The best Non-US Legal Systems books: Reddit reviews

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

According to the dictators handbook: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

You should always pay your military.

Edit: if you are like me, then you will read this book and think HTF is Trump president when he is a complete idiot to these rules? Well, sadly, it all makes sense if Trump isn't the 'real' leader here..

You can't directly help, but there are things you can do: Learn. Understand why this is happening and how to fight it. Then, teach.

The book "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (Amazon link (non-affiliate)) completely changed how I process information about these kinds of things. It talks at length about protests in dictatorships, why they happen, and why they sometimes don't happen. How governments fight them. How and why our own governments sometimes help and sometimes don't.

I really, really highly recommend it.

Shapiro is worthless a thinker and his ideas are totally tainted by the fact that he is a partisan hack. Anyone who has written a book that is called How To Debate and Destroy Leftists, has exposed himself as a shill for one side. I think we would do well to dismiss people who demonstrably argue in bad faith, like shapiro.

Also I don't see how this is relevant to Harris.

It would be naive to assume he's actually killing drug dealers. I recommend The Dictator's Handbook before making any assumptions about why a dictator is allowing violence against a group.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

For example, let's say an earthquake hits your country and affects 100,000 people on the verge of starvation. Let's say 50,000 support you and 50,000 don't. Guess who isn't getting a single dollar of relief regardless of how much money streams in from Western charities.

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.

Trump has learned a lot from authoritarian, corrupt leaders throughout history. His playbook is literally from stuff like this https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

> The U.K. has an armed ruling class and disarmed citizenry, which supports this. > > So... Like most of the world outside of the US?

I'm fairly certain that's not true. An armed citizenry raises the opportunity cost of establishing martial law, which is good for helping establish a government with more freedoms. Soldiers willing to shoot at and be shot by their neighbors cost more than soldiers who aren't willing to do that.

you make it sound as if I personally take some EU funds. And you have a really condescending attitude. "You take our money, we helped you, so you must listen as we tell you". From my perspective (I am Czech), it was Germany and Russia who fucked my country up 80 years ago. One side Nazis killing slavic people because they were untermenschen, on the other side fucking USSR. If it were not for these two countries, communism would not have decimated eastern Europe. You need some history lessons

https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471

and nowadays we see history repeating itself. Gemany is no more nazistic and imperialistic, but it is spineless and enabling another fascist Regime, which is current Russia. Russia is again threatening other countries

He created this himself, this is the book he wrote:

>Amazon: Ben Shapiro: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument

​

And here: Youtube: Shapiro's only reason to debate the left voluntarily (timestamped)

Other than being forced to or for the unlikely chance that you've found the only honest leftist in America, here is the only reason Shapiro can find to debate someone on the left:

>Shapiro: The only other reason you should ever have a conversation with anyone on the left, is if your are in public in front of a large audience and then your goal is to humiliate them as badly as possible. That is the goal of the conversation.

Sure. But because of the big sort, I would wager a bet that a significant number of us live in deep blue places. In those places, the DSA really does matter a lot more than the figures suggest for city council, school board, state rep, or whatever local office, most of which have a reasonably material impact on your life.

Furthermore, the median user of r/neoliberal is probably as likely to have a friend that's friendly toward the DSA as they are likely to have a friend that's friendly toward the GOP.

>But but but libertarians tell me if there were no laws they would be double super honest! After all if the laws are already ineffective surely having none would be soooo much better...

No libertarians don't actually think that. They just think having a strong central government makes it easier for companies to do their bullshit, not harder. Just continuing to use the US as an example, as a dishonest corp you have to just bribe one central entity and they have vast powers to re-write laws to favor you and eliminate competition so you can do whatever you want. By contrast if you have a weak central government there isn't a strong entity to corrupt and you have a vast array of different groups to corrupt to get your unfettered access, such as the various independent organizations covering things like standards, ratings, reputation, credit, mediation, security, etc. And none of them have a monopoly they can be easily replaced by more reliable entities. Just as a real world example of what such groups look like see things such as UL (Electricity standards), ISO, ANSI, credit bureaus, etc.

Continuing with real world examples, with the EU parliament getting stronger every day, you can expect those consumer protections start to erode. It's much easier to bribe some MEPs than it is to bribe every legislature from every separate country in Europe. Article 13's just a preview of things to come. All countries naturally gravitate toward more government power and less freedom as seizing a nation's capital to remain in power as long as possible is the end goal of all politicians.

The only time that happens is when the military allows the people to storm the established regime - almost always because the established regime didn't give the military leaders enough money. Typical people cannot, have not, and will never destroy a standing state army.

Relevant CGP Grey video for clarity, but honestly the book Dictator's Handbook is much more thorough.

The Book he based that off of is called The Dictator's Handbook. Its his primary source, and is fantastic.

Been listening to it on my way to work over the last 3 weeks.

Read it, or be like me and listen to it.

I think you will be surprised to learn that what you have come to understand about neoliberalism and the positions supported by this sub are not always in alignment.

Make sure to read <em>Why Nations Fail</em>. Your first book report is due in two weeks.

Ben Shapiro literally admits that he argues in bad faith. He wrote a book about it https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2

This piece of shit should never be given a platform ever again to spew his dogshit opinions, because that's all they are. Anyone that unironically listens to Ben was probably a massive loser in school.

Here's an Amazon link

And on Audible

Totally agree. Shapino possesses a fraction the intellect of, say, William F. Buckley Jr., and I already disagree with nearly everything good ol' Buckley had to say. Shapino says all the same shit but less competently and with worse packaging.

He's also got a sense of entitlement the size of a planet, which is revealed any time he comes up on someone who actually challenges him and he throws a tantrum.

He literally wrote a book about how he doesn't argue in good faith. As far as I'm concerned, just the fact that he wrote this book calls everything he says into immediate question, even without knowing that he's also lied repeatedly about statistics (especially when discussing trans people and trans rights) and misrepresented the sources he cites.

I'm always baffled by the sort of people who say things like, "I don't agree with him, but I do like watching him wreck college kids." Like, why? What does society gain from Ben Shapino going around on multi-million dollar college tours, spreading "ideas" that don't hold up to any sort of academic scrutiny, and embarrassing kids who are still trying to figure their shit out?

I guess I just don't get what's appealing about that.

e: phrasing

Nu exista dictatura a omului ideal, pentru ca nu poti face nimic singur.

Citeste The Dictator's Handbook si uita-te la video-ul lui CGP Gri.

He wrote an e-book openly explaining that this is his strategy when arguing. There's even a lecture version you can find on YouTube where he expands further and claims that arguments with leftists should never occur for the purpose of mutual understanding or good faith discussion, but rather should only be done in public in order to humiliate them in front of as large an audience as possible.

I believe it was the same lecture where he advised conservative college students to pretend to understand "left wing ideas" taught by their professors in order to get good grades on tests and graduate. To me, this seriously calls his academic credentials into question. "Harvard grad" means a lot less to me when the grad in question freely admits to having intentionally eschewed the lessons being taught in his classes in order to preserve the pre-existing views from his upbringing. At best, it's indicative of extreme closed-mindedness.

Thanks! Snyder is a great writer. Bloodlands is definitely worth the read -- it's a look at the mass killings under the Hitler and Stalin regimes. If that sounds like both-sides-ism or something, it's more like 'political mass murder' is itself the center of the story, often told from the point of view of its victims.

I know you think you're making jokes, but it's dead on the truth. There's a book by that ~~manchild that talks fast~~ ben shapiro, ~~can't rember the books name or his name but it's a manual on how to own libs~~ the book is called "how to debate leftists and destroy them: 11 rules for winning the argument". It's illuminating when you read it. One of the key points is to turn the conversation around and make yourself a victim.

edit: link to the book on amazon I can't link it, or even suggest googling for a pdf of it because that would be against site rules, but I imagine it would be very easy to find a pdf.

related reading

Democracy is pretty terrible and broken. It also happens to be the only known form of government we know of that forces leaders to govern in the public interest.

> By the way the only one of those categories that is a challenge to capitalism is the bleeding heart liberal.

&#x200B;

This is true. The real threat to capitalism are the bleeding heart liberals, such as comrade Bono, Robert "Red scare" Redford, and Paul "little Gulag" Mcartney.

&#x200B;

>The far left will get her hair dye at Walmart or Amazon

&#x200B;

I recognize this rhetorical rapier well. You must be a pupil of the Shapiro method of Leftist Destruction, unquestionably. Former practitioner of the art, I am. I once found myself debating a female and I was like listen you tainted whore, you claim you are a leftist, and yet I see you are wearing shoes that where made by CAPITALISM. Heroic victory.

Deficit spending isn’t suppose to be a critical tool, just increased spending that can also happen to be deficit spending iirc. Basically we shouldn’t be afraid to spend more during recessions as many nations have previously made the mistake of cutting spending back and trying to treat the government as a business when revenue went down.

Also the 3% isn’t arbitrary, essentially 3% of the GDP is suppose to allow the deficit to not out pace GDP growth during booms as the nineties and some of the 00’s exceeded that: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

Also, the punishment isn’t that arbitrary either, as the purpose of the punishment would be to take away the incentive of going into debt as politicians generally have one goal: to get reflected. Or to maximize: (marginal votes obtained /marginal campaign dollars spent). Enforcing the status quo is the reason they go into debt. They subsidize companies that are major employers because no one wants to be the reason why their voters are unemployed (due to factories moving out of the voting district) when the next election comes around: there’s a good video on this and I believe it pops up on YouTube if you google “political engineering, Boeing." Luckily, one of my favorite political science books goes into it and I would check it out: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

You only need the part after "dp". Check this out:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?dchild=1&amp;keywords=why+nations+fail&amp;qid=1599749492&amp;sprefix=why+nations+f&amp;sr=8-3

Will take you to the same page as:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307719227/

Good URL hygiene is important!

You're absolutely right that every one of these region is a combination of every political stripe.

This is just a thought experiment. One that was partially born out of theories such as those in The Big Sort. We have already begun physically relocating to be around people who share our values. This project poses the question, rather than this happening at random with all the constituent portions still under the rule of one political party that doesn't represent most of the constituents — what it it was directed with each broad group getting its own "homeland." The title was a direct riff of the Isreal/Palestine 2-State solution term. Since this is nothing more than a thought experiment, I even evisioned a home exchange program — something where a conservative family from California could swap with a liberal family from Georgia.

Of course this is unfeasible and impractical and would never be executed as nice and smooth and neat as this graphic suggests. Its nothing more than an idea I wanted to work out that doesn't deserve any consideration beyond existing on a subreddit for a few days.

Maybe, it's correct to say that divide in America is not between right and left. I personally don't believe that in post-modern world ideology really matters, e.g. China

But, the divide is between globalism and nationalism

We must realize that Cold War is Over, and therefore America or World couldn't be run by post-WW2 order.

We can see that after the end of threat from Soviet Union, American foreign policy doesn't serve interest of American people. Also, Europe and America are no longer in capacity to maintain stability in poorer countries of Africa and Asia. Therefore, room needs to made for regional powers as well.

But, Mega Corporations of the West don't want it happen. As they've vested interest for security of their asset across globe. So, the West needs to maintain military presence around the world.

Also, aging population, which will likely require huge trade deficits is big concern for Developed Nations, including China as well. Therefore, they require their currencies to be global reserves. So, military presence is necessary, in order to implement it's will on weaker countries, as seen in Iraq and Libya.

ref books: - Accidental Superpower - Peter Zeihan - Asia's Cauldron - Robert D. Kaplan

Mandatory Neo-Liberal Reading.

IIRC Bill Clinton recommended the book, too. Basically, for the past 30, 40 years the US has been becoming increasingly tribal. And as specific factors- race and religion, in particular- start mattering less and less, politics start becoming the driving factor, but because politics have become the wedge issue, we're also seeing some shit where people specifically seek out places that reaffirm their own politics. Like, I live in Washington state and while most people seem to agree that they're pretty lukewarm on Trump at best, everybody seems to hate governor Inslee, probably because he's not doing anything to protect gun owners- many of whom are democrats- from what Seattle decides it wants. Seattle being the place that regularly elects communists- self avowed communists, not just people left of center I dislike.

>Sure, Shapiro can't be held responsible for that,

In a way he can, Shapiro's book:

>Amazon: Ben Shapiro: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument

Also, Ben Shapiro's book:

>Amazon: Ben Shapiro: How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument

&#x200B;

And here: Youtube: Shapiro's only reason to debate the left voluntarily (timestamped)

Other than being forced to or for the unlikely chance that you've found the only honest leftist in America, here is the only reason Shapiro can find to debate someone on the left:

>Shapiro: The only other reason you should ever have a conversation with anyone on the left, is if your are in public in front of a large audience and then your goal is to humiliate them as badly as possible. That is the goal of the conversation.