/liberty/ - Liberty

how_to_wash_your_own_brain.png

>>46831

>r-reading books is brainwashing, g-guys!

Unlike watching late night comedians like Bill Maher, yeah. Sure. Totally!

>>46831

>people are not allowed to make their own mind up

>talk shit about books you refuse to read

Post your feelings on your blog, not here.

This would fit somewhere with the history books. Use to just to understand the formative years better.

>>46828

Add Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

The Ominous Parallels

'Level 1:''

Anthem

Night of January 16th

The Ayn Rand Lexicon / aynrandlexicon.com

Level 2:

We The Living

The Early Ayn Rand

The Virtue Of Selfishness

The Art of Fiction

The Art of Non-Fiction

Defending Free Speech by Steve Simpson

In Defense of Selfishness by Peter Schwartz

Level 3:

Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal

The Romantic Manifesto

Philosophy : Who Needs It

The Voice of Reason

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff

Equal is Unfair : America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Level 4:

The Fountainhead

The New Left : The Anti-Industrial Revolution / Return Of The Primitive

The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out by Leonard Peikoff

Level 5:

Atlas Shrugged

For the New Intellectual

The Omnious Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

Level 6:

Journals of Ayn Rand

The Objectivist (Newsletter)

Level 7:

Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology

Blackwell Companion to Philosophy : A Companion to Ayn Rand by Alan Gotthelf and Gregory Salmieri

>>46993

So if we only read our own thinkers, we're indoctrinating ourselves, but if we read thinkers with varying opinions and viewpoints, we're appropriating them? Wew lad. Just wew, lad.

>>47057

at least*

>>47057

Sir this is is a English board.

>>47037

Well put. I remember how there were a total of a hundred pages detailing anarchocapitalist ethics in For a New Liberty. The rest was the theory applied to various government institutions. In total, you had four-hundred pages, written without filler, padding and mental masturbation. The "sequel", The Ethics of Liberty, is the equivalent of a legal textbook. You don't need it to understand the theory, you need it if you have any aspirations of becoming a private arbitrator once we've conquered earth and privatized the ocean.

Oh, and as someone who studied both the positive, statist law and rothbardian natural law, I can say that the latter is infinitely more intuitive, simple, coherent and well-defined than a statutory law could ever be. The German civil law has literally thousands of paragraphs, and one of them, on alimony, had a thousand words. I shit you not: https://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/1587a.html

>>47042

>not understanding "property is theft"

I bet you don't understand "we've fed you for a thousand years" either

>>47057

>making your rules intuitive is bad

Aha, it's all the pictures in the ZSG that make the file too large.

Just have a link instead this time: http://www.ampoff.com/images/pdf/Zombie%20Survival%20Guide%20-%20Comp.pdf

>>47057

Did you miss Markets Not Capitalism in the chart? That's a market anarchist essay collection.

what are introductory books to praxeology?

>>47811

Human Action might be too challenging, but if you want to fully understand praxeology, it's second to none, except maybe Rothbard's even longer work, Man, State and Economy.

An Agorist Primer is much shorter and touches on things like the action-axiom. It's an introduction, but really just an introduction.

>>47820

I meant more of summarized introduction by second-hand experts, so I'll have a clearer grasp on the terms when I dive in the original work.

>>47821

It's a pretty simple concept. Most books I've read on Austrian economics or anarcho-capitalism mention it at some point.

Here's a description by Rothbard.

https://mises.org/library/praxeology-methodology-austrian-economics

tl;dr - Praxeology is the study of human action. Humans always act to remove "unease." They tend to prefer satisfaction as soon as possible but will, to differing degrees, put off satisfaction now in exchange for greater satisfaction later (the measure of which is time preference).

Austrian economics is a subset of praxeology. As such, it examines what's good for the individual via logical deduction from a priori statements. (That is, objectively true statements, i.e. 2+2=4.) This differs from other schools of economics developed by the logical positivists, who believe there is no such point in making statements that aren't proven by empirical study.

>>47828

thanks

>They tend to prefer satisfaction as soon as possible but will, to differing degrees, put off satisfaction now in exchange for greater satisfaction later (the measure of which is time preference).

is it then a sort of a psychological/sociological theory? are there any ones that complement praxeology?

> This differs from other schools of economics developed by the logical positivists, who believe there is no such point in making statements that aren't proven by empirical study.

Chicago?

>>47841

>is it then a sort of a psychological/sociological theory? are there any ones that complement praxeology?

No, that actions aim at the greatest satisfaction is concluded from the fact that it's impossible for you to choose a course of action you regard as less satisfactory than another. However, satisfaction is just defined as the satisfaction of any need. A psychologist or a philosopher might object to that definition, but in praxeological terms, that's irrelevant. All we care about, when we apply praxeological methods, is that an actor satisfied a need (or tried to satisfy it), not whether this need was legitimate, or whether he achieved "true happiness" or just a very primal form of satisfaction. These distinctions may make a lot of sense in other fields, just not praxeology.

By the way, you can check out the Mises-wiki. It explains a lot of terms.

>Chicago?

For example, yes. Most of the modern ones, really.

The Case Against The Fed should really be on this list.

>>49269

It's discussion on the Malthusian Problem and the framing of feudal aristocracy (which was somewhat absent from D:TGTF) in relation to liberty are both things which I would consider important for someone to be aware of.

I think it should be on the list.

>>49269

There's gotta be not-about-Ayn-Rand books to add to the objectivism section somewhere, right? Surely something from the Atlas Society or some other author if nothing else? Anything that's objectivism without the Ayn Rand worship?

>>49293

I wouldn't hold your breath looking for many of those. I don't even know why objectivism has its own section.

Is there a torrent or something with a significant number of these books?

>>49306

I'll look into putting one together if I have time, but a lot of them can be accessed through the Institute of Economic Affairs, Mises Institute, FEE, and Atlas Society.

>>49309

The Online Library of Liberty and the Anarchist Library are also good sources*

>>49293

>Anything that's objectivism without the Ayn Rand worship?

>Ayn Rand worship

wat

That's a false point used to refute objectivism in one sentence by saying that it's a "cult".

It's not.

>>49294

>I wouldn't hold your breath looking for many of those.

A lot of those exist.

>>49297

Shit book, don't bother. The book is super-generalized and the author is the editor of The Objective Standard, which has declined in quality, and wasn't that good to begin with.

>>49299

The book by Binswanger is great, although it isn't entry-level.

Anything by Tara Smith is great.

Haven't read book 2 and 3.

>>49306

no.

list of books on objectivism:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/other/

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/index.html

Also, avoid The Atlas Society. There's nothing they can give you that ARI can't, and most of their material is sub-par anyway.

https://estore.aynrand.org/

https://www.aynrand.org/novels

That's where you can find books by Objectivist authors.

Also, visit this website if you wanna talk to 40-something objectivists.

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/

Every other decent forum is dead (except reddit)

>>48197

Semi-legit. He is pushing his own version of the history of ideas. I'd read something like Kant's short paper: An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answering_the_Question:_What_is_Enlightenment%3F

Also these:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10451.html

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9021.html

>>49306

A lot of them are available at Mises and pdfs for most of the rest can be found online fairly easily.

>Search /liberty/ for reading list

>This thread's guide is completely different form the one I had seen before

What the fuck am I lost

Anyways, Instead of a new bread I'll just ask there, how do I get into Rothbard's philosophy, and how do I progress into Hans Herman Hoppe's?

>>52393

Read "For a New Liberty" and "The Anatomy Of The State".

With Hoppe, go with "A Short History of Man", "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property" and "Democracy: The God That Failed".

Any Agorist books on actually using the black market? I'm on a 3rd world shithole where I might get stabbed but I also really need to avoid those shitty 120% taxes so if someone would help me with this one.

Bringing this back to the top.

>>53237

Are any on the refutations actually good? Why is Hoppe's book in that list?

>>53247

Refutations as in "How do I beat X"

The first book is the book you want to refute, the further books help you with it.

>>53237

I've got nothing to do with them, no. They look good though, besides the fact that For a New Liberty was omitted. You get most of the information in it from The Ethics of Liberty too, but still, it's a classic.

Also, Chaos Theory is proficient-level, but Human Action isn't? I get what they wanted to say, it's just that the labels don't fit.

>>53292

Human Action didn't seem that difficult to me. Prices and Production sort of was because of the way Hayek writes. He takes a whole page or two to say something that needs no more than a sentence to be understood in simple common English.

>>53300

>Human Action didn't seem that difficult to me.

Granted, it's not artificially difficult. Mises always cuts straight to the point and talks zero bullshit and his terminology is incredibly consistent, but the information density and sheer length makes it a challenge. Or at least it did to me, but then again, I entered economics as a complete plebeian.

>Prices and Production sort of was because of the way Hayek writes. He takes a whole page or two to say something that needs no more than a sentence to be understood in simple common English.

I noticed in Individualism and Economic Order that I had no fucking idea what he wanted from me, a lot of the time. I thought the subject matter was just extremely hard, but I have fewer problems comprehending Hoppe when he talks of the epistemic implications of the action-axiom, so yeah, that's probably Hayeks fault.

>>53301

It's his fault. I remember Bob Murphy making a remark about that as well. Don't remember where though.

how much does man economy and state supersede/encompass human action?

>>58176

I'm not finished with it yet, but what I already know is that Rothbard talks at length about production, which Mises largely omitted. On the other hand, Mises has more information on epistemics and methodology. Part of the reason why Man, Economy and State is so much longer is because Power and Market is part of it (although they were supposed to be published together anyway). Another reason is probably that Rothbard uses more graphics. So far, I like Human Action more, but both are fine books.

>>46902

I think that picture for Harvardians is enough pointe. The problem is, the compartmentalization of college grads. But yes, you're right, smart people read smith and immediately want the best of the best. That's why I don't understand the original picture. You have 7 levels of economics? That makes NO sense, ant right thinking anarchist will tell u that firstly. Yes, you must read different strata of books concerning different viewpoints but it's going too far when you have 300 economics books when really you know that one is sufficient. Really, nobody here will deny when they first read WoN how their life changed. Shit Adam Smith was my primer to economics.

But I don't then say,"gee, let me set out a specific curriculum for all of economics. Sure, I want to have different viewpoints but come on, 20 books on one topic? That is redundant and you are showing off.

>>58342

>You have 7 levels of economics? That makes NO sense

>Yes, you must read different strata of books concerning different viewpoints but it's going too far when you have 300 economics books when really you know that one is sufficient

Depends on what you want. To be "redpilled", one very good book can be sufficient. To really know what you're talking about, reading seven books total on a topic should be easily enough (this is what the graph aimed at, although it is quite misleading). To keep up with competent opponents from other schools of thought or to make significant and worthwhile contributions to your own, twenty-one books - not necessarily those from the graph - may even be too few, and to become competent enough to keep up with experts in the field, it absolutely is. However, these are long-term goals anyway and entirely optional.

Once I'm more well-read, I think I'll make another, less misleading and more differentiated graph. For example, in history, there could be separate clusters for anthropology, the French Revolution, totalitarianism and the history of America. In economics, you could have Chicagoans, Austrians, and classics.

And concerning Harvard, they're not jumping from best to best, they're just lazy bastards that only read their own established scholars or classics that can be easily dismissed by merely pointing out that there's a state of the art. Nozick can be good when he's criticizing others, but true to the analytical tradition, he cares more about showing his system of ethics to be logically consistent in a formal manner than about establishing his premises. I think he wrote a formula with five variables on when self-defense is moral, without ever justifying why any variable is where it is, and without talking about how to practically operate this formula.

I think that rather than your goal being reading a heap of books, it's more important to actually learn their contents; you can real 100+ books but it's useless if you haven't actually learned their contents. And unless you're super smart, you can't just read a book and memorise everything instantly, that takes a lot of time, thinking, taking notes, rereading certain sections et cetera.

>>58355

Works well enough for me. If you think about what you're reading, you retain surprisingly much even if you don't take notes, especially if you're already familiar with the topic. Then all you have to really ingest is what's new to you, so that a one-hundred page book may feel like half as much because you're skimming the better part of it. You'll still have some holes in your understanding, but you can fill those by reading shorter, more specialized works, or by coming back to what you didn't understand and just rereading that particular passage.

>>58355

>you can't just read a book and memorise everything instantly

I thought everyone could do that.

>>58355

The only times I have ever considered taking notes while reading a book for fun/interest have been while reading a Pynchon novel, and that's only so I can remember all the ridiculous names.

>>58532

strategy and tactics should include some infosec (cryptoanarchy the book doesnt do any contemporary infosec)

any book from the christian biblical point of view?

>>58548

You mean like christian libertarianism? I think Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn might be your best shot, although he's hardly an orthodox libertarian.

>>58550

>and declared himself a monarchist and an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism, although he also supported what he defined as non-democratic "republics," such as Switzerland and the United States.

any other rec?

>>61151

Also, does anyone have a pdf of this article? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/theo.12022/abstract

I now want to see MacPherson get dunked on.

>>58550

Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski is a christian and ancap

>>61153

I can't blame people criticizing Locke too much. Too many of his arguments assume you are a dedicated Christian to be true. But if you are, yes, they are all completely valid. If I were to choose someone to defend the case for Liberty and Natural Rights I would not pick Locke.

>>61221

Macpherson's entire criticism of Locke rests upon the notion that he expounded "possessive individualism" in the face of "superior" positive rights, enabling future classical liberals to prop up a system of exclusionary private property. Blind adherence to Hegelian idealism is so philosophically solipsistic that it practically demands ridicule.

>>53248

>>53237

Are there any libertarian/an-cap refutations of Mencius Moldbug's stuff specifically? He is interesting because he is a fan of Austrian economics and a former Mises libertarian who basically claims to have transcended libertarianism. He distilled the essence of his disagreements with libertarianism in http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-am-not-libertarian.html (it's a pretty long post - he is a wordy fellow).

>>61375

I skimmed it. I can already tell that the man is very educated and intelligent. Here's where I think he stumbles, though:

>EOL works very hard to define the moral principles that make libertarianism philosophically ineluctable. Needless to say, these principles are none other than the Lockean natural rights of the American Revolution. The theological roots of these "rights" are obvious (Rothbard may not have been a Christian, but Locke certainly was), and any suggestion that they are in some sense philosophically universal violates Hume's is-ought principle.

>Thus, libertarian principles cannot be logically justified except an appeal to the historical traditions that have descended to all Americans as received wisdom via the Patriot branch of the evolutionary tree. A libertarian, therefore, is fundamentally a conservative.

I know several systems of ethics that don't run into this fallacy, like discourse ethics. Rothbards proof for self-ownership doesn't either. There's also a dispute on what Hume actually meant, and I have my doubts if teleology doesn't just neatly sidestep this issue. He makes this too easy for himself here, but then talks at length about the American Revolution. His essay probably would've impressed me a lot two years ago, but not so much now.

>>61375

he venerates legality, from libertarian perspective there is nothing good in abiding to immoral laws

Bumping for that anon who's losing it over the shitposts.

Would write reviews, but I don't have a lot of time on my hands at this moment. I'm currently reading lots of Mises, like Liberalism and Omnipotent Government. I like him more as an economist than as a historian or political philosopher, but he still holds up extremely well in those disciplines.