What are /r/LibertarianDebates' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

This quote from Frédéric Bastiat might illunimate: > “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Many libertarians, like myself, believe we need a government. Just drastically limited in size and scope of what we have at present.

This is, imo, a republican cognitive dissonance. Republican's are quick to claim WW2 got us out of the depression and other such ideas. Ignoring this is just Keynsian economics from a different window, lets look at another republican claim.

The cold war was won because:

> . Under the assumption that the Soviet Union could not then outspend the US government in a renewed arms race, he accelerated increases in defense spending begun during the Carter Administration and strove to make the Cold War economically and rhetorically hot

here

If that is the case they just had to spend more. Which is wrong and why?

Because American college students are greatly over-represented on reddit. According to Alexa most redditors have some or no college education. Additionally, an overwhelming majority use the site from school.

Hazlitt writes about it in this book Economics in One Lesson. For me, unions are a necessary evil. As long as they do not get too crazy - like forcing companies to hire someone to turn off the lights and play solitaire the rest of the day, they do some good. They have an effect on improving worker conditions/hours.

Might I recommend Henry Hazlitt's <em>Economics in One Lesson</em> (free online/pdf, first published in 1946, 25 total chapters)? I do not consider myself an expert in Austrian Economics, but rather a student and this fairly short (relatively short) read helped me to understand what mechanisms are used in a market to help allocate resources efficiently contrasted with the government's reallocation of resources.

Edit: To elaborate the book does not focus on a specific government entity but rather common government policies across all nations.

The standard argument that I have seen used is that efficiency is not the most important thing for all issues, but I think your question highlights the fact that the ultimate outcome for inefficiency in a world of scarcity can be death or at the very least reduced standard of living and quality of life, e.g. homelessness/unemployment.

This is way late (sorry) but here is an excellent video by khanacademy.org explaining monopolistic competition and economic profit.

It's funny that you praise a book ridiculing the myth of the rational voter, but in the same post praise a book like Economics in One Lesson, which is founded on it's own myth of a rational spender.

A warning to OP: anyone tries to tell you "x is really simple," or "this is all common sense," or (my favorite) "it's just basic economics" you should take this as evidence that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

OP you should read Hazlitt and Huemer, try to fully understand and buy in to their philosophy, but take it with a grain of salt when you're done.

People that try to argue that the state is corrupting the economy, while simultaneously arguing that the richest people benefitting from said state are "just more frugal" than everyone else, are speaking with a forked tongue. The historical reality is that the richest people in the world have gained and maintained their status through hierarchical systems of privilege. The state is a manifestation of the privilege, not the generator of the privilege.

Yet this hasn't happened in most western countries who have universal healthcare. Where the check is coming from doesn't really matter. Doctors in Canada, for instance, aren't being "forced" to operate, they're just being forced to do their job. It's just like any other contract really. The only difference is that they don't have their hands ties with regards to what treatments to prescribe due to budgetary restraints of the patients. They're also under no obligation to perform surgeries or procedures which they don't agree with morally. "Force" is really the wrong word to use in this instance.

And Adam Smith even recognized that government ought to be involved in the economy. His argument was never for voluntary exchange or fairness, it was purely economics. The Wealth of Nations was largely an amoral economic treatise.

Noticed a lot of books. Others got you a good start on economics and philosophy so I will add just this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Right-When-Government-Wrong/dp/1595553509

Fantastic read for a libertarian perspective on legal matters. Very easy to read and inderstand. Though i will warn you that some of his other writings can be a little dry.

Also this site:

http://www.learnliberty.org/

Short videos (usually about 5 min long) that explain and discuss individual concepts like the minimum wage, economic regulations, trade, poverty, drug war, gender wage gaps, and even a few on how the EPA actually helps polluters pollute. I use this site a lot when debating because they do a good job explaining something i just dont feel like typing out.

Anything specific you wish to ask about? Feel free. I am always open to discussion.