No.7209
Hi /liberty/. I had an idea lately. What about we make our own collection of essays? The idea is that everyone who gets dubs can decide what essay of at least 30 pages makes it into the book, and once we have collected enough to get at least 250 pages or so, we compile them into one pdf-document and spam it on all the other boards.
The essays can be about anything. Capitalism, socialism, gender-studies, why gender-studies are bullshit, economics… you get the idea. At the end, we will have a book with a lot of differing opinions and theories in it, something we can all learn from.
What do you think?
No.7210
One more thing: While you can write essays yourself, you can also just pick existing ones. That's what I originally had in mind, actually.
No.7211
Picking the first one, in case this thing takes off:
>17. Racism
From book related. It's only about ten pages, but it says everything there is to say about racism, even though it's more than a little short on empiric data.
No.7216
Damn now I need to shitpost until dubs
No.7222
If trips this will be the first chapter of the book.
No.7227
Maybe the nice Beavar posts of /pol/ could be included?
The Beaver has interesting posts.
Dunno, if he would be ok with the usuage of his material in bookform though.
Its a shame though, I dont have a screenscap.
No.7228
>>7222
OP here, and you're welcome.
No.7229
This excerpt of Atlas Shrugged should be included, if you ask me.
No.7233
From "For a New Liberty":
Chapter 12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
No.7255
No.7266
No.7273
No.7296
Bumping again. Come on guys.
No.7309
>>7296
Have you looked at the Online Library of Liberty in our resources sticky? It's got an Ideas section which I think you'll find useful in compiling your book. Plus you already know everything in it is available freely, so so long as you're not selling it you should be good to go.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/ideas
We definitely need to include Bastiat's The Law in there. It may look long, but it's written page by page and not every page is filled: http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/78/Bastiat_0180_EBk_v6.0.pdf
There's a condensed version that may be more ammenable to your compiling efforts here too: http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/2481/Bastiat_Law1850.pdf
No.7312
>>7309
Thanks for the post, BO. I'll reroll for it.
Not sure whether I'd call it "my" book. It should be an anonymous document, with no author behind it except the fags on /liberty/. That's why I want as many of us to contribute as possible.
No.7323
No.7324
OP here. I took these posts:
>>7211
>>7222
>>7255
>>7266
Put them into seperate word documents and removed unnecessary paragraphs, of which there were a lot.
We're at 44 pages now. Will work on
>7322
later, or tomorrow. Or some other time, I don't know. Also, remember to reroll for other essays if you find them include-worthy.
No.7336
>>7312
No problem, I'm interested in your idea. It sounds hella neat, a crash-course in honest to goodness liberalism and liberal philosophies - not that progressive crap that's clogging the news as of late. I'll see if I can contribute something, I've written a few things for a blog I've had in mind.
I think you could also throw in bits and pieces of The Wealth of Nations in there, or at least the condensed version: http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/condensed-WoN.pdf
I haven't read the whole thing, it's incredibly long. This condensed version was a great read though. It even finds places to fit in direct quotes from Smith's monstrous tome, like one of my personal favorites:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
>>7322
>abolition of work
Then who makes anything? Is work so bad if it gets you the things you both need and want?
No.7337
>>7336
How about reading it instead of asking stupid shit based on its title?
No.7341
>>7337
I read the first three pages and kind of lost interest. It seems like he's starting from a lot of flawed points and launching off into an unrealizable fantasy.
Replacing work with some form of play/art-work, but what about the production of basically everything that's considered "boring?" Pencils are hella boring to produce I'd imagine, but I also imagine his Luddite artist-folk would want access to those. How do you ensure people produce what they themselves need to survive, or what others want? What about the line "work makes a mockery of freedom" despite work making you free to not produce your own food, clothing, etc, through the power of the market? And the part about "oh I thought this was a democracy" was where I had to stop. That was a bit cheesy.
It seems to completely ignore the fact that up until around 200 years ago, most of humanity lived at a subsistence level and were happy to take other forms of work. I'd argue that modern "work" (it's really hard to apply such a broad thing to all employment the world over I feel) freed people in ways we can't begin to understand, because here we are enjoying the fruits of all of it, never having known the life our ancestors had. I mean, just look at all of our leisure time and more importantly what we can do with it these days. That ability to have free time is secured by working for a wage - otherwise I'd be knitting a new pair of socks for myself right now instead of cruising the web.
I just don't really understand why you wouldn't want to work. Sorry mang.
No.7344
>>7336
Thanks, man. Downloaded that pdf now, hope I'll get to read it soon. So many things on my to-read-list.
And that quote is really cool, I agree.
No.7364
No.7371
We should include the first 30 or so pages of The Law by Bastiat. I'll go look for it and see if I kind find just the past we want
No.7372
>>7371
Here we go. pages 1 - 27 (12 - 37 on the pdf document) are pretty much the most compelling arguments against the state that anyone can make. (The image is an excerpt from here)
No.7374
>>7371
>>7372
He sounds based. I like him. 10/10, would reroll again.
No.7377
>>7372
Reroll I love Bastiat
No.7379
>>7377
OP here, he's included. Nicely done. We should be at 82 pages now. The formatting in "The Abolition of Work" is a real bitch, though, so I will not finish that one until next monday. Hope Bastiat won't take that long.
No.7380
No.7381
>>7380
Why, thank you, kind sir! That'll save me at least half an hour of work.
No.7382
>>7341
> Luddite artist-folk
Is this really necessary?
No.7388
No.7389
>>7388
Okay, that's the outro, because you claimed it and had dubs.
No.7405
Rolling for this: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=74
It's an interesting idea, if you ask me, whether you agree with it or not.
No.7415
No.7416
No.7422
No.7437
Guys, I think the entirety of "The Law" will fit into around thirty pages. Anyone wants to reroll on it, so it comes in?
No.7438
>>7437
So far, only the first 27 pages are in.
No.7476
Rolling for this:
http://chaosandpain.blogspot.de/2013/11/destroy-everything-destroy-everything.html
Because of this quote:
>If you are a coach and you're going to absurdly claim responsibility for your lifters' success, guess what, fuckface? YOU'RE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FAILURES. They didn't listen? Fuck you, you should have yelled louder. They had a bad day? Fuck you, you're there to make it better. They missed weight? Fuck you, you're a dogshit coach and should down yourself in a seedy porn shop's toilet. And sweet Jesus, if you are a coach who either hamstrings your lifters' progress by instilling them with the idea that they're less than they are, or YOU SUGGEST THEY SKIP AN ATTEMPT IN A MEET AND THEY'RE NOT GRAVELY INJURED, do us all a fucking favor and jump in front of a bus. A bus covered with AIDS. And cholera. Preferably one with a spiked cowcatcher on the front just to insure that you'll be maimed badly and die a slow fucking death in a shitty third world hospital or something. The next bitch who tells me that they skipped a fucking attempt at a meet and wasn't crippled with injury or illness is going to swallow a mouthful of his fucking teeth. If you're going to be that weak, dickless, spineless, and pathetic, keep that shit the fuck out of my corner- I don't need any fucking has been's or never-gonna-be's fucking with my mojo.
No.7477
No.7534
>>7476
This has nothing to do with libertarianism.
Moreover it's shitty advice for lifters.
No.7547
>>7534
We can cut it down to just this paragraph, because the rest isn't relevant.
Also, plz go, Mehdi fanboy.
No.7548
>>7534
The reason why I think it's relevant is because the mindset Lewis is criticizing is also prevalent in authoritarians: You take credit for the work of other people because you forced them to work for you, yet you don't credit yourself with their failures. Look at any socialist leader ever. They always thought they were smart enough to violently enforce insanely radical reforms, but when those failed, it was always the fault of the capitalists or the intellectuals. It's a selective delusion of being omniscient.
No.7571
>>7547
Post pics of yourself, fucker. We'll see who knows their shit.
>>7548
Completely different things.
Are you seriously relating a lifter to an entire country? No, you're absolutely right. A country is about as complex as a lifter. Moreover, it's not like a coach was voluntary and the government used force.
Nosiree, they are the exact same thing. Jesus Christ you're dumb
No.7576
>>7571
>Post pics of yourself, fucker. We'll see who knows their shit.
I started lifting two and a half months ago. Jamie started more than fifteen years ago, and he has a 670 lbs deadlift.
>Are you seriously relating a lifter to an entire country? No, you're absolutely right. A country is about as complex as a lifter. Moreover, it's not like a coach was voluntary and the government used force.
The mindset is similar. You don't need to resort to force in order to show that you entertain authoritarian ideas.
No.7590
>>7576
>I started lifting two and a half months ago. Jamie started more than fifteen years ago, and he has a 670 lbs deadlift.
Your point? Candito is stronger than that and disagrees with a lot of what you're saying. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Candito would at least credit his programming as much as his effort.
Why the hell do you think people spend so much time talking about programming? Because good programming from an experienced coach can absolutely grant better results than self programming.
Why the hell do you think the guys that trained with Justin Lascek took a novice program all the way up to 400lb squats and such? Because training with a good coach makes a fucking difference. That's why.
No.7594
>>7590
>Your point? Candito is stronger than that and disagrees with a lot of what you're saying.
How strong is he? Not that I think these few extra lbs per lift should matter. Just because someone deadlifts 670 lbs and not 700 lbs does not mean he sucks as a coach. More importantly, it does not mean his moral standards in regards to coaching are off.
Jonnie Canditos strict programming worked for him, but guess what? That doesn't mean it would work for others.
No.7595
>>7590
What I could find was that Canditos best deadlift was around 606 lbs, and his total was around 1500 lbs. Jamies Lewis deadlifted more, and his total is 1700 lbs. Check your premises.
No.7599
>>7595
He pulled 633 at IPF world's. And he did pull 676 (a world record) except he barely ratcheted it so it didn't count. As far as a personal record, that's still good.
But you're right, your guy is stronger. My whole point was that using someone's strength as a credit was dumb.
No.7600
>>7599
>My whole point was that using someone's strength as a credit was dumb.
No contest on that. I actually thought you started with this kind of argumentation. Maybe I misunderstood you, maybe you didn't phrase it well. Doesn't matter, as far as I'm concerned, now that it's cleared.
No.7601
OP here. Thank your for the suggestion, based BO, I just finished "The Law". It was a great read. Easy to read, easy to digest, but witty and very informative.
No.7606
>>7601
You're welcome! It was a very influential book for me too.
No.7615
Rolling for this one. Or, you know, posting it here so someone else can roll on it.
No.7616
>>7615
Also leaving this here. It addresses some counter-arguments against anarchism in a really intelligent manner. One of the first sources I've read on it.
No.7633
No.7726
>>7616
Rerolling for this.
No.7903
>>7880
>Society is not an entity, it is merely a conceptual grouping of individuals, and the act of conceptualizing those individuals in a society as a group has no effect whatsoever on the properties of those individuals, specifically, it has no effect on their moral properties. Conceptually grouping a tree into a larger group of trees called a "forest" does not alter the molecular structure of the tree, similarly, conceptually grouping people with each other does not change the permissible behavior of those individuals. Justice occurs at an individual level. The classification of society does not alter the permissible behavior of the individuals comprising society. At an individual level, no man is entitled to infringe upon the property rights of others.
>Would someone concerned about social justice argue that it is a grave injustice for an individual living in isolation to be required to survive off of his own labor? If not, how is it an injustice if he must do this around others who, being more productive than he, are living with significantly more excess than him? How much more wealthy can these other men be without committing an injustice and therefore falling prey to the poor man's justified expropriation? And if a man has been successful at subsisting on his own, would a poor destitute group of nomadic Nazis be entitled to a portion of his labor; from the same reasoning that liberals use would it not be an injustice for that man to continue maintain such an unequal share of the wealth in that society?
>The idea of social justice is really that every individual who has more than his fellow man, is committing a crime against his fellow man; this so-called injustice is a result of the man's virtues (his productivity and determination), yet the result is that he is committing a moral crime if he refuses to surrender the products of his virtue. When does having more than your fellow man become a crime? In practical terms, when it becomes politically expedient for the liberals to expropriate your property (which is, in and of itself, an injustice.) In moral terms, there is no non-arbitrary distinction between having more than your fellow man and having too much more than your fellow man.
>Inequality is made out to be a grave moral crime, in principle, it is not. It can be said that a society wherein the average man owns 5 yachts and the richest 1% owns 500 yachts suffers from gross inequality, yet it can hardly be said that those doing so well as to own 5 yachts have the moral right to steal from those wealthier than them. What liberals see as the true injustice is poverty, yet poverty has existed throughout history. When poverty was an unavoidable reality for hunter gatherers was it a great crime for the youngest and best hunters to live relatively comfortably while the old and sick, particularly those outside of their tribe, did not? Even though those old and sick were at one time only looking out for their own interests, as they might criticize the young for doing? Apparently, poverty is only an injustice if others around the poor are capable of easing the pain of the poor without significantly increasing their own. Yet how significantly is the government allowed to increase the pain of the relatively wealthy to benefit the relatively poor? It's possible that a wealth transfer of $1000 dollars from a rich man to a poor man could result in a net reduction of happiness, because value is subjective, that rich man might value the additional income far more than the poor man; there is no objective way to determine this, yet liberals often take it for granted that wealth taken from the rich and given to the poor has a positive net effect on human happiness. The other great myth is that it is noble for middle-class liberals to force those more successful than they to give to the poor, even when the majority of those same liberals are perfectly capable of helping the poor; understanding the problems of needy individuals at an individual level and providing help based on that information would require true compassion and effort, it is far easier for liberals to throw other peoples' money at the problem. For eighty years liberals have provided the poor other peoples' moeny, nearly four trillion dollars in the last five years alone, and although poverty has stagnated since the 1960s they are content to blame the rich, not the government, with the lack of progress. v
No.7922
No.7931
No.7932
No.7933
No.7934
>>7903
>Essay of at least 30 pages
I might expand this out into 30 pages at a later date.
No.7946
>>7211
> The question of whether one alleges the superiority or the inferiority of any given race is irrelevant; racism has only one psychological root: the racist’s sense of his own inferiority
Damn Ayn, always getting to the point
No.7947
>>7933
You damn motherfucker. Alright, this gets in the book.
No.7989
First time visiting this board, it's comfy as fuck.
I think it's a great idea.
I'd suggest the Crypto-Anarchist Manifesto.
No.7996
>>7989
Found it here:
http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
Feel free to reroll for anything on here, including your own suggestion.
No.8058
OP here. I just realized I have fucked up. I meant essays of AT MOST 30 pages. I never intended to be strict about that, though. If an essays has 33 pages, it still gets in.
Anyway, I think we should be at a little over a hundred pages now. The editing sucks a load of ass, though.
No.8099
No.8102
>>8099
This gets in. And the formatting looks nice already.
No.8129
>>7209
The problem I've got is that I'm not a very good writer. I could spend all 30 pages describing problems and proposing policy changes, but I know a guy who could do the same with two pages (although his writing style is a bit like ancient greek translated to modern english - takes effort to understand). And if you're honest about what role the book should really play, then you should admit that most people are going to 'TLDR' even a two-page essay. You need a lot of meaning in very few words. And collective agreement over what those words should be from an anarchical image board.
No.8138
>>8129
Read this:
>>8058
>OP here. I just realized I have fucked up. I meant essays of AT MOST 30 pages.
Sorry I created the misunderstanding. You don't have to write an essay yourself and there's no minimum amount of words or pages you need. Of course, OC would be very much welcome.
I know the content won't show any kind of consensus on this board (not even sure whether that consensus goes further than all of us thinking Obama sucks), but I think we already got a pretty good sample of differing opinions. It's a little bit anti-work, though; we have two essays that criticize work, it seems, but none that praises it. So if someone can find some gem in Atlas Shrugged or something, that would be appreciated.
No.8199
Submitting my favorite critique of feminism. Let me know if it's too /leftypol/ for /liberty/
http://pastebin.com/zVaUTW8B
No.8202
>>8199
It's in, /leftypol/ or not.
No.8684
Bumping this thread, with no survivors.
No.8875
Endlessly shilling my own thread. The ride never ends. Not until we have our 200 or 300 pages, guys.
Remember: Essays can have any length, I mistyped in the OP. After 30 pages, I will consider not putting them in, but that's not a clear-cut line. Just don't want one or two essays to dominate the entire book.
No.9187
Another update: We have around 111 pages and 16 essays right now. I'm still stuck on the formatting of some of the stuff, John Stockwell in particular is giving me more than a few problems.
Our essays so far:
>Revolutionary Self-Theory - Larry Law
>Racism - Ayn Rand
>State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein they differ - Benjamin R. Tucker
>Why does justice have good consequences? - Roderick T. Long
>The Abolition of Work - Bob Black
>The Law (Excerpt) - Frédéric Bastiat
>In Praise of Slavery - Peter Watts
>Jigsaw vs The Punisher - Ghostmctavish
>Destroy everything! (Excerpt) - Jamie Lewis
>The secret wars of the CIA - John Stockwell
>Unnamed essay - Anon
>>7880
>Shitpost - Another Anon
>>7931
>In Praise of Idleness - Bertrand Russell
>Against Feminism – Coming out the other side of a crisis - Marxist Nutter
>To have done with the Economy of Love - Feral Faun
This one is the outro.
If you want to submit a new entry, read this:
>>8058
No.9188
>>9187
>Essay of AT MOST 30 pages
OP how could you fuck up the original post so badly? ;_;
No.9189
>>8138
>but I think we already got a pretty good sample of differing opinions. It's a little bit anti-work, though; we have two essays that criticize work, it seems, but none that praises it. So if someone can find some gem in Atlas Shrugged or something, that would be appreciated.
My essay about social justice was pretty shruggedy when I said that the product(wealth) of virtue (hard work) magically passes a point where too much virtue = ebul inequality!
No.9190
>>9187
Who put the gommie's feminist essay in the book?
>Liberty book
>Article is anti-capitalism and voluntary trade
>>>/wewlad/
No.9198
>>9188
S-sorry…
>>9189
Right, that was a good addition. I would like more OC in general, but I know that it isn't an easy task to write an essay.
>>9190
He scored dubs and I'm not moderating the entries, true to the spirit of the board. I'd rather there would be no marxist bullshit in this book, believe me.
No.9199
>>9190
Which one? Btw this is /liberty/ book so anything non-authoritarian is on topic.
No.9200
btw if dubs this is the cover
No.9202
>>9200
Not accepted. Cover and foreword will be decided at a later time, and the cover will most likely not have wallpaper-format because you can't fit a wallpaper on a book. This should go without mention.
No.9210
File: 1442264059195.jpg (246.32 KB, 550x1115, 110:223, soviet-space-program-propa….jpg)
No.9214
No.9229
>>9214
It attempts to explain why modern feminist and race movements are such a motherfucker to deal with, which in turn should help to explain why the gamergate thing happened (which I should point out, is why a lot of "us" wound up here). There's not much in the way of "statist justification" in there. And even though he bums Marx a lot, I think the writer claims to be anarcho-communist. So… meh. I thought it'd be good if people were to read it.
>>9187
I want to see what the book looks like already. What is OP's ETA for delivery?
No.9236
>>9202
>Not accepted
You fold it in half.
No.9241
>>9229
>What is OP's ETA for delivery?
Most likely not this year. I've got some other stuff to do at the moment, plus we don't have enough essays yet. In a month or two, I might have a proto-version available, though.
>>9236
I have a feeling that you're just trying to make a point here, make people believe that the bad, bad socialists are being discriminated against on /liberty/. A book cover is not supposed to make a political statement, but this is exactly what you have been trying to do. What you posted does not have the right format. It does not have the right title. It raises expectations that what is in the book is a critique on capitalist libertarianism, which is not the case. It is, quite simply, unfit to be the cover. Moreover, the cover was not even up to debate so far. Post essays. Get dubs, essay gets in. Call it or get trips, essay might be an outro or intro. These were the rules, and I don't think I have applied them arbitrarily.
Now, I am willing to let this picture get into the book, one way or another. You had dubs, after all, and you called it. Just not on the cover.
No.9247
>>9241
OP if you put it in the book I'll have to write an essay on why it's bullshit :L
No.9248
>>9247
The picture that is
No.9269
Has no one before refuted this in a concise form? Oh my. Well, I do like OC, what better way to show off our board?
No.10365
OP here, bumping my thread, in the hopes that this dirty commie won't see it. I'll still take his submissions, but I encourage everyone else to counter them. I hate this guy.
If I get dubs, I shall submit this post.
No.10371
>>7903
Ayy, I wrote this essay. I actually took a video with of the original thread (of me deleting the original post's picture). Said video is on my other computer which I don't have access to at the moment. I'm going to edit the essay, will post proof the original was mine at a later date.
Society is not an entity, it is merely a conceptual grouping of individuals, and the act of conceptualizing those individuals as members of a society has no effect whatsoever on the properties of those individuals, specifically, it has no effect on their moral properties. To borrow a metaphor, conceptually grouping a tree into a larger group of trees called a "forest" does not alter the molecular structure of the tree, similarly, conceptually grouping people with each other does not change the permissible behavior of those individuals. Justice occurs at an individual level. The classification of "society" does not alter the permissible behavior of the individuals comprising society. At an individual level, no man is entitled to infringe upon the property rights of others.
Would an advocate for "social justice" maintain that it is a grave injustice for an individual living in isolation to be compelled, by circumstance, to survive off of his own labor? Logically, the aforementioned advocate would have to concede that the subsisting individual is not the victim of a third party- no third party exists in that case. If we must accept the above case is morally acceptable, how is it an injustice if the subsistor must subsist in proximity to one other man who had, by his own efforts, accumulated a sustainable ranch of cattle? How many cows can this relatively wealthy rancher own without overstepping the bounds of acceptable inequality, thereby committing an injustice and becoming a legitimate target of the subsistor's coercion; in layman's terms, how much is the rancher permitted to own before the poorer individual is justified in stealing from him? It is unlikely that a social justice advocate, as they typically exist in the modern world, would suggest that the poor man is justified in stealing the wealthier man's cattle if the wealthier man did not even have enough cattle to sustain himself for the next 6 months. What is the exact amount of cattle that a man is morally permitted to own on his property, adjacent to a man who has not endeavored to acquire any? If I have a relatively large stock of cattle, is any man entitled to steal from me? No matter how evil he has been, no matter how undeserving he is of any help? Would a serial rapist be justified in stealing my cattle even if he has had previous opportunities to acquire his own, but thought better of spending months building his own ranch? What do all these questions have in common? They demonstrate the fundamentally arbitrary nature of social justice, there is no inherent distintion between having more than your fellow man and having too much more, which is a dangerous notion to promulgate if you happen to exist in any proximity to someone who is significantly poorer than you. If one advocates the threat of violence to take from the rich (and taxation is backed by the threat of violence,) then how could such advocates possibly argue that a hobo would not be justified in threatening them with violence to expropriate their property? From a hobo's perspective, even a woman who works a minimum wage job is "super-rich;" logically, all advocates of social justice must graciously surrender their property if the thief- the victim of society threatening them with a knife- is poorer than them. It might be objected that this situation is fundamentally different if the theft is committed by a bureacrat under the guise of taxation- stamps and uniforms (no matter how official) can not alter the fundamental moral permissibility of an action. If an act is morally permissible for one person, it is morally permissible for another. If it is morally permissible for an agent of the IRS to redistribute wealth, there is no reason why a homeless man should have to be backed up by an inefficient bureaucracy to redistribute your wealth to himself. The reality that moral acts can not have their permissibility altered by uniforms or ceremonies is why it is absolutely acceptable for a vigilante to punish a man he is certain is a wanton murderer (instead of waiting for a jury, specifically if none is available), and why it is absolutely acceptable for a hobo to mug anyone with an income (if the concept of social justice is valid.)
No.10372
>>10371
The idea of social justice is really that every individual who has more than his fellow man, is incessantly committing a moral crime by doing so; this so-called injustice is a result of the man's virtues (his productivity and determination), yet the result is that he is committing a moral crime if he refuses to surrender the products of his virtue. When does having more than your fellow man become a crime? In practical terms, when it becomes politically expedient for the liberals to expropriate your property (which is, in and of itself, an injustice.) In moral terms, there is no non-arbitrary distinction between having more than your fellow man and having too much more than your fellow man
Inequality is made out to be a grave moral crime, in principle, it is not. To borrow another metaphor, it can be said that a society wherein the average man owns 5 yachts and the richest 1% owns 5000 yachts suffers from gross inequality, yet it can hardly be said that those doing so well as to own 5 yachts have the moral right to steal from those wealthier than them. What liberals see as the true injustice is poverty, yet poverty has existed throughout history. When poverty was an unavoidable reality for hunter gatherers was it a great crime for the youngest and best hunters to live relatively comfortably while the old and sick, particularly those outside of their tribe, did not? Apparently, poverty is only an injustice if others around the poor are capable of easing the pain of the poor without significantly increasing their own burden. Yet how significantly is the government allowed to increase the pain of the relatively wealthy to benefit the relatively poor? It's possible that a wealth transfer from a rich man to a poor man could result in a net reduction of happiness, because value is subjective, and that rich man might value the additional income far more than the poor man; there is no objective way to determine this, yet liberals often take it for granted that wealth taken from the rich and given to the poor has a positive net effect on human happiness. The other great myth is that it is noble for middle-class liberals to force those more successful than they to give to the poor, even when the majority of those same liberals are perfectly capable of helping the poor and are making little effort to do so; understanding the problems of needy individuals at an individual level and providing help based on that information would require true compassion and effort, it is far easier for liberals to throw other peoples' money at the problem. For the past eighty years, liberals have provided the poor other peoples' money, nearly four trillion dollars in the last five years alone, and although poverty has stagnated (by government figures) since the 1960s they are content to blame the rich, not the government or the poor, with the lack of progress.
No.10401
>>10371
>>10372
Rerolling for you, m8.
No.10408
>>10401
I'm already in breh I was just making some alterations to my existing essay.
I like this newer version better. I think it's more clear/easy to understand.
No.10412
>>10408
Not a problem, I'll just make the necessary changes next chance I get.
No.10413
>>10412
I said eighty years, I meant sixty :O
No.10478
>>10365
There's more than one commie here m8. Just be glad we offered reasonable submissions instead of funposting through all of the project.
No.10483
>>10478
Why would I be glad about this? Not shitting up this project is the prerequisite for not being an asshole. It does not warrant extra labor-tokens.
No.10525
>>10483
>implying assholes are rare and that in this thread you weren't lucky
Alright comrade
No.10952
No.11410
Okay everybody, I'm back at my original hard drive and can work in the book again. I still think we lack content, but a preview-version should be possible within a week or two.
No.11411
No.12016
Sorry that I haven't gotten around to creating a preview-version yet. Let's just say the last two weeks have been real bitches.
No.12166
No.12222
If quads, OP includes a picture of his dick in the book.
No.12229
>>12222
Why am I not surprised leftists want the d?
No.12732
No.12733
Hey guys. I have the preview-version here. Didn't include the crappy fanfiction yet, as I haven't found a version of it that wouldn't require a lot of manual formatting.
This version is far from finished. The editing is crap, the cover is shit and there are no pagenumbers, so a printed version wouldn't work. It includes all the essays, though, with the aforementioned exception.
No.12735
>>12733
where is the dick pic?
No.13251
No.13333
No.13336
>>13333
Okay, is there someone who still reads this thread and actually cares about the project, as opposed to being a cocksucking leftist piece of shit? Or a fascist piece of shit, I don't care.
No.13341
>>13336
I'm still reading the book you posted.
I might do an essay if I get the time.
No.14004
No.14021
I liked this book.
Tells you how to evade taxes.
Banned in the United States
No.14022
>>14021
>6 posts later
>book still not uploading
>"your post might've been sent"
FIX SITE
I
X
S
I
T
E
Federal Mafia, by Irwin Schiff
http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=d486326a943253f6743cc71fc462010a
No.14027
No.14029
>>14015
Rolling for this.
>>14027
Back to cuckchan.
No.14668
No.14678
Rolling for page 82 on that pdf. Starting with the following:
>BE AS A LION IN THE PATH!
>HATE FOR HATE AND RUTH FOR RUTH,
>EYE FOR EYE AND TOOTH FOR TOOTH.
>SCORN FOR SCORN AND SMILE FOR SMILE,
>LOVE FOR LOVE AND GUILE FOR GUILE.
>WAR FOR WAR AND WOE FOR WOE,
>BLOOD FOR BLOOD AND BLOW FOR BLOW.
No.15555
No.15559
>>15555
>This fucking gay nigger
No.18576
Pages 11 and 12 on that pdf.
No.18577