The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion

Please submit your nominations for our May-June group read nominations on or before Monday, April 14th.

Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty

"What are the grand dynamics that drive the accumulation and distribution of capital? Questions about the long-term evolution of inequality, the concentration of wealth, and the prospects for economic growth lie at the heart of political economy. But satisfactory answers have been hard to find for lack of adequate data and clear guiding theories. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty analyzes a unique collection of data from twenty countries, ranging as far back as the eighteenth century, to uncover key economic and social patterns. His findings will transform debate and set the agenda for the next generation of thought about wealth and inequality."

End the FED by Ron Paul

"In the post-meltdown world, it is irresponsible, ineffective, and ultimately useless to have a serious economic debate without considering and challenging the role of the Federal Reserve.

Most people think of the Fed as an indispensable institution without which the country's economy could not properly function. But in END THE FED, Ron Paul draws on American history, economics, and fascinating stories from his own long political life to argue that the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional. It is inflating currency today at nearly a Weimar or Zimbabwe level, a practice that threatens to put us into an inflationary depression where $100 bills are worthless. What most people don't realize is that the Fed -- created by the Morgans and Rockefellers at a private club off the coast of Georgia -- is actually working against their own personal interests. Congressman Paul's urgent appeal to all citizens and officials tells us where we went wrong and what we need to do fix America's economic policy for future generations."

Surely not the norm for suggestions but I found this book informative, and it provides a great opportunity to look "in depth" at a critic's views of one of the most powerful entities in the United States. At the very least it gives an opportunity to find out what you don't like about it ;)

Jarod wrote: " End the FED by Ron Paul"

lol

Seriously? Do you only read things that support your own world view?

Jarod wrote: "Seriously? Do you only read things that support your own world view?"

No, but I do laugh every time someone suggests I take Rand Paul seriously.

Its Ron Paul, who is actually significantly different from his son.

This does raise a question of respect and tolerance however. Anyone who has different views than you simply has had different life experiences. Just because you disagree doesn't mean their opinions can be any less valid. In all honesty by holding that idea of "he can't be serious" you are not only retarding the conversation, but also limiting your own growth and potential.

Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality by David Cay

Jarod, I'll read "End the FED" by Ron Paul if it picked. I recommended we read a Charles Murray book not to long ago. There are a lot of problem in libertarian views, but progressives and libertarians also have some things in common.

Much obliged. Modern Liberalism and Progressivism is honestly a revision of classical liberalism. I was telling Malcolm on another thread that besides economical differences Libertarians and Liberals have quite a bit in common. Of course, they also have quite a bit different as well.

But I find the idea that politics must drive wedges in between individuals, and in many ways herd citizens into groups so that they can present an "us vs. them" strategy to make voting easier. Politics should never be the deciding condition on how you judge someone. If that was the case I wouldn't have my best friend, who without going into detail is generally against anything I approve of in the political realm.

We should judge others by who they are as people. I believe that is the single greatest foundation we can then build decisions in government on. The other side isn't evil, despite what the talking heads say.

I am a fan of Murray and Mises. Probably two of the greatest liberal thinkers of the 20th Century.

I don't usually participate in book clubs because of sporadic and random reading habit, but The David Cay book you suggested seems intriguing. I look forward to whatever is decided on.

Jarod wrote: "Its Ron Paul, who is actually significantly different from his son."

My mistake on the name, but I actually don't think they are significantly different as they are both are racist, sexist, and homophobic.

That is the problem. You only see any person who holds a belief other than your own as stupid, inferior, and hateful. When in reality they are for the most part just normal people who have had different life experiences. Me for example. I was raise conservative; in high school I didn't think government had the right to tell someone how to live so I registered Democrat and I supported Democratic Party dogma. I even supported President Obama as he took office (to a certain extent). Long story short I found out both parties are full of controlling people and said screw you to the two party system. Since I spent time in both the Republican and Democratic Parties, what does that make me?

Both Pauls have said that gay people should have the right to marry. Because it is no one's business but themselves.

Both Pauls are not sexist. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion.

Both Pauls are not racist. As a matter of fact while Paul Senior was working as a Doctor in Texas, he would provide assistance and medical care to black families in poverty for a future payment, for bartering services, or for frickin' charity. Both Pauls have passionately stepped up to accuse the Incarcertaion rate in the United States of being disproportionate, the victim being minorities. They have introduced legislation to try and fix it. But I guess they are racist because of some newsletter forty years old that probably wasn't even written by him...

Please lets talk substance without throwing insults around. Would you like to give it a try?

Ron Paul is:
racist
homophobic
sexist

Rand Paul is:
racist
homophobic
sexist


Yes, I do think that people with racist, sexist, and/or queerphobic beliefs are hateful and ignorant. (I also try not to use ableist language like st*pid.) And you? You are a troll, only here to get off on annoying people who disagree with you, and I've had about enough.

A Troll? Seriously? Have you not seen the discussion with Malcolm? I have been civil, and friendly in all cases. I present facts and well thought out opinion. I said on the introduction page, in a very friendly way that I am a classic liberal (which is still a liberal) and though I will disagree on many topics I do stand for quite a few issues that we share in common. I have posted agreement with your own links and statements on several threads. In the end, I will not buckle and refuse to state evidence to the contrary merely so there won't be any dissension. I bring thoughtful statements to each thread I encounter. I will not shut up so you can feel empowered with your postings without anyone speaking out against them.

But if you want to continue your self-righteous circle jerk without a Liberal posting things to the contrary, you may be in for disappointment.

Malcolm, with his tone I do believe I may possibly be banished soon, so if you would like to continue the link sharing/discussion, I would feel comfortable over private messaging.

"When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - George "Rolls Royce" Martin.

In the several Libertarian online communities I frequent, we generally welcome dissension because it helps refine our arguments and helps us see other view points. Without a contrary opinion, what is this group but a glorified link bait house?

By the way, those links are pure drivel and opinionated hate speech. Again, the only legitimate piece of evidence is a newsletter written forty years ago that cannot even be proven to be written by Paul. You show the standard tactic for a Party line Liberal/Conservative and trys to attack the character of an individual instead of the substance of what they are pushing. It has become nearly cliche to call someone a racist in recent years. Yes, there are hateful people in the world, but if we are to judge policy by what an individual has (kinda, maybe, not really)said then we could never get anywhere. That would be me saying that Socialism is all together bad because Stalin was racist. Ad hominem attacks belong in the gutter, not in a discussion on polciy.

But just for your own benefit, lets just say that Ron Paul is the most racist person on the planet. How does that play into his fight against the racist incarceration rate? How does that play into him wanting to address drug laws to help those in poverty, and by extension much of the population of many minorities? Lets forget what you think of someone, lets discuss the merits of their policy. Does that sound alright?

Jarod, I think I'd like to discuss libertarianism a bit more. I am totally on Donegal's side on this issue, but I think a separate thread on the subject might be worth getting into.

Sounds like a grand plan Jimmy, I am all for it!

My description for the group literally states:

"Do you enjoy keeping up with politics? Are you interested in current events and contemporary history? Do you consider yourself leftist, liberal, socialist, or progressive? Do you enjoy reading books on all of the above? Then please join this group! And please invite anyone you think will be interested to help us grow into an active reading group."

I think it's pretty obvious this doesn't encompass libertarianism, nor do I invite contrarians as this group is meant to be a space for liberals and progressives to discuss current events, books, and politics. NOWHERE does it state this group is a debate platform for conservatives to "refine their arguments". You are not entitled to be a part of this group if all you're doing is agitating.

You can call yourself liberal 'til the cows come home but if you come here promoting a Republican/libertarian candidate and espousing libertarian political philosophy, don't be surprised when people take you for a libertarian.

---------------

THE ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT EVEN MATTERS IS THAT THEY BOTH OPPOSE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT! SAYING THAT THAT MAKES THEM RACIST IS NOT AD HOMINEM, IT'S FACTUAL!

If he has some non-racist views, great! That doesn't change the fact that opposing the Civil Rights Act is racist.

Apparently you don't understand racism. Racism is not about outspoken, violent hatred. Racism is about power, and in this country the power still lies in the hands of white people, predominantly straight white men.

Would you consider anti-war being a Liberal idea? Would you consider the racist prison system being a problem a Liberal idea? What about freedom to marry who you wish,regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, or ethnicity; is that a Liberal idea? What about the end of the drug war, is that a Liberal idea? Is the idea that you have the right to do whatever with your body you wish, Liberal? What about the pushing for accurate science in education, is that a Liberal idea? What about prisoner rights, particularly terrorist prisoners, is that a Liberal idea? Treating people fairly by who they are, not by their physical characteristics, is that a Liberal idea? Wanting Corporatism out of Government, is that a liberal idea?

All of these are Liberal ideas. All of which I believe. That makes me a Liberal.

I am for the open exchange of ideas. If you don't wish for that, please just say so ;)

Oh, I forgot trying to stop the violent Police State! That is definitely a Liberal idea.

I agree with Jarod's last two comments.

Ok but are you accepting that Ron and Rand Paul opposing the Civil Rights Act is racist?

No. One can be for Liberty, and against what people do with it. Just as I want drugs to be legal, that doesn't make me a drug user or an advocate for drug use.

Just as I am glad the CEO for Mozilla "stepped down" and I support the LGBT push for him to do so. But I fully support his right to give money to who he wishes, and to hold the beliefs that he holds.

It is the old cliche, "I don't like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." Ron Paul's stand isn't against a bigoted idea, or against any minorities. It is against the force of government and the coercion into our lives. After all, if you do not have the freedom to make the wrong decision, what kind of freedom do you actually have?

By the way, only Ron Paul has denounced the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rand has shown support for it.

Of course!

Those who opposed the Civil Rights Act in the 60's were 1) of a conservative nature that used the term "less government" to win votes (just like today) and in turn used government as an authoritarian force to squash new rights won by these groups and 2) part of a political "reactionary" response to counteract the equality of race, sex, LGBT, and religious freedoms.

For some reason, Libertarians believe that these type of injustices will fix themselves (see the John Stewart debate with Judge Napolitano on the civil war). I do not believe this to be true at all. Just like I do not buy the "free market" excuse for allowing companies to dump and pollute with the absence of EPA. Sometimes "free market" economic forces are too late to prevent a company or a person from harming other people (see Bhopal disaster in India or, hell, watch Erin Brockovich). This is the exact need for government. Governments are not perfect and there are plenty that they do wrong. I think it's good that we have someone like Jarod to make us think about issues that we may over look. But as I posted in the "In Our Hands" discussion (by the way that book is by a libertarian author), for liberals (socialist, progressives, etc) to become better debaters we have to understand opponents arguments and frame why 1) they are wrong and 2) why we're are right, at least in this day in age.

I Disagree and Agree wholeheartedly!

That was kind of a joke, BTDubs.

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-f...

and

https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+p...

Jarod wrote: "No. One can be for Liberty, and against what people do with it."

White supremacy is not a liberty.

Well, actually it is. A racist person has every right and freedom to say and beieve what they wish. Now I strongly disagree with any racial intolerance, and I will, and have spoken out against it. But I also believe fervently in their right to say the bigoted things they say.

Now if you mean white supremacy as in physical violence and racial motivated damage of property (land, possessions, personal body) then yes of course they don't have a right to hurt them, because they hurt their property.

Again, one can be for Liberty and against what people do with it. Just because I, or Ron Paul, or anyone else is white, doesn't mean they are racially motivated against any minority. It simply means we are for choice. Afterall, if you don't have the freedom to choose wrongly, what kind of freedom do you actually have?

by

I'm going to read this anyway and will start a thread on Pussy Riot.

White supremacy is not a racist belief, it is the social and economic domination of nonwhite people.

You can't claim to be antiracist and be for the option of racist discrimination. If you are not actively fighting against your white privilege and against the status quo of white supremacy, you are compliant with it.

So, am I automatically a user of weed if I think it should be legal?