Bitcoin Forum

OK, guys, here's what this thread is about: Over in the NAP thread, niemivh challenged me to read some books to see his point of view. I accepted, contingent on him reading books that I suggest in return. He accepted that, and so we now have struck a deal. His first book for me was The National System of Political Economy, by Friedrich List. My first book for him was The Machinery of Freedom, by David D. Friedman. To facilitate an enjoyable reading experience for myself, I have converted both of these into ePub books. As both books are freely available on the web, I see no harm in sharing these conversions with you. They are DRM free, and can be easily converted into any format of ebook.

The purpose of this thread is both to help me keep track of the reading and discussion, and to allow others to join in on both, if they choose, and make doing so as easy as possible. As such, I am hosting those ePubs I have created, and will include links to them here. If you wish to suggest books for us to read, feel free to do so, though books that are freely available on the internet are preferred. I'd rather not raise an economic barrier to entry to this discussion, if at all possible. I'll continue to host any freely available books, and post the links here.

So with no further ado, I present to you our first two books:
The Machinery of Freedom (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_-_David_D_Friedman.epub)
and
The National System of Political Economy (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/National_System_of_Political_Economy_-_Friedrich_List.epub)

My second recommendation is Healing Our World - The Other Piece Of The Puzzle, by Mary J. Ruwart (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/Healing_our_world_the_other_piece_of_the_puzzle_-_Mary_J_Ruwart.epub). My third suggestion is The New Libertarian Manifesto, By Samuel E. Konkin, III (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub). As my fourth, and probably final, presentation, I offer up Universally Preferable Behaviour by Stefan Molyneux (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/UPB.epub).

These books present a fairly broad cross-section of how libertarian beliefs have evolved over the years, and a firm basis on understanding my position.

 I will update this post again when I have niemivh's second suggestion.

Update: The discussion over my first book suggestion has gone in an interesting direction. Those of you wishing to do more reading on that subject might want to read The Case for Discrimination (http://library.mises.org/media/Our%20Enemy,%20Inflation/The%20Case%20for%20Discrimination%20Walter%20Block.epub) and Defending the Undefendable (http://library.mises.org/books/Walter%20Block/Defending%20the%20Undefendable.epub), both by Walter Block. These aren't my next suggestion for the "book club", but some additional reading for those interested in the topic.

The Dominant Animal (http://www.amazon.com/The-Dominant-Animal-Evolution-Environment/dp/1597260975/) - Paul Ehrlich
The Weather Makers (http://www.amazon.com/The-Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate/dp/0802142923/) - Tim Flannery
The Wolf's Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity (http://www.amazon.com/The-Wolfs-Tooth-Predators-Biodiversity/dp/1597263982/) - Cristina Eisenberg
Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development (http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Growth-Economics-Sustainable-Development/dp/0807047090/) - Herman Daly
The Future of Life (http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Life-Edward-Wilson/dp/0679768114/) - Edward O. Wilson

Note to armchair economists, libertarians, etc.: if you can't get a handle on the information that exists in the titles listed above, then you're not in a position to pontificate, speculate, or blow hot air about economic theory. And if you don't understand why, then once again, you're not in a position to spout your pontifications and speculations.

Opening of "The Machinery of Freedom" says:

The law compelling people to wear seat belts in backs of cars greatly reduced deaths and injuries.  Since people hurt in car accidents need to be be rescued, failure to wear a seat belt imposes a cost on everyone else. 

Is there any point in carrying on?  The guy clearly thinks society in an infinite money tree to pick up the costs of his carelessness. 

How, exactly?

I think you're making an assumption here that you shouldn't be.

Aaaaaand thread derailed by our favorite sock puppets before it even began.

Ambulances are not free.  Accident and Emergency wards are not free.  Coroners are not free.  Even if run  by a charity, they must be paid for. 

Of course. But why do you assume that these costs would be socialized?

Because you will never leave a injured person die.  Even if they are not covered by insurance, you will always send an ambulance.

Right, but that is a service, like any other, and there is no need to socialize the cost of any service.

Its a cost imposed on society by the careless.  Saying its not "socialised" may mean something to you but all I see is that people are wasting time and money that is not theirs to waste.

I won't reply now until I finish the book or give up.  After a shaky start, he finds his tone in the second chapter and its a good read.

Why should you have to pay for his ambulance ride? Why should anyone but him? It's his bill, let him pay it.

Oh, and enjoy the book. I'm still trying to work through the "history" part of Political Economy. I sure hope the "theory" part is less snooze-inducing.

Read my books, whether you like me or not. They're not snooze-inducing, and they will share with you facts about the world which your ideals do not address.

And just in case you didn't hear me:

Read my books, whether you like me or not. They're not snooze-inducing, and they will share with you facts about the world which your ideals do not address.

Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power by John Steele Gordon

Regarding the ambulance discussion, hopefully you will both be able to choose the option you prefer.  Personally, as anarchistic as I am, I'd probably still pay an HOA fee to provide transportation/clean up for injured individuals in shared areas (parks, water, roads).  And I'd probably choose highways that include at the very least towing vehicles & moving injured people off the road in their toll amount.  I'm not sure if this could be accomplished on a state or even city level though because I'd be forced to pay for places I'm not interested in.  I foresee a AAA ambulance service for yourself/friends/family instead of 911.

OK - read "The Machinery of Freedom" by David D. Friedman.

First impressions are that this was not intended as a book but as a series of essays submitted to magazines.  Some are very good; the writing is clear and the tone is light.  Some are just rubbish.  One of the likeable things about the book is that he freely and openly contradicts himself.  "Life is messy, these questions are complicated, why shouldn't I contradict myself?" is what he seems to think and I agree.  

The book was published in 1973 and the ever present threat from the Russians affects a lot of his ideas.  For those young enough not to remember, until 1976 it looked a safe bet that Communism would win and that our societies would be remembered as corrupt failures.  Friedman makes clear that freedom is better in economic terms - something we take for granted now but was radical in its day.

If try to summarise the book:
1. He is a small state libertarian who would like to have no state but doesn't see that as possible.  "I would still regard the government as a criminal organization, but one which was, by a freak of fate, temporarily useful. It would be like a gang of bandits who, while occasionally robbing the villages in their territory, served to keep off other and more rapacious gangs."
2. Friedman sees government as being the best answer as to how to provide defence.  He is OK with taxes for defence and with conscription if an enemy that requires that level of manpower appears.  The book was written during the Cold War when "big" wars were still possible so its understandable that he felt that conscription had to be an option.
3. Friedman hates the idea of a libertarian foreign policy but he does believe that its needed.  For example, he supported the US aid to the Shah of Iran including training of the secret police for use against democratic Iranians.  He was anxious to persuade Germany and Japan to re-arm to lighten the defence burden the US carried.
4. Friedman sees that government has to provide courts.  He prefers the idea of arbitration but "[Arbitration arrangements without some enforcement mechanism are a satisfactory substitute for the courts when the problem is merely an honest disagreement and the matter being settled is less important than continued good relations
between the two parties. In other cases, arbitration may be unsatisfactory if the arbitrator, unlike the court, has no way of enforcing his decisions. If one party refuses to accept a decision, the other's only recourse is to go to court..."
5. Friedman has an idea for private alternatives to the police and courts.  This is one of the chapters where he struggles to make sense.  He defines government as "legitimized coercion."  He imagines a robbery by a Joe Bock being investigated by a "protection agency" called Tannahelp.  This agency has the power to go after Joe, enter his property and punish him.  It chooses its own punishment if he does not submit to them.  This act of legitimate coercion makes it Joe's government.  There are no limits - it's staff can kill him if they feel like it.  
6. Joe may have a "protection agency" that is against the death penalty.  Joe has paid for this protection.  If Joe goes to arbitration, this agency can say they feel opposed to capital punishment.  Tannahelp is free to ignore this feeling.  Friedman thinks they won't "If the opponents of capital punishment feel more strongly than the proponents, the agencies will agree to no capital punishment." unless the person robbed has paid for capital punishment.  In that case, its steal a TV and you die.  Isn't that fraud on poor Joe?
7. Friedman thinks laws will emerge that represent economic value.  So in a free market of laws, stealing a TV will result in a proportional punishment.  The proportion depends on what percentage of TV thieves get caught.  Frankly it all gets a bit weird here but he thinks it will all work out well as the whatever the market provides is justice.


Criticisms:
1. Morals matter.  Even if racial discrimination is economically effective for whites, its still wrong.  Friedman implies a restaurant should be free to exclude blacks as part of the owner's property rights.  Fine - perhaps that is economically good for the white owner.  It's still wrong morally and that the law is right to prohibit it.
2. Law influences behaviour.  Everyone knows that seat belts save lives.  In a free society, 37% of people wear seat belts.  That 37% are the people who save up for old age, maintain their buildings and generally are the backbone of society.  When the law makes seat belt compulsory, 94% of people wear them.  That extra 57% of the population are the people who will do the right thing if told to but otherwise are just passengers on the ship of state.  6% of the population won't wear seat belts come what may.  Any plan for society has to include that 6% of stubborn misfits. Friedman's ideas only work for the "nice" 37%.
3. Religion matters.  Where I live, a free market in law would have female circumcision legal and beer illegal.  Just because the market comes up with this, that doesn't make it right.  
4. Foreign powers matter.  There is an essay on how the anarchic system in Iceland was destroyed by a foreign power picking sides in disputes and ending up controlling the country.  Recently we have seen a decent society in Somalia destroyed the same way by Ethiopian sponsorship of clan wars.  We may soon see the same in Libya.  Anarchy is unlikely to work but even if it does, you can't go first or you will have foreign powers create civil wars.
5. I think the market is over-rated.  Just because something makes sense to an economist does not mean we have to live by it.  Who made Paul Krugman or Edwin van Mises into God?  If a decent society is slightly poorer, then who cares?  Morality always involves doing without nice stuff.  Otherwise we would all be saints.

Good stuff:
1. Friedman is great on monopolies.  
2. Friedman is great on school vouchers.  In Ireland, if you are unhappy with your school, you can withdraw your child and the budget goes with her.  The effect is that schools have to struggle for excellence.  For all of Ireland's problems, it still churns our educated people at very low cost compared to the US and UK.
3. He is great on the US welfare system.  Americans tax the poor and subsidise the middle class and he rightly tears into that system.
4. The whole book is driven by facts and logic.  For example, I bet that he would change his mind about seat belts now that we have facts and figures that were not available in 1973.
5. He is funny about how libertarians respond to criticism: "When I put such questions to other libertarians, one common response is a frantic attempt to reinterpret the problem out of existence."

Surprise:
He dismisses the ideas like the NAP as meaningless.  I did not expect that at all.

Good book - thanks for the suggestion.

The problem is, he views harm done to the passenger as a result of him not wearing the seat belt as a cost to society, and I view it as a cost to that passenger.


1. Agreed, racial discrimination is wrong. That is why I would not patronize an establishment that practiced it. I would tell my friends about it, and suggest they might want to avoid it as well. By practicing racial discrimination, the shop owner has excluded an entire segment of the population, as well as another, potentially larger, segment of your potential customers (even with the policy) that disagrees with the policy. So, it might work, but an inclusive policy would get people more business.
2. These stats are all very nice, but the fact remains that someone who does not wear their seat belt endangers only themselves.
3. No, not where you live, for the people whom you live near by. I suspect you will cry, "semantics!" but it's an important distinction. Also, keep in mind that they would need to negotiate deals with the other REAs in the area, meaning that making something objectionable like female circumcision "legal" would be more difficult than placing voluntary restrictions on behavior, such as banning alcohol.
4. This is actually your best point. Realistically, I can't think of a way to prevent this, aside from arbiters that allow a foreign power to influence their decision losing the reputation of impartiality that they depend on for continued business.

As I said, I know its economically better for the restaurant owner to exclude blacks but its still wrong and in a decent society, it will be illegal.

No, it's economically better not to exclude blacks, or any other ethnic group.

If you have 100 potential customers, of all creeds, skin colors, etc, and you turn away 25 of them because of one of those factors, you now have only 75 potential customers. If there are enough people who disagree with that policy that if voted on, it would be made illegal (in this case, 51 persons), you have further reduced your potential customer base. Even assuming that all of the excluded group object enough to vote against it, you've still reduced your potential customer base to 49.

The other 51 people, your excluded group included, would go elsewhere. That means you are giving your competition more business than yourself. That's not good business, especially when you consider that not all of those 49 potential customers will translate into actual customers.

My review mentions how Friedman has the exact problem with other libertarians that you are giving me.

Really, don't do that.  Saying that the business owner has miscalculated does not mean that its OK to allow him exclude blacks.  Its his business and if he thinks selling to racists is the best way to profit, that is no reason to make it legal.

Do you agree that excluding blacks from jobs or businesses should be illegal?

No, I don't. I don't believe it should need to be illegal. I agree that it is wrong, but telling someone "no" does not harm them, regardless of why they are told "no". Excluding someone from business on non-related terms only hurts the person doing the excluding.

Sorry the society you want is very different from one I would find acceptable.  Your being OK with mobs lynching people suddenly is a lot more sinister than when I thought it was merely misplaced idealism.

I'm disgusted.

If this is truly what you think I believe, then you're denser than I thought.

Another incorrect assumption on your part (among the endless parade of incorrect assumptions you make). You are mistaken in believing that a business owner will always operate in an economically rational way.


Quite an awful conclusion you've drawn there. It speaks volumes about how sloppy you are in analyzing your own thought processes. Now tell me, why would someone who chooses to not wear seat belts only endanger themselves? They're likely endangering their children through their own rules or beliefs, as well as possibly their childrens' friends when riding in their car.

You believe the only victim of racism is the person who is discriminated against.


Really? Then who is this myrkul guy I am quoting?


You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black.  And you want a society where people can hang a man themselves.

Disgusting.

I want a society where nobody has a positive obligation to anyone else, unless they choose to.

I mean, seriously? Asking an anarchist if he thinks something should be illegal? What did you think I would say?

If your ideas lead to a set of results that are morally repugnant, then its time to rethink.

Which result is that? I want you to elucidate it in no uncertain terms.

You believe the only victim of racism is the person who is discriminated against.  The laughable thing is that you say only the person discriminated against suffers.  Perhaps blacks should pay people not to do business with them?  After all, you think they are not the victims.

A society that operates on that basis is morally repugnant.  If you don't want that, you need to rethink.

You contradict yourself.

The discriminator loses money, or an employee. The discriminated against can seek employment, or whatever service they were seeking, elsewhere, where they will not have to do business with a bigot. The discriminated against has a more enjoyable experience, elsewhere, and the discriminator is out business.

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Have you even read the book?  The impression you give is that you are doing what Friedman complained of: "When I put such questions to other libertarians, one common response is a frantic attempt to reinterpret the problem out of existence." 

Racism is real and racists did very good business until they were forced to stop.  I would not support living in a society that has signs up saying "Whites Only."  I don't care if it is or is not profitable.  Saying that racists are the ones who suffer is irrelevant - I don't care if they are ruining themselves.   Its not a morally acceptable way to run a society.

If you are OK with it, that's fine.  Its good to be clear what you stand for.

You avoided answering this question.

Its a question on another subject.  Why waste time on it?

The subject here is the book you chose.  It says that the owner of a business should be free to deny employment and service to people based purely on the colour of their skins.  Not something they can change - something they are born with.

That vision leads back to a society with "No blacks need apply" at the bottom of job descriptions.  Saying that the blacks are better off if that happens doesn't make it OK.  Saying that the business is losing out on diversity and on black workers doesn't make it OK. 

Because it is on topic to the discussion: Discrimination. I ask again: Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

Yes.  The topic is racial discrimination.  That is an example of behavioural discrimination.

EDIT for clarity.  Thats a yes - if someone is badly behaved of course the business can deny them employment or service.

Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?

So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?

Why are you wandering off onto talking about behavioural discrimination?  No-one is born saying "God bless."

No, but religious discrimination is often just as prevalent as racial.

I just want to know where your boundaries are. Bear with me, and answer the question?

It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.  Friedman is OK with "No blacks need apply" being legal as part of a job description and with "Whites only" restaurants.  I'm not.  You are.  So your vision of society is going to be very different from mine. 

Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?

No simple answer.  I grew up with Catholic only and Protestant only housing, education and businesses.  Of course that is bad and its now illegal.  That doesn't mean that a Protestant has to accept an application from a Catholic to be the local pastor.  So on religion the law has to assume that discrimination is bad except where it is needed.

But we are speaking of a shop owner, refusing business. Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?

No.

OK, thank you. Now that I have gotten you to outline your position, We're going to switch gears a little. Why, exactly, is discriminating on the basis of behavior OK, but race and religion bad?

Sorry not wasting time on this.  I had expected you to be opposed to legalising discrimination based on race.  You aren't. 

No, no... this is important. You may even be able to change my mind here. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong. I honestly want to know why you are OK with the shop owner refusing service on some terms, but not on others.

There is a difference between refusing service based on how a person is born as opposed to how they behave. 

But religion is a behavior. It can be changed.

You know, boring someone to death is not a way to persuade them of anything.  I've done you the courtesy of reading the book.  To be honest, I expected Friedman to be in favour of the NAP and the conversation to be about that.  Instead you want to talk about why racial discrimination should be legal and to wander up and down a list of things that may or may not be offensive.  Its clear that you will go on forever - no thanks.

The real thing here is where the author of the book stands.  Friedman was favour of allowing racial discrimination.  He is also in favour of the military draft.  You agree with him on allowing racial discrimination.  I assume you agree with him about conscription being OK.  Where does this leave your advocating the NAP?

You assume incorrectly. As I have said, I advocate a completely voluntary society, and the draft is decidedly against that. You can safely assume that anything that would require a state, I differ in my opinion on from the author.

Now that you have failed to explain why you believe that some behaviors are an acceptable basis for discrimination, and others are not, allow me to explain why I defend all discrimination:

The store owner owns his property. It is his store. It is his goods that he sells there. If he chooses not to sell them to someone, for whatever reason, that is his choice. Forcing him to do so against his wishes is a violation of his property rights.

Well if you don't agree with Friedman, why did you ask us to read the book? 

Wise words, Hawker. May they serve you well!

Ouch! 

Because I can respect a man's position, even if I disagree with him. Also, a moderate position is a better introduction than an extreme one.

So its a good book but you don't agree with it? 

lol fine. 

I don't agree with all of it. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law. Perhaps you would like another book to read? I can suggest one much closer to my own views, if you like.

But you don't agree with the description of market law.  What you describe and what he describe are very different.

Have you actually read the book? 

I found nothing to disagree with in the system of Market law described in the book. Either you misunderstand my position, his position, or both. I suspect the latter.

You haven't answered the question.  Have you read the book?  Tell me what chapter you are talking about.

Yes, I have. The chapter I am speaking of is "Police, Courts, and Laws - on the Market".

And you agree with that chapter?  Or is it only some sentences in that chapter that you think are ok?

I said I found nothing to disagree with regarding the system of market law described therein, did I not?

I have just skimmed the chapter again, to be sure, and I saw no sentence that I disagreed with. I may have missed one, but I doubt it.

One thing I did notice, that I dislike, is that he uses the word "court" when referring to private law. He makes it clear what he is discussing upfront, but though I would prefer he use "arbiter", he can be forgiven not using a new term when speaking to an uninitiated audience.

We start with "Government is an agency of legitimized coercion."

We come to Joe being accused of stealing a TV.  Tannahelp, the security company, tells him to surrender himself or they will take him by force.  Joe has his own defence company.  The dispute goes to arbitration and he loses.  Tannahelp, the security company, at this point is an agency of legitimized coercion; it has the authority to take back the TV and to punish Joe.  

In effect, Joe has a new government called Tannahelp, hasn't he?  

Anyway they decided to kill him.  Joe's agency, Dawn Defense, may object that this is too severe.  He may have paid them to make sure that no-one ever has the right to kill him.
In this case, "If, by some chance, the customers of the two agencies feel equally strongly, perhaps two courts will be chosen, one of each kind, and cases allocated randomly between them."

On other words, its a random chance whether or not Joe gets killed by his new government despite his explicitly entering a contract that said he was not to be killed.

So, these private companies can arrest and kill you merely on suspicion if you don't have a security company.
If you do have a security company, its random chance whether or not you get what you paid for.
If you lose at arbitration, you lose everything.  You can be killed if the arbitration company selected by your new government allows that.

You think all that is OK?

As I suspected, you misunderstand the position, or are deliberately distorting it. Read the chapter again, paying special attention to the section (which is 4 paragraphs long) which begins "But wars are very expensive,"

I've understood it fine. 

If Joe has no defence agency, he can be killed.  I take it you are agreed on that?

Are you gonna ask a critically injured person -  do you have money? Or save him first?

Deliberately distorting it then. Thanks for your honesty.

If he has no Defense agency, he is still capable of signing the same agreements to arbitrate with the other agencies as they are, he's just on his own for defense. Those who refuse protection would most likely be the "survivalist" types, and be armed to the teeth anyway.


Me? I don't run an ambulance service. But if I did, I'd find it hard to collect if my patients died while waiting for insurance to clear, so I would focus on keeping them alive first, and worry about payment later. Thus the use of the word "bill", as in "bill me later"

You avoid the question.  If Joe has no defence agency, there is no restriction on Tannahelp killing him is there?  They won't be investigated, let alone punished.

So if he can't pay who's paying? In emergency rooms they don't check really for insurance, they treat you. If you don't have insurance and can't pay then the cost will be passed to the rest of society. I.e. it's socialized.

This merry-go-round again? We've covered this. My arguments haven't changed. Go back and read 'em.

If nothing else, then there is always charity. You may (and probably will) argue that that is still socialized, and you're right. But they voluntarily agree to pay the bills of those who are unable to, and that is an important distinction.

OK, so you are for legalising racial discrimination and for having agencies that have a right to kill on suspicion.

Well, the book seems to refute your position on the NAP so unless you have changed your mind about it, I think we are done.

Business owners don't have to behave in an economically rational way.

Don't be obtuse. The real world isn't how you imagine it. Are you mentally incapable of augmenting your limited knowledge with the complexities and issues which don't conform to your simplistic model of the world?

It's irrelevant. Said business will still operate. Are you that stupid? I believe so.

Preemptive defense of your book titles?  You've got some passion.  Reminds me of me.

 ;)

Yes, he (D. Friedman) is batshit insane with a nice, soothing voice.  Makes you just nod and accept what he's saying. Here's a condensed video version of what I presume the book of the same name advocates for. 

"The Machinery of Freedom"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#

Ha, well, this is the kind of stuff I read all the time.  Most of the contemporary stuff is garbage compared to classics back when the intellectuals actually lived up to the name.

Most of the libertarian clowns here never factor in the actual foundations upon which an economy runs. Without resources, an economy is dead in the water. Furthermore, libertarians suffer from the belief that a free market, by virtue of diminishing supply and rising prices due to a diminishing supply, harvesting of a finite resource will diminish. That's one of their most fallacious assumptions. In actuality, when the price of a resource goes up due to diminishing supply, there is increased competition, effort and technology applied to harvest that finite resource into non-existence. It happens every time. A pure free market sans regulation is death to us all.

Of course, of course.  I was just smiling about how you attacked people without even letting them reject your books first.  As if they had to be browbeaten into reading them.  It comes across as slightly insecure, so you probably don't need to do that.

Cheers brother.

 :)

I've recommended the books five or six times to deaf ears. It's not insecurity. It's called knowing that the libertarian clowns won't read the books because they don't want information that is inconvenient to their ideals. And thus they perpetuate their own ignorance, and by extension, their own desire to continue with their silly ideas.

In myrkul's case, I strongly suspect he hasn't even read the book that he recommended himself.   The Machinery of Freedom sets out a nice logical framework for why a state is needed, why the state is entitled to use conscription, why certain types of activity can never be allowed without licenses, what kind of foreign policy is needed and so on.  None of it matches what myrkul posts about here.  I'm slightly baffled as to why he recommended it a book that requires him to refute its central points.  Its as if he hadn't gotten around to actually reading the book before recommending it.

That is interesting, but really not that unexpected.

As I said:

Yes, that is the video which first interested me in Mr. Friedman's work. However, if you listen to the entire presentation, and not just that abridged version, you'll note that he has changed his position on the necessity of a state for conscription:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A
If you've already watched the first one, you can skip to the last 10 minutes or so.

At 34 minutes in, he admits that his idea is "imperfect" because it requires that there be no serious enemy since the Soviet Union is gone.  In other words, if things get ugly with another big power, his requirement for conscription s back on the agenda as is its justification.

Have you read the chapter called "Problems" where Friedman outlines why the NAP is not an adequate basis for government, he justifies taxation and he justifies conscription?  Do you accept his logic?

I did not see a justification for either taxes or conscription in that chapter, But I can see where you might have. He states, quite correctly, that if one were to to take libertarian principles and blow them out of proportion, the results would be quite silly. The examples of turning on one's lights, or breathing into the atmosphere are good examples. Examples to which I have a workable answer: Harm. If harm comes to you, then I am liable for repairing those damages. Obviously, shining a flashlight at your door would cause little or no harm. A high-powered laser, however, would cause significant harm.

As to the "huge invading army needs opposing huge army, and thus conscription," No, no it really doesn't. First off, the huge invading army will trigger a response from the defense agencies, some of whose clients may have had discounts for agreeing to fight with them should something like this occur. So we have a militia. Add to that the fact that unless they are pacifists, each home will be defended by the home owner. Finally, add the fact that with no laws against their ownership, private citizens can, and probably will, own any weapon available, up to and including nukes, in some instances. Those add up to this simple conclusion: Invading an ungoverned area will be costly in both funding and lives, not to mention time, since there is no central power to take over. If an invading army took DC, both sides would probably count the war as over. With no capitol to take, the territory needs to be taken house by house. Imagine playing a game of chess where one side had no king. Winning that game would be possible, but expensive, and long-fought.

Preaching to the choir.  Sorry, I didn't know you had already recommended them to these people multiple times.  But that was prior to Book Club!  Since this is Book Club they may take your advice and read those books.

 :D

 Out of those books which do you think would be the most important for a Libertarian to read?

There is much in the book I recommended that I don't agree with, it's just that (the book I referenced) does a good job dispelling certain aspects of what is false about the Free Trade school of Adam Smith and other British Imperialists, much of which was imported or laid the structural foundation for Libertarianism.

So, I can see the need for referencing a book that one doesn't agree with wholly, but IDK what Myrkul's motivation was.

Now the operative word becomes "proportion", which means whatever vague and arbitrary constraints that the Libertarian wants to apply to his interpretation of the holy doctrines.  It's like religious factionalism, the central tenants are so cumbersome and unwieldy that the cult-professors spouting this swill have to apply limiters and arbitrary guidelines to it that actually contradict the central tenants spirit and language.

But that's the point, isn't it, that the doctrine itself is completely arbitrary. 

Rest assured, my next suggestion will be much more what you are expecting from me.


Good job, there, cutting out exactly where I said the line should be drawn, and how that is determined. Let me spell it out for you again. H A R M. if I harm you, I am liable for recompense.

All of them. Seriously. I've never heard a libertarian even be aware of the information, data, and dynamics presented in all of those works.

For a comprehensive overview of humanity's footprint all over the world, Paul Ehrlich's book The Dominant Animal would be a good one.

For a solid understanding of economics as it should be studied and taught, Herman Daly's Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development would be recommended.

For a very detailed study of the importance of life on this planet, Edward O. Wilson's book The Future of Life is an excellent recommendation.

For a solid understanding of the dynamics and importance of a balanced ecosystem, I'd suggest The Wolf's Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity by Cristina Eisenberg.

Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers is a solid tour of climate change science.

Read it again.  First he deals with the NAP, then the rifle example is a justification for taxation and then he justifies the draft.  Your idea about resistance is dealt with. 

OK, I re-read the rifle example, and I think I see how you call it a justification for taxation. In no place does he describe it as such, but you at least do admit that tax is a theft, and a rights violation, though one intended to prevent a greater one. But the theft of a rifle to prevent a massacre is not the same as a theft of money for unknown purposes. Nor is that money ever returned, while the rifle can be, and is, with compensation for its use, and likely extra compensation to make up for the fact that it was taken against his wishes.

Which brings me to my next book suggestion: Healing Our World - The Other Piece Of The Puzzle, by Mary J. Ruwart (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/Healing_our_world_the_other_piece_of_the_puzzle_-_Mary_J_Ruwart.epub) I was going to wait for Niemivh to finish reading the first one, but the discussion has progressed to the point where it's time for you, at least, to read this one. He'll just have to catch up. In the meantime, I intend to see if I can't finish Political Economy.

As to the draft, I point out this:

Define 'harm'.

I'm about 100 pages in, I'll have to stop making so many notes and references in the margins so I can read it faster.

 :)

Actually, I think "Damage" would be a better term to use, as it's more precise, especially in the legal sense:

dam·age
   [dam-ij] dam·aged, dam·ag·ing.
noun
1. injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness: The storm did considerable damage to the crops.
2. damages, Law . the estimated money equivalent for detriment or injury sustained.

Well I'm about half done with the book.  Outside of some of the interesting things he says about the school system this book is total garbage.  It's ideological drivel, he spends (in some cases) single paragraphs on something as complex as import tariffs and leaves the reader to a conclusion based on something so brief.

This book, leads the reader to believe that he is somehow qualified to talk about the myriad of topics that DF glosses over in typical ideologue fashion.  He can never actually talk about a single thing in depth, because if he did he would run out of rhetoric and actually have to start discussing details.

He's also very lazy, many things in the book say "I think" or "I believe" about things that aren't hypothesis but relatively easily verifiable facts.

If you pick a page of this book I can likely expose it for the ideological fraud that it is - and this should be evident to anyone, that isn't already a 'true believer'.

Put the book down and read one of these:

A bit harsh.  I don't agree with DF but for something as potentially dull as a long political tract, he does very well.

Please summarize Ruwart's more salient points. What does she propose? What problems does she identify? Please provide some random samples, or the most important ones, or anything at all. I'm all ears.

If you truly were, you would read the book. It is no more - and in fact, significantly less - than you are asking of us.

I have seen zero acknowledgement by you of the books I have recommended. I have seen zero questions from you regarding the books I have recommended. I have seen zero interest by you of the potential material that resides in the books I have recommended.

I have twice now tried to engage you about the material that resides in Ruwart's book.

You are invited to discuss the material in Ruwart's book and engage me on the material that resides in the books I have recommended.

Then I ask you to do exactly the same thing I am doing for you: Provide me, free of charge, a copy of the books to read. Once I have a copy of the books, I will read them, and discuss.

I don't know if I can find a freebie for you. Please discuss Ruwart's work.

Please read Ruwart's work, so that we may have an intelligent discourse on it. Summaries are available on the internet.

Please go to a library and get a copy of one of the books I recommended to you.

That is not free of additional expense. I can understand why one might be unwilling to leave the house (or work, as the case may be) and head to the library. What you are refusing to do is click a link. You have literally expended more energy refusing to do a simple task that I require before discussing the book with you than you would have spent doing it.

Perhaps you should expend some energy in making a book available to you. And perhaps we could all take the material more seriously if we knew we were both serious about reading the material.

I can click the link and skim the book. You will not be pleased if that is the case. Or I can promise to read the book from front to back in a serious manner. That might occur if you put forth some effort on your part.

I have already put forth effort into making that book available to you. It is stored on my Dropbox account, so that I can be sure it will always be there, it is formatted in a manner which is DRM free and easily convertible to any format, or readable directly on your computer. Or, I could, If you would like, do no more than you have done expecting us to read the books you suggested, and post a link to Amazon.

I will not respond to you any more on this subject, until you have indicated that you have downloaded and read the book.

I would, but right now I'm trying to focus on Libertarianism as much as I can.  It is for a much larger project that I am working on that I try and direct my attention in this direction first.

I'll add them to my Amazon wish list though.

=]

Has anyone here read "End the Fed" by Ron Paul?  That's a book that I wrote a 4000+ word review on (it was 8 pages).  You can find that here:


http://www.amazon.com/review/R18XZNCCILPI7I/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B006J3V150&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful


If I had that much to say about Paul's little manifesto then I would have to write about a 30,000+ word summary of "The Machinery of Freedom", which hopefully I won't feel impelled to do.

At that point, really, you should just write your own book. And I honestly have to say that I would like to read that.

Thus the reason you should read the books. Now. Each and every one of those books presents real world data and issues which demand solutions libertarianism cannot offer, and essentially denies. Attacking libertarianism as an exercise in one philosophy against another is not enough. Working one's way through the concept of money and monetary policy is not enough.

Ehrlich's book does a thorough job of exposing the libertarian think tanks for what they are - sham organizations masquerading as authorities in the subject under discussion. More importantly, he provides such a comprehensive and thorough grand tour of humanity, and the development of the social structures it has created, and the problems it has created, you couldn't help but find material therein on nearly every page to arm yourself for the self assigned job ahead.

Daly's work does a thorough job of debunking the concept of economic growth as driven by the free market.

Flannery's book makes a mockery of the libertarian think tanks' absurd agenda of denying climate change.

The other two are equally important. Delay reading them, and your book on libertarianism will only be weaker.

The first post has been updated with two new books, sadly both from my perspective, I am beginning to wonder if niemivh was serious in offering me anything to read. In the mean time, I suppose there's always Alongside Night.

Downloading.

Maybe I'll give these a read if I can ever get myself to read a book anytime soon. Game guides and forums are one thing... :)

Finished the book, the 2nd half was better than the first.  Such a strange book, he dispels many tenants of what people would refer to as Libertarian ideas yet still calls himself Libertarian.  This sort of proves my point that if you had a room of 100 different Libertarians you'd have at least 100 (if not more) different conceptions of what the policy would be and probably at least half as many theories of the what the ideology actually is.

But what I said quoted above still stands, it's mostly drivel and I had to resist writing between every margin.

That's what I'm going part time at my job to do.

 ;D

I've read about 110 books in preparation on the relevant topics yet will have to probably read another 200 to 300 books to write the book that I intend to write; it's going to be a well-researched, well-argued book if I can pull it off.

Yes sir!  Although debunking what is traditional "Leftism" will be a topic of a later book I intend to write, so I hope they come at it from a different approach.  Why I'll be writing that one later is that the traditionally "Leftist" ideologies are more complex and, some, are even more abstract so it's going to be harder to make that case.

I tried to find my earlier post, but can't, it vanished.

So, I guess the top five books closest to "what I believe" would be the following:

*  "National System of Political Economy" by F. List
*  "Harmony of Interests" by Henry C. Carey
*  "Report on Manufacturers" by Alexander Hamilton
*  "Sophisms of Free Trade" by John B. Byles
*  "Surviving the Cataclysm" by Webster G. Tarpley

These books I mostly agree with, although there are plenty of books which I agree very much with certain elements of that would make this list quite long.

I just can't imagine you attempting to write a book on Libertarianism without a thorough debunking of all of the following:

- Heartland Institute
- Cato Institute
- George C. Marshall Institute
- Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
- The Oregon Petition
- Frederick Seitz

Excellent. Are any of these other than the first available online? I'd be more than willing to provide the same service as I have for it.

That's a great point.  I haven't done the sufficient research to show the backing of all these artificially created flavors of Libertarianism, although that is a part of the book I intend to write, it is a part to which I'm going to need to do sufficient research.

That is, unless you'd like to help me write it.  It's more for the public good that I'm embarked on such a project than anything else.

 :D

Yes, you should be able to find all of them quite easily online as a PDF except Webster Tarpley's book.  He's the only person living on this list and therefore still has to make a living at his work.

Although I would read Tarpley's book last.  It is like 600 -700 pages and is very dense and assertive of a writing style.  The guy's clearly a grade-A genius, but his writing may come across a little abrasive because he doesn't have much sympathy debating those that he should be instructing.  I've talked to him on a few occasions (I was let into his secret little club of activists) and he conducts his meetings like he writes his books, odds are, if you are disagreeing with him you better reconsider your premise.  He's who Jeff Rense calls "the greatest living historian" and it seems pretty accurate to me.

Good. I'll put turning them into epubs on my "to do" list.

Also, before the accusations start flying about, I am most in line with the spirit of Hamilton, Carey and Tarpley.  F. List and J.B. Byles both had imperial aspirations but both give exquisite and throughout debunking of the then "traditional economics" (the father of modern Neo-Liberal or Washington Consensus schools) found in Smith, J.B. Say, Ricardo and Malthus.  That is why I recommend, and admire their works, because their insights and deconstruction of that mass of sophistry that was (and is) traditional (establishment) economics is admirable.

For "Harmony of Interests", I cannot find an intact text. The most inclusive excerpts I could find are here: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1851-1875/carey/harmxx.htm
Will that be sufficient?

I believe this is the entire text of "Report on Manufacturers" by Alexander Hamilton:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s31.html

Looks like Archive.org has already done most of my work for me on "Sophisms of Free Trade":
http://archive.org/details/sophismsoffreetr032056mbp

If these documents meet your approval, I'll add them to the top posting once I'm done converting them.

Here is Hamilton's "Report on Manufacturers", although that one you have looks like it may be intact, it posted me on Chapter 4.  If it's a complete work then that's great too.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Report_on_manufactures.html?id=gCk5AAAAMAAJ

This looks good for "Sophisms", although it's missing the first chapter for some reason:  http://books.google.com/books/about/Sophisms_of_free_trade_and_popular_polit.html?id=iZYBAAAAQAAJ .  If your link doesn't work for some reason, use this one I found.

As for "Harmony of Interests", does this work?  http://books.google.com/books?id=UukpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

I just bought all these books in the physical sense, which was a little bit expensive, but I probably spend a few hundred on books every month, so I don't feel the sting as much - I'm used to that financial pain.  I'm still resisting the eReader technology, I'll be the last hold out.

 :P

The problem with the Google version of "harmony" is that it is a PDF with pictures of pages rather than pages of text. PDF is the worst format to covert from, and that's the worst kind of PDF. The other two both have epub versions, which essentially means my work on them will be limited to making sure the formatting isn't screwed. So, while I'm doing that, if you could find a PDF version of "harmony" that has text, or better yet, a plain text version of some kind, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Yeah, my books was basically just printed scans of these pages and had a bunch of artifacts and nastiness.

But this is the real history of the USA's prosperity, the ruling oligarchy that we presently labor under did a heck of a job burying this history and removing it from the realm of academia.  It's this hard to find an actual unmutilated copy of it.

(I'll post it if I find it)

Hi, how far are you along with those books?

 :)

They are essentially complete, but you showed no further interest, so I have left them sit in my dropbox folder. I'm not motivated to search down a legible copy of "harmony", but if you want, I can add those two links to the OP.

So you are not reading them then?  Why is that?  What am I supposed to read that you posted other than Agorism and Steven Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior"?