Bleeding Heart Libertarians

For a combination of the two, I recommend the Bleeding Heart Libertarians website[1]. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's not a tech-focused site like HN, but does address the topics you mention - a focus on solving problems facing communities and the under- priviledged. 1. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com

If you are a former liberal turned libertarian I highly recommend http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/. They're liberals but use a libertarian ethic framework, sort of.

I think the subsidies are actually helping the universities (by driving up tuition), not the students. Aside from that, I don't think the evidence supports the idea that liberal arts college degrees are honing critical thought skills, though that would be a worthwhile pursuit. Here is a piece which sums up some of my issues with the case for the liberal arts.[1] [1] http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/04/is-liberal-arts-education…

Bleeding Hart Libertarians isn't left wing by any stretch of the imagination. They endorse the same kind of "free market solutions" that are peddled by the republican libertarians: privatize all the things and then hope that the billionaires are generous enough to share their wealth with the peons. I mean, come on: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/08/rich-plutocrat-bernie-san…

>What left ideologies can libertarianism coexist with? You might be surprised. Bleeding Heart Libertarians[0] is a good place to start. In the US, libertarianism has traditionally been more closely aligned with the right, but that's more or less an accident of history. There's room for disagreement of course (based mostly on how you define terms), but libertarians find plenty of overlap and disagreement with both the left and the right. [0] http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/

I really liked being introduced to the Trolley Problem (especially the second formulation), I hadn't heard of it before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem I spent more time than I should reading about several possible answers :) for example: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/thomsonTROL… some with a libertarian slant: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/08/the-trolley-non-problem/ http://freedomed.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-trolley-problem-is-bullshit.… Edit: where is a good place to read about and/or discuss interesting philosophical questions (preferrably not too far out :) )? Is it worth it to take a course on philosophy? (I've had short courses on "moral education" which were really awful).

I think there's plenty of US-liberals in HN too, but it should be noted that there are self-labeled capitalist libertarians advocating for BIG, at least as a "less-bad" welfare system. See e.g. Bleeding Heart Libertarians[1] or the discussions on Cato[2]. [1] http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ [2] http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libert…

Suppose everything you say is true, and every single supporter of epistocracy is racist. It does not follow that epistocracy is bad. Consider the possibility that epistocracy is racist but it also produces better governance - e.g., perhaps the racial groups being discriminated against vote for bad governance. (Define "bad" however you like, but strictly in terms of actions taken by the government rather than how those actions were decided on.) If that were true then the racist epistocracy you discuss would be a good thing, in the sense that governments would provide better services to citizens. The main argument against this is that voting rights are a way to express respect, membership and status to humans. But the solution to this conundrum is to stop using voting rights as a status symbol. Here's a nice article that discusses this idea in much greater detail: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/09/expressive-meaning-democr…

I think there's several separate issues: Krugman correctly points out that work disincentives are different from job destruction. However there are different kind of work disincentives: it is certainly hard to view people working _just_ for healthcare (as opposed to switching jobs, retiring early, or starting their own business) as something positive. By all means, disentangling healthcare from employment is at least a worthy goal -- there are many artificial reasons which currently make non-employer health insurance (and non-insurance health care) far more expensive than would otherwise be. On the other hand, the individual mandate and increased price of even the most basic catastrophic coverage does seem to cut into disposable income, which (in a sense) has the equivalent effect of huge marginal tax hike: essentially as the salary increases, essential benefits decrease (no eligibility for food stamps, subsidizing housing, or subsidized healthcare), while taxes increase. Incentive to do anything other than get by decreases, strong incentives are created to cut out other "unavoidable" payments such as by moving to places with less expensive housing costs, even if at the cost of less employment opportunities. Replacing the system that offers increasingly little to honest working poor(1), but imposes regressive mandates to fund what are essentially transfers from working classes to middle-class senior citizens (e.g., medicare and social secure) with a a universal basic income…

No, that is not true at all. Fundamentally I support more of a Geo-Libertarian[1] system, so I support property rights for things you create from your own labor, but natural property that was not created by humans belongs to all. Those that want to make exclusive use of this natural properly owe a "rent" to all. This rent is the only ethical tax[2] one can use to publicly finance a government. Taxes on labor, voluntary transaction, etc are all unethical theft of a persons labor [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism [2] https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geolibertarian-ethic…

This is the way it is. Anyone who's worked in the industry (or any industry?) knows from experience that this is the way it is. I'm sure that there are data available. A quick Googling for "productivity vs hours worked" led me to this: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/10/hours-worked-and-producti…

This was published in what is basically a vanity journal—a for-pay outlet that will publish anything submitted. So the hoaxers played themselves. Details here: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/05/conceptual-penis-hoax-jus…

This is just the reverse of the (also bad) argument that people who advocate for higher taxes shouldn't be taken seriously unless they voluntarily donate some of their income to the government. For example: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/want-higher-taxes-pay-the…

>Why do people think the latter is "more fair"? I have no idea what unfortunate psychological characteristic of the human brain leads so many to oppose price gouging and markets, but here is some tangential discussion: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/10/price-gouging-and-the-poo…

Some interesting thoughts on better ideas here: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/06/why-living-on-the-dole-is…

I think you're glossing over the point that markets that at least minimally restrain capitalists to keep them from screwing over other capitalists is a basic feature of capitalism-friendliness (at least to the extent that you agree capitalism-friendliness requires that a market be prevented from devolving into some form of feudalism). That said, yes, I am aware of the 'what do you mean by capitalism' issue. I've found this article interesting in that vein: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarian-anticapitalis…

> Another was a version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in feminist jargon So rewritten it's difficult to identify how it's connected to Mein Kampf. https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2018/10/09/nothing-squared-is-… - "I read through their article Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism and then went through the chapter of Mein Kampf this article is supposed to be mimicking ... and couldn’t find a single phrase that matched." Or from https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2018/10/why-the-grievance-studie… - "However, the account of this given by the hoaxers is rather dishonest. Their re-writing of the text was so extensive that even a side-by-side comparison of the texts failed to show much similarity between them. Moreover, the part of Mein Kampf in question was making rather general claims about how to respond to (perceived) oppression. But to read the hoaxers’ account of things you’d think a Nazi diatribe had been published by a feminist journal with just a few words changed. And that’s not the case at all." > What do 400-odd cases matter, after all? It would be nice to put that in context, rather than make a rhetorical flourish. That context should include the politics around UNC's decision to deny Hannah-Jones tenure.