Top products from r/AnCap101

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State is a great book that covers this in great detail. It's a history without much narrative, so it's a dry read, but I think that's for the best.

https://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417

It outlines how, for example, Mutual Aid/Fraternal Order societies were able to contract with doctors for groups. A wage worker could afford a year's worth of preventative and non-emergency treatment care for from a week's to a month's worth of wages.

The American Medical Association formed and lobbied the state for protections, was succesful, this was the downfall of these societies over time and played a major role in pushing the idea of state regulated healthcare.

In my opinion this opened up a nightmare on the American populace that has lasted ever since.

As a disclaimer, I haven't read the book, but it seems as though the published edition does not contain the offensive artwork, nor was it ever going to if the parties involved had any objection to it. Also, I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems like the controversy between Chase Rachels and the Mises Institute may be more nuanced than one might think.

Rachels claims he tried working with Hoppe and the MI in good faith prior to the publication of the book but that they were unwilling to work with him and even went so far as to lie about their dealings. I am obviously not privy to all the details and as such I am withholding judgement for either side, but I am wanting to provide some clarity if I can.

Saved and will read chapter draft tonight, thank you for detailed response!

>Everyone thinks they are being paid too little and that they pay too much.

Hm that's pretty accurate actually. I see what you're saying.

>Firstly, it's not making him apologize, but making him compensate his victim to the fullest extent feasible. Apologies can be insincere, but compensation can't.

Can't argue there. You got me.

>Sorry, I don't understand what you meant here. Maybe you can clarify.

Control thinking is creating and implementing strategies for meeting needs instead of honestly expressing/assessing individual needs and making a request (not a demand).

Example of control thinking: Joe raped Phil, let's make Joe pay / feel ashamed / apologize

Example of honestly assessing needs and making a request: Joe raped Phil, I imagine Phil needs security, space, gentle reminders of the community's respect, counseling after some time has passed, and maybe an invitation to a recovery group. How many of these can we afford? Who's willing to invest? Why did this happen by Joe? What were Joe's needs? Can we make him part of the community involvement, helping him, and would he also be willing to invest in any of Phil's needs?


---
Also saving your links here for myself for later:
>More info on that in David Friedman and Pete Leeson's book Legal Systems Very Different from Ours, which has a very interesting chapter on Medieval Icelandic law. You can also read a (very early, but good enough) draft of the chapter here.

> What would you (or most other male customers) consider fair restitution for buttrape tho?

In these cases what the victim (for example me) considers a fair compensation is not what matters most. Just like what I think would be a fair price for what I buy or sell. Everyone thinks they are being paid too little and that they pay too much. With normal market transactions, the price is regulated by competition. In the case of a violation/arbitration, the compensation needs to be regulated by a third party (when there was no previous agreement between the parts setting what the compensation should be).

> My point was that some crimes you can't "fix" by essentially making the perp apologize.

Firstly, it's not making him apologize, but making him compensate his victim to the fullest extent feasible. Apologies can be insincere, but compensation can't.

> It's more control thinking, "this is unfair, therefore I'll make it fair." Rather than, "these people have needs that can't be fixed alone, how can we help them?"

Sorry, I don't understand what you meant here. Maybe you can clarify.

> That's kind of cool about Iceland, is there a list somewhere out there?

More info on that in David Friedman and Pete Leeson's book Legal Systems Very Different from Ours, which has a very interesting chapter on Medieval Icelandic law. You can also read a (very early, but good enough) draft of the chapter here.

MUTUAL AIDE SOCIETIES: Origins of the Welfare State in America

http://mises.org/daily/2225

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State

http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417
____
Welfare before the Welfare State

http://mises.org/daily/5388

"Mutual aid was particularly popular among the poor and the working class. For instance, in New York City in 1909 40 percent of families earning less than $1,000 a year, little more than the "living wage," had members who were in mutual-aid societies.[2] Ethnicity, however, was an even greater predictor of mutual-aid membership than income. The "new immigrants," such as the Germans, Bohemians, and Russians, many of whom were Jews, participated in mutual-aid societies at approximately twice the rate of native whites and six times the rate of the Irish.[3] This may have been due to new immigrants' need for an enhanced social safety net."

By the 1920s, at least one out of every three males was a member of a mutual-aid society.[4] Members of societies carried over $9 billion worth of life insurance by 1920. During the same period, "lodges dominated the field of health insurance."[5] Numerous lodges offered unemployment benefits. Some black fraternal lodges, taking note of the sporadic nature of African-American employment at the time, allowed members to receive unemployment benefits even if they were up to six months behind in dues"

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.