump and the Republican party make much more sense. And so does the need to openly combat their political blitzkrieg on Western liberal democracy.



  • Scruton, Roger "Conservatism: An Introduction to the Great Tradition"
  • Heywood, Andrew "Political Ideologies: An Introduction"
u/WTCMolybdenum4753 · 31 pointsr/The_Donald

You, Laura Southern, are a bright northern light casting a warm glow on all our shoulders. Thank you for being you. :) Congratulations on your "Barbarians" book I hope it sells like pancakes with bacon and maple syrup.

Did you idolize anybody in the news business growing up?

u/redrick_schuhart · 31 pointsr/The_Donald

Because it's essentially true. Gamers were the first community to push back against the media and the SJWs calling them racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist and so on. They demanded proof of everything, showed that claims of harassment were bogus and embarked on a campaign against advertisers that cost Gawker seven figures. People like Milo got involved early and did solid work showing that the anti-Gamergate crowd were a rats nest of pedos and harassers themselves.

Thus when Trump found himself in the media crosshairs, millions of gamers said to themselves "oh, I know this playbook" and knew how to combat it. Vox's Day's book SJWs Always Lie has a chapter devoted to Gamergate which gives a more detailed summary.

u/SuperNinKenDo · 27 pointsr/DebateFascism

Further Reading

Michael Huermer - 'The Problem of Political Authority':

[Hard Copy]

Henry Hazlitt - 'Economics in One Lesson':

[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

David Friedman - 'The Machinery of Freedom'"

[Illustrated Summary]:[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Ludwig von Mises - 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth':


MisesWiki - Economic Calculation Problem:


Murray N. Rothbard - 'For a New Liberty':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'The Ethics of Liberty':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Frédéric Bastiat - 'The Law':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Ludwig von Mises - 'Human Action':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF:[ePub]:[Hard Copy]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'Man Economy and State, with Power, and Markets':

[Audiobook][HTML]:[PDF]:[ePub]:[Hard Copy]

u/AncileBanish · 24 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

If you're willing to devote some serious time, Man, Economy and State is the most complete explanation that exists of the economics behind ancap ideas. It's also like 1100 pages or something so it might be more of a commitment than you're willing to make just for opposition research.

If you want to get into the philosophy behind the ideas, The Ethics of Liberty is probably the best thing you'll find. It attempts to give a step-by-step logical "proof" of libertarian philosophy.

The Problem of Political Authority is also an excellent book that takes nearly universally accepted moral premises and uses them to come to ancap conclusions in a thoroughly logical manner. I'd say if you're actually at all open to having your mind changed, it's the one most likely to do it.

If you just want a brief taste, The Law is extremely short (you can read it in an hour or two) and contains many of the important fundamental ideas. It was written like 200 years ago so doesn't really qualify as ancap, but it has the advantage of being easily digestible and also being (and I can't stress this enough) beautifully written. It's an absolute joy to read. You can also easily find it online with a simple Google search.

I know you asked for one book and I gave you four, but the four serve different purposes so pick one according to what it is you're specifically looking for.

u/Gleanings · 22 pointsr/freemasonry

Hopefully this also will include members of Cambridge's Women's Center, users of Cambridge's Women's Health Center, Cambridge's women's only gyms (2) (3), the Association for Women in Science, members of Women Travelling Together, members of the Cambridge Women's Heritage Project, and the many, many other women's only organizations in town.

After all, they wouldn't want to be sexually biased in their enforcement of their Code of Conduct, would they?

u/swarmofpenguins · 21 pointsr/Libertarian

No the famine was not planned by Mao, but it was a direct result of his regime. You realise there was food available, but people were only able to purchase it through the black market.

Fascism is no better than communism, however I do need to correct you. Nazism revolves around racism. Not all fascism is Nazism, but all Nazism is fascism.

Capitalism is an economic system not a government system. You would have to pair Capitalism against Maxism not Communism. The argument is that Democracy is better than Communism.

Yeah, the US government sucks a lot, but the conditions of US prisons are much better than the conditions of Gulags. Yes, most of the people sent to the Gulags were guilty, but the question is should the law have been in place to begin with? Should someone be thrown in a concentration camp for speaking out against the government. If you think the Gulags were any better than concentration camps You should read the gulag archipelago. It is written by a survivor of the gulags.

This bill board doesn't even argue against marxism in the form of 1st world left wing politics. It is argueing against traditional communism.

What is your opinion on North Korea, which is the only communist regime left?

As for your last point that capitalism kills far more than communism. I think there is a difference between not saving someone and killing them. The Communism death toll is calculated by totalling the number of people that were killed via direct government action. The capitalism one just counts all the deaths. Again, that isn't even the right argument because capitalism is not a form of government, but an economic theory. (Which no nation in the world embrasses to it's full extent. Most economies are somewhere in between marxism and capitalism.) The real argument is Democracy vs Communism, that's what the cold war was about. Democracy works much better than Communism and does not kill anywhere near as many people. The reason people put capitalism up against Communism is because it's much easier to make an argument that way. Even though it's not logically consistent.

Now I know this is heading in the direction of an internet argument where people just say shit and no one really wins. I'll leave a couple book recommendations below, and I would really appreciate it if you left me some book recommendations that you think would help me learn. I believe that we should always be challenging our personal beliefs, and I have an audible credit so I'm more than willing to listen to one of your suggestions. Let's make something positive come out of this. I don't want it to just be a digital shouting match.

Battlefield America

Gulag Archipelago

For a New Liberty

I hope sharing this doesn't piss you off too much. I know political discord can easily make people, myself included, mad. I hope you have a good day, and I'm serious about leaving me some links. I'll check them out. Thanks for your imput and feel free to challenge me back. If my view is right then it should be able to take criticism, right?

u/MemoryDealers · 21 pointsr/btc
u/bsutansalt · 19 pointsr/The_Donald

TIL Lauren Southern wrote a book as well. It's listed down below in the "buy together" recommendation.

u/anechoicmedia · 17 pointsr/slatestarcodex

Personal story: I used to hate this book, but not because it was anti-hereditarian. Instead, I was irked by its determinism as such, and strongly disliked its "realist" view that rendered implausible my wish that politics could will itself free of physical limitations and the struggle for survival by adopting the right rules and becoming a wealth-creating utopia. It took a long time before I could accept a world shaped by geography, and not ideas.

u/wordboyhere · 16 pointsr/philosophy

Huemer actually does an interesting examination of political authority in his latest book. You can watch a talk he does about it here

Essentially there are five principles implicit in political authority (page 17) 1. Generality 2. Particularity 3. Content-Independence 4. Comprehensiveness 5. Supremacy. Throughout the work he challenges the ideas of political legitimacy and political obligations.

He does a good job dissecting the social contract and in particular pointing out the failure of the assumptions present in its implicit variant: passive consent, consent through acceptance of benefits, consent through presence, and consent through participating, by examining similar moral situations that would lead us to reject such statements. He also shows how social contracts tend to violate the principles of a valid contract. There's difficulty in opting out, failure in recognizing explicit dissent, unconditional imposition, and absence of mutual obligation.

As you can see he does much more in the book(challenging hypothetical
social contracts, Rawl's veil of ignorance, consequentialism, etc.). I haven't finished reading it yet but I found the chapter on the psychology of authority to be the most interesting so far. He looks at some case studies(Milgram, Stanford Prison Experiment) and examines our cognitive biases(status quo biases, Stockholm Syndrome), as well as the aesthetics of governmental institutions to understand why so many people believe in political legitimacy and obligation.

If anything, it seems the reason so many people held odd assumptions about absence of political power, is that they worry about threats to their life(security, defense, law, safety, etc.) But given the number of threats present by political authority, as well as the general lack of obligation on the part of authorities to help their citizens(see Warren v. District of Columbia, there have been many other cases like this), and moral illegitimacy present in most laws, the alternative seems to be clearly better than the present. Anarchy seems to be much more favorable and it's not at all clear if states really are protecting us from chaos or some sort of danger, or if they are just increasing it themselves.

u/David9090 · 15 pointsr/bristol

Collected data on protests between 1900 -2006. Showed that non-violent protests are about twice as likely to work than violent protests. This is the book that extinction rebellion frequently talk about.

u/ludwigvonmises · 15 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Huemer's book on the subject - The Problem of Political Authority - is probably the best book on anarcho-capitalism in the last 15 years. Cannot be recommended enough.

u/Yesofcoursenaturally · 14 pointsr/KotakuInAction

>you could try treating them like human beings

That noble sounding sentiment is revealed for what it is the moment anyone looks at your comment history.

I'm asking for SJW deconversion stories, not looking for advice on how to generally interact with SJWs. There's already Books written about that.

u/a-memorable-fancy · 13 pointsr/KotakuInAction

accuracy has nothing to do with is just one component of effective persuasion. quick rundown:

there are two modes of persuasion, dialectic and rhetoric. dialectic is based on facts, rhetoric on emotions. dialectic is concerned with accuracy, rhetoric with effect.

rhetoric is without any question the more effective mode of persuasion. somebody who disagrees with you on an emotional level isn't going to listen to your well-thought out and proven assertions that a given thing is wrong. they will definitely listen to effective ridicule or humiliation for their wrong beliefs.

the most effective rhetoric, however, is that backed up by facts. the reason why SJWs are reacting the way they are to the crisis actor meme isn't because of their high-handed moral supremacy regarding the victims of a tragedy, but because they CAN, HAVE, and WILL IN THE FUTURE use tragedies like this as planks to push idiotic social policy, and anything that threatens that stranglehold must needs be anathema. thus, the recent flailing.

you have a tactic at your disposal which is proved to be effective and which is in fact backed up by the truth. there is no more useful term than "crisis actor" because it causes such pain and suffering to the bunnies. use it and use it often.

further useful reading. it's on sale, grab it while it's hot.

u/Capt_Roger_Murdock · 12 pointsr/funny

Yes and no. They effectively have "special powers" because most people believe that they have special powers and act accordingly. And that's because most people still believe in the superstition called "authority."

u/UsedToBeRadical · 11 pointsr/samharris

>Princeton University’s Omar Wasow studied protest movements in the 1960s and found that violent upheaval tended to make white voters more conservative, whereas nonviolent protests were associated with increased liberalism among white voters. “These patterns suggest violent protest activity is correlated with a taste for ‘social control’ among the predominantly white mass public,” wrote Wasow in his study.
> Stephan and Erica Chenoweth produced a book, Why Civil Resistance Works, which found nonviolent resistance movements were twice as likely as violent movements to achieve their aims in the 20th and early 21stcenturies.

Important message here. It shows that violence is counter-productive.

u/-Pin_Cushion- · 11 pointsr/politics

I mean, this was the literal point of the OP's linked article.

>There is no real solution to the problem of political ignorance, unless we are willing to break with democratic politics. [...] In my recent book Against Democracy, I discuss how we might experiment with epistocracy — where political power is widespread, as in a democracy, but votes are in some way weighted according to basic political knowledge.

u/dogGirl666 · 11 pointsr/EverythingScience

The book itself came out in April 19, 2016

However, the Vox interview was last month. So, the readers of /r/EverythingScience would be better off either reading the book or at least the synopsis/reviews? Sociologists/political scientists are scientists. This book won the

>Winner of the 2017 PROSE Award in Government & Politics, Association of American Publishers

>One of Bloomberg's Best Books of 2016

>One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles for 2016

Whatever that means.

u/PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 11 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Hey, great comment. I'm an anarchist, but I think your replies to the OP are legitimate.

If you were to ask me what parallels I see between theists' beliefs and most people's (statists') political views I would point to peoples' belief in political authority--"the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else, and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else" (Section 1.2: The Concept of Authority: A First Pass).

Basically, nearly everyone believes that governments have a special moral status above everyone else. If they gave up this belief, most peoples' political views would immediately change, roughly to minarchist libertarianism. (Going to anarchist libertarianism usually requires changing peoples' economic beliefs as well, since most believe that life without the state would be nasty, brutish, and short.)

I believe that the belief in political authority is analogous to most religious peoples' belief in god or an afterlife.

As atheists it is clear to you and I that there is no rationality behind peoples' belief in god and heaven. You may have tried challenging their beliefs before, to see if they will give them up. If you have, you will know that some people are willing to respond to your arguments. The fallacies in their responses are clear to you, but somehow they remain blind to them, even if they are otherwise-intelligent people. My friend in high school was like this. He was top of our class and adamantly religious. When I asked him whether or not there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark I could see his mind wriggle, but he never said, "Yeah, you're right; there is something wrong with my beliefs." It's a fascinating phenomenon. How can so many very smart people hold onto these superstitions?

We have answers. For example, in the lecture Why We Believe in Gods atheist Andy Thomson explains peoples' belief in gods by pointing to various psychological factors that affect us. The better one understands these factors, the clearer it becomes that even if there isn't a god it shouldn't be surprising if many people still believe one exists.

Anarchist libertarian philosophy professor Michael Huemer, who authored the definition of "political authority" I gave above, has given a lecture analogous to "Why We Believe in Gods." He called it "The Psychology of Authority," after the sixth chapter of his book on the same topic, but it could also be titled Why We Believe in Political Authority.

When I first watched the lecture I was amazed by the fact that he managed to explain how nearly everyone could believe that it's okay for governments to do a large range of things which no one thinks it's okay for anyone else to do even if (as I believe and as Huemer argues in his book) there aren't actually any good reasons to grant governments this special moral status.

To reiterate, the (alleged-from-your-perspective) fact that peoples' belief in political authority is mistaken seems as clear to me as the fact that peoples' belief in gods and heaven are unfounded seems to you. Many atheists are passionate about their atheism because it is obvious to them that they are correct and they can't get over the fact that so many other people are wrong. It's the same for me in regards to political authority.

One last thing: You may point out that morality is not a science. The existence of god is a factual matter, but morality is just subjective. I'd agree--I'm a moral nihilist technically. But, I also don't like it when people commit mass murder and I wouldn't want people to use nihilism as an excuse for committing it. The same is true for lesser crimes, such as kidnapping, assault, theft, etc. I also think there is a sense in which the shift in values in societies as they gave up slavery can be regarded as "progress" rather than an arbitrary change in opinion. If you agree, then you may agree that your political views may be "wrong" in a sense, and that if your view on political authority changed it would not necessarily be an arbitrary change, but would possibly be "progress". Your new attitudes towards the actions of governments may be "better" rather than merely different.

If you are interested in attempting to see the world from the perspective of a political atheist, I encourage you to watch Professor Michael Huemer's lecture to first open your mind to the possibility that despite your intelligence, your intuition that it okay for the government to engage in all of the activities that you currently support it engaging in (short of protection of property rights--so police, courts and national defense, limited to this function) may be the result of various psychological biases. This wouldn't show that governments lack political authority, but it would make it seem more reasonable to believe that you might be wrong that they possess it, and you may thus be more willing to take the time to read the necessarily-lengthy argument against it found in the first half of Prof. Huemer's book. The first chapter, which is available online, describes political authority more clearly and outlines the form of the argument against it found in the book. I recommend reading it to see if you think the The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey would have a chance of changing your view.

EDIT: Grammar.

u/Hailanathema · 11 pointsr/slatestarcodex

I'm unsure if this is necessarily a culture war topic but I'll put it here just to be safe.

So recently I've been reading a lot of anarchist literature, philosophical and regular and the positions invoked therein seem pretty compelling to me. In particular, the idea that there's some kind of ethical obligation to obey laws seems obviously false (this is philosophical anarchism). Whether the law forbids something that may be morally obligatory, requires something morally repugnant, or just forbids things that are morally permissible it seems like morality trumps the law every time. I don't expect this to be a groundbreaking insight to the community here. My impression is most people here are utilitarians and it seems like it'd be pretty easy to construct scenarios where violating the law is the right thing to do. I don't deny that people may have prudential reasons for wanting to obey the law, only that there are no compelling ethical reasons.

This seems like a weird place to be. We have this whole apparatus of the state issuing commands and injunctions to its citizenry, but no compelling reason why we ought obey these commands or injunctions, compared to doing what seems morally acceptable to us. A lot of the time the state's commands and what we think of as morally right coincide (ex, murder, theft, etc.) but the reason it's wrong to kill/steal/etc. is because of the ethical compulsion, not because of the state command.

From here it's a short jump (maybe a longer one for utilitarians) to anarchism more generally. I don't intend to go as far as Robert Paul Wolff does and insist justification of the state is a priori impossible, but rather all current attempts at justification are unconvincing (unless you're a utilitarian). On this topic I have Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority which, to my understanding, is a very comprehensive summary of various theories of government justification and their problems. A less rigorous take, but perhaps a more topical one, is Lysander Spooner's No Treason which is extremely short and can be read for free at that link. No Treason was written in the context of the American Civil War where Spooner argues that, although slavery is awful and Spooner himself was an abolitionist, the Union was unjustified in forcing the south to remain in the Union. Neither of these will probably be convincing to utilitarians, whose justification for the state is more direct, but maybe they'll help people understand how anarchists/non-utilitarians think.

u/greatjasoni · 11 pointsr/slatestarcodex

This came out pretty recently. It's an overview of the history. It's not nearly as comprehensive as a class would be but it's pretty interesting.

u/apreotea · 10 pointsr/The_Donald <-- Vox' book. Have it myself in print, great read!

u/Justathrowawayoh · 9 pointsr/MGTOW

It was you who claimed theft is a necessary evil. It's cute you think it's my responsibility to disprove your unproved positive claim, but I have no interest not playing that game. If you're actually interested in this discussion, I would recommend you read this book. You can find it online if you like.

Good luck

u/equalintaglio · 9 pointsr/neoliberal

gotta hand it to her, she definitely used all the buzzwords

u/NiceIce · 9 pointsr/MGTOW
u/Imnotmrabut · 9 pointsr/MensRights

SJWs Always Lie.

>The eight stages of the SJW attack:
>1. Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
>2. Point and Shriek.
>3. Isolate and Swarm.
>4. Reject and Transform.
>5. Press for Surrender.
>6. Appeal to Amenable Authority.
>7. Show Trial.
>8. Victory Parade.
>SJWs don't like to be seen as the vicious attack dogs they are because that flies in the face of their determination to present themselves as victims holding the moral high ground.

Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, Castalia House, Aug 2015, ASIN: B014GMBUR4 - Kindle Loc. 570

u/team_nihilism · 9 pointsr/Ask_Politics

A great companion piece is Democracy for Realists by Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels.

They demonstrate that voters―even those who are well informed and politically engaged―mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly.

u/JobDestroyer · 8 pointsr/GoldandBlack

If you're new to econ, I would suggest either Basic Economics, as /u/snatchinyosigns suggested, or "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

From there, you might want to get into some of the morality-focused books, if you want a short/easy one, I suggest "Anatomy of the State" by Murray Rothbard

If you want to learn about how an anarcho-capitalist society could work, I'd read Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

u/defmacro-jam · 8 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

> So how do we stem the tide of this neo-Maoism now that their champion (who, after taking money from the most misogynist country in the world and inadvertently funding the most homophobic organisation in the world) is defeated, what now?

I'm going to refer you to the book "SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police" by Vox Day. You are obviously aware of one of the "rules" of being an SJW -- in that book, are some strategies for dealing with them.

  • SJWs Always Lie
  • SJWs Always Double Down
  • SJWs Always Project
u/jedifrog · 8 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Read his book The Problem of Political Authority. Good stuff.

u/TryDoingSomethingNew · 8 pointsr/TheRedPill

Excellent post. I see several points from Vox Day's SJWs Always Lie.

I remember back when I first saw the beginnings of the crossover from "political correctness" to real social justice warrior (SJW) behavior and destroying careers.

Radio "shock jocks" as I recall were the first to really make the news and to be the targets of it.

Anyone remember the Greaseman? He was a huge, and very entertaining, radio personality who lost his career after racial-relating comments. Then it was more and more guys on the radio, both big names and small. Opie and Anthony years ago where contantly getting shit from the new SJW climate where there is a butthurt backlash against mild jokes and humor.

And who can forget Donglegate? This was an ordinary guy with a family and kids with an SJW listening in on a private conversation and publicly shaming him and attempting to ruin his life and costing him his job.

What always amazed me, though, was how with more and more celebrities and well-known people on the receiving end of SJW hate, that few if any seemed to learn the points you made: inevitably they would end up apologizing, only to STILL lose their jobs/clients/sponsors, etc., and SJWs were NEVER satisfied.

No matter what media or category, there was ALWAYS someone at home with no life, ready at the phone or keyboard to stir up trouble and drama at the drop of a hat.

Understand your enemy. Do not disregard the points in his post.

u/lamarc_gasolridge · 8 pointsr/The_Donald
u/Lone_Wolfen · 7 pointsr/politics

Conservative Republican Ideology:

  • Faith in supposedly God-ordained tribal customs, rituals and the ability of prejudicial common sense to emotionally recognize truth without the need of critical thought.

    • Fundamental to conservatives is NOT philosophy and science, but dogmatics - a system of principles laid down by tradition and religion as incontrovertibly true.

    • Natural intuitions and "common sense" prejudice - combined with strong will power and charisma - are what is essential to perform one's duties in life.

  • Conviction in a transcendent order based on natural law, tradition, and religion: That society requires hierarchy - the naturally inherited orders and classes of authority, obedience and wealth.

    • The proliferation of liberal, democratic values necessarily undermines competition and the “cultural” distinction of the worlds superior elites.

  • Commitment to keeping innovation constrained by these convictions in the familiar, with skepticism of the puzzlingly rational, mathematically calculating theorizers.

  • Belief that conservatives are victims of a modernity in need of a literal “revolution” - a return to an ideal, natural way.

    • Lead by the media and universities, the modern condemnation of certain ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ - viz. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. - is an onslaught against the “traditional categories and natural way of describing things…” and a witch-hunt against the conservatives who defend as much (Scruton, 128-129).

  • A disposition to fight for their communities faith.

    • A “gut-response” mentality of bivalent absolutes (e.g. good/evil, yes/no, true/false, us/them etc.) with a large set of non-negotiable traditional faiths and a skepticism of rationality leaves the conservative with little but aggression and hostility when challenged.

      Conservatism seeks a neo-feudal society with a "natural" hierarchy of authority determined by the inheritance of wealth amongst those "proven" to be strong (not theoretical ideals guaranteeing everyone equal rights), along with a small government with a fierce military power to maintain the order and protect the property of the wealthy, superior class. It is the epitome of a pessimistic mentality formed by peoples faithful, anti-rational commitment to traditional institutions and their hierarchy of authority and obedience.

      Conservatism emphasizes authority over individual liberty or equality, and duty over rights. It is pessimistic in its philosophy of human nature, believing it is unalterably ignorant, weak, corruptible and selfish. Hence, acting according to this assumption is not a vice but the virtue of being a “realist”; contrarily, vice is held to exist in those “idealist” who hold an optimistic philosophy and believe the world can be improved and that such human qualities can be checked. Correspondingly, a nearly universal quality of conservatives is an instinctive fear of change and a disposition for habitual (not creative or thoughtful) action. And from this conjunction follows a harsh skepticism of abstract, intellectual reasoning.

      Truth is believed to exist solely within the revelations they inherit from their traditions. Beyond that, the world is understood to be mysteriously complex and beyond any individuals further understanding. Thus, says conservatism, it is not possible that anyone could rationally produce any principles that would improve upon tradition and the operation of societies “natural” order. Any attempt to do so by the radical intellectual is rebuked as arrogant and regarded as offensively corrosive to our very existence.

      Once one understands this, the actions of Trump and the Republican party make much more sense. And so does the need to openly combat their political blitzkrieg on Western liberal democracy.


      Scruton, Roger "Conservatism: An Introduction to the Great Tradition"

      Heywood, Andrew "Political Ideologies: An Introduction"

      Conservatism by nature is an obsolete ideology.
u/sciencebzzt · 7 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

David Friedman's new, 3rd edition of The Machinery of Freedom just came out. That seems like the perfect gift to me. Not only is it the best book on anarcho-capitalism ever written... it's the new updated edition. Perfect timing.

u/Excrubulent · 7 pointsr/Music

There's a lot of reasons, for one I would recommend you read Chomsky's Requiem for the American Dream, which is summarised quite well here:

There's a lot there, but the essential takeaway is that power tends to concentrate itself via both hard and soft influences. Democratic states, by their nature, are open to these influences, and eventually money and power become concentrated to the point that those democratic institutions will become infiltrated and coopted by capitalism. In fact he makes the point that usually the adoption of regulation is either initiated or supported by big industry, because they know they can use regulation to stifle competition. Once you know that, then the case for regulated capital becomes weaker.

Capitalism by its nature tends to infiltrate every avenue for influence and money making eventually. Look at social media for example, with people's opinions, personal photos, lifestyle choices, all being infiltrated by capitalism and given a price. What's the cost to us? Well, it can be impossible to know when someone makes a post whether it's a genuine personal expression or whether they've been paid for it. You see this in the huge number of comments calling "fake" on just about everything. There are a lot of false positives, but on some level they know they're being lied to constantly.

So I don't condone a regulated capitalist market, and I don't condone unrestrained capitalism. What do? Well, Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. I personally don't know enough to say where I stand on this stuff, but all the proposed solutions fall broadly under the term "leftism". It's worth mentioning that liberal democratic capitalism is pretty much in the centre in this way of viewing politics, so most corporate democrats would be considered centre or even centre-right from this perspective.

Also if you look at Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky, it makes a very good case for why all your ideas on socialism are going to be heavily influenced by capitalist propaganda. An example of capitalist propaganda in action is to look at the way mainstream media are covering Bernie Sanders - they are clamouring to cast him as a non-serious candidate, even if they're not aware of it. There's an interview of Chomsky where he makes this point about the media operating through a filter, and the interviewer asks if he's suggesting that they are self-censoring right now. Chomsky's response is, "No, I'm suggesting that if you didn't hold views favourable to the establishment, then you wouldn't be sitting here interviewing me," or words to that effect.

If you want to know more, I'd recommend this video on Why Criticise Capitalism? Also these playlists on Why Capitalism Sucks and How Anarchism Works. But it's important not to get all your education from youtube, so a book I'm currently reading that comes well-recommended is Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher. I'll warn you though - most leftist reading is dense and heavy and kind of difficult. That's why I think /r/BreadTube is a good intro to the whole anti-capitalist perspective.

u/massgraves · 7 pointsr/melbourne

This is because you lost yesterday's argument isn't it. It's okay, I already learned here that you people are always projecting.

u/zacktastic11 · 7 pointsr/PoliticalScience

I'm going to skip over a lot of the specific examples you've presented because a) in the American context I don't think they are an accurate representation and b) in the comparative context I'm woefully ignorant. But in general I think you should check out Stealth Democracy by Hibbing and Theiss-Morris. It's central finding is that Americans claim to be small-d democratic but they underestimate how difficult governing actually is. They think the fact that things don't magically get done to match their preferences must be due to the incompetence/corruption of the elected representatives and so tend to favor empowering technocrats and businessmen instead of "career politicians."

You also seem to be overestimating how ideological the average person is. To be frank, most people don't think much about concepts like "democracy" and couldn't give you a particularly precise definition. So they're happy to say that they support democracy while also not having a clear view of what that entails (or, as a friend of mine likes to say: "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.") On this point you may want to check out Neither Liberal nor Conservative by Kinder and Kalmoe. Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels is another good read.

u/HoppeanHaymaker · 7 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism
u/NadyaNayme · 6 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

You'd be hard pressed to find an Ethicist who agrees with you. You know - someone who's philosophy major was in ethics?

Here's a good book to read - maybe you should consider taking an ethics course.

u/goldenrags · 6 pointsr/atlanticdiscussions

>Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up. Perhaps more centrist policies will appeal to some voters in each of these categories — but so will more extreme policies.12
>And come election day, these potential swing voters may not ultimately care all that much about policy. They don’t tend to identify themselves based on ideology, and they don’t follow politics all that closely. They’re more likely to decide based on whatever random events happen at the last minute (like, say, a letter from the FBI director). These are even harder to measure and generalize about. (The good news for pundits and campaigns is that they leave even more room for open speculation and political fortune-telling.)
>But OK, one final point needs clarification here — maybe we’re being too literal: Maybe what pundits are really getting at when they talk about appealing to “moderates,” “independents” or undecided voters is the “middle-est” middle of the electorate — in terms of vote choice, partisanship and ideology. Maybe they’re talking about people who identify as moderate, independent and are still undecided on 2020 — the part of the Venn diagram above where all three circles overlap.
>First, this is a really small group — only 2.4 percent of the electorate falls in all three buckets. And even this super small middle of the middle is … you guessed it … all over the ideological map. Rare as these voters are, anybody who talks about winning over undecided, independent, moderate voters should first address the question: which undecided, independent, moderate voters?

u/SDBP · 6 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I'd start by questioning the notion of political authority. There is a range of activities which the state does that we'd condemn a private agent or entity if they did those things. So the question is: what accounts of this authority are there, and do they actually justify our holding governments to different ethical standards as non-governmental entities? (These accounts will typically be appeals to things like social contracts and democracy.) The anarcho-capitalist answer is oftentimes: these accounts fail to justify political authority.

This alone doesn't get you to anarcho-capitalism. You'll need a couple more things. Firstly, you'll need some sort of account of how an anarcho-capitalist society will provide the services or features that seem necessary for any acceptably functioning society. These are typically things like settling disputes (courts?), including tricky disputes regarding certain kinds of externalities, rights protection (police? military?), and, if you are so inclined, perhaps some kind of social justice. Secondly, since anarcho-capitalism is capitalistic, then one will probably need some sort of defense of private property rights as well. (If you already accept private property, then this might not be necessary. But those who are suspicious of it will probably want some sort of account of it, probably for similar reasons that we desire an account of political authority from the state.)

If each of these notions hold up (1 - political authority doesn't exist; 2 - private institutions can provide the services and features required for an acceptably decent society; 3 - private property is just), then you have a pretty good general case for anarcho-capitalism.

As for suggested reading regarding each of these points...

  • The Problem of Political Authority, by Michael Huemer. This one attempts to debunk political authority and provides a rough account of how an anarcho-capitalist society might provide for things like dispute resolution and the defense of individual rights.
  • The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman. While this provides an account of private property, I think the real virtue of this book is its ability to showcase capitalistic solutions to what we typically consider the domain of government action. (Again, things like providing law -- resolving disputes --, providing defense, education, etc.)
  • Anarchy, State, and Utopia, by Robert Nozick. While Nozick is no anarchist, he is a libertarian, and he developed an account of property entitlement that has been fairly influential, called The Entitlement Theory. While I'm not a strict adherent of this theory, it does seem to capture and explain a very wide variety of basic ethical intuitions regarding property rights.

    On the other hand, a good argument against anarcho-capitalism will probably hit on the negations of these points. It will attempt to establish political authority, or show anarcho-capitalist solutions to be highly impractical and improbable, or debunk private property, or something of this sort. Hopefully that helps lay out a sort of structure with which to analyze anarcho-capitalism with.
u/riplox · 6 pointsr/Libertarian

Don't forget the excellent book from Michael Huemer: The Problem of Political Authority.

Ebook download for free here: Download

u/Phanes7 · 6 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:

  1. The Law - While over a century old this books stands as the perfect intro to the ideas of Classical Liberalism. When you understand the core message of this book you understand why people oppose so many aspects of government action.
  2. Seeing Like A State - The idea that society can be rebuilt from the top down is well demolished in this dense but important read. The concept of Legibility was a game changer for my brain.
  3. Stubborn Attachments - This books presents a compelling philosophical argument for the importance of economic growth. It's hard to overstate how important getting the balance of economic growth vs other considerations actually is.
  4. The Breakdown of Nations - A classic text on why the trend toward "bigger" isn't a good thing. While various nits can be picked with this book I think its general thesis is holding up well in our increasingly bifurcated age.
  5. The Joy of Freedom - Lots of books, many objectively better, could have gone here but this book was my personal pivot point which sent me away from Socialism and towards capitalism. This introduction to "Libertarian Capitalism" is a bit dated now but it was powerful.

    There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.

    Some honorable mentions:

    As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons

    The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.

    Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.

    The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.

    Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.

    You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.

    So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
    I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.
u/tkms · 6 pointsr/Firearms

I have a fantastic book for you! Unfortunately it only comes through an academic publisher, so the price is high... but it's an amazing read.

u/_petrie · 6 pointsr/atheism

Two books that you should read:

The Super-rich Shall Inherit the Earth


Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?

After eading both books, there is very little chance you will still hold those opinions if you are a logical person. You will enjoy them both anyway, very good books.

u/inquirer50 · 6 pointsr/KotakuInAction

You need the two most definitive books that outline GamerGate, the lead up to today's problems, how to crush the SJW and how to win.

Vox Day, SJWs always lie.

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 1)


SJWs Always Double Down: Anticipating the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 2)

u/OneWingedShark · 6 pointsr/recruitinghell

> As easy as it would be to cover their backsides and do legally, why on earth would they bung this up?

Well, there's a theory around about SJWs being attracted to HR, infesting it, and then hiring other SJWs until the corporation is about 'social justice' rather than whatever the corporation is supposed to do -- the process is called 'convergence' and illustrated in these two books -- given what we're seeing out of the tech industry, it may be that this theory of convergence has some truth to it.

u/xdavid00 · 6 pointsr/SelfAwarewolves

The book on Amazon has a preview, and it's probably enough for you to get where he's going to go for the rest of the book lol.

u/sorryimachampion · 6 pointsr/toronto
u/tagus · 5 pointsr/Republican

>IMO, conservative = social + fiscal + constitutional. And really in a cascading order.

It's a lot more general than that, actually. To paraphrase Roger Scruton, a conservative is someone who thinks that there are some things (could be in life, in family, in government, in finance, or whatever) that not only should be protected in general but that they need to be protected because there are always people who want to change those things for the worse.

edit-- so a "social conservative" is just someone who feels that way about most social issues.

u/fieryseraph · 5 pointsr/Libertarian

>Show me an example of a system like this working. I dare you.

There is also a whole ton of economic literature out there about groups who resolve disputes using game theory, or long term contracts, things like that, instead of relying on a central governing body with a strong threat of violence.

u/SaroDarksbane · 5 pointsr/btc

I kinda feel like you lost the plot of this conversation:
You: "We need to pay taxes so the government can protect us from evil corporations."
Me: "But the government sends your taxes straight to the pockets of the evil corporations and directly creates the problems you're complaining about."
You: "Well, that's not the government's fault."

How do you square those two beliefs?

Still, you did ask for sources, so here's a few (plus an upvote):

  1. This one is not primarily about the government's role in the food industry, but you can see the problems it creates woven throughout: The Ominivore's Dilemma
  2. A podcast episode specifically about the Wholesome Meat Act, from the Tom Woods Show: Ep. 656 How the Wholesome Meat Act Gives Us Less Wholesome Meat
  3. A book I highly recommend that attempts to explain, from a practical/pragmatic standpoint, why nearly everything the government does is either useless or outright counterproductive to its stated goals: The Machinery of Freedom
u/Schutzwall · 5 pointsr/neoliberal
u/mrbaggins · 5 pointsr/AustralianPolitics

>You proved my point exactly, that media is biased.. thank you. They intentionally paint her as such, yet you can’t find any work she has done (without it being completely edited) - aka a primary source.. which can reasonably paint her as such.

>Name one thing, together with primare source footage that mandates her being far right or white nationalist.

She backs "Defend Europe" which is a white-identity/white-nationalist group, and has been arrested in work with them.

She wrote and published this book. from it's own back cover: "Southern is a Right-wing activist"

Her Allah is gay leaflet was the spark that got her denied from entering the UK, which was a trip to meet up with the English Defense League, which is very clearly "far right"

Bunch of fun ones in this video

@4:00 "the Alt-right calls me alt-lite, the alt lite call me alt-right"
@7:29 "I'll be going out and doing some postering for the "It's okay to be white movement"

I can't check further on this 18min video right now, but I'm sure there's more. And this is her talking, not being "busted" so it's only her side, talking to someone on her side.

She's staunch anti muslim, anti lgbt and anti feminism. That's pretty damned clear to me. I don't call anyone fascist or neo nazis, and focusing on the few people that do go that far just undermines your own arguments.

She IS racist. She IS bigoted.

u/hmbmelly · 5 pointsr/BestOfOutrageCulture

Have you checked out the reviews for his book? They are amazing and /r/iamverysmart.

u/scatterstars · 5 pointsr/PieceOfShitBookClub

I see one of them wrote with Vox Day, whose collected works could feed this sub on their own.

u/bryanedds · 5 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Never be afraid to call a spade a spade. This was one of the points made in Cuckservative how the left controls what the right can say -

u/xfLyFPS · 5 pointsr/Eesti

USAs kutsutakse neid cuckservative'deks. Räägivad küll kõvasti et on konvservatiivsed, aga lagunevad liberaalide ja sotside jõu all nagu selgrootud.

u/Kelsig · 5 pointsr/neoliberal

>Idk what that link says, it's not opening

>My identity doesn't define me or anyone

That's what Identity is

>Acting like because I'm brown in inherently less privileged than some white trash is bullshit

No one argued that, luckily

>Americans don't like to be defined by their identity, and doing so is a lite form of racism and bigotry.

Than Americans need to stop voting exclusively on identity

u/repmack · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

>previously minarchism

Don't leave us!!!!!!!!

Huemer's problem of political authority.

David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom

Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

I've read Machinery and For a New Liberty. I'm half way through Huemer's book. I finished part I which is seems to be the most important part.

>WTF is Austrian economics

Don't feel the need to relate to Austrian economics. Personally I'm skeptical of Austrian methodology. Being a non Austrian is a minority view here, but I wish more people took it. Bryan Caplan wrote an essay why he isn't an Austrian.

u/DenPratt · 5 pointsr/AnCap101

I want to add to any list:

  • Michael Huemer’s The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey

    The fundamental question of political philosophy is, “How do rulers get the authority to initiate violence against us citizens (via laws and regulations)?”

    This has been answered in various ways over the century, usually by philosophers who had very much to fear from their rulers (e.g., loss of prestige, loss of funding, loss of employment, loss of freedom, loss of life) should their rulers be displeased with their answer. Thus their answers usually glorified their bosses and explained why we peons must obey them.

    Michael Hummer has far less to lose and thus he much more rigorously examines the justifications that philosophers have given over time as to why we should believe that rulers have different ethics from us, ethics that no other human would be permitted (e.g., the right to kill, the right to steal), and why we have an obligation to obey them, an obligation that can be enforced by severest of penalties.

    The results are eye- and mind-opening.
u/ButYouDisagree · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

You should check out Michael Huemer. He argues against democratic governments having legitimate political authority, and also argues for limiting the scope of democratic decisionmaking.
See e.g. In Praise of Passitivity, The Problem of Political Authority.

u/Chris_Pacia · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

@ninja Definitely read Michael Huemer, The Problem of Political Authority. It is one of the best books you will ever read.

> how a free market could actually work, how justice could be dealt in a stateless society etc.

The entire second half of the book describes a stateless society with probably 10x more clarity than you will find anywhere else.

> that address common objections like who will build the roads

I've made my little contribution to this here:

u/gradenko_2000 · 4 pointsr/Philippines

This reminded me of an idea posited in Democracy for Realists which suggests that voters (and, in turn, the post-election polled electorate) do not react to positive and negative developments in the way we might think they should.

That is to say, when a drought or some other natural disaster happens, we would expect that people form an opinion of the responsible politicos based on the effectiveness of their response to the disaster. Did they see it coming? Did they try to prepare? Did they respond immediately? Did they respond effectively? And so on.

What the work tried to present was evidence that, instead, people will form a negative opinion based on the fact that the disaster happened in the first place! It didn't matter how the state responded - just the mere existence of the disaster was enough to generate a negative outlook from the electorate.

It is, in a way, scary, because it suggests that there was no way out of the "Yolanda funds" meme. A typhoon erased an entire city off the map, ergo the government sucks.

To bring this back towards the present, it would certainly be interesting to see if the President's approval ratings take another hit in April ... because there may well be a correlation with the fact that earthquakes happened.

u/guamisc · 4 pointsr/BlueMidterm2018

Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Don't Produce Responsive Government: A sober look at why our government is seemingly dysfunctional and many of the common myths and bad assumptions that people use to analyze politics.

u/Scrivver · 4 pointsr/GoldandBlack

Michael Huemer, the philosopher who wrote the fantastic The Problem of Political Authority, is a vegan (or at least ethical vegetarian). He had a back and forth discussion with Bryan Caplan published to Econlib about it. He also wrote an easy-to-read book on the subject. He takes morality very seriously, and is incredibly consistent about it. If veganism and voluntarism were incompatible, I doubt he would subscribe to both.

u/bitbutter · 4 pointsr/atheism

> I can't even mention Somolia without fervent denials about how it in anyway equates to volunteerism but how is the vacuum in a failed state going to be filled any better by the vacuum left by a dismantled state?

Voluntaryists don't want failed states. They want (in my experience, and reflecting my own preference too) to build the institutions of a stateless society before the state (as an institution generally) fails, allowing the state to safely whither away with a minimum of turmoil rather than catastrophically collapse.

> Could someone explain a working stateless society for me?

Not in a reddit comment. It's a big topic. There are a few good books on the subject. But you can get a decent start by focusing on law and defense. These are (imo) the problems with the least obvious solutions, relative to the status quo.

Illustrated summary of the machinery of freedom:

The Problem of Political Authority:

u/psycho_trope_ic · 4 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Well, for starters I think we should discuss what it means to enforce justice. In whose eyes is justice determined? How is it that one comes to be a party to 'justice being served' on either side of the coin?

State justice systems are, as you indicated, built on something like the Rawlsian Leviathan whereby someone believes themselves aggrieved and transfers what would in prior systems have been their right of vengeance to the Leviathan to pursue. This is a method of breaking the cycle of revenge generated by handling this personally. It might also make the outcome more even-handed because the investigating and enforcing parties are presumed to be less personally invested in the outcome. These are good features of the system. They do not require that the Leviathan-entity be a monopoly (and in fact it is not a monopoly now unless you consider the US system to be the monopoly being enforced everywhere else to varying degrees of success).

There are a rather large number of books and articles on this subject, as libertarian dispute resolution is probably the most fleshed out portion of libertarian thinking. I would recommend The problem of Political Authority and For A New Liberty as good starting places which will allow you to self-guide to further sources.

What AnCaps are advocating for is that the services of the Leviathan can be provided by firms interacting through a market. In some ways this is what exists. A primary difference in what we want from what is available is that we think you ought to be free to choose the firm you go to. Now we (many of us) are advocating for a system based on restitution rather than the 'transferred right-of-vengence.'

So, since we are not advocating for any states, we are not advocating for anything like legislative law really but rather contractual terms and agreements negotiated either through something like an insurance company (the DROs mentioned elsewhere) or through communities of legal agreement, or probably any number of other methods we have not even dreamt of yet.

u/WilliamKiely · 4 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Any other fans of (the best book on libertarian political philosophy, according to Bryan Caplan) Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority?

u/etherael · 4 pointsr/CryptoAnarchy

> Is a starving man not coerced to steal food? Is a homeless man not coerced to take shelter?

It's like you're not even vaguely familiar with the ideas you put forward, and you don't know they've been a subject of ridicule for so long that people wrote [satirical comics about them years ago.] (

What's next, who will build the roads?

Because you require something for your survival does not mean that somebody else is coercing you, nature is the coercive agent, and the trials of nature are levied upon everyone, giving you no right to coerce others in order to meet your needs as a special snowflake uniquely so coerced by nature.

> Is a poor man not coerced to sell his labor for the profits of a rich man?

No, he is not. He could conduct his own profit yielding enterprise and engage in free trade with his fellow man in order to meet his needs. If another offers him an opportunity which in contrast to the prior is his best option, that is the opposite of a reason to chastise that other, they should be commended for increasing the opportunities available to the man beyond what he would otherwise have had.

If he is useless to nature, and useless to his fellow man, there is only one way to secure his well being; become a thief, either small scale as the traditional bandit, or writ large as the aspirant to political authority and statehood.

The role is the same, the disguise is the only variance. One steals with a gun and risks his own life, the other steals with a pen and a suit and risks the lives of millions of fools he has conned to act as thieves on his behalf.

> Does capitalist law enforcenforcement not coerce, with its constant threat of violence, kidnapping, and caging?

All law enforcement in modern statist societies is backed by political force. Police forces are financed by taxes levied by entities wielding political force. You continue to ascribe the innate sins of political authority to the actor which by nature eschews its use, and beg for the source of those sins to save you from their ravages.

You may as well cry for a tiger to save you from a vicious lamb.

Wake up, you can do better than this. If you have any hope at all of standing a chance in an argument with an anarchocapitalist, you should at least read [The problem of political authority] ( by Michael Huemer, at the moment you simply come across as severely ill informed and utterly out of touch with the basic terrain of the debate.

u/satanic_hamster · 4 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism


A People's History of the World

Main Currents of Marxism

The Socialist System

The Age of... (1, 2, 3, 4)

Marx for our Times

Essential Works of Socialism

Soviet Century

Self-Governing Socialism (Vols 1-2)

The Meaning of Marxism

The "S" Word (not that good in my opinion)

Of the People, by the People

Why Not Socialism

Socialism Betrayed

Democracy at Work

Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (again didn't like it very much)

The Socialist Party of America (absolute must read)

The American Socialist Movement

Socialism: Past and Future (very good book)

It Didn't Happen Here

Eugene V. Debs

The Enigma of Capital

Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism

A Companion to Marx's Capital (great book)

After Capitalism: Economic Democracy in Action


The Conservative Nanny State

The United States Since 1980

The End of Loser Liberalism

Capitalism and it's Economics (must read)

Economics: A New Introduction (must read)

U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776 (must read)

Kicking Away the Ladder

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

Traders, Guns and Money

Corporation Nation

Debunking Economics

How Rich Countries Got Rich

Super Imperialism

The Bubble and Beyond

Finance Capitalism and it's Discontents

Trade, Development and Foreign Debt

America's Protectionist Takeoff

How the Economy was Lost

Labor and Monopoly Capital

We Are Better Than This


Spontaneous Order (disagree with it but found it interesting)

Man, State and Economy

The Machinery of Freedom

Currently Reading

This is the Zodiac Speaking (highly recommend)

u/stikeymo · 4 pointsr/unitedkingdom

> My ire stems chiefly from the way that this then paints us into a corner where we act like there's no better system and we've reached the end of human progress.

Have you read Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher? I imagine it'd be right up your alley.

u/kjj9 · 4 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

Absolutely not. Why would you think that?

I'm pretty sure we passed peak-Marxism recently. The alt-right is going mainstream, or rather the mainstream right is going alt. We are busy building new infrastructure. We are retiring our cucks and noble losers in favor of less-than-noble winners.

We've studied the left and are starting to fight back in big ways.

u/megamanxtc · 4 pointsr/TheRedPill

Thank you for your recommendation. Just to confirm, this is it?

u/CisSiberianOrchestra · 4 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

Vox Day wrote an entire book on the subject:

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

The e-book is only a few bucks, and it's not a terribly long read. But it gives some good info insight into the social justice warrior mindset and how to defend yourself and even counter-attack against them.

Vox Day does answer your question, too. If a SJW takes offense at an inoffensive remark you make and starts to name-call and shame you, there's a list of what to do in that situation. But the most important thing is don't capitulate and don't apologize.

u/myOpinion23 · 4 pointsr/Destiny

>Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #14,292 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

9 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political

25 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political

145 in Kindle Store > Whispersync for Voice > Politics & Social Sciences

I think it was higher up there when it came out.
Or when the cucks started buying it

u/[deleted] · 4 pointsr/furry_irl

Same, plus plenty of tales of many furries screeching over something without actually upholding the art of the argument. hella good book btw.

u/ggahSoO · 3 pointsr/Destiny

Good post, only have time to read the 13 points and opening paragraph right now but will finish later. Reminds me of when I read Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition, it's good to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

u/veriworried · 3 pointsr/tuesday

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is always a good source/jumping off point. A more recent book is Scruton's How To Be a Conservative. There's also Oakeshott's On Being Conservative and Rationalism in Politics essays. Modern american conservatism imports some libertarianism, for that I would read some Hayek, econlib has a number of his essays and there's this essay that goes over his thoughts, and relates it to traditionalism. Hope that helps.

u/Kelketek · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

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

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

u/the8thbit · 3 pointsr/LateStageCapitalism

Well you've come to the right place, then!

For a cursory treatment of these ideas, like with many ideas, wikipedia is a good starting point.

History of capitalism:


History of modern policing:

Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread is kind of the go to introduction to classical anarchism. Its a good book, and it details the relationship between capitalism, the owner class, the working class, and police, as well as discussing alternatives to the our current social configuration:

The Conquest of Bread is also available as a free audiobook:

The concepts of biopower and the spectacle are developed by the writers Michel Foucault and Guy Debord respectively. Their writing can be a little dense, but these concepts and their authors have wikipedia pages which make these ideas a little more accessible:

Also, this is a reading of Debord's Society of the Spectacle laid over a collage of contemporary footage which conveys the concepts discussed. This is a sort of remake of a film Debord himself made in the '70s. Very very cool:

Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame) also happens to be an historian and has produced an excellent documentary about medieval Europe. In the first episode he discusses the lives of the peasantry which is somewhat relevant to this discussion. There are certainly aspects of medieval living that I'm not keen to revive. But there is a nugget of gold in that form of life that we've lost in our contemporary context. Anarchists want a return to that sense of autonomy and deep social bonds within communities:

An Anarchist FAQ is a very thorough, contemporary, and systematized introduction to anarchist ideas:

Noam Chomsky's On Anarchism is an accessible introduction to anarchism that focuses on a modern, large-scale, industrial anarchist society that existed in Spain in the 1930s, to illustrate the concepts underpinning anarchist thought. It's a bit of hokey in parts, especially in the little chapter introductions which are just quotes from Q&A sessions with Dr. Chomsky. But if you can get past that, its good:

Chomsky also wrote Manufacturing Consent and Profit Over People, which are much less shallow than On Anarchism, and document how the state maintains a facade of legitimacy and some of the things that the contemporary state (circa 1999... its a little out of date, but not terrible in that respect) does to sophisticate the relationship between owner and worker. Chomsky is probably best known publicly for those two texts, but he has a lot of work in a lot of different fields. He's a pretty prolific intellectual with numerous contributions to political theory, linguistics, cognitive theory, philosophy, and computer science.

Richard Wolff is an economist who has taught at Yale, UMass, City College NY, and is currently teaching at New School. He does a monthly update on global capitalism where he kind of tries to give a bird's eye view of how our global economy shifts and develops from month to month. He also does weekly updates too, but I can never manage to stay up to date on those:

Anthropologist David Harvey's book 17 Contradictions and the End of Capitalism details many of the ways in which capitalism appears to be constantly fighting against itself for survival, all the while heightening the conditions which cause capitalism to become precarious in the first place:

This is a film about where capitalism is headed, and what it will look like in 2030:

Encirclement: Neoliberalism Ensnares Democracy is a documentary which discusses some of the ways that capitalism post-1968 has shifted so as to wrest more power away from communities. Its very similar to Noam Chomsky's Power Over People, and Chomsky is featured prominently alongside several other intellectuals:

We Are All Very Anxious is a really cool and short text by anonymous writers about how the different stages of capitalism impact the psychiatric health of the individual. Its availible as a free text, or as a short audiobook:

This is Albert Einstien's short introductory essay on socialism called Why Socialism. Its not an advocacy of Anarchism per se, and I'm skeptical about the (admitedly vague) path to socialism that he lays out. But some of the concerns he raises at the end of the essay are problems that Anarchism aims to directly address:

George Orwell (author of 1984 and Animal Farm) spent time living in and fighting for the Spanish Anarchist society that Chomsky focuses on in On Anarchism, and he documents his experiences in his memoir, Homage to Catalonia:

The Take, by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis is a film that documents a growth of anarchist factories, offices, and communities following the 2001 financial collapse in Argentina. Today these communities still exist and control hundreds of workplaces:

This is a short film about the anarchist nation of Rojava (northern syria, western kurdistan) which formed in 2013 in the midsts of the Syrian civil war, and is currently the primary boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS:

Since the early-mid '90s most of Chiapas, Mexico has operated as an anarchist society in direct defiance of the Mexican government and NAFTA. In addition to providing for their own communities, Chiapas is also the 8th largest producer of coffee in the world. This is a short documentary about that society:

This is a children's film about the same people:

Resistencia is a documentary about anarchist communities emerging in Honduras in the wake of the 2009 US-backed coup:

Marx' Capital is a foundational text in modern socialist thought. It lacks some of the cool ideas of the 20th century (a genealogy of morality, the spectacle, and biopower as examples) but is very thorough in providing an economic critique of capitalism. Capital is dense, massive (three volumes long), and incomplete, but David Harvey has a great series of lectures which go along with the texts:

This is another pretty dense one, but if you watch that lecture series and/or read Capital, Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy is an interesting follow up text. Carson looks at the plethora of arguments that have developed since the publication of capital which try to recuperate economics to before Marx' critique. In it he discusses and critiques subjective value theory, marginalism, and time preference, which all ultimately argue in different ways that the the prices of goods are determined primarily by demand, rather than the cost of production, a rejection of an important conjecture in classical economics which Marx' critique incorporates. Carson's overarching critique of these responses to Marx and the Marxian approach isn't that these demand-focused understandings of value are entirely wrong or useless, but that as critiques of classical cost theory of value they kind of lose sight of what Marx and the classicals were actually saying. While demand is an important aspect of production, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, etc... are looking at the case where supply and demand have reached equilibrium. While demand may be a determining factor of price where this isn't the case, we know that competitive commodity markets tend towards a supply/demand equilibrium, so an analysis of the equilibrium case is useful for analyzing the form that markets take in the long-term. You can justify small gains through market arbitrage for example, or the way we value art and other unique works by looking at demand, but its not as useful for understanding how someone can see consistent long-term gains through investment:

In this post I provide a summary of some of the ideas that Carson discusses thats not anywhere nearly as thorough as Carson, but isn't quite as condensed as the above paragraph (If you look closely, you'll notice I recycled some of my earlier post from this one):


u/TurdFergusonMcFlurry · 3 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

For a soft entry:

Start with these Wiki pages: libertarian-socialism &

Stanford Philosophy Entry: Anarchism

Popular Anarchist YouTuber:
Beau of the Fifth Column

Check This Out

I’d also suggest getting into Noam Chomsky for a soft-entry. You can check out his lectures, interviews, and QAs on YouTube. He has a decent book called On Anarchism that’s worth a read.

I’d also suggest Demanding The Impossible by Peter Marshall.

u/branstonflick · 3 pointsr/The_Donald

What happened was SJWs Always Lie

u/Ilostmynewunicorn · 3 pointsr/portugal

Não, é ao contrário. O pessoal atrás do politicamente correcto é que usa esses argumentos/insultos com base na outra pessoa estar a levar as coisas demasiado a sério. A melhor resposta a isso é precisamente responder da mesma moeda.

Basicamente há 3 tipos de argumentos:

O mais raro é o lógico, baseado em estudos reais, e não na maioria dos estudos ficticios e com agendas que circulam pelas redes sociais, nomeadamente o Tumblr. A melhor resposta a este argumento é responder logicamente, com estudos e pesquisa objectiva.

O segundo, mais usado, é o pseudo-lógico, em que a lógica é misturada com a emoção. A melhor resposta a este passa por demonstrar parte da falicidade do argumento, e responder ao restante usando lógica.

O terceiro é retórica. É usar emoção, humilhar, desacreditar. Este é o mais usado, sobretudo por parte dos chamados SJWs. É isto que se faz quando se chama alguém de machista, sexista, quando se diz que a pessoa está zangada, etc. Também é isto que se faz com histórias que trazem emoções negativas, sobretudo o medo. De realçar a onda de histórias, entre as quais uma mulher que foi esfaqueada por um homem no campus, que foi partilhada no Twitter... E que recebeu uma resposta do departamento policial a dizer que nada tinha sido relatado e que a pessoa se deveria dirigir às autoridades ( A melhor resposta é responder da mesma moeda, procurar desacreditar a pessoa também.

Ou então manda-se a pessoa para o caralho assim que ela começar com insultos baratos, que é o que eu faço.

O que tu estás a dizer faz parte deste terceiro grupo, e a maioria das pessoas que o usa é o pessoal atrás do politicamente correcto. Eu moro com uma "feminista de 3a classe" que me demonstra isto todos os dias.

Se estás interessada nisto, ficam os links:

u/rodmclaughlin · 3 pointsr/worldnews

SJWs are everywhere. Even major corporations are using phrases like 'cis white male' when considering whom to hire. Check out some of the examples in this book:

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

u/SillyEnthusiasm · 3 pointsr/slatestarcodex

You might as well be quoting Vox Day. I'm not sure how long I expect this book to stay up on Amazon, given the way the winds are blowing these days.

u/maxchavesblog · 3 pointsr/The_Donald

You might want to familiarize yourself with Vox Day's "SJW Attack Survival Guide" which is from SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Though Police

u/wr3decoy · 3 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

Have you read SJW's always lie? It's not exactly what you're asking, but when dealing with these people especially if you are a target being attacked. The author is sometimes a douche but it is a decent book.

u/Alephone1 · 3 pointsr/MGTOW

Think about it. If you hate men where else can you get you're revenge and be practically untouchable.

It's the same with all social justice warriors. Check out Vox Days SJWs Always Lie and SJWs Always Double Down.

They want you disemployed if not dead. Communists at heart. It always ends this way with them.

u/ColdEiric · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill
u/mnemosyne-0002 · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Archives for the links in comments:

u/chaseemall · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill

What the hell do you mean we can't win by opposing the liberals on x, then once x passes, accepting x as hallowed tenet of conservatism? What are you saying? That we're cucks? How dare you! When opposing women's suffrage was the right thing to do, we opposed it. But once it was clear that Women's suffrage was in keeping with conservative principles we accepted it. And when we let Reagan ban machine guns and allow no-fault divorce and amnesty for illegals, those were conservative positions, and don't you dare criticize him for it! And we might have been the first ones to propose Obamacare, but when it came time to oppose it, we did! But of course we couldn't repeal it when it came time. It was the status quo once it passed. After all, we're conservatives and we conserve the status quo, whatever the hell it might be.

u/tits_out_forTheBoys · 3 pointsr/RedPillReality

There's actually a book called Cuckservative that was recently written by two Native Americans as a way to warn the West about white genocide.

Here's the Amazon description of the book:

> Fifty years ago, America was lied to and betrayed by its leaders.

> With virtually no debate, Congress passed the most radical change to immigration law in American history. Since 1965, America has endured the biggest mass migration of people in human history, twice the size of the great wave of immigration into the USA between 1870 and 1930. As a result, Americans are being displaced in their own land by an ongoing invasion that dwarfs Operation Barbarossa, is two orders of magnitude larger than the Mongol hordes, and is one thousand times larger than the First Crusade.

> America's so-called conservative leaders and the conservative media have joined forces with liberal internationalists in openly celebrating this massive invasion, relying on bad theology, outdated economics, and historical myths to falsely claim that immigration is a moral imperative, an economic necessity, and in the national interest. Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America is a powerful defense of America's right to exist as a nation by two Native American authors, as well as a damning indictment of a conservatism that has failed to conserve America's culture and traditions.

> This powerful and remorseless book addresses the myth of the Melting Pot, proves that mass immigration is a net negative for the U.S. economy, and exposes the anti-Christian ideology behind the Christian establishment's support for multiculturalism and open borders. It even shows how 50 years of immigration have lowered America's average IQ. The authors pull no punches in conclusively demonstrating that it is not right, it is not moral, it is not economically beneficial, and it is not Constitutional to betray America's posterity.

> In Cuckservative, John Red Eagle and Vox Day warn Americans that if they do not defend their culture, their posterity, and their nation, they will eventually find themselves on their own Trail of Tears.

u/hypnosifl · 3 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

You can actually see that chapter if you go to the amazon page and click the cover to use amazon's "look inside" feature which shows some preview pages, and then search for the keyword "plumber" to find the page where that excerpt came from. This page is in the "Limits of Deductive Reasoning" section of the chapter titled "What Is An Argument?", and that's the last section before the next chapter, titled "Correlation and Causation"...there is nothing in the rest of the first chapter that gives any explanation of the difference between objecting to the logic and objecting to the premises edit: my bad, in the next chapter I see he does actually have a section called "the difference between 'logical' and 'true'" where he explains how a syllogism can be logically sound even if its premises are false, though from the sections available in preview it doesn't look like he revisits the plumber example to show how it applies to that one.

u/RandPaulsBrilloBalls · 3 pointsr/politics

There are lots of critiques. In fact, to some extent, they all critique each other. Occasionally you can google around for book reviews.

Maybe a relatively inexpensive textbook like this would give you the lay of the land before you hop in.

Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is free. So just reading the liberalism, republicanism, and libertarianism sections might suffice for an overview. Then you could read individual entries of authors. So there's Marx and Rawls and Locke, etc.

You can browse or search the encyclopedia here.

u/MortalTomcat · 3 pointsr/Bad_Cop_No_Donut

Do you think the netherlands is at risk of falling into tyranny in the near future? Do you think they are a particularly authoritarian culture? This is very internally coherent rhetoric but I wonder how effectively it maps onto our actual world.

So with regard to the notion of the armed citizen struggling to topple the oppressor I'm not convinced that is actually a better alternative to nonviolent actions. This opinion is specifically informed by Erica Chenoweth's highly compelling work, can't recommend the book enough. It's not clear that violent struggle is ever actually more effective even in autocracies, and especially in places with consolidated democratic norms.

Now as for policing, the country that has the best police force near as I can tell is the UK. Part of that is cultural, their institutions were founded with notions of just policing at heart. Further, they're mostly monoethnic communities and those tend to have better policing outcomes as there isn't an ethnic hierarchy to reinforce.

Keeping these in mind, I think it is worth mentioning that the degree to which their citizens are armed does appear to play a role. We ask cops to do tons of stuff that's not just investigate specific crimes, they're also sorta societal magistrates. If your neighbors are having a really ugly public fight that looks like it may turn violent but is now just a screaming match, you call the cops and have them sort it out. These sorts of ambiguous situations have the potential to turn lethal at any time in the US, and this makes being a cop really dangerous. Accordingly, they feel the need to be in dominant control of any ambiguous situation, and a firearm is a really fast way to assert that control. In the narrow scope of our society, it seems that cops would become less resistant to actually rooting out and expelling the aspects of their culture that leads to such crazy rates of violence if our public was less frequently and lethally armed.

That's not to say I don't find any use in the marxist lens, far from it, but I do find sometimes it's a bet existentialist. I find the notion that the only reason I could oppose our civilians owning guns as much as we do is some latent fascism kind of insulting. Guns are not the only mechanism by which society changes, indeed I'd argue they've been much less effective than our institutions at leveling social change in the last century. Part of the benefit of living in a consolidated democracy is that there are avenues for change that are accessible independent of violence

u/the_ultravixens · 3 pointsr/ukpolitics

No, I don't think it is. When you start reading any academic discussions about different voting systems then very, very rarely does one see a particular system being described as 'more democratic'. This is because when you start digging into the mathematical mechanics of voting theory, you find that there are paradoxes and inconsistencies within all of them which can lead to perverse results, as documented in arrows' impossibility theorem. Hence, most discussions tend to revolve around the particular political dynamics generated by different systems and whether they encourage stability, deliberation, direct accountability, entrenchment of parties and so on. There are compromises and trade-offs and no one system is inherently better. Fundamentally the discussion we're having around our voting system in this country (and especially on reddit) is pretty facile, as it never gets beyond looking at numer of and distribution of votes to thinking about what sort of dynamics different systems would introduce.

They're going through a bout of electoral reform anxiety in Canda right now, and there's some interesting [commentary] ( coming from various academics and commentators.

To be honest the weight placed on elections is probably too much anyway. There's minimal evidence that any one type produces significantly better policy, and there's mountains of evidence that people are terrible at voting in the way that most democratic theories (including the one which implicitly underlies the idea that PR is some kind of ideal) need them to. The evidence for that claim is in this book, which is excellent reading if you're an insomniac. Review and summary here.

u/mavnorman · 3 pointsr/scientificresearch

Insofar as your question is about voters being mostly ignorant about the issue they are supposed to vote about, that's an established and well-known observation in political science, as far as I know.

See Somin's Democracy and Political Ignorance, for instance. Another book in a similar vain would be The myth of the rational voter by Brian Caplan.

Both are associated with George Mason University, so you may not like what you read there. I know, it wasn't fun to read Caplan's book.

However, his basic explanation of rational irrationality can also be found in the works of Dan Kahan, including better evidence.

The problem has also been noted by others, see Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels.

u/confusedneuron · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).

Books I recommend:

Psychology (or: On Human Nature)

The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime

Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)

The Undiscovered Self

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature


Strategy: A History

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism


Economics in One Lesson

Basic Economics


Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.

u/shellfish_bonanza · 3 pointsr/statistics

I recommended it as an example of how to use data when discussing policy not that the OP agree to the politics of the podcast.

Politicians in general speak in platitudes, some like Yang cite data as part of their stump speech so it would be useful to look at.

Everyone gets to have their own opinion but not their own facts.

Other authors/books to check out if you want a more quantitative approach to politics:

  1. Jonathan Haidt - The Righteous Mind, Happiness Hypothesis, Coddling of the American Mind

  2. Phil Tetlock - Superforecasting <- very important book on what it takes to make actual accurate predictions.

  3. Democracy for Realists - quantitative approach to political science, getting away from the "folk lore of democracy" to what happens in reality -
u/the_curious_task · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion


Murray Rothbard. Samples: Anatomy of the State, The Ethics of Liberty

Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Samples: State or Private Law Society?, Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis

Michael Huemer. Sample: The Problem of Political Authority

u/kitten888 · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Democracy is tyranny of the majority

The minority can be denied all their rights including the right to life. For example, young men are minority, they are conscripted to military slavery and sent to war.

Quality of decision

A voter understands that the chance his vote will decide the outcome is negligible. He has no incentive to learn much about politics and make a good decision. The voting for him is sort of entertainment. He is more interested in sexual scandals involving politicians.

Ancap critics of democracy is in the book The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer.

u/auryn0151 · 3 pointsr/politics

>Because society is a social contract.

You really need to read this book.

u/bearCatBird · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Michael Huemer pretty thoroughly dismantles the case for Social Contract Theory in his book The Problem with Political Authority

u/Ralorarp · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

I just bought this book for kindle. It seems alright, I'll check out "taking sides" as well. Thanks for the help. :)

u/BadAtStuff · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy
u/manthew · 2 pointsr/europe

> "because you believe that is right". I don't see a big difference.

That is a lot of presumptions there, you don't see it because you hardly know me, a random redditor on the internet. However, I'm an utilitarian when it comes to decision making.

Regardless, there are reason why some actions are perceived to be right. You would see why had you put a little more thoughts into it. Reading books/wikipedia/standford philosophy encyclopedia would help too.

An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff is a great book to start in my opinion.

u/psmittyky · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

This is a tangential point and doesn't really answer your question, but just want to chime in to say that the research seems to show that nonviolent resistance is about twice as effective than violent resistance in bringing down authoritarian regimes (Chenoweth has done the most famous research on this). I'm not familiar enough with the research to to know all of the qualifiers and caveats to this generalization, but it seems to be a pretty big difference in effectiveness.

u/tshadley · 2 pointsr/philosophy

No, I'd say the article is exactly in line with your thinking:

> In short, the reason people are mostly ignorant and biased about politics is that the incentives are all wrong. Democracies make it so that no individual voters’ votes (or political beliefs) make a difference. As a result, no individual is punished for being ignorant or irrational, and no individual is rewarded for becoming informed and rational. Democracies incentivizes us to be “dumb”.

Changing the incentives is changing the system and that's what is needed.
See Against Democracy:
> Given this grim picture, Brennan argues that a new system of government--epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable--may be better than democracy, and that it's time to experiment and find out.

u/throwmehomey · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

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

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

Podcast interview

u/PRbox · 2 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

I haven't read either of these (seen them recommended elsewhere), but they seem to touch on this subject:

Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

From description:

>They demonstrate that voters―even those who are well informed and politically engaged―mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly.

The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies

From description:

>Caplan argues that voters continually elect politicians who either share their biases or else pretend to, resulting in bad policies winning again and again by popular demand...Caplan contends that democracy fails precisely because it does what voters want. Through an analysis of Americans' voting behavior and opinions on a range of economic issues, he makes the convincing case that noneconomists suffer from four prevailing biases: they underestimate the wisdom of the market mechanism, distrust foreigners, undervalue the benefits of conserving labor, and pessimistically believe the economy is going from bad to worse.

No idea what the solution is though.

u/jub-jub-bird · 2 pointsr/askaconservative

A few books

Reflections on the Revolution in France by Burke

The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirke

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek

The Righteous Mind by Haidt, not a conservative and not really a conservative book but interesting research by a social psychologist researching morality and it's impact on political opinions.

For websites, magazines, blogs

National Review not quite as good nor as influential as it once was in decades past but still worthwhile.

Instapundit blog by libertarian law professor Glenn Reynolds. Usually links to articles posted elsewhere with a bit of commentary.

I like the The American Interest. Walter Russell Mead is a self declared liberal editing a self declared centrist publication. But much of his writing consists of a critique of what he calls the "blue social model". At this point I think he's well on his way down the road to becoming a (moderate) conservative but just can't bring himself to call himself one.

u/Gopher_Broke · 2 pointsr/IAmA
u/FabricatedCool · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

/u/setofelements beating me to it twice! Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France would be a must read from a historical standpoint and for something different I would add Kirk's The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot.

u/anon338 · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Awesome, let me hook you up:

Murray N. Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, the indepth treatise on liberty in a society without the State. And the audiobook.

Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy (Audio). Shorter work on the principles of liberty and expands on the economic aspects.

Anarcho-capitalism Primer videos playlist. There are about 4 or 5 shorter than 10 minutes for you to chill. And there are the in-depth, one-hour lectures for when you are in between the books.

Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Rothbard poured a lifetime of research and all his intellectual energy to makes an overwhelming case on most matters of social concerns to explain society without the Nation-state (Audiobook).

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (e-book) and (audiobook). Friedman uses economics and utilitarian concerns to discuss how society would improve with liberty and without the State.

The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill (audiobook.) Excellent and very argumentative, with many interesting illustrations and discussions on several topics of society and economics.

Huemer's Problem of Political Authority. It is a work on political and moral philosophy, with some treatment of psychology.

Leeson's Anarchy Unbound. Peter Leeson is a legal scholar and his work documents historical and contemporary legal practices and teachings and how they apply to a society of liberty.

Christopher Chase Rachels' A Spontaneous Order. Inspired by the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on argumentation ethics as an ultimate foundation for liberty. First five chapters available as audio.

For a more complete list see Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

When you read one of them, I suggest for you to write up a short post on your favourite subjects. It is a great way way to have productive discussions. Don't forget to tag me ( /u/anon338 ) so that I can enjoy it also.

u/bames53 · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> So most an-caps would agree that the societies would be run with natural rights as the rule of the land, how though does one prove that humans even have rights?

Not all an-caps derive their beliefs from natural rights, and there are different understandings of the term 'natural rights.' In any case, here are what I think are some good resources:

u/Slyer · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Your very first comment you spouted off a bunch of different unsubstantiated points like dogma. What were you trying to achieve there? The whole thing needed some focus.

You're not going to break their belief in the legitimacy of government in a single paragraph, pick a point, an angle of attack and stick to it.

As for countering the social contract theory, pick up Michael Huemer's book. It does a great job of breaking down the arguments.

u/kwanijml · 2 pointsr/TMBR

Very insightful comment, thank you. I don't find a lot I can disagree with certainly softens, at least, the level to which I think hypocrisy is likely taking place.

As an aside, and just because you delved in to the whole collective vs. individual rights thing, you might be interested to explore what I call the intuitionist moral philosophy of political legitimacy. I believe that it successfully finds hybrid of deontological and consequentialist positions, and it is what I largely adhere to in my personal moral code as it regards rights and political authority.

I only know of it in book form The Problem of Political Authority , so assuming you're not going to buy it, I can suggest this decent review, and also access to the first chapter

u/DrunkHacker · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I won't claim to agree with Michael Huemer, but his book The Problem of Political Authority is a modern look into the origins of political authority and covers the social contract.

u/Blacking · 2 pointsr/Anarchy101

I'd highly recommend you to read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer.

It's well written and based off a lot of analogies and metaphors to prove the certain legitimacy of the existence of a central government in a society in an unbiased way.


u/Waltonruler5 · 2 pointsr/GoldandBlack

Without a doubt The Problem of Political Authority. It's explains things so clearly and convincingly, you'll wonder how you ever tried explaining libertarianism another way.

u/NicholasLeo · 2 pointsr/changemyview

> much of 'conservative' thought is founded in an unwillingness to contribute ANY money/privilege/power to better the whole of society. That is to say, it is founded in a libertarian fantasy that individuals pursing their own self-interest, without any interference from the state, will lead to greater flourishing for the whole of society.

You seem to be conflating conservatism and libertarianism. Conservatives are generally open to reforms that would better society, provided they are done conservatively.

> This manifests most concretely in an aversion to ... disruption of existing social hierarchies.

The very definition of conservatism is aversion to such disruptions. That's not a drawback of conservatism, it's a feature. Indeed, it's the central feature.

> To me this is an intellectually ignorant view of society, (so much so that it makes me wonder if it is even held in good-faith), as it completely ignores the impact that the pursuit of self-interest has on others, or the existence of societally constructed hierarchies that privilege some individuals over others.

Actually it is a more realistic view of society, as it regards hierarchies as inevitable. Furthermore, conservative ethics includes reasoning about authority, as it is obvious someone must be in charge; whereas progressive ethics tends to only consider harm.

Have you read either of these recent books?

u/Malthus0 · 2 pointsr/Classical_Liberals

>Did I just read a fascist manifesto?

There is nothing in there that is not in or implied in Friedrich Hayek and Roger Scruton. If your head is so anarchistic you think a burkean Liberal and a liberal Burkean are fascist I won't be able to persuade you otherwise.

That said I think every thinking person can get something out of Scrution's How to be a Conservative. Even if the chapter 'the truth in nationalism' from which the above was partly drawn is not your cup of tea, it is still good to hear it, and chapters like 'the truth in capitalism', 'truth in socialism', 'the truth in environmentalism' or the 'truth in multiculturalism' might suit you better.

u/EvanGRogers · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson


David Friedman, the brilliant son of Milton Friedman, head of the Chicago school of economics, can explain it better than I.

u/CoC4Hire · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

> Link to book here, don't be thrown off by the length. Good things come in small packages ;)


u/whistling_dixie · 2 pointsr/RedPillWives

I haven't read this yet, but I'm getting ready to buy Lauren Southern's new book Barbarians - from what I can tell, it looks like it'll be pretty good.

u/SvenSvenkill2 · 2 pointsr/videos

Wait, what? Anarchism is not a political doctrine? As an anarcho-socialist, I implore you to read the following:

I think you're confusing, "Let's smash shit up", with a genuine political philosophy, like most people do when they hear the word, "Anarchy".

Edit: changed "anarchy" to "anarchism" for clarity's sake.

u/another_thinker · 2 pointsr/AnarquismoBrasil

Nossa cara, se fosse você dava uma chance pra ele. Concordo que ele é mais conhecido pelas abordagens que faz sobre os EUA, mas ele n é só isso. Vale a pena vc pegar algum livro dele pra ler.
O livro Manufacturing Consent é um que, pelo que assisti do doc e que ouvi falar sobre o livro, não é tão focado em política, mas em expor o real papel da mídia no sistema e os artifícios utilizados para moldar a consenso público.
Ele tem uma obra dedicada ao anarquismo. Nunca li, mas ta na fila. Chama 'On Anarchism'.

u/jorio · 2 pointsr/philosophy

He writes books on political philosophy.

>If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.

I think this would qualify as controversial.

u/UserNumber01 · 2 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

Thanks so much!

As for what to read, it really depends on what you're interested in but I always recommend the classics when it comes to anything to do with the left first.

However, if you'd like something more modern and lighter here are some of my recent favorites:

  • Why Marx Was Right - Terry Eagleton is a fantastic author and this book has sold more than one friend of mine on the concept of Marxism. A great resource to learn more about the socialist left and hear the other side of the story if you've been sold the mainstream narrative on Marx.

  • A Cure for Capitalism - An elegant roadmap for ethically dismantling capitalism by the most prominant Marxist economist alive today, Richard D. Wolff. Very utility-based and pretty ideologically pure to Marx while still taking into account modern economic circumstances.

  • No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy - this one is a great take-down of how modern NGO organizations (especially the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) are the premium outlet for soft imperialism for the US.

  • Until We Reckon: Violence, Mass Incarceration, and a Road to Repair - added this because it was a very impactful, recent read for me. A lot of left-of-republican people support some kind of prison reform but we usually view it through the lens of helping "non-violent offenders". This book digs into that distinction and how we, as a society, can't seriously try to broach meaningful prison reform before we confront the notion of helping those who have done violent things in their past.

  • [Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women] ( - probably my favorite book on modern feminism and why it is, in fact, not obsolete and how saying/believing as much is key to the ideology behind the attacks from the patriarchal ruling class. Can't recommend it enough if you're on the fence about feminism.

  • How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic - Written in the 70's by a couple of Marxists during the communist purge in Chile, this book does a fantastic job of unwrapping how ideology baked into pop culture can very effectively influence the masses. Though I can only recommend this one if you're already hard sold on Socialism because you might not even agree with some of the core premises if you're on the fence and will likely get little out of it.

  • Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? - Mark Fisher's seminal work deconstructing how capitalism infects everything in modern life. He killed himself a few years after publishing it. My most recommended book, probably.
u/tnavelerriemanresu · 2 pointsr/brasil

> não vejo alguma alternativa melhor que o capitalismo

Ninguém vê. Não pode sonhar com algo diferente do capitalismo.

u/da_kochevnik · 2 pointsr/MGTOW

From my reading - This is the kind of guy who would have cheerfully thrown another man under the bus if the shoe were on someone else's foot.

That being said, the guy made a huge number of errors in handling this.

There is actually a book out there - on the best ways to handle these situations - a best seller no less :

SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day (Ted Beale).


There are ways to fight back against the Female Inquisition - and make no mistake, this IS an Inquisition by women against men.

The only good part of all this is that women are red pilling men at a phenomenal rate and guaranteeing that every man on the planet avoid them, most especially avoiding white women.

The social fallout of all this is going to reverb for decades to come.

u/hga_another · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Excellent list. I'd add:

Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America, where for simplification the author generally used "KGB" for the organization that started out as the Cheka and was the NKVD for a good part of what the book covers. He's an ex-counterintelligence officer, and uses analysis techniques from that field to go from the known operative Willi Münzenberg to known or likely "Willing Accomplices" his effort recruited before he was (inevitably) liquidated by Stalin (the effort was of course restarted later, but the lethal payload had already been delivered, in the US especially after the #1 goal of diplomatic recognition of the USSR was achieved early in FDR's administration).

I'd like to emphasize that anything relevant written or edited by Samuel Francis is going to be great, but you'll likely want to read some of his freely available or cheaper works before buying his $48 magnum opus Leviathan and Its Enemies. He's the guy who came up with the critical concept of anarcho-tyranny, which in classic Wikipedia fashion has been purged from his page, but they forgot to remove the redirect of that to it. (In short, it's a new version of the ancient pattern of top and bottom classes conspiring against the middle, criminals in particular are enabled to prey on us, rules and laws are enforced against us but not them and e.g. immigrants in California, native farmer Victor Davis Hansen has a lot of first hand observations about this.)

For a laser focused analysis of the current SJW phenomena and how to deal with them, you can't beat Vox Day's SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, the genesis of which started with an unremitting out of the blue attack a decade and a half ago by some SF SJWs for really mild and unrelated to their domain badthink. He's a fighter, so it has a lot of good advice as to how to attack and counterattack them. /u/sciencemile recommends Mill's On Liberty, and per Vox Day, Mill would be relevant if for no other reason than his "defining [a] new idea of justice in a form that is still recognizable in the demands of today's SJWs" in his Utilitarianism. (On the other hand, view anything Vox Day writes about economics with extreme skepticism, and I note he's not fundamentally honest, he's quite willing to lie for tactical reasons.)

To get a taste of it, he's written a short SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide PDF that's [currently being discussed on KiA]

If you want to fight and are not equally adept at rhetoric as well as dialectic and know when to use each, he highly recommend's Aristotle's On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (that seems to be the best English translation, but I've not read it yet, for better or worse my upbringing made me good at both).

Martin van Creveld's recent Equality: The Impossible Quest ought to be very important as well, but I've not read anything by him.

If you're really brave, check out The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, although I only sampled that before starting with the two previous books in his trilogy, in the middle of the third now.

u/krux9 · 2 pointsr/france

Perspective anarchiste basée sur une morale intuitionniste qui parle en détail de la question de la légitimité du gouvernement : The Problem of Political Authority par Michael Huemer. Au moins t’auras une lecture originale.

Dans le genre « démocratie participative » t’as David van Reybrouck qui a sorti un bouquin récemment : Contre les élections

u/nixfu · 2 pointsr/GoldandBlack


u/RenegadeMinds · 2 pointsr/metacanada

SJWs Always Lie

Highly recommended reading.

Vox Day outlines and explains SJW behaviour and how to defeat them.

These people need to be stopped.

u/TheRoRo1971 · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

You're exactly right. Not like one can screen for every tumblrina or special snowflake in every instance, every type of employment specialty. But there are ways to cut out the tumor before it becomes malignant, so I've heard.
If you didn't already know, there is an excellent read on the very subject:
It's by Vox Day, everyone's favorite crazy author/publisher.

u/abecedarian_radish · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

For more on concern trolling and other SJW behavior, read SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day.

T_D also had an AMA with Day a few months ago, here.

u/SupremeReader · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction
u/RlUu3vuPcI · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Vox Day probably has a lot to say about it -

That said, the left won the morality (culture) war back in the 60s and since then has used morality as a club to get what they want. It's only now that they've completely depleted the value of the moral club.

u/James_Smith1234 · 2 pointsr/The_Donald
u/ABProsper · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Leaking is not treason. That can only happen when in war time by giving aid to the enemy.

It probably couldn't qualify as sedition either in that while her goals were to undermine a sitting President but given it was meant to show wrongdoing, leaking is an edge case.

Its a separate offense, basically violating a security clearance or maybe espionage.

RW however is going to get a real taste of an unpleasant reality very soon. Orange is her new black

Also Liberals are not Leftists, Liberal can have moral standards, Leftists do not.

Remember Leftists don't have fixed rules either.

Rules for Radicals #4

>The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

They don't have a moral center other than "grab all you can because its free, what the rabbit warren says is OK and avoid actual risk and conflict preferably by pitting decent people against one another."

As such, they are immune to any charges of hypocritical conduct. They simply can't care as they aren't wired for it or any kind of morality other than "obey the warren law"

Once you get past the strangeness and the discomforting ideas (Leftists might as well be aliens) Anonymous Conservative lays it all down.

His book is also often free in PDF , read it or at least the summary and you'll have a goo understanding of who they are

Also read Vox Day's SJW's Always Lie and of course Rules for Radical text

Read up, Pedes its depressing but as Leslie Fish noted "Not all wisdom brings joy" and knowing is half the battle anyway.

u/unorthodoxcowboy · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson
u/IMULTRAHARDCORE · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

Thank you. This is actually a very well measured and well formatted post. Let me do my best to respond to each point, if you don't mind.

>labelling critical news of him as "fake news" instead of just biased yet true information, leading to his supporters to completely disregard it

Absolutely. The thing is his opponents handed him the perfect weapon in that a lot of news surrounding Trump, his campaign, and now his presidency is clearly fake. Or at least intentionally misleading, if you prefer. So Trump takes those instances and reminds his supporters of it often so when a piece of news comes out this is bad for him but does in fact have truth to it he can just hand wave it and dismiss it along with the whole media because of their prior transgressions. I'm not saying it's right but his critics in the media have only themselves to blame. They have a credibility problem and Trump did not create that.

>nepotism, allowing Ivanka and Jared to stay so long in the WH despite their complete lack of qualifications, allowing Ivanka to do the duties of Secretary of State and meeting with North Korea

I agree 100%. I don't want Ivanka or Kushner anywhere near the WH or doing work for Trump. In fact Kushner probably belongs in jail. Anyone who defends him is probably being disingenuous.

>broke the norm of releasing tax returns

First of all, not a requirement. Secondly, his base of supporters did not care. Third, there's still time to do it technically speaking.

>broke the norm of completely divesting from businesses

I believe it was found that he doesn't actually have to do this.

>campaign's ties to Cambridge Analytica, which illegally retained information from Facebook, and has illegally framed politicians in the past and created fake news campaigns (esp in African countries)

Didn't it also come out that the Obama campaign did the same thing in 2012? With Facebooks knowledge and permission no less? I'm not entirely up to date on what exactly the situation with this thing is but from what I can tell this sort of thing is not unique to Trump.

>disregard for flagrant lying and never apologizing or retracting (retweeted fake statistics on black crime, fake videos of Muslim extremism, fake numbers for his inauguration, popular vote, could go on and on)

I'd like to direct you to the book SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day. The book has a lot of useful information in it but one lesson that must be remembered is you never apologize to the types of people Trump is dealing with. Here's what Vox has to say about apologizing (emphasis added by me),

"The third thing to remember when undergoing an SJW-attack is to never apologize for anything you have done. I repeat: do not apologize. Do not say you are sorry if anyone's feelings were hurt, do not express regret, remorse, or contrition, do not say anything that can be taken as an apology in any way. Just in case I am not being sufficiently clear, do not apologize!

Normal people seek apologies because they want to know that you feel bad about what you have done and that you will at least attempt to avoid doing it again in the future. They seek apologies within the context of an expectation of a better future relationship with you. This is why it is important to apologize to normal people you have harmed in some way, so that you can mutually repair the damaged relationship through the bonding process of repentance and forgiveness. When we sincerely apologize to those we have inadvertently offended, this process actually strengthens the relationship and often leads to improved mutual understanding.

None of that applies to SJWs. They don't care how you feel, they don't care about your future behavior, they don't expect to have a future relationship with you, and there is absolutely no chance they are going to forgive you for anything. You are, after all, a dangerous thought-criminal. When they push you for an apology after pointing-and-shrieking at you, what they are seeking is a confession to bolster their indictment. They are like the police down at the station with a suspect in the interrogation room, badgering him to confess to the crime. And like all too many police these days, the SJWs don't really care if you did it or not, they're just looking for a confession that they can take to the prosecutor.
This means that every apology, every compromise, and every attempt to find common ground will be viewed as a display of weakness, a lack of confidence, and damning evidence in the case concerning which they intend to prosecute you.

Therefore, the correct answer to a demand for an apology is always no. “Wouldn't it only make sense if....” No. “Can't we just....” No. “Wouldn't it be fair to....” No. “You have to admit....” No. “If you would just apologize....” No. “Don't you realize you hurt....” No.
Look at Hunt. Look at Eich. Look at everyone in your personal experience who has come under attack by SJWs. Did apologizing do them any good at all? Did apologizing reduce the intensity of the attacks on them, or did the SJWs keep attacking? An apology is not going to relieve the pressure on you, it is only going to increase it. To the SJW, an apology is merely the first step in the ritual act of abasement and submission, after which one must recant any previously expressed doubts about the Narrative and declare one's intentions of future adherence to it.

It is very educational to see what happens when one simply refuses to fall in line with their demands. A refusal to play along with their game quickly strips the mask of sanity from their faces and reveals the angry, shrieking madness underneath. Never forget that they have no certainty of a win without your compliance. So do not, under any circumstances, comply with any of their demands. Do not, under any circumstances, apologize, not even if you feel genuinely bad about what you have done or if you suspect you may have genuinely hurt someone's feelings.
Remember, they don't believe in forgiveness. They don't believe in repentance. All they are looking for is for you to condemn yourself so the show trial can begin. As one SJW has put it: “Apologies are not merely the end of a bad situation. They are the beginning of a promise to do (and be) better.” So don't be under the false impression that an apology will put an end to anything. It will only serve as the start of the next stage of their attack.

Be aware that once they have launched an attack on you, they will press you hard for an apology and repeatedly imply that if you will just apologize, all will be forgiven. Do not be fooled! I have seen people fall for it time and time again, and the result is always the same. The SJWs are simply looking for a public confession that will confirm their accusations, give them PR cover, and provide them with the ammunition required to discredit and disemploy you. Apologizing will accomplish nothing more than hand them the very weapons they require to destroy you."

>broke the norm for campaign finance laws (paying Stormy Daniels 130k with it)

I don't know about this. The whole thing with Stormy I couldn't care less about but if he paid it from his campaign coffers I'm pretty sure that's wrong and would like it if he paid it back.

>broke the norm of caring about the Hatch Act (Kellyanne Conway promoting Ivanka's clothing line, supporting campaigns as a federal agent)

This was wrong as well. Kellyanne should have been fined or something.

>broke the norm of having a competent staff with low turnover: has not filled extremely important positions, such as ambassador to SK, turnover is around 50%, three times that of Obama's, while it's typical to have partisan picks, it's atypical for them to be so incompetent, conflicts of interest (Ajit Pai) and without the background for it (DeVos, Carson, etc), also tries to get staff to sign illegal NDAs

I think the high turnover is a good thing. As for not filling positions. You can thank Democrat obstruction in the Senate for that. They aren't confirming his nominations.

>fired the people investigating him (Comey, McCabe, attempted Mueller)

He was within his rights to fire Comey. Comey himself said so. He didn't fire McCabe or Mueller.

>general lack of goodwill and presidential behavior (let's be real, no one tells their kids to be like our POTUS), uses his position to shout down and bully private citizens in a personal, immature way, before we used to care that the POTUS was a "good person", instead, we have someone who has bragged about cheating on all 3 wives (in public, in interviews, for decades)

Are you sure no one tells their kids to be like Trump? Are you very sure? I somehow think that's not true. As for "bullying" private citizens. I think most of what you're implying here is about the rude motherfuckers that come to his rallies to interrupt (and/or attack his supporters)? If so they deserve the verbal beat down they got and worse. There's a time and place for that kind of thing and those were neither the times nor the places.

>Do you think the erosion of these norms are dangerous?

No. I think in many ways it's what Trump was elected to do. He's here to smash the Establishment and shake things up. What that means I'm not always sure and I probably wont always approve but I understand it's what he was elected for.

>What if a crazy Democrat runs in 2020...

I think if any Democrat wins the presidency in the next 20-50 years this country is probably doomed. Actually it's probably doomed anyway. Trump was just the last person fighting for the impossibility of saving us from ourselves.

>I wouldn't want any future POTUS to act like Trump, would you?

We wont be so lucky to have a President even emulate Trump again in our lifetimes I think.

u/STARVE_THE_BEAST · 2 pointsr/The_Donald
u/bombcart · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

And if you want to know more (and the science behind it) read Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America

u/flyinglotus1983 · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> Near future: Stef releases a book titled "The Art of the Argument".

I literally thought this was a joke when you wrote it yesterday, I actually laughed.

Then, this just got released today:

u/magariot · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

It's been out for a couple of days now, he went on all the shows to promote it, I'm surprised you missed it.

u/crassreductionist · 1 pointr/Destiny

This is a really good book by a conservative about their ideology on their own terms. I suggest you read it to get a better understanding of their thought process.

Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition

Another good read is The Reactionary Mind

u/Rosalie8735 · 1 pointr/IntellectualDarkWeb

Came here to second Sir Roger Scruton.

Watch Why Beauty Matters (BBC special, on YouTube I believe) to get an idea of Scruton's general flavour.

Conservatism: An Invitation to The Great Tradition

Culture Counts (rereleased Sept 2018)

Both the above books are very worthwhile reads.

u/currentyearplusx · 1 pointr/NeutralPolitics

For works reflecting traditionalist conservative attitudes, I'd recommend "Ideas Have Consequences" by Richard Weaver and "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. Also, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is a pretty good critique of utopian ideology and in my opinion it's far more applicable to current society than Orwell's 1984 in its criticism of mindless consumerism and social conditioning.

For far-right perspectives I'd recommend anything by Julius Evola, especially Revolt Against the Modern World. A lot of the modern right's rhetoric about the decline of western society and to some extent its nihilism can be traced back to Evola's work, so he is essential reading if you really want to know more about the modern far right or alt right. As a warning, though, his extreme traditionalism will probably be off-putting.

As for U.K. relevant...hmm...I can at least recommend a great British conservative in Sir Roger Scruton. His "How to Be a Conservative" offers an outline of true conservative ideology and its applications as well as criticism of materialism, which is in my opinion essential to conservatism.

u/crbiker · 1 pointr/Libertarian

>Go read a book

I'll just read For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by anarchist Murray Rothbard.

u/RufusYoakum · 1 pointr/Libertarian

There are entire books about most of these topics. You can also watch/read talks/books from David Friedman, etc for many answers. Don't assume there's no answers for these questions when you simply haven't looked.

u/LovableMisfit · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I would recommend one of three books to persuade your friend (you can read more about them to choose what you think may be the best). Hope you find a decent gift among the list:

  • Democracy, The God that Failed, by Hoppe is an excellent read that shows how the state always slides into failure. Primarily a western critique, it can apply to Marxism easily as a whole. More historical, rather than an ethical critique, however.

  • The Ethics of Liberty, again by Hoppe demonstrates how free associate is the most ethical way to organize society, even if Marxism could work.

  • Mixing it up a little, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, this time by Rothbard explains an Anarcho-Capitalist's perspective on ethics. While it does not explicitly show the downfalls of collectivism, it would be good for her to help understand our view of society.
u/haroldp · 1 pointr/Libertarian

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

u/SANcapITY · 1 pointr/changemyview

If you're actually curious how things could work, here's a good book to get started.

But again, realize that your position is that you will support immoral means and pretend they create moral ends.

u/CaptainMegaJuice · 1 pointr/JoeRogan

Well then, go read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer and The Machinery of Freedom by David Freidman.

Books won't downvote you, I promise.

u/NihilisticHotdog · 1 pointr/Libertarian

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

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

People like order, don't they?

u/LordRusk · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

If you have doubts about why the state is so bad, and want to understand more what the state is Anatomy of the State by Murray Tothbard is a great read, got me into libertarianism in general

If you are looking for more current anarcho-capitalist theory and it’s logistics, a great read is The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.

Anatomy of the state is a great introduction of about ~50 or so pages while The Machinery of freedom goes into a lot more detail, ~350 pages and is the book I would choose.

Hope this helps!

u/bulksalty · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

An-caps don't believe the government should run the military either (or the justice system).

If you want to get familiar with their ideal proposed system, you probably want to read something like The Machinery of Freedom which lays out how a non-state could work, including justice systems and defense.

Less extreme libertarians frequently leave the government in charge of providing public goods (problems that markets can't usually solve because you can't exclude people from the service once it's provided) and wish to keep it out of everything that isn't a public good.

u/cm9kZW8K · 1 pointr/Bitcoin

Sounds like you missed anarcho-capitalism 101.

Ill get you started:

u/CerberusXt · 1 pointr/france

Bon, vu que tu as besoin d'être pris en main. Je cite Lauren Southern :

> "Oh, and another problem I have with Hitler? He fawned over Muslims more sycophantically than Justin Trudeau. Bibi Netanyahu was right to point out that Hitler decided on the Holocaust partly because Middle Eastern Muslims told him they didn’t want Jews expelled into the region.“

Blamer les musulmans pour l'holocauste, on fait difficilement plus islamophobe dans le genre. Surtout que ça provient de son bouquin au titre méga subtil : "Barbarians: How Baby Boomers, Immigrants, and Islam Screwed My Generation" (Source :

C'est assez islamophobe pour que tu investisses du temps dans cette vidéo ou tu as des excuses toutes prêtes pour miss journaliste américaine du canada ?

u/yugias · 1 pointr/ColinsLastStand

Let's get it started then. What would you be interested in reading? I have some options on my reading list, maybe you are interested. If not, you can also suggest some titles and then we can decide.

  • On China, Henry Kissinger I read his book on world order a couple of weeks ago and I enjoyed it a lot. He played a major role in reestablishing diplomatic relations with China, so I think this might turn out to be an interesting read.
  • The Glorious Cause, Robert Middlekauff This US history book spans the period prior to the independence up to it's aftermath (1763-1789). Chronologically speaking, it is the first book in the Oxford series on the history of the United States. I have heard great things about this series, in particular McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. I plan to read the whole series little by little.
  • The Global Minotaur, Yanis Varoufakis I learned about this book by reading his more recent book And the Weak Suffer What They Must?. This is more of a history of political economy, and covers the period from the end of WWII to the 2008 crisis. As far as I know, Global Minotaur covers the same period as the book I read but focuses more on the US than Europe. I'm not an economist, so there are some things I wasn't able to understand, but for the most part I had no problem at all and enjoyed it quite a bit.

  • Homage to Catalonia, George Orwell I learned about this book reading a collection of essays by Chomsky entitled on Anarchism. Here, Chomsky talks about some rare "truly socialist" movement that appeared in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. This movement was crushed by both Franco's military coup and the Soviet army. Orwell fought there and this book narrates his experience. Given the great experience I had reading 1984, I think this could be a very interesting read.

  • The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand I have hear many things for and against this author, but I have never read it. I have also heard that this book is better from a literary standpoint than Atlas Shrugged, and also was written earlier, so this could be a good starting point.
u/GarleyCavidson · 1 pointr/accelerationism



Inventing the Future (Left Accelerationism)

Libidinal Economy (Lyotard)

Anti-Oedipuis: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Deleuze and Guattari)

Capitalist Realism (Fisher)

K-Punk(Fisher, a newly released anthology)


This is the best introduction I've come across

The MAP (Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics)

This article from The Guardian

u/Ozma_of_Oz_ · 1 pointr/infj

This is a total mischaracterization of socialism. There are anti-authoritarian forms of socialism, which are what the vast majority of socialists advocate for. Sorry but I'm not going to debunk every point in this novel on the INFJ subreddit of all places.

EDIT: The position you're arguing from is called "Capitalist Realism," the notion that Capitalism is a natural outgrowth of human nature and the only truly viable economic model. This view is deeply ahistorical.

u/dremelofdeath · 1 pointr/technology

> I think capitalism is deeply flawed but it's the best option we have available.

Unfortunately, so much of this sentiment stems from our inability to choose something else. Capitalism's supporters love to sing the praises of "consumer choice," but we're never given the choice to accept or decline capitalism itself. It's a contradiction; if it's true that more choices improve the product or the quality of our lives, shouldn't we also be given the choice to opt out of capitalism?

It's said that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. And I believe that. You can't just switch away from capitalism the same way you'd switch from iPhone to Android.

I recommend the book Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher. It's a great in-depth examination of how all-encompassing the idea of capitalism has become and what we might be able to do about it. It gave me a lot to think about. (And if you can't buy it, get it from your local library!)

u/qwapster · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

thought the sarcasm in my post was obvious - sorry!
edit: i recommend this book

u/jdgalt · 1 pointr/theredpillright

This, and also the fact that any good right-wing comedian immediately becomes the target of a campaign to dissuade his sponsors by threatening a boycott. This stuff is right out of SJWAL.

The Right will eventually overcome this problem by setting up substitutes for all left-wing controlled media, including Reddit itself. We've already got to replace twatter and Infogalactic to replace Wikipedia. Next, I hope, will be a Youtube replacement.

u/BluepillProfessor · 1 pointr/theredpillright

Let me start us off with 2 book gems and 2 important essays. Of course the whole point of this is to have a Red Pill Right discussion so the most important thing is /r/theredpill sidebar books and essays.


  1. The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith explains Capitalism.

  2. Atlas Shrugged- no explanation should be needed. Ian Rand hits it out of the park.


  3. Dictatorships and Double Standards in which Reagan UN Secretary Jean Kirkpatrick identifies an "America First" foreign policy.

  4. I Pencil: where Leonard Read explains just how complicated the market really is and how the Invisible Hand really does guide it. They can't fix the health care system. They can't even make a pencil.

    Also what about Milo's books?

    Forbidden Thoughts and SJW's Always lie
u/MongolianCheese · 1 pointr/AsianMasculinity

Anyone read this book? This seems popular and probably written by a goblin. Honestly this is pseudo philosophy. Might as well just pick up "On Bullshit" to actually be a more critical thinker. This book smells like goblin piss.

>this book seems to have been written by an angry little boy that hates practically everyone simply because they don't hate everyone too. in his opinion, no one else should have an opinion unless you agree with him. if you want insight on what it must be like inside the twisted brain of a trump supporting xenophobic moron, this book is for you. if you listen to sarah palin and think she's not retarded, you'll love this book, but you may have to have your mom read it to you. if you're the sort of person that runs for president because god called you on the phone and told you to run, you'll appreciate this work. this book belongs on the shelf at the 700 club, your local kkk branch, and comes highly recommended by those westboro freaks.

Amazon reviews. Seems like the goblins had really came out FULL FORCE. Everybody we must mobilized or the battle of helms deep will come.

u/Ranarius_Webfoot · 1 pointr/owenbenjamin

They've been friends since Gamergate.

Milo also wrote the foreword for SJWs Always Lie in 2015:

Which was #1 Political Philosophy for a couple years off and on. Darn good book too.

u/dravornys · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Entryism. You can read about how they do this in this book. I'm not affiliated with the author.

u/GelfSara · 1 pointr/intj

In our defense, all SJWs are worthy of being cast into live volcanos--not just INFP SJWs. In fact--that's my newest crusade.

An INTJ-writ book, FWIW:

u/SaloL · 1 pointr/The_Donald

If you haven't yet, read SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day. He goes over their tactics and mentality and what you can do to protect yourself. Really short book, <$10 ebook, and entertaining read. Highly suggest it.

u/Man_or_Monster · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Start your blog back up and read SJWs Always Lie, the manual on how to deal with SJW attacks.

u/And_n · 1 pointr/The_Donald

I first heard the term "virtue signalling" on Vox Day's blog. I don't know if he originated it, but he did write a book about SJWs (and how to defeat them.)

u/sadris · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

If you truly want the full answer, buy

I listened to it on my commute to work. Totally opened my eyes.

u/b3k · 1 pointr/Reformed

Wikipedia gives no citation for the heretic's ethnicity. His ethnicity is noted in the Foreward to this rudely named book.

u/kriegson · 1 pointr/exmuslim

I see you've ignored Sun Tzu then? There's a reason I included him when pontificating on Mark Twain.
The point being that one does not need a formal education in an institute you consider reputable (if at all) to contribute to philosophy. If someone engages in this as their profession or hobby of choice then they could be considered a philosopher.

It's not symantics, it's literally the definition. You yourself earlier admitted ;

"It's fair to call him an amateur philosopher."

Which wouldn't be quite correct, given:

[ˈamədər, ˈaməˌtər, ˈaməCHər]
a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis.

He is paid for his philosophy via donations, ad revenue by people that find value in it. Likewise his book which is currently on Amazon as the #1 best seller in political philosophy. [1]

So he would be a 'Professional" you may not find much value in what he says or disagree with some things ( I do too, after all) but that doesn't make him an amateur.
And why would I defend Stephan from other people's arguments or other arguments aside from "He's not a philosopher"?

My original argument was only ever:

>Well spoken and a voice for radio (which he does do) he has some interesting points that are often eloquently spoken. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he does cover some very interesting topics.


So then if we can agree with him being a professional philosipher, I'd have no problem leaving it at that. But if you want to make another argument as to what he's contributed of value, or move the goalposts a bit to question whether or not he's "worthy" of being considered a philosipher based on his contributions IE asking me to defend them, we could agree on that shifting of goalposts.

u/h1ppophagist · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

I can help with a few of those.

An excellent introduction to political philosophy that takes a historical view is this one by Jonathan Wolff. One that looks at contemporary political theory only is this one by Adam Swift. I recommend reading both of them. They both have excellent suggestions for further reading. I will also recommend this book on contemporary political philosophy by Will Kymlicka, which is one of my favourite books. It's not quite as accessible as the previous two books, but Kymlicka's writing is clear and powerful.

You will likely find some useful readings on social classes and equality in this syllabus^PDF from a class taught by a Canadian sociologist.

u/ppeist · 1 pointr/philosophy

For a general overview of the concepts involved in political philosophy Wolff's "An Introduction to Political Philosophy" is superb. Not sure how it compares to Kymlicka but it's the same sort of thing in that it doesn't assume prior knowledge.

u/SamisSimas · 1 pointr/NeutralPolitics

This isn't modern, but I'd recommend this book I read for the Philosophy of International Order class I took awhile back, it covers the history of western political philosophy in a pretty objective way, for the most part. I think seeing the development of political philosophy might be more helpful than just jumping into modern times.

[book in question]

u/jamkgrif · 1 pointr/pics

Actually successful peaceful, non-violent protest surpassed violent protest during the 1950s.

>Success Rate: Violence 1990s ~22%, 2000s ~12%; Non-Violence 1990s ~51%, 2000s ~66%

Erica Chenoweth proves this point within her book Why Civil Resistance Works which uses a quantitative model (p<.05, n>140) to state that,

>"nonviolent campaigns facilitate the active participation of many more people than violent campaigns, thereby broadening the base of resistance and raising the costs to opponents of maintaining the status quo."

Just because a person is born in poverty within the United States does not mean they have to be in poverty for the rest of their lives. Likewise, a country born in violence can turn away from violence to work for peaceful turns. Such is the case of the United States.

As for your, "get done without necessary violence," Chenoweth finds that violence actually hurts the users' causes. Most violent actions causes backfiring from their opposition.

You should read her book or at least listen to one of her Online Discussions.

u/abutthole · 1 pointr/TopMindsOfReddit
u/stopstopimeanit · 1 pointr/AskSocialScience

A good place to start might be Why Civil Resistance Works. The writers touch on a number of points, but the most relevant to your question is this: looking at a number of movements that aim to effect social change, they find that non-violent movements often achieve greater results. They theorize that by eschewing violence, they open the doors to greater participation and attract a wider variety of 'recruits' than a similarly-minded but violent group might.

u/ReportPhotographer · 1 pointr/news

So, land of the free really doesn't look so free these days. I've worked alongside more professional police in the Congo and Lebanon, but America, your country seems to get more terrifying for the law abiding citizen everyday.

What percentage of your population do you expect to be abused, assaulted and violated by unprofessional, trigger-happy, power-hungry-tripping "policemen" (and yes, I use quotations, because they are really thugs with guns who persistently fail to follow your country's legal framework and clearly show no regard for violating your ever preached about Constitution, which supposedly makes the USA the "greatest country" on Earth) before mass citizens will march on Congress?

I ask this as someone who genuinely cares for the common man, woman, and child. But, I cannot understand how you can have such a strong Occupy movement against the banks, yet when it comes to your civil liberties and personal rights, there appears to be no form of mass response other than rioting (which isn't the answer either).

There's a REALLY great book on civil resistance which I and many of my fellow journalist friends would strongly recommend you read, and consider applying. Check it out from your library and I promise, you'll feel drastically more informed over how effectively individual communities, towns and cities can stand up to abusive authorities and successfully alter the outcome in their favour.

I hope at least some of you pick this book up, and pass it along to your concerned friends.

u/LeeHyori · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

If you guys want an example that will really bring out the importance of philosophy in relation to politics (especially in light of this US election season), please take a look at this brand new book by Prof. Jason Brennan (political philosophy prof at Georgetown). It's very accessible even to lay readers, so no worries if you haven't studied philosophy before!

Jason Brennan, Against Democracy (Princeton University Press: 2016). Read the first chapter here for free to see if you like it:

It will really challenge your assumptions about democracy and a lot of other political institutions and structures you may take for granted.

If you want a general introduction to political philosophy, see this really easy short video series (super engaging) with Brennan, starting here:


Some other book suggestions:

  1. Michael Huemer, The Problem of Political Authority (Palgrave: 2013). Huemer is professor of philosophy at University of Colorado, Boulder. Here, he defends anarchism.

  2. You can read G.A. Cohen's Why Not Socialism? and then Jason Brennan's Why Not Capitalism?. This is on the moral argument for socialism vs. capitalism.

  3. Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction for a survey of all the major academic political philosophies today. This is a kind of undergraduate intro book that goes over theories like left-liberalism (Rawls), Marxism (G.A. Cohen), libertarianism (Nozick), communitarianism, and so on!
u/threeowalcott2 · 1 pointr/vegancirclejerk

Not to be a stickler, but you could easily argue that abstaining from voting is as sensible as going vegan, since it's all about supporting the status quo of a system that's based on unscientific nonsense. I've taken quiet an interest in democracy the past few years and the more I learn about it, the dumber it seems, kinda like animal agriculture.

If you're curious about the subject I'd highly recommend both Against Elections and Against Democracy. Democracy For Realists is pretty enlightening so far as well, but I'm not done with it yet.

u/hankovitch · 1 pointr/sociology

I don't share your view because of the same concerns raised so far. In any way, it's and interesting topic. Have you heard about this book? I think he's making a similar suggestion to yours (epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable). I haven't had time yet to give it a deeper view though.

Another thing I've heard about recently and found interesting is the following implementation of direct democracy. Suppose there is a public decision coming up. Instead of letting everyone vote, 10000 people are selected randomly from the population. These people are divided into small groups and send on several weekends to workshops in the countryside, where they inform themselves about and discuss the issue. It is important that both sides (of the matter the referendum is about ) are present and able to explains their view in depth. After this process the 10000 sampled people make a vote and that's the final decision.

u/escaday · 1 pointr/italy

Il filosofo Jason Brennan ha scritto un libro, Against Democracy, in cui esprime la sua critica al suffragio universale. Ti invito a leggerlo perché è molto interessante e offre vari spunti di riflessione.

u/zappini · 1 pointr/SeattleWA

Yup. The consensus is that voters pick a winning personality and then warp their views to match. Witness the flip Trump supports did on immigration.

u/zlefin_actual · 1 pointr/Ask_Politics

While I don't know any good general primers, there's a very nice book by Achen and Bartles about the effects of elections that's designed to be reasonably accessible to all readers. (except for some of the statistics stuff)


You could find a copy in your local library probably.

Even without a double major, you could look up the textbooks used by the poli sci classes and buy a used one, or maybe they have a borrowable one in the library.

Your college may allow people to audit classes (show up and listen, but don't get any credit/grade or necessarily do any of the work). auditing a few polisci classes would work then.

u/sasha_says · 1 pointr/Ask_Politics

Great recommendations already. I'll throw in Anarchy, State and Utopia though it may not be the best book club read.

Also, Ideas Have Consequences and The Conservative Mind.

u/LloydVanFunken · 1 pointr/politics

Moderate majority is not going to happen. The GOP's best bet would be leave the knee- jerk politics of the current right wing and return to the thoughtful conservatism of Russell Kirk.

u/Backwoods_Boy · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

For Conservatism at its best, you'll want to check out The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk. Another book you may want to check out is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke was the founder of modern conservatism, and Russell Kirk helped to revive conservatism in the United States.

u/sam_jacksons_dingus · 1 pointr/worldnews

> First off, they were civil penalties, not criminal ones.

Actually, it's both.

> the only reason it would violate peoples' right to free speech is because the American government decided that "Money = Speech"

They recognized that the two are inseparable. Expressing your political beliefs with your mouth in your home or on the street isn't the only kind of activity protected under the "right to free speech." You cannot separate free speech from the freedom to use the platforms on which speech occurs, and the platforms on which speech occurs cost money. There is no difference in terms of "power of censorship" between a government who maintains the right to ban media productions which cost money vs. a dictator who bans media on a whim -- both would have essentially absolute authority to ban virtually any piece of media.

Suppose the Trump administration banned the release of the following pieces of media by threat of civil and criminal penalties, using the F.E.C.'s logic in the Citizens United case as legal support:

  • Jon Oliver's "Last Week Tonight"
  • Michael Moore's documentaries
  • The Daily Show
  • Union pamphlets in support of Bernie Sanders
  • Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", published by, say, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster, or some other publishing corporation . (Or perhaps a hypothetical modern day equivalent to Paine's pamphlet?)

    Would you consider it a violation of free speech to restrict these pieces of media based on the money spent on them?

    > In pretty much any other country

    Most other countries don't value free speech.

    > not the actual act of making the movie, but having it on TV and advertising it

    If Trump banned your documentary criticizing him, would it be much consolation that the he didn't prevent you from making it, but only preventing you from showing it to people?

    > [I'd prefer access to socialized healthcare and free university education over the right to produce political ads].

    This isn't just about "political ads". The argument the F.E.C used was broad and sweeping and would give the government unilateral and uninhibited authority to block any speech it didn't like on any platform where people would actually see it. It might not sound scary when it was applied to a partisan documentary a few years ago, but court decisions are like laying bricks. And when a guy you don't like gets into power a few years down the road (or maybe many years), you might not like the ugly havoc he is able to wreak with the authority you have allowed him to have. So its incorrect to belittle its importance by phrasing it as "the right to produce political ads". No. It is the "right to free speech".

    In any case, the "trade off" question is ultimately a value question. To truly settle it would involve getting deeper into moral philosophy. I'll just say that my value system is very different than your value system, and under my value system, trading away free speech for a system where the government threatens to lock people in cages if they don't fund people's university educations or hospital bills is not worth it. This is especially true for education expenses. (In fact, you can already get a free education through the internet. You just won't have a piece of paper to show for it.)

    EDIT: Cut out some stuff to focus my message. Don't wanna get bogged down in side arguments.
u/Not_Pictured · 1 pointr/news

You too. I recommend .

I promise you I will read your book (I've been meaning to), if you promise to read mine.

u/DeismAccountant · 1 pointr/Naruto

My comment was an attempt to answer your question, but I admit I didn't make that part very clear. Of course you can't just rely on people's goodness, because people are neither inherently good or evil. They follow incentives, and in a society where people move on from rulers, there would be natural incentives for people to try and get along even if they didn't like each other, as These guys explain as their solution.

Power and authority positions, on the other hand, are inherently defined by being able to do harm and damage to one group for the benefit of another without the threat of consequence, as this video explains. This is the kind of action that the Cycle of Hatred is based upon, and is why any real discussion of peace must question the structures of power that are involved. In contrast, a action of trade that happens between two people only occurs if both people see it as benefiting them, so the things and rules that occur are only what people agree on.

People have written whole novels about these concepts, and there are a lot to choose from, like this one, but feel free to look around.

u/SwampDrainer · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/3goist · 1 pointr/news
u/wonder_er · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

This is the best argument I've read in support of taxation that acts as if the average an-cap isn't a lunatic.

Thank you for writing this up! You're raising the bar of discussion around here.

Since you wrote up on the idea of political authority, I wonder if you've read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer.

I cannot summarize the whole thing here (the reviews on Amazon do it better) but I feel like he does a good line of reasoning on the topic, and it was this book that made me (reluctantly) give up the notion that a certain amount of government was required.

And I do mean "reluctantly". I'm already used to keeping my political views to myself, because even without being an an-cap, I am pretty fringe in my political views. This just pushed me even fringier.

(He specifically addresses Kant's arguments in support of political authority. It's really good reading!)

Thank you, again, for this awesome comment. You deserve far more than the six points upvotes you have right now.

u/t3nk3n · 1 pointr/AskLibertarians

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

u/glowplugmech · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

"Nobody should be given the right to initiate violence against others without repercussions."

For clarity then, you believe that some people should have the right to initiate violence against others with zero repercussions?

>My definition of property doesn't matter. All that matters is that IF it is different than the AnCap one that AnCap will feel completely justified in taking what I think is mine and then possibly killing me when I try to take it back.

For anyone who is just getting started with the ideas of polycentric law and property rights I highly reccomend these two books.

>I'm not sure why you're linking to extraordinary rendition. Canada has never used it.

The Canadian Military and Special Forces have murdered countless people without trial. The Canadian justice system has imprisoned countless people for victimless crimes. And you trust these people to not use their written power to extract you from a foreign country?

>It makes me feel as though you're making things up. Mind substantiating all of that.

To be clear, you don't believe that the Canadian Government has the right to Extraordinary Rendition of Canadian Citizens? That is your position?

>What a completely terrible argument. Wow. Even if I were, why would I think AnCap is a good idea. Greed is one of the worst human characteristics. Greed + unrestricted capitalism + 'justice' = BAD

For anyone who is new to economics I would highly reccomend this book. Sowell is not an AnCap but he is a genius that has an unmatched perspective on history, and economics.

>Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. Are you suggesting that Capitalism doesn't sometimes lead to a consolidation of wealth/power in the few who then subjugate the many?

Of course I am suggesting that. All of the wealth consolidation happens after Nation States get involved in Capitalism. It even has a name.

>More like "When in Rome..."

If you keep insulting people on the sub then of course you are going to get a negative response. Maybe we should get a fresh start then? Stop insulting people and see what happens.

>Grow up.

It is apparent to myself and everyone else on this sub that you have not read the basics of the basics of AnCap literature. If you really want to stir things up then get some books under your belt and come back with arguments that are unique and thought provoking. The arguments you have put forth are tired and old. They have been posted a million times and refuted a million and one.

Imagine if Thomas Jefferson gave up because someone told him to grow up? You would be paying 80% of your income in taxes to some King who would be murdering and caging even MORE people than your current government does.

u/allaboutthebernankes · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Have you read (or are you generally aware of) Huemer's Problem of Political Authority? If not, I'd recommend giving it a read. If so, what did you think of it?

u/Washbag · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I also recommend looking up Michael Huemer on Youtube. You could also buy his book

although it is a bit pricey (but totally worth it).

u/Dr-No- · 1 pointr/Libertarian

This is a good empirical look at how anarcho-capitalism could work.

Huemer fully admits that getting there is problematic because it doesn't lever with human instincts and our natural tendencies. He proposes thousands of years of social engineering to get us there...good luck with that.

u/whats_the_point_197 · 0 pointsr/progun

[And there just so happens to be a well research book on this very topic.] (

Sure, an insurgency movement can be pretty effective at thwarting the attempts of an invading army. However, they don't have a great track record, when compared with mass non-violent movements, for bringing about any sort of society that most of us want to live in.

Edit: To clarify my point, I don't think it is a very accurate to compare insurgency movements to the reason that many people in the US cite for the reason to have their firearms; the ability to stop the government from becoming more authoritarian. There is a lot of academic literature on insurgencies, social movements and revolutions. Having read a lot of the literature on social movements and revolutions, I can't remember a single peer reviewed article or book that can show that access to firearms is a particularly important variable in the success of a revolution or social movement. If someone can point me to that literature, I would be happy to read it.

u/CaffinatedOne · 0 pointsr/technology

>We can govern ourselves quite effectively.

That's a pretty bold assertion. Do you have any examples of places larger than a town who function well via strictly direct democracy?

>We don't need the middleman of the politician. Only the rich want politicians to push their selfish agenda.

I think that everyone wants "politicians to push their selfish agenda", but most wouldn't class their agenda as "selfish" in their own eyes. "the rich" do have more resources to work the system though, but a direct democracy would likely make that advantage even worse. In a system where we just make all collective decisions directly, the ability to shape public opinion is paramount, and it's people with resources who can take advantage of that best.

>Why don't you give us some examples where these referendums haven't worked out well.
Hmm, In recent months Brexit leaps to mind as does Columbia's referendum on a peace deal with FARC to end their 50 year insurgency. Heck, I suspect that were a referendum held in the US as to whether to leave the UN, that it'd possibly pass...though it'd be a objectively terrible idea.

Anyway, more generally, there's a reasonable bit of research as into how voters make decisions and it's not really all that rosy. For instance, on a quick search, here's a study of AUS voters and how referendums on constitutional matters were considered

This highlights some core issues with voting in general that have gotten notice of late. A decent book on how it appears that people actually vote and the issues with prevailing theories is "Democracy for Realists". I've found it enlightening, though somewhat depressing, reading.

People collectively aren't the rational, informed electorate that we'd like to have and "more democracy" isn't always a good answer to political problems. Many policy issues are nuanced and require delicate balancing of interests and aren't easily broken down into simply digested bullet points. Referendums can be useful on clear, straightforward decisions where the details are fairly simple and the costs/benefits are fairly clear.

People have day jobs and generally aren't inclined to spend the resources necessary to really get properly informed on matters of policy well enough to make solid decisions. Presumably simplifying this to voting on representatives/parties who support policy slates to make the detail decisions should make that cost less, and voters don't even do that well per the evidence that we have.

edit clean up and I added some direct responses to a couple of other questions/assertions.

u/StillbornOne · 0 pointsr/de

Okay entweder willst oder kannst du es nicht verstehen, ich habe meine Argumente jedenfalls ebenso verständlich ausgeführt. Im Übrigen habe ich dich mit dem größten Respekt behandelt und finde es schade, dass du das anders siehst. Überheblich war ich zu keinem Zeitpunkt.

Vermutlich werden wir uns nur darauf einigen können, dass wir uns nicht einigen können. Ich kann dir aber gerne weiterführende Literatur empfehlen, falls du an ernsthafter Kapitalismuskritik interessiert sein solltest (1, 2, 3). Ganz nebenbei muss man keinen Gegenvorschlag parat haben, um eine Sache kritisieren zu können/dürfen. Ich glaube genauso wenig an Sozialismus oder Kommunismus (was einem ja quasi sofort unterstellt wird, wenn man den Kapitalismus kritisiert).

u/Fur_hat_linux · 0 pointsr/europe

>Yes, buildings generally have to be in places. Saying that the made-up accusation against Canada, which is solely based on the fact that it is located in Canada, is in turn proven by that very location is a special kind of circular reasoning. What exactly is your Wikipedia link supposed to prove?

I am surprised you have trouble understanding that "a buildings location" can have a HUGE influence on what that building does. If the building of WADA is on Canadian soil, dont you think that the government of Canada would have a say on what goes on? And my accusation is not made up, given that I live in Canada and if you open the World News section of any major newspaper here in Canada it will be anti-Russian and even Trudeau has declared Russia as Canada's adversary. So to say that Canada would engage in dirty politics against Russia is not a long stretch.

>Then you're absolutely deluded. There are no propaganda sources directly run by the government in any Western country like there are in Russia. Before you embarrass yourself with "muh BBC", please look into the difference between publicly owned and funded vs literally run by the government.

Except all of the channels in America belong to people with influence in the Democratic Party. There is a good video on the topic, I will see if I csn find it later but for now read this:

Also, the media in Russia is private and is not government run.

>Ignoring that this is exactly the same kind of whataboutism you applied to doping, no, we have not discovered that. If anything the past year has seen some stellar investigate reporting in Western media. What are you talking about? Concrete examples with evidence, please.

Surely you remember the alleged Trump Russian collusion as was touted by the MSM, well that is fake news and was invented by the media.

Here are some more examples:

You are delusional if you think that publically owned media cannot be manipulated by the government. Noam Chomsky writes about how big of a problem it is in Manufactering Consent

>That does absolutely nothing to answer my question. Do you acknowledge that Russian athletes doped and that the Russian Olympic Committee orchestrated systematic doping? Yes or no?

I acknowledge that some Russian athletes may have doped, as they do anywhere. I remain unconvinced there was a systemic doping program. Convince me.

>Which you have yet to prove. And "every other country" is quite the assertion without any evidence.

I already provided evidence that Norway uses steroids in asthmatic nasal spray. You conveniently ignored it.

46% of athletes in skiing, not just russian have returned an abnormal blood test.

It is very common.

>No criminals should ever be punished because some criminals avoid getting captured?

No innocents should be blamed for someone planting fake 'evidence'. Thats why many of the medals 'stripped' of Russian athletes have been returned as there was no evidence of systemic Russuan doping. Seen in link above.

>Since you claim both of these things happen "often", I assume you can name multiple examples of each and have evidence for tampering for at least several of them?

Look above.

>In your link to some obscure right-wing conspiracy site, there is nothing but conjecture and assumptions.

They provide links to everything that is slightly controversial. In addition they make a claim that most of the medals were returned to Russia - that is true. My thumbs hurt from typing on the phone. Get off your lazy ass and go research itnyourself. Perhaps you will stop thinking that just because its a "known" resource its somehow reputable.

>Right wing

LOL. How does whether something is right wing invalidate it? Its the Lefties that always lie and fabricate stories.

u/claymaker · -1 pointsr/todayilearned

@KubrickIsMyCopilot, Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. It's clear that you haven't read "Why Civil Resistance Works," which is the book that this article is based on, or you wouldn't be making this argument. The authors looked at data from the last 100 years of both violent and nonviolent conflict, which is what led them to the conclusion that nonviolent civil resistance is 2-3x more effective than violent resistance. They provide case studies of both violent and nonviolent revolutions that illustrate their hypothesis for why this is the case. Put simply, violence is barrier to entry for most people. Violence as a political tactic appeals primarily to a very small slice of the population, mainly men ages 16-45 years old who are willing to physically harm other people (this is actually a very small proportion of the overall population). Nonviolent resistance is able to incorporate people from all demographics of the population, including men who aren't willing to hurt others, most women, civil servants, artists, intellectuals, academics, clergy, etc. (i.e. the people who typically make up a movement). Here's where this gets really important: every revolution that engaged 3.5% of the population on a sustained basis was victorious, though many were succesful at a lower rate of participation. But that means if you get to 3.5%, then you win, according to the data. Here's the kicker: no violent revolution made it to 3.5%. You see, violence narrows the range of people your revolution can appeal to, so if you can only target males b/w 16-45 who're willing to hurt people for political purposes, let's be generous and say that's 10% of the population. That means you have to get 1/3 of them to participate in order to win (i.e. 3.5% out of 10%). However, if your movement instills nonviolent discipline in its leaders, then you can target up to 100% of the population (demographically), meaning you only need to recruit 1/30 to guarantee victory (3.5% out of 100%). Nonviolence is 2-3x more effective than violence when it comes to victory, but as a recruitment tactic, it's 10 times more effective.

Here's the author's TED Talk which lays all this out:

Here's a link to the book "Why Civil Resistance Works":

P.S. The historical reference to the Nazis is also fallacious. For example, look up the history of the White Roses (or watch the movie Sophie Scholl: The Final Days). The German population became more susceptible to electoral campaigns focused on "law and order" due to the street brawls breaking out between Nazis and communists. Violent resistance was a precipitating factor in Hitler's rise to power.

u/CupOfCanada · -1 pointsr/arabs

Well everything is a shade of grey. But generally the more violent, the less successful. I'm getting my info from this book FYI. Good read overall.

There have been pretty effective nonviolent movements though. The Velvet Revolution was pretty fricken nonviolent.

Different context of course.

u/australianaustrian · -1 pointsr/SubredditDrama

This may surprise you but anarchists have arguments against standard social contract theory and believe it is invalid. The first 3 chapters of this book make a decent case against social contract theory (sorry I can't find the chapters online):

u/RPrevolution · -2 pointsr/news

For those curious about the root causes of government corruption and the solution, I recommend The Problem of Political Authority

u/Ishmael_Vegeta · -2 pointsr/Nootropics

I doubt it.

If you really want to know more go read

Theres a free pdf of the book on his homepage too

u/mz6 · -2 pointsr/politics

So true. It is sad to see them turn into a SJW party and we all know the three fundamental laws of SJW:

  1. SJWs always lie
  2. SJWs always double down
  3. SJWs always project
u/ILOVEASIANCUNTS · -2 pointsr/owenbenjamin

645 reviews on a website people actually use to review books -

u/sentientbeings · -3 pointsr/AskMen

Anarcho-capitalism. Read:

u/jahouse · -4 pointsr/Anarchism

For introductory purposes, it's best to read surveys of the literature and tradition, simply because there are many anarchist schools of thought and people often direct you to read books from the school to which they are sympathetic.

I recommend starting off with [Peter Kropotkin's 1909 essay for Encyclopedia Britannica on Anarchism] (

Next, I'd recommend [Men Against the State] (, a historical overview of the American Anarchist traditions, which were a kind of anarchist melting pot but admittedly skewed individualist (you could probably find a free pdf of this quickly).

These books should provide good introductions to various schools. After that, just pick up the books in whatever school suits your fancy and enjoy.

My biased recommendations are Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism and Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority. They are both works done by conteporary academic philosophers but written simply and without jargon.

edit: It would be wonderful if whoever downvoted my comment could explain why.

u/thirteenodd · -5 pointsr/Christianity

Against Modern Liberalism

Where I feel that modern liberalism is in compatible with Christianity is that it supports a larger government that will restrict, among other things, religion. This happens even if it isn't done directly, through biased media and education (especially at the university) that warp our population's thought.

Against Conservatism

Where I feel that conservatism is not a truly Christian philosophy is that it also restricts, among other things, people's religious freedom. Most Christians just don't notice this because the things that conservatives tend to mandate (e.g. illegal gay marriage, all drugs illegal, etc.) are similar to Christian's personal beliefs.

I highly suggest that you read about libertarianism and Christian libertarianism.
Some good books are For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto and Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto.

u/callesen58 · -6 pointsr/Denmark

Meget relevant bog til emnet:

Den definitive bog omkring SJWs, misandrister og lignende.

u/CURRENT_YEAR_2017 · -12 pointsr/vegas

This book explains the entire phenomena pretty well:

u/ReasonReader · -22 pointsr/IAmA

> This is really disingenuous.

Nope. It's entirely accurate. You're the one being disingenuous.

>it was a symptom of the white supremacism and hatred

You're a liar, but that's no surprise. SJWs always lie.