/lit/ - Literature

>>16318698
What your looking for is Elitist Theory:
>The Rise and Fall of Elites - Pareto
>The Ruling Class - Mosca
>Political Parties - Michels
>The Power Elite - Mill
>The Managerial Revolution - Burnham
>Golden rule - Ferguson

Read the good Weber, Maximilian Karl Emil.

>>16209693
The documentary of this is also great. You can find it on youtube

>>16199284
Some parts are a slog--just like any book--but if you're genuinely interested in those subjects you should find it interesting.

>>16176460
Do you think it is incorrect to compare Speenhamland to UBI?

>Public Opinion - Lippmann
>Propaganda - Bernays
>Crystallizing Public Opinion - Bernays
>Propaganda - Ellul
>The Hidden Persuaders - Packard
>Manufacturing Consent - Chomsky
>The Image - Boorstin
>The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion - Zaller
>The Spiral of Silence - Neumann
>Mein Kampf (Volume 1 Ch 6 + Volume 2 Ch 11) - Hitler
>The True Believer - Hoffman
>The Crowd - le Bon
>Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego - Freud
>Rhetoric - Aristotle
>PR! - Ewen
>The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere - Habermas
>On Communication and Social Influence - Tarde
>Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses - Althusser
>Crowds and Power - Canetti
>Distinction - Bourdieu
>The Battle of the Mind - Sargent
>The Rape of the Mind - Meerloo
>Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism - Lifton

Here's a list i posted some time ago for a similar question.
>Public Opinion - Lippmann
>Propaganda - Bernays
>Crystallizing Public Opinion - Bernays
>Propaganda - Ellul
>The Hidden Persuaders - Packard
>Manufacturing Consent - Chomsky
>The Image - Boorstin
>The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion - Zaller
>The Spiral of Silence - Neumann
>Mein Kampf (Volume 1 Ch 6 + Volume 2 Ch 11) - Hitler
>The True Believer - Hoffman
>The Crowd - le Bon
>Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego - Freud
>Rhetoric - Aristotle
>PR! - Ewen
>The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere - Habermas
>On Communication and Social Influence - Tarde
>Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses - Althusser
>Crowds and Power - Canetti
>The Battle of the Mind - Sargent
>The Rape of the Mind - Meerloo
>Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism - Lifton

>>14842696
Propaganda & Public Opinion
>Public Opinion - Lippmann
>Propaganda - Bernays
>Crystallizing Public Opinion - Bernays
>Propaganda - Ellul
>The Hidden Persuaders - Packard
>Manufacturing Consent - Chomsky
>The Image - Boorstin
>The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion - Zaller
>The Spiral of Silence - Neumann
>Mein Kampf (Volume 1 Ch 6 + Volume 2 Ch 11) - Hitler
and i guess some tangentially related stuff
>The True Believer - Hoffman
>The Crowd - le Bon
>Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego - Freud
>Rhetoric - Aristotle
>PR! - Ewen
>The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere - Habermas
>On Communication and Social Influence - Tarde
>Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses - Althusser
>Crowds and Power - Canetti
but really, propaganda is fucking disgusting and should be abolished as far as possible.
if you have fanciful ideas about being some Caesar figure and rescuing 'the west' from 'degeneracy' as a lot of the people who ask for recommendations like this seem to have, please wake up from your delusions.

>>14689505
Woodrow Wilson understood that real politics is about substantive/value rationality not formal/instrumental rationality. Having a bureaucratic public administration is the latter form of rationality and is, like, mega gay-ass and not super cool at all. each little numpty bureaucrat with a bachelor degree in applied cuckoldry (management/econ double major) preens their own feathers while never being able to step past the dotted line that is their departmental enclosure; efficient cogs in a machine that is its own closed system of managers managing managers finding the most efficient means to increase efficiency. but anon, that ain't livin! you may think a summer bloom lies ahead of us, but it is actually a polar night of icy darkness. say no to bureaus my lover.

>>14369568
>>14369588
>I meant specifically that libertarianism as a personal philosophy, also known as egoism is generally always defendable on the basis of self-interests and the abscense of any moralfaggery. However, libertarianism as a political system seems to be destructive, and inherently contradictory towards your best interests.
libertarians do not draw the implicit dichotomy of self-interest consequentially meaning a neglect of the public good. rather, their beliefs, going all the way back to Smith—or hell, even Mandeville—is 'private vices, public benefits'. that is, an individual operating in their on their own self interest in the micro scale produces a harmony and good on the macro scale. as the famous segment of the Wealth of Nations goes
>He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.
later theorists favoured by libertarians have more elaborate theories. but the baseline is that self-interest is the public interest, and the public interest ought only be in supporting private interest. what that entails can differ depending on how 'extreme' the views of the libertarian, the more moderate advocate for the the smithian provisos (defense, public goods, legal justice), the more extreme (ancaps) suggest that even these can be handled through private dealings.
>assuming that we want to keep a certain society's identity
libertarian thinkers generally aren't interested in this question. the identity of society that they want is one which respects libertarian values, but that is typically the extent of it. libertarians didn't fall far from the tree of liberalism (gotta be litterd with the blood of patriots :DDDD), so the respect for toleration, non-intervention, and anti-paternalism that you find in people like Mill and Locke still apply. liberals are very uncomfortable with the idea of enforcing and particular 'comprehensive moral doctrine' (even though they enforce the moral doctrine of liberalism).
>Libertarians don't argue *for* this or don't they argue that such a thing can happen?
the former because of the latter
I'll dump a post i made in another thread on the foundation of libertarian thinking, which should answer the remaining questions. but generally i think you're a little murky on whether you're talking about libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.