The best Free Enterprise books: Reddit reviews

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I was listening to an EconTalk with Shoshana Zuboff about her book "Surveillance Capitalism". She mentioned how tech giants have this cycle of getting their products out in the market:

1. Do whatever they want
2. When someone complains about it, just stonewall them for years
3. During these years, keep producing the products, keep extracting data. She called this habituation.
4. Years later, when the lawsuit finally reaches it ends, barely anyone knows wtf they were complaining about in the first place, and, by then, people are just accustomed to these data extracting products being in their homes.
   1. But if they have to do something, then do something small and meaningless that doesn't change the fact that they're fleecing everybody for their data.

For anyone still on the fence around the potential dangers of surveillance like this please read this book immediately:

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610395697/

We have unknowingly given these companies ultimate power over our future. Three men control the majority of the world's opinions and have the ability to force their worldview on everyone.

This is the syllogism they are using.

A) Black people use this social program B) Republicans want to cut this social program

Therefore, Republicans want to cut social programs because Black people use them.

So if you want to cut welfare you hate black people. If you point out that the large majority of people who use welfare in America are not black, so why you hear, "DIBRPORITONALLHY BLACK." These people have no idea what a proportion is or what it should mean. Ask someone, "What is the proper proportion that something should be of another thing?" They have no idea and can't unpack it.

Recommended reading.

Bonus points, if instead of talking about disproportionate black people they instead say "people of color" you can ask them how they got so racist that they would use an old-timey racist phrase like "colored people" AND lump in all races into one group as if Cubans, and Italians, and Arabs and Indians and African Americans and Koreans are all the same, have no special identity that matters to them and their only feature is not being white. Sounds like a white supremacist talking point, doesn't it?

Edit: People should actually just read this book instead of launching misinformed and unrelated arguments against what I said. It turns out the professional academic goes into a little more detail and cites extensive sources, unlike my exceedingly brief reddit comment. Literally, go read a book. It's very short, because half of it is citations.

I think the term is Imperialistic Warmongering.

Source: Shock Doctrine

Scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds. Neoliberal foreign policy is one of torture, of both the people and the economy. Would you like to know more?

This book explains the history and thinking super concisely. But broadly, GOP needed a voter base that wouldn't question power of the state being handed over to private industry -- thus they won over the devoutly religious who wouldn't question anything beyond simple morality. Then beginning with Carter, and going full steam with Reagan, to escape 70's stagflation (rising inflation causing a stagnant economy) America rejected the economic theories of the preceding 40 years under Keynes and embraced slow but steady deregulation of all markets and public services, or at least everything they could, under the guise of "small government" and an ideal of the individual. Around the time of Clinton's presidency, Democrats could do nothing but sustain the cycle as Reagan had butchered much of what was previously under government ownership -- to turn the tide back would be far too costly and lose the election, as it would be a total U-turn of the country.

Read Naomi Kleins book on the subject. It is a serious eye opener.

https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999

Short version here

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/06/naomi-klein-how-power-profits-from-disaster

"Neoliberals" aren't some kind of "new liberal," exactly. It's a defined set of political and economic beliefs, based on property-relations and a fetishization of "free market politics" as a system of ethics. Please take the time to read up on it, it's real and horrible.

For example, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan, and Hillary Clinton can all be accurately described as neoliberal, due to the economic policy decisions they pursue.

https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273

Fuck off. Its a prosperous government for corporate interests and the wealthy, not the people. Which is exactly how neoliberal economies are designed to function (thanks Milton Friedman). Don't even talk about "converting through violence" after what Pinochet (with American help I might add) did to socialists and any nominally leftist people; thousands tortured and disappeared after a coup against a DEMOCRATICALLY elected socialist government under Salvadore Allende. You do some fucking research you lying ghoul.

I spent a good deal of The Machinery of Freedom on my reasons for that opinion. The second edition is a free pdf on my site, the third an inexpensive kindle on Amazon.

The obvious evidence would be if someone set up something close to my model and it did or didn't work.

https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Manga-Karl-Marx/dp/1926958195/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1547703443&sr=8-1&keywords=capital+manga

The feeling of “inevitableness” is part of the strategy google and other data company’s are pushing so we feel helpless to stop them. Stop being helpless and merely accept the digital world the way (and extremely lucrative) Google and Facebook want it to be.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Harvard’s Shoshana Zuboff’s 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is a fantastic overview.

Everyone should read this book to have an idea of what type of world we should be trying to build.

In speaking about neoliberalism, David Harvey argues that neoconservatives needed to build their platform and did this in part by appealing to evangelical Christians. I notice that other people have asked you to consider what you mean by religious people, but I'm guessing you're speaking specifically (or at least toward) evangelical Christianity. It's complicated, but as someone who studies neoliberalism I love Harvey's marxist interpretation of the phenomena.

>1.«sortir 700M de chinois de la pauvreté» > >Un autre succès du néolibéralisme baby 😎: https://www.amazon.ca/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273 >

'neolberalisme' ! lmao

est-ce que la nep de Lénine était du néolibéralisme pour toi aussi ?

What this sub thinks it is

What this sub really is

Well I'm glad Apple users are being forced to wake up at least. There's a mighty solid apathy about surveillance in most Apple users.

And speaking of surveillance and how it has already turned the world on its head, this is also available in audio so your can get your wake-up on in the car.

https://www.amazon.ca/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273

in case you want to understand why that word keeps coming up. (it explained why a trump like figure rising to power was inevitable, while being released in 2007 which is kind of neat)

There's a Marxist called David Harvey who's been pushing that angle. He has a degree in geography but he's the expert on neoliberalism according to Breadtube.

People see his book and they're like "see, the word on the book says 'neoliberalism' and there's a picture of Ronald Reagan right there!"

I got one for you. https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=asc_df_0517548232/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312143020546&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14064139728793496808&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9029557&hvtargid=pla-434022124246&psc=1

And what about people who dislike her for the lies and economic ignorance she spreads? It never ceases to amaze me that people actually believe that her ideas are feasible. I can just say that X should be free too; that doesn’t magically render X immune to scarcity. Do yourself a favor: read this fantastic book on economics and start being part of the solution instead of the lunacy.

C'est le nom kitsch pour néo-libéralisme.

Je pense que les gens sont assez réducteurs et assigne le style de Trump aux politiciens qui font les cons sur les réseaux sociaux. La réalité, je pense, est que Trump et ses imitateurs sont le résultat découlant d'une politique initialisée il y as plus de 50 ans d'ici. Je conseille de lire le livre lié un peu plus haut.

I feel that there is one thing that anybody who is questioning their beliefs can do: research. I used to lean fairly Authoritarian, and hardcore Right-Wing. However, I decided that it would best to purge all of my previously held opinions, and base them strictly on facts. After about two months of research, I found that Libertarianism is the most logical ideology in modern politics. I would recommend that you read or watch Free To Choose (book) (miniseries) by Milton Friedman, and it change your view of the world.

You seem to be looking at content mostly from the left but if you'd like to see something from the other side defending capitalism, Milton Friedman did a Book/TV Show in the 80s called "Free to Choose", which he made to promote the idea of free markets in a way your average joe could understand. It was apparently a response to John Galbraith's "Age of Uncertainty" which was a similar format. They have debates at the end of each video between rather important people on the ideas presented so you can see the other side's take as well.

Anyways heres the TV part I found on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4&list=PL0364ACCE6C7E9D8E&ab_channel=CommonSenseCapitalism

and heres the book on Amazon if you'd like to buy it: http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431390061&sr=8-1&keywords=free+to+choose

Neoliberalism understood by scholars pretty much just refers to a larger trend towards economic liberalization, rather than a specific set of policies. This is why is the ideology as popularly understood can encompass political figures ranging from Deng to Pinochet Economic liberalization like you said pretty much refers to favoring markets over government and overall increasing the role of the private sector in the economy. Austerity is somewhat related in that it accompanies this larger trend of reducing government spending but I wouldn’t really say austerity is a neoliberal thing- especially since it often accompanies raising taxes which is definitely not neoliberal.

No. We're already products (Free services from Google, YouTube...). Do not want to subject myself to that type of physical quantification and control.

I recommend that you read this book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1610395697/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_fDZfFbS565K16

1: Yes, humans are flawed, that's why I said it won't be perfect, it's impossible to make it perfect.

2: There could be private courts that offer arbitration as a service. The 2 parts would base their decisions on the reputation of the judge, and agree to a judgment when they both think that he will be fair.

You could have a private insurance company that would use it's economic power to put pressure on the other part to accept the judgement, so he couldn't escape the law.

I recommend the book The Machinery Of Freedom, by David Friedman. He writes about how stuff like this could work.

Giving a comprehensive answer for why the State shouldn't exist is really too lengthy for a Reddit post. Here are some of the main approaches and a few book recommendations.

Murray Rothbard favored a deontological approach. People have a natural right to private property and aggression (initiation of force) is never justified. A State must initiate force, so its existence is immoral. His book The Ethics of Liberty is a good summary of this.

David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman) favors consequentialist arguments to justify a stateless society. Monopolies will tend to give worse results and higher prices, and he argues that monopolies on law and policing are no exception. His book The Machinery of Freedom is a comprehensive analysis of how he thinks a stateless society would function.

Michael Huemer uses an intuitionist approach. What allows government employees to commit acts that private citizens couldn't do without being imprisoned? He doesn't think there is a legitimate reason for this, and goes through most of the well known arguments for the social contract theory in his book, The Problem of Political Authority. However, he does concede that a State could still be justified on consequentialist grounds.

I think you would be most receptive to David Friedman's ideas. The Kindle version of his book is only $2.99 on Amazon and it's a straightforward read. You would also probably get more satisfying answers in r/anarcho_capitalism. r/Libertarian is more for minarchists. I hope that helped.

Discrimination and Disparities https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541645634/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4kCuFb699QVY1

Her entire argument is trashed by a much more intelligent man than her. Thomas Sowell is the boss when it comes to these topics.

Quote him and watch them call him a racist. Then drop a picture of him. 😂

Oh yeah, that’s what keeps happening. If you ever want to get a good overview of how everything works, I recommend this book. It’s not too long and speaks in plain language. No charts or equations needed.