Libertarianism: what are some good books?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Wow, good job everyone for keeping this thread on topic by recommending libertarian books and not sliding off into the usual old debate on libertarianism thats been done here a million times...

That's a long title for a book.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That's a long title for a book.

Originally posted by: hscorpio
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is pretty much required reading. Look into books on classical liberalism since the term libertarian is relatively new and is equivalent to classical liberal.

:lips:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That's a long title for a book.

Originally posted by: hscorpio
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is pretty much required reading. Look into books on classical liberalism since the term libertarian is relatively new and is equivalent to classical liberal.

:lips:

Yeah, that one has a much shorter title, but I think somebody already mentioned it.

 

[fitzov]

Look into books on classical liberalism since the term libertarian is relatively new and is equivalent to classical liberal.

A cursory reading of both doctrines will reveal that they are not equivalent.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: FlybackI've heard of Ayn Rand countless times, but what else is considered classical works?

You definitely would want to read Atlas Shrugged, which is an awesome intellectual experience. (I also recommend The Fountainhead.) However, note that Rand did not consider herself to be a Libertarian and opposed Libertarianism for its lack of a principled defense of capitalism based on an ethics of rational selfishness. For example, among the ranks of the Libertarians are altruist Christrians. Also, some Libertarians advocate Anarchy, which Rand stridently opposed. For the Objectivist viewpoint, see the essay, "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty", which I think you can find in one of Rand's posthumous anthologies, The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought.)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Look into books on classical liberalism since the term libertarian is relatively new and is equivalent to classical liberal.

A cursory reading of both doctrines will reveal that they are not equivalent.

They are not the same but (in their mainstream forms) they certainly are equivalent. Your "cursory reading" was probably some piece of biased propaganda, that being the height of your political education. I am a classical liberal BTW.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov

Look into books on classical liberalism since the term libertarian is relatively new and is equivalent to classical liberal.

A cursory reading of both doctrines will reveal that they are not equivalent.

They are not the same but (in their mainstream forms) they certainly are equivalent. Your "cursory reading" was probably some piece of biased propaganda, that being the height of your political education. I am a classical liberal BTW.

Classical liberalism: government is a social contract between individuals that have inalienable, natural rights--a contract to secure those rights

Libertarianism: "That government is best which governs least."

I can see a clear difference here.

 

[Dissipate]

The first four books I recommend are:

The Machinery of Freedom

The Enterprise of Law

The Structure of Liberty

and

The Market for Liberty

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fitzov

Look into books on classical liberalism since the term libertarian is relatively new and is equivalent to classical liberal.

A cursory reading of both doctrines will reveal that they are not equivalent.

They are not the same but (in their mainstream forms) they certainly are equivalent. Your "cursory reading" was probably some piece of biased propaganda, that being the height of your political education. I am a classical liberal BTW.

Classical liberalism: government is a social contract between individuals that have inalienable, natural rights--a contract to secure those rights

Libertarianism: "That government is best which governs least."

I can see a clear difference here.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." -- Thomas Paine, 1776

"I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure." -- Henry David Thoreau, 1849

Need I go on?

 

[fitzov]

You need to make a point after you quote--otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would think that government is best which governs not least or not at all but best of all.

How is the Mexican was any different than the War in Iraq?

The orangutan may not need government but with Bonobo chimps the ladies rule.

How do you affiliate without customary rules of engagement and where is there any inalienable right to private property? We can fly solo or we sail together. For millions of years we have evolved to live together. Communal sharing is our natural way. We are a family.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov
You need to make a point after you quote--otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

I would have thought my point to be self-evident. I quoted 2 highly prominent and contemporary classical liberals stating the phrase (one word for word) which you said can be ascribed only to modern libertarianism.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would think that government is best which governs not least or not at all but best of all.

How is the Mexican was any different than the War in Iraq?

The orangutan may not need government but with Bonobo chimps the ladies rule.

How do you affiliate without customary rules of engagement and where is there any inalienable right to private property? We can fly solo or we sail together. For millions of years we have evolved to live together. Communal sharing is our natural way. We are a family.

Fine. Does that mean I can "share" your dinner and house, and push you out hungry onto the street?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: fitzov
You need to make a point after you quote--otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

Don't mind Vic. He is an authoritarian on par with the worst communist dictators and fascists the world has ever seen.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: fitzov
You need to make a point after you quote--otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

Don't mind Vic. He is an authoritarian on par with the worst communist dictators and fascists the world has ever seen.

Someone steal your account?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: fitzov
You need to make a point after you quote--otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

Don't mind Vic. He is an authoritarian on par with the worst communist dictators and fascists the world has ever seen.

Yeah, that's for sure. I was nearly killed by a quote he threw at me. God I just hate it when people take over the world with quote they drop on people from thousands of miles in the sky.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Wow, good job everyone for keeping this thread on topic by recommending libertarian books and not sliding off into the usual old debate on libertarianism thats been done here a million times...

That's a long title for a book.

:laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

No, there is no inalienable right to property. There is, however, an inalienable right to life, of which property is closely tied to. If you have food, which is thus your property, and I steal this your property, you might starve. If you have a shelter, also your property, or if you have clothes, once again your property, and I steal those, then you might die of exposure. Either way, by denying you your property, I deny you your right to life.

Your utopia, Moonie, will only work in a world of unlimited resources. Were there unlimited food, unlimited shelter, etc., then perhaps sharing could occur easily and without strife. But that's not ever going to happen. In our real world, there are limited resources, and people have to labor to create what limited property they have.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

No, there is no inalienable right to property. There is, however, an inalienable right to life, of which property is closely tied to. If you have food, which is thus your property, and I steal this your property, you might starve. If you have a shelter, also your property, or if you have clothes, once again your property, and I steal those, then you might die of exposure. Either way, by denying you your property, I deny you your right to life.

Your utopia, Moonie, will only work in a world of unlimited resources. Were there unlimited food, unlimited shelter, etc., then perhaps sharing could occur easily and without strife. But that's not ever going to happen. In our real world, there are limited resources, and people have to labor to create what limited property they have.

All your wealth and property were made possible by the communal labor of others, by a society which redistributed wealth to a thriving middle class. Your world is only possible where intelligence is applied to increasing the common good, no?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

No, there is no inalienable right to property. There is, however, an inalienable right to life, of which property is closely tied to. If you have food, which is thus your property, and I steal this your property, you might starve. If you have a shelter, also your property, or if you have clothes, once again your property, and I steal those, then you might die of exposure. Either way, by denying you your property, I deny you your right to life.

Your utopia, Moonie, will only work in a world of unlimited resources. Were there unlimited food, unlimited shelter, etc., then perhaps sharing could occur easily and without strife. But that's not ever going to happen. In our real world, there are limited resources, and people have to labor to create what limited property they have.

All your wealth and property were made possible by the communal labor of others, by a society which redistributed wealth to a thriving middle class. Your world is only possible where intelligence is applied to increasing the common good, no?

You need to stop deifying society as though it were an actual thing, rather than the abstract that it is. Everything that society does, has, is, etc. is determined at individual levels. Therefore, it is self-evident that society is not of one mind or vision, and that things like "common good" are simply an individual opinion, and not anything you can point to or define with certainty.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic

It never fails to surprise me that socialists always attack classical liberalism (or libertarianism) with blatant lies and obvious falsehoods. Who, I wonder, do they think they're fooling?

.

Sir, I was looking for the words, and you had them all along

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who tells you anything else is filling your head with false propaganda.

Cultism at it's finest.

Is it? So if I told you black was white, and you disagreed and insisted that white was white, would that be cultism too?

Way to justify lies and slander... :roll:

Comrade, do not upset yourself, of course your "consumers utopia of individual ruggedness" will crush all who stand before you, and it will flooow across the globe as a wave of revoloution, freeing the people from their economic chains.

:roll:

OMG you are clueless. Why do keep pretending otherwise? Libertarians are inherently anti-consumeristic. So where you think every consumer good should be given to you as a right or entitlement, we think that people should consume only as much as is necessary for their personal well-being (which of course is an personal decision).
You continue -- with your every post -- to make Orwell look like Nostradamus. Quack, bitch, quack. You do it so well.

QFT

 

[HombrePequeno]

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman is a good one if you want to get an economists point of view.

The Libertarian Party has recently reworked itself to become more mainstream. No longer are they a party of near minarchism but they do still believe the government should be reduced and have less of a role in the economy.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation in this thread which looks like it's leading to baseless attacks on libertarianism. For some reason it's always socialists versus libertarians. Both are viable forms of government that place values on different things. Maybe if you guys understood the others' positions, there wouldn't be so many useless attacks that change no ones opinion.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: fitzov
You need to make a point after you quote--otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

Don't mind Vic. He is an authoritarian on par with the worst communist dictators and fascists the world has ever seen.

Someone steal your account?

No, not at all. Just think about your belief system and how despotic it really is. You believe in: collectivized security, forced funding of bureaucratic school systems, transportation systems etc.

Hence, you are a mini-dictator who wouldn't think twice about taking power and maintaining dictatorial control over all kinds of economic and social activities.