/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1500459]

ITT:
Non-fiction books that had a profound influence on you.

Ethics of Liberty (Rothbard)
The Road To Serfdom (Hayek)
Amusing Ourselves To Death (Postman)
Man and His Symbols (Jung)
Democracy: The God That Failed (Hoppe)
Theory of Moral Sentiments (Smith)
Human Action (Mises)
Black Swan (Taleb)


Hard-mode: No Rand.

[Anonymous No.1500467]

Capital by Karl Marx
In Defense of Lost Causes by Slavoj Zizek
The Value of Nothing by Raj Patel
What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1500470]

this game

its deep as shit

there's demons from real hell

[Anonymous No.1500490]

Come on lit, don't tell me that you read escapist literature all day long.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1500501]

>>1500490
>escapist
is this the next "gimmick" and "hipster"

[Anonymous No.1500513]

An Introduction To Logic And Scientific Method by Cohen.

Nietzsche's Ecce homo.

Aristotle's Metaphysics

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations

Orwell's collection of "Such such were the Joys"

Kant's "A critique of pure reason " (WOW Nietzsche and Kant in the same list!!!oneoneone111

The Rights of Man by paine

The declaration of Independence as a Document.

And No, I am NOT an American.

[Anonymous No.1500525]

>>1500513
Very good.
Wealth of Nations is a classic and should be considered mandatory for anyone who wants to take a position on any economic problem.

[Anonymous No.1500526]

>>1500513
Jesushchrist

I have to read Rights of Man and Ecce homo. Thats a good list.

[Anonymous No.1500529]

>>1500525
>>1500526
hivemind?

I liked it too. Yes, Wealth of nations is rather the foundation of economics. Micro + macro both.

[Anonymous No.1500533]

>>1500459
Good list op.
Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is his second magnum opus and people should pay more attention to it in my opinion.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1500535]

pathetic list op, bad job.

[Anonymous No.1500548]

>>1500535
Why?

[Anonymous No.1501088]

bump

[Anonymous No.1501091]

The Bible

[Anonymous No.1501129]

[Anonymous No.1501136]

[Anonymous No.1501187]

>>1501129
this and Collapse are really good. and
existentialism is a humanism by sartre

[Anonymous No.1501434]

+1 on Black Swan. An interesting read,

[Anonymous No.1501438]

The Revolution of Everyday Life by Vaneigem
Essays in Existentialism by Sartre
Walden by Thoreau
History of Madness by Focault
Discipline and Punish by Foucault
The Marx/Engels Reader

[Anonymous No.1501464]

I wonder why people are so interested in Marx these days. Is it the hip thing to do ? Because the guy was wrong on every prediction he made and his theory was proven disastrous everywhere it had been put in practice.
It's good that people read him so that they know what he was all about but I think it's more relevant to read authors like Smith, Ricardo, Hume, Weber, Mill, Bastiat and Hayek whose theories are still relevant today and many people forget the lessons they taught us.

[Anonymous No.1501477]

>>1501464
>predictions
I don't think he really made "predictions" so much as critiques, and I don't think he was trying to be psychic.
>disaster
I don't think it's fair to say this, because capitalist economies are failing all over the world. Marxism has been tried, and some things worked while others did not. There is always room for improvement, of course, but I think people have a double standard when it comes to this issue--they criticize marxist states for what went wrong, but they conveniently ignore the daily failures of capitalist states.

[Anonymous No.1501482]

>>1501464

No, it's more hip to be a lolertarian douchebag. Just look at the sales of Ayn Rand books among deluded college youth.

All the college radicals are now capitalist asspies.

[Anonymous No.1501488]

>>1501477

Excellent point. When capitalism fails, "It's not REALLY capitalism," but when regimes that call themselves Marxist fail, "it's because Marxism doesn't work!"

Capitalism needs to become falsifiable again. Too much confirmation bias among its supporters. (And yes, I realize the same is true among socialists--don't bother pointing that out--which makes it all the more ironic.)

[Anonymous No.1501502]

Kierkegaard. Lots and lots of Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.1501594]

>>1501477
He did make predictions about marxism succeeding capitalism and the workers becoming the ruling class.

>>1501482
So easy to dispute the philosophy by calling it's adherents douchebags, isn't it. Yet history shows us that libertarian policies worked much well than what we have today.
>>1501488
What we have today (and every serious person will agree with this) is a MIXED economy. That is part capitalism and part socialism.

We have relatively more capitalism in areas like high tech industries, services, luxuries, entertainment, IT etc

We have socialism (state control/heavy regulation) in areas like education, banking, health care, public transportation, social security.

Which areas are failing again?

[Anonymous No.1501600]

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

I read it when I was twelve, never really having thought about race before.

[Anonymous No.1501608]

>>1501488
It's not so much capitalism vs socialism.
We can reduce it down to simpler, more neutral terms.

Private ownership versus public ownership.

We have hundreds of years of evidence and a logical explanation showing that private ownership yields much better results than public ownership.

This is because of incentives. If you propose that public ownership is better than private then you're pretty much ignoring 200 years of moral philosophy/economics and I would like to see how you'd solve the lack of incentives, economic calculation, competition for best products etc

Until I see a reasonable and logical theory that explains how a public ownership system would solve these problems I can't take any of that shit seriously. It just shows that most people are economic illiterates and ideologues.

[Anonymous No.1501614]

>>1501594
The biggest failure lately has been finance, which is probably the most "capitalist" industry of all. When you say we have a "mixed" economy of capitalism and socialism, you are stating a fallacy. There can be no mixture of capitalism and socialism. What we have is state-subsidized capitalism with a big dose of authoritarian police-state/military complex. Marx did not predict that socialism would occur just like that, he did predict increasingly bad crises for capitalist economies, and the rolling financial black outs of the past few years seem to confirm this. When you say public institutions like schools are "socialist" you are really being a fool--capitalist states require socially funded institutions because the private sector never "stepped in" to do the job--without public schooling, only a select group of young people could attend school and you would have a hell of a time dealing with the ones who don't (most likely solution would be, and currently is, making prisons more numerous in order to collect the people jettisoned from the social safety net)..At any rate, when you say "libertarian" principles are superior, I have no idea what you are talking about--are you speaking purely from theory...at least marxism has been tried in the real world, and it has in fact succeeded at many things, even though it failed at many things too (and to be honest the west made it as hard as possible)

[Anonymous No.1501621]

>>1501608
Are you seriously suggesting that we follow a reductionist line of reasoning? You sound like you've been brainwashed by Glenn Beck, bro.

[Anonymous No.1501622]

>>1501614
Finance being capitalist ? Are you shitting me? The banking industry is THE most regulated industry of all.
The big banks are so intertwined with the government that you can't tell who's working for who.

I'd agree with you if you said banking is crony-capitalism/fascism.

We definitely don't have a free market in banking, trust me on that one.

[Anonymous No.1501635]

>>1501621
I don't know who glenn beck is and no, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that every public ownership system is inherently inferior to private ownership in it's efficiency because of many factors (incentives, calculation, ownership rights etc).
If you want a good and thorough explanation I suggest you read Socialism by Ludwing von Mises and The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.

I don't think a post is enough to persuade a person so if you want to make an enlightened, non-ideological opinion I suggest you do some reading first.

[Anonymous No.1501639]

>>1501622
I didn't say "free market" I said capitalism--and capitalism is what it is--you can throw qualifiers on it and try to pretend like it's different than what it should be, but that isn't changing the fact that even if we started at a free market "zero point" it would inevitably lead to cronyism and corruption (when competing for limited resources, the tendency is to do whatever is necessary in order to secure the most)..The only way to even keep a market "free" would in theory be state intervention--otherwise there would be pseudo-state powers formed by the wealthy..Seriously, where does this libertarian line of reasoning even come from? Socialists at least aspire to something greater for humanity, that we would stand strong together and face our lives in common brotherhood..but libertarians just say we need more "freedom" to chew eachother to pieces.

[Anonymous No.1501645]

A Journey- Tony Blair.
Reading his arguments for thing such as the Iraq war, civil liberties, the war on terror and his public sector reforms opened my eyes to see past the bias media and haters from both the left and the right.

Another book that had a profound influence on me was an anarchist book called "Days of war, night of love" It's a collection of essays on various things with cool graphics. While I don't agree with the politics any more I often find myself reading it. Opens my mind to a more radical perspective.

[Anonymous No.1501647]

>>1501635
I intend to look at von mises and hayek, but I'm fully aware that it would be about as unbiased as the socialist propaghanda I read--there really is no neutrality possible when it comes to political theory..if one were neutral about it, then he would probably not exert the effort required for writing a book.

[Anonymous No.1501652]

>>1501645
Yeah being radical is really more about your perspective than any political dogma you could subscribe to.

[Anonymous No.1501657]

>>1501614
You can't say the private sector chose not to step it.
Private sector will step in everywhere it can make a profit. Schooling can be very profitable but you can't compete with the government, you just can't because the government has an almost endless pool of resources (taxpayer, the printing press) and a monopoly on power and legislation whereas the private sector doesn't (it has to satisfy it's customers in order to make money).

[Anonymous No.1501662]

The Commanding Heights - Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw
The Turning Point - Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov
State of Denial - Bob Woodward

[Anonymous No.1501669]

>>1501657
So basically the government "beats" the private sector at its own game? I don't get it--are you for competition or not? At any rate, what do you think the private sector was doing before public schooling came along? There are places where mandatory public education isn't available and ,yes, there are private schools but most children in those situations don't get to go.

[Anonymous No.1501674]

>>1501647
Actually Mises emphasizes not making value-judgments. He will show you the logic, tell you what will and will not work and why. He doesn't try to tell you what to think. He's like the old economists, more philosopher than an economist in the modern sense of the word which is good in my opinion.

Hayek is also great, his thoughts about the distribution of information among people is critical in understanding why central planning can never work (no central planner can ever have enough information to make good economic decisions).

[Anonymous No.1501670]

>>1501464

There's no more cold war and we have a whole generation who don't even remember the Soviet Union - hence, there's no animosity towards extreme left wing thought.

[Anonymous No.1501678]

Gödel, Escher, Bach - Douglas Hofstadter
The Affair - Jean-Denis Bredin
A Short History of Progress - Ronald Wright
The Art of Mathematics - Jerry King
Arcana I-V - John Zorn
In Praise of Idleness - Bertrand Russell
The Unanswered Question - Leonard Bernstein

[Anonymous No.1501688]

>>1501674
I'm interested, but ultimately I am a socialist from personal conviction. I can find plenty of logical economists to detail how and why socialism would work or I could read Hayek and Mises to see the other side of the spectrum, but like I said earlier, Socialists aspire to something greater, and it is not possible for us to have it exist in the most functional way before we overthrow the capitalist state...we have to jump in and then figure it out...The soviet union was an attempt that did not work out so well, and I think a lot of the reason why is that it was in an adversarial relationship with the west.

[Anonymous No.1501697]

>>1501600
Is the actual writing of it primarily by Malcolm X, or does Alex Haley receive more credit for it? I was never sure how this worked.

[Anonymous No.1501705]

>>1501669
Ok imagine a market where only private firms exist.
These firms compete for a finite number of customers, each firm is all about maximizing profits. In order to maximize profits they must satisfy as many customers as possible and charge them the highest price possible but because these firms are competing they keep undercutting one another and looking for ways to get the most bang for the buck so in the end the firms that survive are the ones that managed to offer the best possible service for the best possible price.

If however there is a firm ran/subsidized/owned by the government on the market this firm can afford to undercut so much that they have negative profits (they lose money) but they make it up by having the taxpayer pay (involuntarily and unknowingly) the difference.
This is a hidden price.

This is very common and in the end people end up pay for services they didn't ask for (poor subsidizing colleges for middle class kids though taxes, people who ride bikes paying for public transportation through taxes etc...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Ain%27t_No_Such_Thing_As_A_Free_Lunch

[Anonymous No.1501726]

>>1501705
You seem to have no desire to benefit other people. This is why to argue capitalism vs. socialism is mostly futile because they have opposing goals and to say one would work "better" than the other is impossible. They would work differently, so in the end it comes back to what you feel is the preferable environment for human relationships, or the way you would personally like to relate to society in general.

[Anonymous No.1501745]

>>1501688
I don't pretend to know how you got that conviction but my experience with socialists is that they have this illusion that capitalism is all about greedy people looking out only for themselves. This is of course not true. I'll agree that people in capitalistic society are motivated by their self interest but this can only be observed at the micro level (when you only focus on individual interactions). From the macro perspective the whole system is very vibrant, innovative and progressive.

I know the ideals of socialism and I'll admit that it does look somewhat nice on paper but in reality it leads to a stagnant society.

There's also the social issue, when people are made dependent on a central faceless authority instead of one another (and themselves) they lose the motivation to create social networks (friendships with neighbors, co-workers, customers etc). I know this from my personal experience because I live in a post-communist country.

My favorite argument for libertarianism is that we don't really know much, we don't know what's possible and what we're capable of creating so we should give people the freedom to experiment and try as many things as possible and let the market decide what is desirable and what isn't.

[Anonymous No.1501757]

>>1501726
No. This isn't true. I argue that the best way to improve the lives of ordinary folk is NOT to give them subsidies but to give them the freedom and opportunity to become all that they can.

I mean look at Africa. We're sending in bilions of dollars and euros and it doesn't have any measurable effect. At the same time we bash multinational corporations for "exploiting" the local population. Yet when you ask the locals they would kill to work for one of the multinationals because they pay twice as much as local firms.

[Anonymous No.1501764]

>>1501745
There is more to socialism than just a planned economy, you know. The early movement towards socialism was also for the liberation of prisoners, gender equality, improved conditions for workers, more personal freedom (this being freedom to live in a way that is not dominated by your survival routine). Socialism was really the most extreme end of classic progressive thinking. When it comes to capitalist states, what we have seen is that for some people life is vastly improved, but in general there is a banality to life engendered by the economy being the foremost aspect of your individual life--life is defined by consumption and competition--socialism ideally would make survival a background issue and allow individuals to develop in any way that they wish. Now, the level of "comfort'' will most likely not compare to the level of comfort that the current bourgeois has in the west, but ultimately a socialist does not desire that kind of comfort anyway. I am no Stalinist, nor do I favor the kind of authoritarian communism that happened in eastern europe, so I am probably not so different in some ways from a libertarian--it's just that I think that without the government, and with total freedom of private firms, embryonic pre-states will emerge, we will be at the hands of the most powerful and it just seems like a step back in time.

[Anonymous No.1501775]

>>1501757
It is still exploitation--of course a lot of the corporations in africa pay far more than the average company there, but this is still exploitative. You should read about how industrialization changed the lives of provincials in france...the mines opened and at first, since peasants could subsidize their incomes and resources with subsistence farming, they would only mine as a secondary source of income. The mines raised wages, making many of the peasants full time miners. The miners who went full time were made to live in the company neighborhoods, with no plot of land at all to grow food on, and they became totally dependent on the mine. Once they were totally dependent, the mine lowered the pay to starvation wages, but at that point the workers could not quit their jobs.

[Anonymous No.1501783]

>>1501639
Ok first of all that's a horrible straw man. Libertarians see competition as a positive and motivating, not a destructive force.

I have no doubt about the sincerity of your intentions. What I argue is that they are incompatible with human nature. This is why most radical attempts at socialism end up in genocide, because when it comes to actually doing it people find out they don't like it.

Socialism simply cannot work as long as humans are humans, because deep down we all want to be autonomous beings, we don't like to be commanded.

Also I know that the word capitalism is being thrown around a lot these days, every politician says how capitalism is great (because it's popular to say it) but they all hate it.
When I say capitalism I really mean the free-market, laissez faire type, not the one we supposedly have now.

[Anonymous No.1501802]

>>1501775
I wasn't there 200 years ago, the time was different, you know being a farmer then wasn't that much better.
I won't deny that those were harsh times but so was the whole history of civilization before then. We're over it, we're never going back there and thanks to those people we're much better off today.

Many of the first capitalists were the former aristocrats so no surprise there.
But today is different. An average joe with a truly innovative idea can change the world and become a millionaire.

[Anonymous No.1501803]

>>1501783
I think we have to change our human nature, of course. I think there is a lot of psychology that has been influenced by our way of life these past thousands of years--Socialism desires to put the fast-forward on individual development, and I suppose there is something essentially irrational about this ideal--but it is to have these irrational desires and to act on them that is the draw of socialism--the difference between libertarianism and socialism would probably be that the workers would control the industries via councils, and I suppose with libertarian capitalism their would be a board of directors or something of that sort? How is this individual freedom? You will still have masters in that sort of libertarianism...Socialism would put into your hands as a producer the rights to what you have produced, it would recognize that each person is capable of contributing to the production and would therefor compensate each person in an equitable way..we really don't need the bosses, they need us.

[Anonymous No.1501806]

>>1501802
But why would you want to be a millionaire?

[Anonymous No.1501810]

>>1501764
As a libertarian I agree with many of the things the progressives say about non-economic policies, but I disagree whenever they want to use the government to achieve their goal.

[Anonymous No.1501825]

>>1501810
Well, the type of socialism I am in favor of wouldn't really have this "big government" calling the shots--it would be very much council-oriented and would utilize localized direct democracy to decide various issues..

[Anonymous No.1501829]

>>1501803
There would be no outside force stopping you from becoming one of the "rulers" under libertarianism.

If you're smart, educated, willing and capable enough to do whatever job you want nobody will have a reason to stand in your way, in fact people will be motivated to seek out guys like you.

[Anonymous No.1501834]

>>1501803
Change human nature? I think that it's by definition impossible, no?
I can think of neither a peaceful nor a violent way of changing human nature. We're not robots, you know.

[Anonymous No.1501843]

>>1501829
Some people are against rulers simply out of principle--these people are socialists--I thought libertarians were against masters too, but it doesn't sound like it. It really sounds like some people believe that the government is standing in their way to becoming a big shot, but there are more factors at work than that...
>>1501834
Well, we aren't robots and we aren't pre-programmed either. I think that at one time human nature would be to smash your neighbors skull with a rock and rape his daughters..we aren't doing that much anymore, although it still happens sometimes.

[Anonymous No.1501848]

>>1501825
Haven't you noticed that politicians don't have an interest in public welfare?
A politician will do or say anything to get re-elected. If he can fool people into thinking anything he will do it and use it to get (re)elected.

Again you have a problem of motivation.
People (the majority) would use popular vote to confiscate the property of/bully people they don't like (the minority) and they'd always find a politician willing to do it.

[Anonymous No.1501851]

>>1501848
I don't really think there would be much motivation for such vindictive behavior since property would be "the commons"..of course there will be some corruption but you don't think your system will somehow be perfect do you? There wouldn't be any politicians either, people would vote directly on the issues.

[Anonymous No.1501850]

Into the Wild

Born to Run

[Anonymous No.1501861]

>>1501843
That's over simplifying. I don't believe one bit that libertarians want to minimize or abolish the state so that they could rule. I know a lot of libertarians and none of them have that ambition. They scorn the idea of one man ruling over another.

Libertarians argue for 'negative liberty', socialists argue for 'positive liberty'.
You can look these terms up on wikipedia to learn the difference because it's key to understanding libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.1501867]

>>1501851
Tragedy of the commons
How would you solve that?

My experience with publicly owned property is that everybody feels entitled to use it and nobody has the motivation to take care of it (land, machinery etc).

[Anonymous No.1501868]

>>1501848

Only a child or a fool could see the rich as a bullied minority. Politicians have always used monied interests to convince everyone else to vote for them. Some politicians are better than that, but they rarely get very far.

[Anonymous No.1501877]

>>1501861
"negative liberty" vs. "positive liberty" sounds very interesting...
>>1501867
You know how in western culture people will go into debt, will freak the fuck out to see a big football game? Well, ideally, a socialist culture would make taking care of the commons (i.e. doing community service while you chill with friends) as exciting as a football game...or something like that. I know, I know, the alteration would be very difficult and I don't honestly know if it is possible on a large scale...to be honest I think that socialism really only works if everyone is a socialist and since not everyone is...well...I am just being honest right now..I'm a little bummed out today and so I'm maybe not as motivated to candy-coat things, but the truth is that many people are just fucked up and will fuck up any perfect system we could throw at them. I am a socialist to some extent because I think it defines my life and understanding in positive ways..

[Anonymous No.1501879]

>>1501851
And no i don't believe that capitalism is perfect. Nothing human is perfect and under ANY system you will find some people who will suffer.
I'm fairly convinced that of all the systems we know capitalism is the one where people suffer the least.

If you don't believe me then how would you explain our standard of living compared to the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.1501884]

>>1501879
Our capitalism creates the shitty conditions for the rest of the world--there is a positive side to capitalism (where some people enjoy nice lives) and then there is the exploited, destitute and impoverished side...which we try to forget as much as possible by inventing/watching things like jersey shore...

[Anonymous No.1501886]

[Anonymous No.1501892]

>>1501867

I'm part of several distinct "commons" - a community centre on Crown land which houses a theatre, and a rural co-op, to name two - and we take quite good care of these things, thank you. If the comcentre (which belongs to everyone) didn't exist, it would likely be another tourist development and underground carpark.

[Anonymous No.1501895]

>>1501868
Not only the rich, the poor as well.
The middle class is feeding off both the rich AND the poor.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtBskFDiOC4

[Anonymous No.1501902]

>>1501884
Not really capitalism but protectionism.

We hurt developing countries by enacting tariffs and quotas. If we're serious about helping them we should have a free trade policy with them. That way they can import their goods to our country at very competitive prices and we can in return export our technology, medicine or whatever they want to their country.

It's protectionism that you should be concerned about.

[Anonymous No.1501911]

>>1501892
These things are exceptions to the rule.
Probably because they have a community associated with the property, which is almost never the case with public property.

[Anonymous No.1501909]

>>1501902
Actually "free trade" policies just open up new impoverished groups for exploitation--that is what has happened and what will continue to happen with free trade--it fucks the worker at home and it double-fucks the worker abroad. Sure, they might have televisions in their shanties, but we would like to do better than that. The way of life in the west is untenable and I personally think it is a little gross and do you ever wonder why we have probably one of the highest rates of mental illness/mood disorders/personality disorders in the US?

[Anonymous No.1501919]

>>1501902

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.1501937]

>>1501902
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong and wrong. Those are popular myths and economic fallacies that were debunked in the 18th century.

Read this:
http://blog.mises.org/7889/free-trade-versus-free-trade-agreements/

http://mises.org/liberal/ch3sec7.asp

[Anonymous No.1501942]

>>1501919
It is you who has no clue.

read:
>>1501937

[Anonymous No.1501949]

>>1501937
the mises institute slants their information a bit too much, i mean, that is the point of course, but i'm unconvinced..either way when people say "free trade'' i assume they mean the *actual* current policies associated with that term, and not some kind of theoretical free trade situation.

[Anonymous No.1501950]

>>1500459

mises and rothbard on the same list
mfw

[Anonymous No.1501954]

>>1501949
Well let's make it clear. There's the real free trade (ie no artificial barriers to trade) and then there's free trade agreements (all kinds of artificial barriers to trade).

As I observe this conversation I see that the biggest issue here is probably the meaning of words and phrases. It's so depressive seeing how politicians and interest groups manage to distort the true meaning of words and make people believe they are doing one thing when in fact they are doing the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.1501958]

>>1501950
Why?
Mises taught Rothbard.

[Anonymous No.1501961]

Forgotten Fire by: Adam Bagdasarian

[Anonymous No.1501969]

>>1501954
"There is no power in words, only words in the service of power."
I think foucault said that, but it's important to realize that words are used to support arguments, and that it is inevitable that terminology will get crossed up when discussing opposing ideologies.

[Anonymous No.1501985]

>>1501438

la societe du spetacle, you mean

[Anonymous No.1501991]

>>1501958
yep, but theyre very opposite positions. just sayain to say, its not nonsense, im just sayain. dont minde me, keep on.

[Anonymous No.1501997]

>>1501464
>>1501464
>>1501464

lrn2sociologyandeconomy

[Anonymous No.1501998]

>>1501985
I liked that one, but Vaneigem just impacted me with his direct style, whereas debord kind of left me deflated because he is just so smug and witty. Society of the Spectacle is good to read before the revolution of everday life, though.

[Anonymous No.1502013]

economists trying to cover capitalism's failures, economists trying to cover capitalism's failures everywhere

[Anonymous No.1502040]

>>1501911

That's because public property - the kind ran by government - is nearly always an historical attempt to offset, at best, to facilitate at worst, gross and persistent economic disadvantage/abuse. Not to actually counter or dismantle it. Providing parks, housing, libraries, transport, etc., isn't a solution, it's a social patchwork that can only absorb the conditions surrounding it. The destruction of public property is not anyone's tragedy, it's merely the upshot of economic conditions which persist unchecked.

[Anonymous No.1502912]

>>1501991
Lol. did you even read them? Rothbard took Mises' economic theories with only some adjustments of his own.

[Anonymous No.1502918]

On Revolution (Hannah Arendt)
Two Concepts of Liberty (Isaiah Berlin)
The Opiate of the Intellectuals (Raymond Aron)

In addition to the Groundwork, the Republic, the Genealogy of Morals, and all those classics

[Anonymous No.1502919]

>>1502918
Oh fuck, how did I forget. Thought and Change, Ernest Gellner.

[Anonymous No.1502925]

Ogilvy on Advertising. But then, I'm a copywriter.

[Anonymous No.1502931]

Oh also just skimmed the thread

it's reductionist as fuck to argue that 'negative liberty = libertarian, positive liberty = socialist'. it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that, although that's the basic distinction by which people who lack any kind of commitment to individual rights can claim to be committed to freedom.

the whole negative / positive liberty schema was first elaborated by Berlin in Two Concepts and you should really read that essay if you want to grasp the concept