No.39235
There used to be a thread on here that graphed quality on one axis and accessibility on the other, with regards to various books on libertarianism. Perhaps I'm going blind, but I don't see it in the catalog or either of the stickies.
No.39239
>>39235
We should probably agree on a literature list to guide people where to start learning from, or what to argue against and sticky it. Imagine someone actually read some Human Action and wanted to discuss a specific excerpt instead of reposting memes about praxeology. It could happen someday.
No.39242
>>39239
Something like our reading list, except ordered by topic? I had something like that in mind a while ago. Here's some suggestions:
>Philosophy
>Economics general
>Law Enforcement / Private Courts
>Military Defense
>Roads
>Welfare general
>Healthcare
>Cultural Integrity
No.39244
>>39242
Splitting it apart in topics makes it easier to find material when you want something specific without having to read everything related to Libertarianism. Literature that covers the most discussed and reposted topics like "Why Capitalism?", "What's wrong with Government?", "Why not Democracy?" and so forth.
Then we can also have a list of books to start with if you feel you want to learn more about Libertarian thought in general. Somewhere it can branch off into the different schools, (which aren't that many here).
No.39250
>>39237
Much obliged.
>>39244
I concur, it would also be useful in dealing with those chronic lefty shitposters that think their "gotcha" question just disproved all of libertarianism I know I'm deluding myself by thinking they'll ever stop, but at least the process of dealing with them can be streamlined.
No.39252
>>39239
Someone already made this. I think it's a good introduction to both.
No.39257
>>39250
I hate repeating myself all the time. Especially when it's in vain. Turns out that's also why Hoppe doesn't do interviews.
No.39260
>>39257
Hoppe strikes me as someone with an enormous disdain for plebs. Which I'm beginning to understand more and more. It's getting tiresome dealing with people that think they know economics and history when they got all their knowledge straight from highschool.
No.39270
>>39267
>Roxana.rar
Is that porn? I'm really not sure!
No.39284
>>39235
>2016
>doesnt know that hoppe is an alt-right shill rather than a libertarian
No.39300
I just assembled this thing. Thoughts?
No.39305
>>39300
Saved
Even I didn't read all these yet. The Positive Theory of Capital / Capital and Interest both look very interesting, I've been thinking about how important capital is lately and how capital gains / corporate tax are both kinda dumb
No.39307
>>39300
Good variety of books there. I was thinking of throwing a bunch of /liberty/ book pdfs together and hosting them on IPFS. This should be a nice guide.
No.39311
>>39300
Pretty good. Are they arranged in any particular order? If so, you may want to indicate that.
No.39312
>>39311
Any order within the subsections, I mean. I see you have Human Action as the first Economics text, is that because you think it's the best of the bunch?
No.39313
>>39307
And thanks to the Mises Institute and Library Genesis, I got pretty much all of them. If anyone has a .pdf copy of Against the State or any of the Bertrand de Jouvenel books, please dump them here. They're the only ones I'm missing.
No.39316
>>39313
Can we have a thread with them all please?
It would be nice..
No.39328
>>39312
Good question. Somehow, the most popular books are always first, but that wasn't intended. Any ideas on how to arrange them?
>>39313
Seconding that. De Jouvenel is really hard to get.
No.39329
>>39260
ofc there is a lot value to be had in just outplaying and/or humiliating them. also see milton friedman.
too bad he cant get over himself to use his superioir skills for some time.
No.39333
>>39237
>Chaos Theory
>easy
No.39341
>>39328
I'd say beginner to advanced, or order of reading. So the far left is the things you would advise a newcomer to read first as exposure.
No.39343
>>39341
Order of reading sounds good to me, but then I'd add two books to each category and make three rows. Books that are aligned vertically would be alternatives to each other, so that you could start with the first book on any row, then read the second book on any row, and so on.
I also considered adding a history-category, but I'm short on books yet. It would include something from Acton (but not sure what - he wrote a shitton on history), Conceived in Liberty, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, maybe Njal's Saga, Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal and Death by Government.
No.39361
>>39341
>>39343
Done, but not commented yet.
No.39366
Here's an IPFS folder with them. Seeding is appreciated.
https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmR9aMT7QzRLcpQrBf3fCYnnwtJ8paRSQU9mGoJgEpP4Mv/Books
Should I post what I can in this thread or another thread?
No.39367
>>39361
Forgot file. One of them should be taken with a grain of salt.
No.39386
>>39300
and what's about anything of herbert spencer?
No.39389
>>39386
>Tfw forgot Spencer, Tucker and Spooner
Fuck me…
No.39409
= power =
the dictators handbook - alastair smith
the 48 laws of power - robert greene
this is for oldschool monopolies in zero-sum situations.
these days, at least in business, there is competetion and its also not zero-sum
how to influence people and win friends
Influence - The Psychology of Persuasion - Robert B. Cialdini
discipline and punish - foucault
= popular writings on (complex) dynamics =
the black swan
sync how order emerges from chaos
= Strategic reasoning =
Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction
Strategy: An Introduction to Game Theory (Third Edition)
The Art of Strategy: A Game Theorist's Guide to Success in Business and Life
.. amazon search gametheory introduction should be good too
= econ =
prisoners dilemma
zero to one
= ancap related, society =
the voluntary city
against intellectual monopoly
the uniqueness of western civilization
= sauce =
bookzz.org
libgen.io
lib.gen.rus.ec
thepiratebay.se
zoogle.com
torrentfreak.info
No.39410
>>39367
I accidentally. Here's the real version of the second pic.
No.39417
>>39410
These are some damn fine lists tbh.
No.39466
What are some good Paleolibertarian books? Is Hoppe worth it? I agree to a certain level on his stuff.
Non-related, is a voluntary institution a minarchist governament?
No.39522
>>39466
Hoppe is, in my opinion, the most innovative libertarian thinker since Rothbard. Really worth reading if you're familiar with the basics of ancapism and praxeology.
No.39523
>>39466
Right, for paleolibertarianism, check out Sumner, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and some Rothbard (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature)
No.39540
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>39466
Hoppe is always worth it.
No.39585
>>39540
Not really Hoppe is a really foul person, isn't he?
He's incredibly anti-freedom.
Now if you want true freedom, look no further than good ol' Richard M. Stallman.
That guy is a fucking genius when it comes to freedom.
No.39602
>>39585
hoppe is a reactionary crank and a cocksucker
No.39603
>>39585
>>39602
You're both faggots. Enjoy your days, faggots!
No.39662
>>39410
I like the list, but have you read them all or are you throwing ones that were recommended to you?
also
>molyneux
This guy contradicts himself too much. Or is his old works worth looking into before pic related.
No.39681
>>39662
They're decent. I've skimmed through Everyday Anarchy and it's a good primer for beginners. It debunks a lot of myths about the flawed, popular idea of anarchism. Practical Anarchy is more in depth and a good follow up for people who are tentatively on board with anarcho-capitalism.
No.39817
>>39662
Haven't read all of them (yet). There was no uniform reason why I put them where they are, but I had a rationale for every book. For example, the last three books on economics are classics of austrianism. I put them there because they are pretty much history of economics at this point, hence nothing the beginner needs, and probably only more useful than something like Human Action if your economic understanding is solid and you're not easily confused by slight divergences in theory.
>>39681
Then I'll switch the two in the next version. Only read Practical Anarchy, took it as a rehearsal of what you learnt in For a New Liberty.
No.39824
>>39681
>>39817
So I started reading Molyneux's Everyday Anarchy.
>confusing hierarchy with government
>irrelevant examples
>balant historical inaccuracy
>non sequitur
>all of that in the first 9 pages
I've been following this guy for a year now and nothing surprising there honestly. I'm for economic liberty and I view laissez-faire positively but holy shit does he do a disservice.
No.39892
>>39824
The thing that bothers me the most is that these books seem to have been written at his most euphoric stage. He really beats you over the head with his athiesm, and even as a non-religious person that bothers me.
No.39962
>>39824
>>39892
I was never much of a fan of Molyneux. His arguments are shallow and sometimes outright retarded (like the entirety of UPB). The man does have his occasional great moments (like the video about Taiwan someone here once recommended to me), but overall, he's shit to meh.
No.39997
No.40674
Didn't realize my IPFS daemon crashed. My apologies to anyone who wanted the pdfs from >>39366.
No.40779
>>40674
No problem, m8. Thanks for bumping, I just now realized I have to download Liberty or Equality.
No.40995
No.41277
>>39824
I just started reading the thing. It seems pretty decent to me, besides the king-sized fedora he's wearing, his lack of citations, his shitty analogies and that thinking like a statist really doesn't seem like second nature to him, which hurts his credibility. What I saw of historical data seemed accurate, however. I'm pleased to see he also used the number of Rummel on how many people were killed by government.
No.41415
>>39366
>>40674
Can't open the tab on ancaps, tbh fam. What's happening?
Also, thanks again for uploading all that in the first place!
>>41277
Finished, and I liked it. Best of his books I've read so far. He nicely pointed out the contradictions inherent in democracy, although Based Bastiat already did that too. I also liked his general approach in the book, and his ideas on corruption, although how exactly he treated them reeked too much of armchair-economics.
No.41416
>>39252
marx BTFO's both keynes and austrian 'economics'
No.41421
>>41416
By pulling all the central concepts of his economic system out of his ass? Yeah, sure. That'll show us.
No.41434
>>41415
Daemon crashed again. I don't know what it is about the newer versions of IPFS but it always crashes the second I stop checking it.
No.41876
>>41434
No problem fam, still got good material out of it!
No.42003
Does anyone know of a good book that's an introductory into libertarianism? I have no clue where to start to be honest, I find ancap quite fascinating and would like to know more.
No.42006
>>42003
Say no more, fam. First, some suggestions on minarchism and classical liberalism:
>The Law
Tells you why economic planning and interventionism are bound to fail. This thing requires no prior knowledge and can be read in a day or two.
>The Road to Serfdom
Does the same thing, but is longer and more thorough. Hayek seems to me like the nicest guy in Austrian Economics.
>The Virtue of Selfishness
Develops objectivism, and has some powerful arguments against socialism.
>How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't
Comic on, well, how an economy grows. It's a fun and very informative read.
Now to anarchocapitalism. Al of these, except An Agorist Primer, are very exhaustive and deal with a lot of issues, from war to crime to healthcare:
>For a New Liberty
One of the first and best treatises on anarchocapitalism, deals with both ethical and practical questions.
>The Problem of Political Authority
Pretty much For a New Liberty without the talk of a natural law. Very intuitive.
>The Machinery of Freedom
Most vivid description of an anarchocapitalist society I know of. Doesn't accept a natural law, which I think is wrong, but an interesting perspective nonetheless.
>An Agorist Primer
The quickest read on this list for anarchocapitalism. Briefly deals with ethics and economics, then goes on to show a specific strategy for bringing about a stateless society.
>The Ethics of Liberty
If you found For a New Liberty intriguing, then this is the best place to go on. It further develops the ethical system of anarchocapitalism, and closes many, many holes in the NAP and its application.
No.42048
>>42006
Thanks a lot. Sorry for the long awaited reply I had to sleep.
No.42056
>>42048
Not a problem, I don't expect people on here to respond at once.
No.42238
Bumping, so that more people can download my magnificent library: >>41981
No.42642
No.44381
No.45531
>>39252
Let's be honest, what kind of person actually makes a table like that?
No.45539
>>45531
I found it pretty helpful as a cheat-sheet.
No.46297
Where do I find the mythical New book of /liberty/ ?
No.46318
Anyone ever read Three Felonies a Day? Here's a copy for the curious.
>>46297
It's not finished yet. Nor does it seem like it ever will be.
No.46651
How good are these? What green/red pills am I missing? I own T&H and rented the other.
Also, what will I absorb if I zombie read and mostly tune in for the interesting or surprising or new parts?
No.47524
Is Pratical Anarchy by Molyneux any good? is he even Ancap still? on the same line, is Cantwell still Ancap?
No.47535
>>47524
>Is Pratical Anarchy by Molyneux any good?
It's good at what it's supposed to be, that being a simple, easy book to bring anarchocapitalism nearer to people who don't have the patience or the background to read For a New Liberty or The Problem of Political Authority.
No.47558
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>47524
Judging by what they spew, not at all. If you want more on Anarcho Capitalism you'd do better to read Hoppe.
No.47560
>>41421
He pulls a lot of it out of Ricardo and Smith's asses and shits it out again, repeating every error and amplifying it.
No.47587
>>47558
since you posted this, what about /liberty/ videos worth watching? Ivory tower only please, I can't stand youtubers.
No.47629
>>47587
The mises institute's youtube channel has plenty of good lectures
No.47667
>>47587
>Ivory tower only please, I can't stand youtubers.
Me neither. How can some people remain at introductory-stuff for years on end?
No.47695
>>39237
> The New Book of /liberty/
Huh?
No.48183
Since some people requested reviews, here's some thoughts on my most recent read: Bureaucracy, by Ludwig von Mises.
The book deals with the difference between the profit and bureaucratic management. Profit management is the entrepreneurial style, where you try to maximize profits. Bureaucratic management, on the other hand, must work by rigid rules. Mises claims that bureaucratic management is necessary, even if it's less efficient than profit management, because some functions require a government. Sadly, his argument does not go beyond being a simple assertion. If you're an ancap who seriously wants his beliefs challenged, look elsewhere. If you expect some radical new insights and have already read Human Action, likewise, you may want to pass this book. If, however, you want a genuine account of Mises' worldview (including on democracy and the public sector), with some extremely well-written passages on the totalitarian mindset, economic calculation and the prerequisites of democrac, then you should pick up Bureaucracy. The book is short and can easily be read within a week, despite being as dense as you'd expect from Mises.
No.48184
Also, my view on Human Action, because why not?
This book is big, it's dry, and it's complicated. It was one of the more challenging things I've read, but I don't regret it. Human Action, in a word, is brilliant. The scope of the book is immense, it deals with basic problems of epistemics, the axioms and implications of praxeology, wages, business cycles, inflation and deflation, debunks protectionism, interventionism, central planning, syndicalism and guild socialism and many other fallacious ideas, Malthusianism and its implications for the Industrial Revolution, the economics of war, and many, many other topics. Human Action deserves all the praise and attention it has gotten from libertarian economists, and should be read by anyone seriously interested in the field.
My advice on how to read it is to make it a secondary read. It seriously took me six months to sift through it, and I'd have given up a long time ago if I hadn't read a good thirty other books in that time. Maybe more. You should make reading it a conscious effort. Think along, try to make sense of what you're reading, and you probably won't have to make any notes. That sounds like rather complicated advice for reading a single book, but keep in mind that this particular book is a comprehensive treatise aimed at a scholarly audience. It wasn't meant to be picked up as a cheap and quick "redpill". This is the real deal.
I started Man, Economy and State just yesterday, by the way. I'm curious how that will change my outlook on Human Action.
No.48186
>>48183
>>48184
Alle guten Dinge sind drei, so fuck it.
Pic related, A Short History of Man by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, was a bit of a disappointment. I like Hoppe a lot, Democracy - The God that Failed was a great book and had a big impact on my worldview, but in this one here, he didn't show himself at his best side. It consisted of three essays: One was the early history of mankind, how humans came to conquer the earth and develop from nomadic hunters and gatherers to the members of highly complex societies that we have nowadays. This essay was very good, and it's really worth reading. The second essay was about the source of human development, particularly the Industrial Revolution. Hoppe's hypothesis (he himself calls it that) is that humans progressively got more and more intelligent until they figured out how to achieve industrialization, but his evidence for that is flimsy (four, maybe five books are cited by him) and his case overall rather weak. From what he gave me, it's impossible to say whether he's right or not. He barely addresses other possibilities, which also has to do with the limited scope of this book, but then again, maybe he shouldn't have opened such a large and controversial topic when all he has are thirty pages and a hypothesis. The third and last essay is an essay that I'm not sure didn't appear in Democracy - The God that Failed already. It was interesting, but so was the three-hundred page book he wrote on the exact same topic. Nothing new to see here.
A peculiar highlight was Hoppe's foreword, where he addressed methodological problems in the social sciences, including history, and in ethics. For that and the first essay, this book was worth it. The rest was not quite bad, but it was a disappointment nonetheless after what I have come to expect from Hoppe.
No.48188
>>48186
>>48184
>>48183
Thank you for your reviews, Could you sum up what is praxeology? I'm having trouble to grasp it.
No.48196
>>48188
You're welcome. Praxeology is the science of human action, of the conditions under which humans act. Its most productive use so fat had been in economics, where you can deduce a lot from such trivial statements as "human beings act to ease a felt uneasiness" or "all other things equal, people prefer a good now and not later". The latter is what interest is based on, for example.
The starting point of praxeology is that human beings act (i.e. purposely, with a purpose in mind). This fact is undeniable, as the very act of denying it would involve a purposeful action.
The topic is simple once you got it, but highly abstract, so I advise you to read up on it. I recommend the Mises-wiki, it does a great job explaining basic concepts.
No.48251
>>48196
not that anon
>The starting point of praxeology is that human beings act (i.e. purposely, with a purpose in mind)
does it distinguish between actions? like actual purposeful actions and "pointless" actions like gestures? Also it sounds a lot like Husserl's phenomenology.
No.48273
>>48251
It's attempted Kantian epistemology but he actually fucked it up and other libertarians rightfully discredited this shit.
No.48288
>>48273
so that's the crux of the libertarian-ancap divide?
Makes sense now why Chicago went for empiricism.
No.48304
>>48288
>so that's the crux of the libertarian-ancap divide?
That one runs more along ethical than economic lines. There is of course an economic component to it, in that ancaps don't see the state as indispensable, but economists from all kinds of schools have arrived at this conclusion (or rejected it). There's Austrian ancaps, neoclassical ancaps, and Chicago School ancaps, for example.
>>48251
>does it distinguish between actions? like actual purposeful actions and "pointless" actions like gestures?
No, as long as it aims at any end, it qualifies as an action. This can be something as simple as gesticulating to come across as more enthusiastic or likable. The action doesn't have to involve a lot of planning or conscious deliberating either, and it doesn't have to aim at any rational end.
>Also it sounds a lot like Husserl's phenomenology.
Haven't heard of him, to be honest, sorry.
No.48333
Can you be a Nietzschenian Ancap? I arrived to libertarianism through a positive nihilism, so I am quite confuse seeing Kant here
No.48365
>>48333
I don't know maybe? I've met libertarians and ancaps on tumblr that are also stirnerite egoists.
No.48368
>>48333
That should be possible, and it sounds more legitimate to me than nietzschean democracy or nietzschean fascism.
No.48371
>>48333
> Nietzschean
> Nihilist
Lol, what?
Yes though; Ancap (provided you accept various ideas such as anti-egalatarianism and the natural elite/aristocracy that would exist even without a state) is completely compatible with Nietzsche.
No.48378
>>48371
That is why I said positive nihilist (a non nihilist nihilist). I know nietzsche was all for having your own meaning and such, not totally clueless.
No.48396
>>48365
>on tumblr
That explains the contradiction.
>>48378
Read Renzo Novatore.
No.48399
>>48396
>Read Renzo Novatore
I do like property though
No.48417
>>48399
so was he against property?
No.48434
>>48417
Straight from wikipedia:
>He says he views "Only ethical and spiritual wealth" as "invulnerable. This is the true property of individuals. The rest no! The rest is vulnerable! And all that is vulnerable will be violated!"[4] Novatore sees thoses similar to him as "anarchists. And individualists, and nihilists, and aristocrats." and as "the lovers of every miracle, the promoters of every prodigy, the creators of every wonder!"; "the enemies of all material domination and all spiritual leveling.
I do believe to a certain level that might makes right but since we are rational beings, once every man has the power to act his will he may use rationality to make things stable.
No.48475
I'm on this book, 100 pages in. It's not bad, but it isn't as grest as it thinks, either. And the anthropology really shows:
>Every ten years, the Bokozwezwe ritually exchange gifts. They gather around their chieftain and each male takes turns telling him "you got something on your forehead" before viciously punching him in the dick. Then, they each give one of their personal belongings to someone else, saying "we'd be so much richer with a fully functioning market". The wifes sit aside and cheer on the males that exchange the most valuable gift, solemnly reflecting where their cultural achievements went. Western civilization sure is stupid lmao.
No.48526
>>48434
ethical and spiritual wealth are vulnerable imo
No.48964
No.48999
Should we just drop some books in the thread while we're at it?
No.49000
>>48999
Sure, why not? Also, nice trips.
No.49012
>>48999
K.
Mises's site is a godsend.
The "From Aristocracy to monarchy to democracy" section of A short History and the chapter dealing with right-wing populism/ strategy in Irrepressible Rothbard are things that I would consider essential reading.
No.49013
My pdf of Democracy: The God That Failed is too big but it's easy to find and is easily the best libertarian work that I have ever read.
No.49015
Btw, what the fuck is "The new book of /liberty/" from that graph?
No.49016
>>49015
Maybe someone will drop it off but it was in a thread a few months ago.
No.49028
>>49012
Was this essay from A Short History of Man copypasted from DtGtf? It read like that, to be honest, and I wasn't even skimming it.
No.49556
Bumping with books because the catalog is awash with idiots who don't read them.
No.49585
I wish they'd increase the maximum filesize to 25mb or something.
No.49587
Hey, how about we have some quarterly or biannual reading-event? Three months (or six months) to read some specific book, so we have some more common grounds to talk about and can encourage others to read more. I'd stretch it out over such a time so that we can also add some heavier books to the list, even some 500-page monster can be read within six months with relatively little effort.
No.49604
>>49585
We were supposed to get 16MB like six months ago.
No.49606
>>49585
Love me some Hoppe every once in a while.
No.49608
>>49606
Without Hoppe I probably would have stopped calling myself libertarian by now.
No.49610
>>49608
Hoppe is the most worthy successor to Rothbard, if you ask me. Not that Rockwell and Block aren't good, but they ain't no Hoppe.
Also:
>>49587
Thoughts?
No.49647
>>49610
>>49587
Sounds alright to me. What book do you have in mind?
No.49656
>>49647
I don't have a particular one in mind yet, to be honest. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would make for a good start, but I've already read it and so naming it would feel like cheating.
No.49658
>>39333
By Robert Murphy; not the field of mathematics. Not sure why it's ranked so low on the quality scale, though.
No.49665
>>49658
Because personally, I didn't like it, and didn't think that so many would disagree. If I had, I'd have rated it higher, against my own judgement. Feel free to change that and reupload it, I might do that myself on the next version.
No.49666
anything /liberty/ tier in chinese? so far i found only adam kokesh's book in that language
No.49670
>>49656
Well shit, I can't think of anything else. I'll have to look for a pdf of it.
No.49689
>>49670
If we go by that book, then I should be able to upload a scan of my version. There's a crappy .pdf of it gloating around already, but reading that would only be half the fun.
No.50022
I started reading this book today after finding Conquests name on the infopic on Rummels site. It's a very gripping report of the gulags in the Kolyma region, including the social hierarchy in them and the various periods that they went through. Notably, this fucker Stalin complained about the "coddling" treatment of the prisoners in them, executed the old leadership and installed a new one that went out of its way to kill as many prisoners as they could. The book is a pretty good indictment of the Soviets, and if it doesn't quite make the cut to what I'd call an essential read, then only because the core message - that the Soviets sucked - has become almost common knowledge, with only serious revisionists doubting that.
Christfags might be interested in the inspiring way that Christians handled their imprisonment. Seriously, they were as fucking insane as they were unbreakable. Like I said, truly inspiring.
Here's a download link, because the file is too big to embed: https://archive.org/details/KolymaTheWorstJewishSovietLaborCamp
No.51939
Can I just say that I think "Time Will Run Back" by Henry Hazlitt is a bad book?
The characters are unrealistic to a laughable level, and reads like the script to a Power Rangers plot.
No.52270
Update on this book, of whom I made a thread bitching about it: It got a whole lot better now, or I got used to its style. I'm not sure, but bottomline is, this is a good book. De Jasay might become one of my favorite authors after it.
No.52271
>>51939
And sure you can, I haven't read the book and can't say whether you're right or wrong on that. Sounded to me like Anthem and Pictures of the Socialistic Future, with more sci-fi maybe.
No.53880
Okay guys, anyone up for another reading month? I'll be pretty busy very soon and I doubt I'm the only one, so I'd say we pick a book that's pretty short and quick to read. Something like On Liberty, or the Second Treatise of Government, or Pictures of the Socialist Future.
No.54972
This is a reading thread basically so here's something tangentially related. I'm going to be going on a journey through the Founding Fathers. I'm starting with the Federalist Papers, what should I do next?
No.54990
>>54972
Read everything by Thomas Paine.
No.55012
>>54972
What the other guy said. Common Sense in particular is really good. I don't think Thomas Jefferson wrote any magnum opus, sadly, or at least I couldn't find such a work. Would be glad if a Burger could help me out here.
No.55507
What is a good book about the origins of the state from a non-marxist perspective? My uni faggot teacher says that the state came from the slavery and it was created to protect privage property and that really grinds my gears.
Also, what is a good criticism of the socialist utopia, rather then the use of the state to reach it?
No.55515
>>55507
Anatomy of the State and The State deal with that question, albeit in the abstract. Theres also an essay or two that are relevant at the beginning of The Myth of National Defense. A Short History of Man is also good for that.
For your second request, the essay Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature comes pretty close. Other than that, I don't know of that many, sadly. Marx was extremely vague on the final state of communism, and criticism of it is already implicit in most libertarian ethical texts. You could also try looking over Requiem for Marx, I think there was an essay in it that touched on it, although it wasn't a focus either (the book is very good though if you want to btfo commies).
No.55518
>>39662
If he changed his outlook on the world that drastically, wouldn't that imply that his understanding had little basis? Ruling out brainwashing and brain damage, if he went from ancap to fascist, that would mean that either Anarcho-Capitalism, or his understanding of Anarcho-Capitalism was severely flawed.
No.55520
By the way, all the books I mentioned are in the bookdump, should be on page 2 or something. It's one big .rar file with over two-hundred books.
No.56138
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>Tfw you finished your 52 books for the year already
No.56201
>>47695
Someone in another thread told me it was a pdf that used to get spread around but I check all these reading threads that pop up and I've never seen anyone post it.
No.56202
>>49608
Same. Really helped me reconcile a lot of things that I thought conflicted with each other.
No.56338
Which one of these books would you call the Mein Kampf of libertarian literature? I'm thinking it's Human Action but I'm not sure. I want to read it once I finish up Malthus' Essay on the Principle of Population, and then of course compare/contrast the book to Hitler's book, and whatever the communist champion book is.
>>49656
Would second this. It's a fantastic piece of fiction, politics aside.
No.56340
>>56338
From what I can tell, mein kamf was sort of a mix of manifesto and autobiography that Hitler wrote to explain his views on the jews and the state of western civilization whereas Human Action is pretty much a textbook on praxeology that was given a libertarian twist thruout. If you want "entry level" literature that encompasses what can be considered the essentials of modern libertarianism while giving poignant musings to give you some context, The Law by Frederic Bastiast would be the way to go, imho. If you want a communist equivalent, Das Kapital is pretty much their bible. Complex, hard to understand, riddled with inconsistent messages and held as unquestionable dogma by its followers. From what i understand Das Kapital is going to be the hardest to get thru of the 3, with Mein Kampf being the most poorly written and The Law being the most obscure.
No.56342
>>56340
Thanks. I'll get right on those.
No.56347
>>56342
Instead of The Law, I'd recommend For a New Liberty, even though it's anarchocapitalist. It deals with more issues, is longer, and has both ethics and economics, whereas The Law is mostly economics.
The Law is still a very great book, but perhaps better contrasted with The Communist Manifesto and The Doctrine of Fascism.
No.56350
>>56347
Why not both? The Law isn't very long to read, and it's got a really nice poetic quality. Take the first paragraph:
"The Law perverted! The law - and, in its wake, all the collective forces of a nation - the law, I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary! The law becomes the tool of every kind of avarice, instead of being its check! The law guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish! Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one to which I feel bound to call the attention of my fellow citizens."
No.56351
>>56340
>Human Action is pretty much a textbook on praxeology that was given a libertarian twist thruout
I agree with that assessment. Human Action is an exhaustive economic treatise, dealing with everything from general epistemics to monetary theory. It has little to say on ethics, however, and relatively few libertarians have been influenced by Mises' idea of value-neutrality. Besides, it's a monster of a work. It is designed to turn intelligent laypeople into economists, not to propagate a specific ideology.
>Complex, hard to understand, riddled with inconsistent messages and held as unquestionable dogma by its followers. From what i understand Das Kapital is going to be the hardest to get thru of the 3
I'm still fighting my way through the damn thing, and I cannot say just how tiresome it is. Human Action has an incredible information-density and page count, whereas Das Kapital spends twenty pages or what just on teaching you how to express values by equating one object with another, like this: 5 Iron Bars = 10 Dragon Dildos. I want a damn medal when I'm through with it.
>>56350
You're completely right, I just don't see The Law as competing with the other two big manifestos he was thinking of reading. If the takes The Law for what it is and isn't (it's not a positive formulation of a specific system of ethics, for example), then he should probably read it first.
No.56354
I ordered these three books today, they should arrive in about two weeks. I plan on uploading them to /liberty/ in the hopes that someone else shares them around some more. They're stuff that I couldn't, for the love of God, find anywhere online (only some excerpts on Google Books).
No.56431
>>56351
Legal Plunder should be our new meme
No.56433
>>56354
I was looking for that middle one, thank you.
No.56447
>>56431
If Physical Remove could be a meme, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Legal Plunder.
>>56433
Sure thing, you're welcome!
No.58009
>>56354
>>56433
>>56447
Shit arrived today, besides Ethica Thomistica, but I'm too busy to get it. I think I'll scan Sovereignty first.
No.58536
Ethica Thomistica: https://www.file-upload.net/download-12563198/RalphMcInerny-EthicaThomistica.pdf.html
It's too large to upload here. It's my first try at scanning a book for an upload. That considered, I think it turned out quite well. The Great Terror' and Sovereignty'' will be more complicated, mostly because they don't open as wide.
No.59590
You still readin' motherfuckers?
No.59685
No.59686
>>59685
What's the problem?
No.59690
>>56138
>tfw I realize I've missed a lot and read superficially, only grasping the surface of the books I've read, so I have to read them all again
It's a long road.
No.59703
>>59686
Just was a bit concerned that no one posted here in so long, besides me. Guess I should write a few reviews.
>>59690
>tfw I realize I've missed a lot and read superficially, only grasping the surface of the books I've read, so I have to read them all again
That sucks, but before you pick the same ones, see if you can find some good secondary literature or books by the same author that are largely redundant. For example, if you missed out a lot on Mises, read Choice by Bob Murphy. If you missed For a New Liberty, read The Ethics of LIberty. In my experience, a lot of information isn't quite lost, it comes back when you're confronted with it. Also, always remember that reading should be an interactive process. Be aware of what your mind does when you read. When it drifts off, then that's often because you see no relevance, and you should figure out why and evaluate that motive. And constantly look for ways to incorporate what you read into your worldview, and consider what you're learning as you read. This should eventually become automatic, and then it will just keep you from speedreading like a maniac but you won't sit on a book for months. In fact, because you retain what you read, you won't go back as often anymore and you will see more and more infos in future books that you already know and can read quickly and with low effort.
No.59706
Anyway. Reviews.
First one is the original essay from Mises on the calculation problem. It's dense, but pretty short, so you can read it in a day or two (although I'd read it in one sitting). If you have any trouble at all with the calculation problem, read this! This problem is far harder to grasp than it seems, not least of all because socialism is such a failure, any of the weaker versions of Mises' argument that you will come up with while trying to make sense of it actually will make sense. However, none will be as good as that of Mises. Mises did not say, for example, that a socialist economy cannot calculate where commodities are needed the most. It can allocate commodities, even though it will probably suck at it. What it cannot do is allocate factors of production. That is what absolutely requires price signals. Without them, you don't know which of the endless possibilites for arranging the factors of production is wasteful, because none of them can turn a loss.
Second book is what we read in a reading group. It's a guide by Bob Murphy on Human Action. He somehow managed to compress the content of that treatise on 300 pages and translated them into more easy language. Even if you have already read Human Action, this book is excellent for refreshing your knowledge, even if you'll occasionally stumble over a passage that brings twenty examples on what might be a triviality. Obviously, that won't be a problem if you're new to Austrian Economics. If you want something to goldpill an intelligent, but economically oblivious friend with, this book might be a good bet.
The third one is Galbraiths Affluent Society. You know this asshole who smugly claims that you only want to play XBOX because you've been indoctrinated by big business, while he contentiously sips on his Starbucks coffee? This is probably what he read. I'm not a big fan of the book, as you can tell. His argument goes roughly like this: Because you wouldn't feel the need for a good that wasn't advertised, that means your need was created by the advertisement in the first place. He concludes from this that the private sector doesn't produce anything of value, and from the fact that the private sector still produces and the public sector doesn't, he concludes that the public sector needs more funding (after he said that the public sector doesn't get shit done!). As I see it, his entire case rests on one premise, and that premise is shit. It might make sense intuitively when we look at someone who drinks Coke instead of water or gets fucked by his wifes boyfriend instead of his wife, but I believe that's only because we find it hard to defend hedonism. Apply Galbraiths case to a consumer with noble ambitions, and it falls apart. If Socrates travelled to our century and asked an ISP to provide him access to the works of the greatest philosophers of the last two thousand years, would you say that his need was engineered by advertisement? Clearly not. He merely found a more efficient means to fulfill his noble ambitions. So what Galbraith really bitches about (and this is also clear from his rhetoric!) is hedonism.
Last book is a surprisingly good one on democides, wars and so on. The author is fairly bluepilled, but his narratives make sense (even if his interpretations are faulty at times), and the amount of raw data is astonishing and compiled very well. I'd call it a good history book for beginners, too. Just be aware that he doesn't go into much detail. He can't, with the scope of his book (it really does list 100 events). Again: It looks like some trivia book for edgy kids and tries to be, but it's actually not much lower than Rummels Death by Government.
No.59728
>>59703
I don't feel that bad about it. If I read a book too slowly I start getting bored or forget what it's generally about. Even now I will always rush to the ending or main chapter and read that first before anything else. When my most urgent curiosity is finally satisfied I can enjoy the depth I've missed before. I'm the type of guy that eats his sweets first and then finishes with the salad. "Proper" order doesn't work for me.
Even if I do miss something a book has to offer it's likely someone will correct me later. It's a short life, we should make use of it the best we can. Not every book deserves the same attention. After the superficial read it's much faster and easier to locate the best bits and navigate through.
No.62827
Latest book I picked up. Might be pretty advanced stuff for someone who never systematically studied the philosophy of consciousness, so I'll be on it for a few months, I guess.
No.63204
Finally got myself to read this piece of shit and boy, it's just as bad as I thought. He tries to frame aristocraric societies in egalitarian terms. Pic related. I'm speechless at how anyone could be this high. I mean, isn't it the fucking gig of aristocratic societies that they see inequality as nothing wrong? This is some next level bullshit and of course it's from another pet professor from Harvard.
No.63208
>>63204
>cherrypicks one unfortunate quote to disprove one of the most important philosophical treatises of the XX century without making even a slightest reference to the core of its argument, namely the veil of ignorance
oh boi
No.63232
>>63208
The veil of ignorance is easily the weakest part of his argument. Even Nozick was able to refute its credibility as a hypothetical.
No.63242
>>63208
That's because I haven't gotten there yet, only to his summary of his own argument. I've found it retarded when I first heard of it and for all I know, I will find it retarded when I got all the details.
No.63251
>>63208
>>63242
From what I can judge now, Rawls defines what is right by what would be expedient to a bunch of ghosts with no past and no personality. Unless he surprises me, that's a major non sequitur.
His assumptions for this experiment are also arbitrarily chosen. Why do these ghosts care about whether people have more than them? Why don't they take an afterlife into account? Why don't they take higher or lower risks? Why can't they into economics?
Speaking of which, Rawls talked about free markets with public property and he apparently doesn't realize that there are no initial distributions of property in the real world. His conception of justice also begs the question. His philosophy is incredibly complex, but it's still bad philosophy.
No.63722
No.63726
>>63722
Honestly, I'm not sure there's a single Harvard-scholar I know that ever wrote anything good. I'm glad this kind of shit hits Harvard, it fucking deserves it.
No.64182
>>63232
>Even Nozick was able to refute its credibility as a hypothetical.
how?
No.67233
I know nothing about you guys besides your masturbation over the free-market. Someone recommended starting with Bastiat's Law, is this a good book to start off with?
No.67234
>>67233
One of the best. Just don't mistake it fot a systematic treatise. It's excellent for making the general case for the free market and against economic interventionism, but it neither teaches you the fundamental laws, nor did it anticipate every argument statists have come up with by now.
No.67267
>>67233
Its a good read for the reasons >>67234 stated but also because of the fact that it was written in the mid-1800's and almost reads like prophecy in some places due to how Bastiat correctly predicts what big government would become.
No.67271
>>67233
Irwin Schiff has a good primer that goes into more details of the economics. PDF related is even a comic form of the book to make it more palatable. Otherwise Bastiat is objectively a good starting point.
No.67388
Okay so I decided to go over Hayek's Road to Serfdom and after getting over to it there are a lot of things that are just stated (with no argument about it) that I've already passed by. A lot of monopolies are formed by government intervention, people have a bad view of money, Totalitarians promote a idea of a internal or external enemy, yadda yadda.
Can I just skip this one?
No.67407
>>67388
Sure you can. Every once in a while, you find a book that you just don't like. For me, it was Chaos Theory. Every ancap seems to like it but me. No shame in admitting you didn't like it and picking another one.
From my experience with Hayek, he's a very thorough thinker, but not as deep as Mises. Mises is like a bulldog, he either relentlessly pursues an argument until he made it, or he drops one single bombshell to destroy an enemy. Hayek sadly incorporates some of the spirit of the intellectualism of his time, which means he isn't nearly as uncompromising and far more likely to just drop some relatively non-controversial conclusion and call it a day. Also, I still don't know just what the hell is up with his methodology. I like him a lot, but not nearly as much as Mises or Rothbard. Mises weakness is that he sometimes drops bombshells on the wrong places. You notice it whenever he dismisses anarchism without a further argument. Rothbard is different in his style, he presents arguments you wouldn't have thought about and dismantles counter-arguments from directions you wouldn't have imagined. His weakness, I think, is that he is too uncritical about some things, like in his narrative of the old and the new order.
No.68284
>>63204
>Omnipotent Government
Mises tries his hands on history and btfo's nationalism, national socialism and mercantilism. I didn't like his economic arguments here that much because they felt very redundant after a point, and his historical analysis is not as deep as that of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, because he doesn't have as keen a grasp on ideologies and their evolution. Still, it's a good book, and especially worth reading for its critique of the nazi racialism, which was inconsistent and arbitrary, not scientific at all. Mises also makes a very thorough case against protectionism, so if you know anyone who's still a Trumpfag, buy them this book as a Christmas present.
>Liberalism
Very good rundown of Mises' entire political philosophy. His Wertfreiheit irked me, but it also has the advantage that he doesn't even try to engage in moral philosophy. Instead, he shows why all interventionist and socialist policies are dooomed to failure, not just by his standards, but also by their own. As this means that Mises defeats them at economics, it also means that they can never recover.
>The Revolution: A Manifesto
Very good critique of contemporary politics and political dialogue. As is typical for libertarian manifestos, Ron Paul makes his case by criticizing government policies one after another, including foreign policy, taxation, drug wars, abortion, social security and so on. His arguments are convincing and easily understandable. What he doesn't do is systematically lay out an ethical or economic theory. I don't see that as a big problem; just go to Hoppe, Rothbard, or Mises for that. It does make his chapter on monetary policy clumsy, however. He kinda tries to tiptoe around time preference so as to not get too theoretical, but at least he does a good job presenting the mechanism by which the Fed increases the money supply.
One more thing that should surprise no one who knows Paul: He is a strict constitutionalist. This might be an interesting perspective to hear about, too. All in all, this is a well-argued book and certainly not the worst way to introduce yourself to libertarianism. But even if you already know a lot about it, Paul is insightful and his perspectives valuable.
>The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar / What Has Government Done to Our Money
It's the same fucking book lmao. Filled with information on just how the gold standard was abolished that you will never, ever need unless you're writing or lecturing on the subject. Rothbard presents it in easy, yet still precise language, and convincingly argues just why gold must be the basis of any currency and what happens if we forget that and trust in fiat/toilet paper. Both books are pretty short, and even if they feel redundant, I'd still recommend reading both. I did that in a day. Beats making notes on just one of the books and then reading these notes again, because your notes are shit, face it. Also, I think that in The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar, Rothbard was super pissed and nothing is funnier than a contemptuous Rothbard.
No.68289
Ok I'm about to finish Basic Economics by Sowell, what's your opinion on it? Where did he go wrong? Yes yes I know the ancaps will say that because he didn't completely dismiss the state, I'm talking about anything else he might have got wrong.
Also, how do I into Austrian Economics? I have download already all the required books from Mises.org
No.68290
>>68284
>his historical analysis is not as deep as that of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
in which book(s) does Erik talk about Nazism?
No.68292
>>68289
He didn't have to. His logic implies its dismissal. It's for the same reason AnCaps don't object to Mises and Bastiat much. There is rarely ever a need to. Both put up no real defense, nor foundation for any reasoning why you should have economic freedom in everything else, but not protection.
>Where did he go wrong
He barely teaches any actual economics. It's a good defense of free markets, but it's very light on theory. A more appropriate title would be "Introduction To Economics".
>how do I into Austrian Economics
Menger's "Principles Of Economics", Bohm Baverk's "Capital and Interest" and "The Positive Theory of Capital", Mises's "Human Action", and Hoppe's "Economic Science and The Austrian Method".
No.68295
>>68289
>Ok I'm about to finish Basic Economics by Sowell, what's your opinion on it? Where did he go wrong?
Sorry, haven't read it yet. How was it? I don't like Milton Friedman very much, but Sowell seems to be a cool guy.
>Also, how do I into Austrian Economics? I have download already all the required books from Mises.org
Human Action is the best place to start if you already have an understanding of economics. If you complete the entire thing and understood even half of it, you have a solid foundation. I think the most important things to understand are methodological individualism and praxelogy, subjective value and marginal utility, the calculation-problem, the general critique of interventionism, monetary theory including the business cycle theory, and foreign trade. So read Human Action, maybe Choice to repeat what you learned, then Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth and then you can lay it aside if you want, or - if you developed a passion or an interest - continue with Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, von Wieser, von Böhm-Bawerk, and others.
Hayek is also good, but not at all representative of the Austrian School. He was more deeply entangled in the particular discussions of his time and it shows. Certainly a great economist, but with some weird ideas muh commodity bundle currency. Mises is definitely better than him.
>>68290
He talked about it in every book, but in most detail in Leftism. Him and Mises agree that Nazism is leftist, but von Kuehnelt-Leddihn stressed the egalitarian character of the Nazi-ideology, whereas Mises focused more on their economic policies. There's a lot of overlap between the two, however.
No.68299
>>68292
>His logic implies its dismissal
Not at all. I don't remember the page number but two points I remember in which he defends government regulation:
1. Collateral/External costs: things that are paid (health, environment, etc, not actually money) by people who are affected by the economic decision (I don't remember his example in this one).
2. Defense: Since people paying for an army to defend a territory will include people who don't want to/don't care to pay for the army in said territory, it is better and logical to just have one appointed and supported by the state.
>Menger's "Principles Of Economics", Bohm Baverk's "Capital and Interest" and "The Positive Theory of Capital", Mises's "Human Action", and Hoppe's "Economic Science and The Austrian Method".
In that particular order?
>>68295
How was it?
It explained a lot of economic principles very clearly using simple real life examples. The anon above you is right tho, it was very light on theory, but frankly it never pretended to be anything else since Sowell's aim with this book was to explain how economics work and the consequences of certain policies without delving into jargon or mathematical equations. Very nice book that covers a lot of information without confusing the reader. He also touches on a lot of things that people don't consider when talking about economics.
>Human Action is the best place to start if you already have an understanding of economics
Basic Economics was the first economics book I've ever read. And what about Menger?
>in most detail in Leftism
from de Sade and Marx to etc?
No.68300
>>68295
> Choice
by the way I can't find this book, help me out?
No.68306
>>68295
>>68292
sorry for the triple post, but I just stumbled on this little book. It looks like a decent starting point, what do you think?
No.68314
>>68299
>In that particular order?
Not necessarily, but yea, Menger's Principles should be your entry, as it literally is. He is the founder of the school.
As for Sowell, I repeat what I said. Their "defense" is usually remarks that have no argumentative value, usually not supplemented by any proof, nor address any particular critique of the State.
No.68318
>>68306
It's certainly not bad. Proper Epistemology is the foundation for all further scientific reasoning. It's not something particular to Economics. Everyone ought to study it.
No.68632
>>56354
Aquinas is my Hero
No.68794
No.69042
So I had the displeasure of sifting through this book. Why is it that so-called libertarians and free market advocates shrill at the thought of international trade? Why is it turned into "globalism"?
It doesn't even make sense, there's both labor being imported and "jobs" being exported in the same time? And increased GDP correlates to LOW crime, no? And who will these "nations of builders" begin serving as opposed to now? Serving in what sense? Maybe someone more economically literate can correct me, but international trade doesn't actually lead to any of those things. According to Sowell I'm the same anon who just finished his Basic Economics after the signing of NAFTA in the 90s there was an increase in wealth and jobs both for the US and Mexico. Sowell says this kind of thinking is mostly due to the fallacy that economics is a zero-sum game.
No.69049
>>69042
"Why is it that so-called libertarians and free market advocates shrill at the thought of international trade"
Because they're not free marketers, that's just it. They're a mix of Malthusian/Ricardian Conservatives.
>Sowell says this kind of thinking is mostly due to the fallacy that economics is a zero-sum game.
That's what you get from "Classical" Smithian economics.
https://www.mises.org/library/austrian-perspective-history-economic-thought
To understand what I mean go over the chapters about Smith, Ricardo, Malthus and Marx. It will become very clear to you where they're coming from, whether they're aware of it or not.
No.69309
is it possible to put virus into pdf file?
No.69312
>>69309
don't see why not
should I be worried about anything posted itt?
No.69314
>>69312
Nothing I downloaded from this thread was infected.
No.69315
>>69049
Probably would have been more appropriate to call them Benthamites, but oh well, you will read plenty about him in their chapters anyway.
No.69496
>>69042
does lauren have a bf?
No.69506
Currently reading Wealth, Poverty, and Politics. Looks like it will cover all the counter arguments posed against the left regarding income/wealth inequality (e.g. geographical determinism).
I just finished reading (and do not recommend) People's History of the United States. It mostly covers labor movement history but it is laborious to read and repetitive. US interventionism and early/colonial history sections are the only things that would be redeemable if Zinn used better prose. The chapters on Clinton and Bush is just riddled with falsehoods, baseless assertions, and non-sequiturs.
No.71082
Haven't read many relevant books lately, but here's a bump.
No.71150
>>68289
I read it about a month ago, it was pretty good. I'd say it fulfills the premise. It doesn't explain economics and it doesn't intend to. It's like having economics explained to a kid, which if you're not interested in economics at all that's probably the best way to introduce yourself to economics. I also think it can be valuable to people more familiar with economic theory to learn ways in which to more easily explain economic concepts without bringing out a lot of jargon.
No.71158
Just finished this one, a book cited by HHH in Democracy - The God that Failed.
If you're interested in history or military theory, this is the book for you. Fuller describes the history of warfare from the time of absolutism up until the early Cold War, and the effects that the French and Industrial Revolution had on it, as well as the Russian Revolution later. The former two both turned warfare from a professional business ran in the interest of kings to a mass slaughter run by and for the people. It's the same thing I've been saying: Democratic states have a peculiar and very brutal way of waging war.
The effects of the Russian Revolution are best understood when you remember what war is actually about. Fuller agrees with Clausewitz that war is the continuation of policy by other means. This is a lesson that the states have gradually forgotten, except for the USSR. Hence why Stalin fared so well in WW2. To him, policy, diplomacy and war all served the same ends, whereas the rest of the Allies wanted to cause mayhem for the sake of making peace, which is not half as reasonable as it sounds when you're thirteen (or Churchill, or FDR, or Truman).
I digress. The aim of the USSR was always to disintegrate the West, and that it did. Whether it was at war or at "peace" didn't play a role, it always tried to disrupt the capitalist states, foster terrorism, and increase unrest, for the sake of its revolutionary ideology. Thus, a genuine peace with a socialist state is not possible.
He's bluepilled on economics. He bought into the keynesian theory of how muh grabitalism blows up into a financial crisis every five years, and he bought Soviet propaganda on how Russia Industry Stronk. But those are not very big issues. This is still a fascinating and very informative book.
Also, it answers the question of how Hitler could've won the war. If he had supported the nationalist causes in Eastern Europe, he would've destroyed the USSR from within. Instead, he antagonized the Ukrainians and the peoples of the Baltic states. This is how you end up with a few tens of millions of allies less, just by being a complete idiot.
No.71171
>>69496
yeah he's Polish I believe
No.71174
No.71192
No.71261
No.71715
left libertarian market anarchists have produced some pretty strong material on corporations
http://distro.libertarianleft.org/for/bookshelf-of-the-libertarian-left/kevin-carson-organization-theory-a-libertarian-perspective/
meanwhile a collboration between /pdfs/ and /pol/ has produced a rare gem:
The Raven of Zurich
in an autobiography, an elite swiss banker shares inside knowledge of the dealings and ideology of the elites upper elites during the first half of the 20th century. he made many political and economic predictions and and reflects upon them years later explains what happened.
with a foreword from the guy who took over presidency of the paneuropean institute (-thing) after its founder, the original happa, coudenhouve-kalergi died. yes that kalergi:
>the influence of the blood nobility declines, the influence of the spiritual nobility grows. this development, and with it the chaos of modern politics, will only end when a spiritual aristocracy usurps the instruments of power of society: guns, money and media [literally powder, gold, printing ink], and uses it to the blessing of the general public. a deciding stage of this goal is the russian bolshewism, where a small regiment of communist spiritual aristocrats governs the country and intentionally breaks with the plutocratic democratism, wich today rules the rest of the world. the battle between capitalism and communism over the heritage of the defeated blood nobility is a brothers war of the victories brain nobility, a battle between indiviualistic and socialistic, egoistic and altruistic, pagan and christian spirit. the general staff of both parties recruits itself from the intellectually leading race of europe: the jews.
get it fresh >>>/pdfs/7495
http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/pdfs/res/7463.html#7495
No.72470
It seems that time preference is confusing because it appears both as end, such as of using a good at a certain time, and as means, the choice at each moment to use or postpone.
No.72883
>>72470
I don't think that's a problem at all. Strictly speaking, there's no praxeological difference betwen actions that are means and ends. Even the act of chewing on an apple can be seen as a means to the end of achieving satsifaction. Ultimately, the only end in itself is satisfaction itself, all else is a means. But at this point, we've arrived at navelgazing with no practical importance whatsoever, from what I can tell. You can probably safely forget the distinction of means and ends except when it's obviously important.
No.73527
Not far in yet, but I can already see why Hitler hated this book. It reminds me of Debt - The First 5000 Years, in that no single person on this planet is competent enough to refute all of it. I could make little objection when he contrasted the barbarism of the Etruscans with the culturedness of the early Romans, for example. Yet, when he contrasted positive, nordic Christianity with negative, semitic Christianity, I smelled a load of bullshit. It's vague, it's based on a flimsy theological basis, and if I understood him correctly and he's criticizing graveness as an attribute of negative Christianity, then Paul - a semite - was an adherent of positive Christianity. In general, he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of early Church history or theology at all.
I figure it's the same with many other passages: Complete trash if you know what he's talking about. But tell that to a convinced Nazi, and he can more or less plausibly accuse you of balking on minor points. Such is the case when there are only minor points in a work.
I'll see where this goes. At least the book is entertaining, at times, when Rosenberg shuts up about how smart he is and remembers that actual people are supposed to understand him.
No.75017
bumping because I want a good book after I'm done with my current one.
No.75080
>>75075
>actually posting books
Why thank you anon, I honestly didn't expect this. I just didn't want the thread to drop too far to the bottom of the catalogue before I checked on it again.
No.75083
>>75080
You're welcome. Sadly, there's many that I cannot post here. File size too large. Gotta do another book dump soon.
No.75085
>>75083
I'm sure we'd all appreciate that. Incidentally, anyone have that reading guide image that an anon made a while back? Something seems to have happened to 8chan while I was absent (no surprise there unfortunately) and the file got et.
No.75091
>>75085
here is a new one I found, also you can find plenty of books at Mises.com for free. Here is a rare book by a student of Menger.
>>75083
>click PoE
>it's only 328 pages
>then why does my PDF contain 1200 pages?
>turns out the font size is 100 and there are only 17 lines per page
why would they make a PDF like that…
No.75095
Here are more PDFs that can be related. Some Christian writing that our christanons could appreciate, including Kant since according to Wikipedia Mises bases a lot of things on his ideas.
No.75124
Is there something like this but for Youtube channels? I don't have much time to read.
No.75126
>>75124
David Friedman and Hans-Hermann Hoppe have a lot of talks up on Youtube.
No.75398
what streams, subjects or writers do you read besides Austrian economics and things in that line? Me at the moment Russian philosophy
No.75411
>>75398
I read and watch just about everything regarding self-sufficiency and sustainability these days. I'm a capitalist when it comes to dealing with other people, but I actually hate working for them just so that I could keep relying on them and their services.
I think post-industrial society is just a big scam, I want to live on a small techno-farm with hydroponics systems powered by solar panels and other energy collectors and just live off grid in my own pseudo-post-scarcity environment without working for anyone nor paying for anything except for essential things like healthcare.
No.76811
for the christianons, book by Orthodox Christian
No.76812
>>75411
>I'm a capitalist when it comes to dealing with other people
>just live off grid in my own pseudo-post-scarcity environment without working for anyone
libertybrain strikes again
protip: if you need to sell your labor to survive you're not a capitalist
No.76813
>>74511
>I think post-industrial society is just a big scam
>I want:
>small techno-farm
>hydroponics systems
>solar panels
>other energy collectors
>healthcare
Healthcare as a share of the economy is dominating more and more of it, and the other things you list are complex enough and with long enough supply chains that I feel like your dream of being "self-sufficient" is sincerely contradictory with your wants and desires.
If you honestly thought post-industrial society was a scam, you'd be learning to live without electricity, trying to be sincerely minimalist, figuring out how to psychologically deal with getting severely ill in the inevitable case that you do get sick but don't want to pay into the scam that is our medical system, and getting as much knowledge as you can out of that primitive technology channel before going inna woods.
No.76814
>>76813
Cont'd:
Also, I think you've been playing too much Stardew Valley mate. Chill the fuck out.
No.76815
>>76812
being a capitalist has nothing to do with what you need or dont need
No.76816
>>76815
>your relationship to the means of production has nothing to do with you being a capitalist
ok, brainlet
guess being a capitalist is just a state of mind just like being an attack helicopter
No.76821
>>75398
Mostly theology and religious philosophy at the moment, Edward Feser and Origen.
No.76822
>>76813
>I think post-industrial society is just a big scam
>solar panels
Agreed, that's extremely weird. Solar panels are only possible in an industrialized society, we probably aren't industrialized enough to make them efficient yet.
No.76840
No.76876
>>76875
>posting interracial cuck porn denigrating white men
No.76877
File: dbf859573329ce2⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 104.24 KB, 640x630, 64:63, dbf859573329ce21e3efddd7ea….jpg)
>>76876
>posting jews denigrating white soyboys
Semen is actually a better source of estrogen than soy and if you can't see that then you're a capitalist soyshill kike trying to corner the market with your inferior product.
No.76878
No.76883
>>76878
reported for being an authoritycuck
No.76923
Anyone have any resources on the life in Russia before the revolution? I know /leftypol/ likes talking about how under the USSR, Russia was able to rapidly industrialize and increase literacy rates. How much of that is true?
No.76932
>>76923
>How much of that is true?
all of it
No.76935
>>76923
>under the USSR, Russia was able to rapidly industrialize and increase literacy rates.
>since you were a pirate, you ended up with one eye. If you were a normal person and not a pirate then you would have lost both eyes!
"If it weren't for socialism then not even X would have happened" a very common trick that lefties use, but the truth is that if it weren't for socialism then not only could "X" have happened, but also "Y" and "Z" too. I'm pretty sure that if Russia continued to follow the European path instead of being taken over by commies then we would have industrialized eventually, although not as fast as turning our citizens into slaves and rounding them up like cattle to send to factories, but still we would have gotten industrialized slowly and steadily without having to sacrifice everything else about the country in the process. Finland didn't industrialize until the 70s and they weren't doing any worse than we were.
/leftypol/ just likes to cherry pick and point at only ONE good thing that a socialist regime does and ignore everything else that socialists did to a country that makes it a depressive hellhole.
>b-b-but who cares if socialists turned Cuba into a shitty third world country, at least they have good doctors!
To answer your other question, I don't have the proofs but I can't think of much in Russian history as bad thing what took place under communism in the 20th century. Sure, there were many problems during the Empire, but after the February Revolution Russia was well on its way to being a proper modern country until Lenin and his gang took over in October.
No.76944
>>76935
Finland's industrialization was a bit of an outlier.
>Finland was a relative latecomer to industrialisation, remaining a largely agrarian country until the 1950s. After World War II, the Soviet Union demanded war reparations from Finland not only in money but also in material, such as ships and machinery. This forced Finland to industrialise. It rapidly developed an advanced economy while building an extensive welfare state based on the Nordic model, resulting in widespread prosperity and one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland
Finland wasn't anywhere near the backwards levels of Russia before the revolution and the Nordic model they use might not have been implemented without this crucial background:
>In 1906, Finland became the first European state to grant all adult citizens the right to vote, and the first in the world to give all adult citizens the right to run for public office.
>After a brief experimentation with monarchy, Finland became a presidential republic, with Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg elected as its first president in 1919.
If the Whites would had won the Russian Revolution, it's arguable that by 1919 and even later Russia would still be under autocratic rule. While the Whites had no set ideology:
>Many of the White leaders were conservative, accepting autocracy while remaining suspicious of "politics" (which they characterized as consisting of speeches, elections, and party activities).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_movement
Cherry picking time, since I know you love that:
Autocratic regimes aren't known for their literacy rates. Meanwhile under the USSR, literacy was drastically improved and almost 100% by the 1950's, something which the US didn't even achieve at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez
https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/p23-08.pdf
No.76954
>>76944
>Meanwhile under the USSR, literacy was drastically improved and almost 100% by the 1950's, something which the US didn't even achieve at the time.
Yeah, and Kim Jong Il was a world-class golfer who invented the hamburger, right? Communist regimes aren't known for delivering honest statistics.
No.76997
>>76944
>State-sponsored prescriptive materials in the 1920s concerning the plight of the domestic worker had a specific focus on literacy stemming from Union membership. These short stories, chastushki, poems, cartoons, and plays were spread through pamphlets, journals, and wall newspapers and were usually tales about young, single, illiterate women from the countryside.[27] In these pieces of propaganda, it was when the downtrodden women became acquainted with local Soviet officials that the women's luck began to change. In the plot lines of most of these works, the main characters, who had usually fled their countryside homes after being taken advantage of sexually, experienced reversals of fortunes after meeting Soviet officials in their new, urban homes.[27] These officials would rescue the women from the abuses they were suffering as ill-paid and ill-respected domestic servants by encouraging the women to join a Union. At this point in the story, the women would receive not only Union protection but also an education as a result of Union membership and access to Union schools and reading materials.[27] Ultimately, the story's heroine, the domestic worker, would become fully literate as well as active in her local worker's committee (mestkom).[27] Often, the women in these works of pro-literacy propaganda were portrayed as using their new literacy and subsequent heightened foothold in Union society to become Soviet delegates themselves and help second generations of downtrodden women by teaching them to read and write.[28] In these rags to riches propaganda tales, literacy was the vehicle by which women were able to lift up their status as workers within Unions and Soviet society.
lmao
No.77259
>>76944
This faggotry again.
>If the Whites would had won the Russian Revolution, it's arguable that by 1919 and even later Russia would still be under autocratic rule. While the Whites had no set ideology:
>Many of the White leaders were conservative, accepting autocracy while remaining suspicious of "politics" (which they characterized as consisting of speeches, elections, and party activities).
So basically, the same shit that Russia had under the commies, minus the famines and the radical social engineering. Oh, and under the Tzar. Which would've been terribad, somehow. Good thing him and his family of subversives were murdered before they had a chance to cause any further mayhem. Who knows what kind of savagery Alexei could've committed had he not been clubbed to death before reaching the age of eighteen! Or was he shot? Refresh my memory, please.
>Autocratic regimes aren't known for their literacy rates.
Well, they should be, because socialist countries - which are all different shades of "autocratic" - have amazing literacy rates. For one, I believe these statistics (mostly), because communist countries genuinely care about getting everyone aged 3 to 30 in public schools for purposes of indoctrination. Even the Khmer Rouge tried to educate people amidst the stringing fetuses up and forcing schoolboys to hang their teacher while calling him a traitor.
>Meanwhile under the USSR, literacy was drastically improved and almost 100% by the 1950's, something which the US didn't even achieve at the time.
Yes, awesome. Meanwhile, the US had actual technological and economic achievements. The only reason why Russia isn't complete trash nowadays is because, unlike many other communist countries, it actually had a fairly individualist population whose spirit miraculously managed to survive the chucklefuckery that was communism, although not without a few scratches.
Pic related is the last time I had this debate.
No.77567
>>39300
>economics
>schiff,mises,rothbard
redneck trailer trash. real economics here
https://openstax.org/subjects/
No.78301
>>76935
dumb xoxol
>>77259
>Who knows what kind of savagery Alexei could've committed had he not been clubbed to death before reaching the age of eighteen!
He would claim the throne to himself when he would be of age, or even before that, fund reactionary movements and collaborate with the Nazis. There is literally nothing wrong with political violence, if the regime is hereditary then kids will need to be killed. And he was shot.
>it actually had a fairly individualist population whose spirit miraculously managed to survive
Magic!
No.78402
>>63208
>democratic socialism
>social democracy but without functioning economy
top kek, autism
No.79054
>>48184
Did you read the normal version, or the "scholar's edition" put together by Mises.org? I'm reading through the intro for the latter right now, and it seems like there were a lot of interesting things cut between the second and third editions.
No.79092
>>79054
The scholars edition. Wouldn't use the other now, unless I had to. It had quite some errors, although I figure it would still be the best economics textbook out there even with them.
No.81515
>>81512
So this is what drove the guy to suicide.
No.81521
>>81512
Shit, nice find. Gonna read this once I finish the grundsätze.
No.87937
"Economics in One Lesson" and "The Law" are legit classics.
Related, should there be a poll to vote on the quality/accessibility of at least of some of the books in this thread?
No.88295
>>87937
>accessibility of at least of some of the books
jesus christ, this shithole is worse than r*ddit
are you guys still in fucking high school? the brainlet wojak is real applicable here
>>87937
henry hazlitt was a brainlet, gets BTFO out of space
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/04/economics_in_on.html
No.88324
I am going to out on a limb here and say that "Industrial Society and Its Future" by Ted Kaczynski its quite an interesting read and applicable to /liberty/. It may be advocating AnPrim but many of the arguments presented are applicable to other anarchist and minarchist schools of thought.
No.88334
>>88295
>Hazlett don't real because muh Depression, muh Keynes
>EXTERNALITIES REEEEEEEEE
Wow, really BTFO.