Author

Topic: Books on Libertarianism Everyone Must Be Forced to Read (Read 129 times)

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
interventionism is not perfect either and if we take things to the extreme in the most interventionist societies, injustices like that also occur. Let's look at how the children of politicians live in Venezuela for example and then look at how the rest of the population lives, who go hungry. I know Venezuela would not be a model of the society you are defending, but I was giving an extreme example.
Looks like we agree on most things after all Smiley
Venezuela is a good example, yes. Communist societies, or socialist fully-managed societies, are no good, and they fail because they are too easy to corrupt. Extreme left-wing is easily corruptible, and extreme right-wing (laissez-faire capitalist, a.k.a. libertarian) is easily exploitable. Neither works very well. The best approach*, I think, is a capitalist society governed by a left-leaning party... but not too left. The thing that works best will be the thing that is hardest to corrupt or exploit. Media misinformation needs dealing with, too, as this is the biggest corrupter of the democratic process.


On the other hand, how would you intervene to prevent people like Boris Johnson or George W. Bush from having advantages over those born in poorer families?
It's difficult. But as above, I suppose. You probably can't eliminate advantage, but a system that controls it and reduces it to a more acceptable level would be an improvement on what we have now.



* Best approach that is workable today. Whereas best approach in a perfect (and post-scarcity) world would be something that includes a fundamental redefinition of the barometers of value and success, and removes the links to power, and to money, which is largely the quantification of power.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Books on Libertarianism Everyone Must Be Forced to Read


Too bad the governments of communism and democracy don't agree with you.


Cool
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
Conversely, if you're a lazy fool born to an ultra-rich family, you'll get sent to the best private school, be fast-tracked into a great job, then through the revolving door into politics and maybe even become prime minister or president, from where you'll do everything you can to maintain the unfairness that worked so well in your own favour.

LOL. You have given Boris Johnson as an example but when I started reading the sentence I thought of George W. Bush, who would be another example of what you say. If he had been George Bush's son, he would not have been hired even to work at McDonald's.

Regarding the issue of interventionism, in general I agree, what happens is that just as the lack of interventionism can lead to the injustices you mention, interventionism is not perfect either and if we take things to the extreme in the most interventionist societies, injustices like that also occur. Let's look at how the children of politicians live in Venezuela for example and then look at how the rest of the population lives, who go hungry. I know Venezuela would not be a model of the society you are defending, but I was giving an extreme example.

On the other hand, how would you intervene to prevent people like Boris Johnson or George W. Bush from having advantages over those born in poorer families?
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
Well, I think we can come to an agreement here. I have already said that I believe that there should be some public intervention in the economy, although I suppose your position is that there should be more intervention than I like. The problem I see is that the more intervention and the more taxes, the more money collected ends up being used for political spending and not so much for the benefit of the population.

Yes, I think we agree that some degree of intervention is required, and that the aim of any intervention should be the benefit of the population.

I'm sure we also agree that communism is a bad idea. A system that ensures equality of outcome disincentivises innovation and entrepreneurship, stifles development, discourages energy and risk-taking and destroys free-thinking and creativity. On top of which, a system whose strength is premised on the power of collectivised labour is utterly outdated in our high-tech era of ever-increasing automation (even, now, automation of traditionally white-collar jobs). And from a crypto perspective, smart contract platforms will accelerate the trend and allow automation of whole industries.

The reason I am in favour of intervention is because I want there to be equality of opportunity. Unfettered capitalism means that those who already have power and wealth start from a huge advantage. If you're highly intelligent, highly creative, highly energetic, but you're born in a poor inner-city family, get sent to a failing school, don't pass your exams, have to take insecure low-paid jobs, then you never get a fair chance to fulfill your potential; you're condemned due to the innate inequality of the system. Conversely, if you're a lazy fool born to an ultra-rich family, you'll get sent to the best private school, be fast-tracked into a great job, then through the revolving door into politics and maybe even become prime minister or president, from where you'll do everything you can to maintain the unfairness that worked so well in your own favour.

Intervention is necessary in order to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance to achieve their potential. No intervention means that those who start with an advantage can maintain and increase that advantage for further generations. Slight intervention is like recycling your domestic plastics in order to fight climate change; it glosses over the problem, makes it look like it's being addressed, whilst at the same time having next to no effect.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
If I remember correctly, during Stalin's time Russia is called Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) which means that socialism is just another form of communism.

I have explained that in the previous post:

sr. member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 315
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Books on Libertarianism Everyone Must Be Forced to Read
Too bad the basic platform and premise doesn't force people to do anything. Now if we could get Dems and Reps to force THEIR people to read these...
In a free world, it should be an ideal thing that we choose what we want to read. Dems and Reps aren't going to read these because they are allergic to things that are not in line with their interest so anything that can help people, they will be experiencing anaphylactic shock also if someone aligns themselves to this political party or any political party in the world, I automatically assume that they have a low reading comprehension or they don't know how to read.
Lol! If you notice I said "social communism", I'm not talking about communism as in Stalin's time
If I remember correctly, during Stalin's time Russia is called Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) which means that socialism is just another form of communism.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
Lol! If you notice I said "social communism", I'm not talking about communism as in Stalin's time
If you're not talking about communism, then don't use one of my trigger words! If you're talking about intervention in a capitalist market, to whatever degree, then it's not communism. Communism is one end of the scale. If you take something that's black, and then lighten it slightly so that it's a dark grey, then don't say that's it's bright white, when it's clearly not. For example, Biden's stimulus* does not involve a complete abolition of private ownership.


Well I talk like that because in Marxist theory, socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. In other words, it is only a preliminary step.

Although I tend to advocate less public intervention, I do believe that the state should intervene, even minimally (there are people who believe that if everything were privatized and there were no intervention, the world would be paradise).

what you call "slight" intervention, I call it considerable intervention. Or I don't know if we have to call the stimulus packages in the USA "slight"
I wasn't saying that all intervention is slight, or that the stimulus is slight. I was saying that even when an intervention is only slight, it's still reported as communist. Larger interventions are reported as communist, too. Anything that inhibits the libertarian drive to further enrich the ultra-rich, anything that stands against the laissez-faire bleed-the-population-dry libertarian ideal... is reported as communist.

Well, as I said before, it is true that there is a difference between socialism and communism, but they tend to be identified because the original idea was that socialism was only a preliminary step. Another less radical model are the European social democracies that are an example of mixed societies, with some freedom to the market economy and some intervention, without being pure socialism.

On the other hand, the money flowing to the ultra-rich is only half the story. Systems with little state intervention in the economy have resulted in an increase in overall wealth. In other words, the rich have become richer, and the poor have also become richer (I am referring to the long term, not to short periods).

This is a different argument, it's the Steven Pinker 'better angels' argument. Probably, in general, he has a point. Certainly poor people in developed nations live vastly better lives than they did a century or two ago. However, this can't be taken as justification not to intervene. An extreme example to illustrate the general point: If I work in air traffic control and see two planes that are about to crash into one another, then should I alert the pilots and get them to change course, or should I let them crash and die because there is no need to intervene because air travel in general is so much safer nowadays than it used to be? If one in three people in the world don't have access to safe drinking water, then should we intervene and tax billionaires to better fund foreign aid, or should we do nothing because some poor people nowadays even have cable TV?

Well, I think we can come to an agreement here. I have already said that I believe that there should be some public intervention in the economy, although I suppose your position is that there should be more intervention than I like. The problem I see is that the more intervention and the more taxes, the more money collected ends up being used for political spending and not so much for the benefit of the population.

I of course agree that taxes should be raised to give access to clean water to those who don't have it.

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
Lol! If you notice I said "social communism", I'm not talking about communism as in Stalin's time
If you're not talking about communism, then don't use one of my trigger words! If you're talking about intervention in a capitalist market, to whatever degree, then it's not communism. Communism is one end of the scale. If you take something that's black, and then lighten it slightly so that it's a dark grey, then don't say that's it's bright white, when it's clearly not. For example, Biden's stimulus* does not involve a complete abolition of private ownership.

what you call "slight" intervention, I call it considerable intervention. Or I don't know if we have to call the stimulus packages in the USA "slight"
I wasn't saying that all intervention is slight, or that the stimulus is slight. I was saying that even when an intervention is only slight, it's still reported as communist. Larger interventions are reported as communist, too. Anything that inhibits the libertarian drive to further enrich the ultra-rich, anything that stands against the laissez-faire bleed-the-population-dry libertarian ideal... is reported as communist.

On the other hand, the money flowing to the ultra-rich is only half the story. Systems with little state intervention in the economy have resulted in an increase in overall wealth. In other words, the rich have become richer, and the poor have also become richer (I am referring to the long term, not to short periods).
This is a different argument, it's the Steven Pinker 'better angels' argument. Probably, in general, he has a point. Certainly poor people in developed nations live vastly better lives than they did a century or two ago. However, this can't be taken as justification not to intervene. An extreme example to illustrate the general point: If I work in air traffic control and see two planes that are about to crash into one another, then should I alert the pilots and get them to change course, or should I let them crash and die because there is no need to intervene because air travel in general is so much safer nowadays than it used to be? If one in three people in the world don't have access to safe drinking water, then should we intervene and tax billionaires to better fund foreign aid, or should we do nothing because some poor people nowadays even have cable TV?

Appreciate the discussion, BTW, even though we are always on opposing sides Smiley



*'Biden's Stimulus' would be a great name for a caffeinated sports drink
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017

Evidence? Not saying you're doing this, but I do get a bit sick of the hysterical shrieking of 'Communism!' at any slight government intervention in the markets. Anything that acts as a brake on the libertarian ideal of letting all money flow to the ultra-rich is decried as communist. It's absurd, and not remotely convincing.


Lol! If you notice I said "social communism", I'm not talking about communism as in Stalin's time, but what you call "slight" intervention, I call it considerable intervention. Or I don't know if we have to call the stimulus packages in the USA "slight" It is clear that the USA today is much more social communist than it has been in the last 50 years, and if we look at Europe, which has always been more interventionist, today it is even more so.

To me it's pretty obvious but I think we just perceive it differently.

On the other hand, the money flowing to the ultra-rich is only half the story. Systems with little state intervention in the economy have resulted in an increase in overall wealth. In other words, the rich have become richer, and the poor have also become richer (I am referring to the long term, not to short periods).
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Books on Libertarianism Everyone Must Be Forced to Read


Too bad the basic platform and premise doesn't force people to do anything. Now if we could get Dems and Reps to force THEIR people to read these...


Cool
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
~

I don't think that 'Everyone must be forced to' sits very well with libertarianism.
I do think reading is vitally important, and in general I wish people read more. Having said that, I didn't read through your list of recommendations, because I did a CTRL+F for Ayn Rand as an initial quality check.

most of the world is turning towards a covert social communism within the market economy.

Evidence? Not saying you're doing this, but I do get a bit sick of the hysterical shrieking of 'Communism!' at any slight government intervention in the markets. Anything that acts as a brake on the libertarian ideal of letting all money flow to the ultra-rich is decried as communist. It's absurd, and not remotely convincing.

full member
Activity: 1148
Merit: 158
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
None shall be forced to read, but we can implement the books you mentioned in the education system to be "TAUGHT" to generations. Reading is not a hobby everyone possessed, such as me for example. I rarely read books but I do love to read what pique my interest. Being taught on the other hand always amused me to the point that I looked into the undiscussed information regarding a topic that interests me.

P.S. I don't know the books you mentioned, but I think I will give it a try.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
I do not believe that anyone should be forced to do anything. With few exceptions. But certainly no one should be forced to read books. Those you mention are good books, but we seem to be in an age that ignores what they wrote, where most of the world is turning towards a covert social communism within the market economy.
copper member
Activity: 155
Merit: 8
Great list. If you want a book that ties libertarianism and Austrian Econ with bitcoin, I would recommend you read "The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking" by Saifedean Ammous. It was a nice read and gives detail on Austrian Econ and Bitcoin

Thanks! Honestly, I only now realize that all the books I've read probably predate Bitcoin (and possibly the internet itself). I just added your recommendation to my reading list.
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 2
Great list. If you want a book that ties libertarianism and Austrian Econ with bitcoin, I would recommend you read "The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking" by Saifedean Ammous. It was a nice read and gives detail on Austrian Econ and Bitcoin
copper member
Activity: 155
Merit: 8
Libertarianism typically isn’t something you’re taught in the American public education system. This makes sense. Just like the priests who teach at Catholic school might not hand out copies of God Is Not Great, so too would government employees shrink away from a curriculum centered around the shrinking United States government – or abolishing it altogether.

(Not to suggest that teachers are all frothing authoritarians. Miss Nelson who taught me freshman algebra was an absolute peach of a woman, and she smelled like peppermint schnapps.)

This means that many libertarians are at a relative disadvantage for not having been steeped in their political philosophy’s best books beginning at an early age. The tenets of liberalism and conservatism are available as easily as tuning a radio to NPR or Fox News, respectively. For libertarian ideas, you have to seek out libertarian literature.

Don’t be daunted if you’ve only just taken the plunge into libertarian thought. Begin with our ten favorite libertarian books, available from fine book sellers everywhere unless you live in China.

The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (1776)

Adam Smith’s aptly named The Wealth of Nations examines why some countries prosper better than others. Although Smith did not invent the concept of “laissez-faire,” its growing popularity throughout the 19th century was largely attributable to his book’s favorable argument for the economic system. Smith also introduced several principles that would become fundamental to modern economics such as gross domestic product, division of labor, and the “invisible hand” – the unseen force that drives a free market economy forward.

On Liberty, John Stuart Mill (1859)

John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is a treatise on the importance of individualism and a rejection of conformity. The philosophical essay condemns any source of coercion, be it political or societal, that would make an individual’s actions or beliefs conform to those of authority. Without liberty, Mills argues, society can no longer develop, as opinions which are popular yet nevertheless patently false can neither be challenged nor done away with. Mills also sets forth the fundamental principle of nonaggression: “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”

The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek (1944)

Friedrich Hayek wrote and published The Road to Serfdom (which is titled after Alexis de Tocqueville’s own work about the “road to servitude”) while WWII was still ravaging Europe. In it, the economist lays out how a country which turns to socialism invariably devolves into an authoritarian dictatorship. To Hayek, collectivism is a fierce contradiction of human nature, as relatively few individuals will ever truly share the same common goal. In essence, “the common good” can only be forced upon human beings who characteristically share little in common.

Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises (1949)

One of the most important books on political economy ever published, as well as foundational to the libertarian movement, Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action argues in favor of laissez-faire capitalism based on the concept of praxeology (the theory that people make thoughtful and purposeful decisions rather than merely react unintentionally to external factors, which the author’s own Austrian school helped to develop). Human Action explains how the free market created by people of their own volition trumps any government scheme – and indeed, serves as the underpinning of civilization itself.

Capitalism and Freedom, Miltion Friedman (1962)

In yet another aptly named piece of libertarian literature, Milton Friedman spells out how people can only enjoy the greatest economic and political freedom when their government is small, limited in power, and decentralized. Friedman believes that politicians who try to improve the economy by interfering with it truly exemplify the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” – and he explains every reason why in Capitalism and Freedom.

Man, Economy and State, Murray Rothbard (1962)

Man, Economy and State is one of the meatier reads on this list at over 1,400 pages, but Murray Rothbard’s prose is crystal. In this beast of a tome the Austrian school economist explains the entirety of his science: how conscious decision-making propels the free market; how money actually works, and what determines purchasing power; and why taxation does not actually combat price inflation. The failure to understand economics leads to tremendous social ills. So long as Man, Economy and State remains in print, people will only have their own ignorance to blame.

Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt (1946)

If Rothbard’s treatise on economics seems too formidable, then Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson provides a far more accessible approach to basic economics. The journalist explains that government policies, as desirable as they may appear at face value, must be scrutinized according to their long-term implications. Rent control, for example, ultimately diminishes the supply of available housing and results in higher overall prices. Reading a book like this can be disheartening. Although published during the first half of the 20th century, politicians remain unaware (or more likely willfully ignorant) of its singular wisdom to this day.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick (1974)

Political philosopher Robert Nozick does not actually argue for total anarchy in his groundbreaking work Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Instead he champions the concept of the night-watchman state, “limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on.” To Nozick, a state which extends its authority into any other sphere of private life necessarily violates its subjects’ personal rights – an untenable circumstance. (Incidentally, Robert Nozick looked exactly what you probably imagine a Harvard professor would look like.)

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand (1957)

Not all libertarian authors worked in nonfiction. Ayn Rand’s epic novel Atlas Shrugged tells the story of Dagny Taggart, a railroad executive who witnesses firsthand how increasing state control over industry does little more than ensure its inevitable collapse. Dagny learns that a person’s greatest moral purpose is to achieve their own happiness – an ascension which the false song of government-enforced collectivism makes nigh impossible. Make certain also to read The Fountainhead if you like the queen bee of libertarianism’s storytelling, as well as Anthem which can be gobbled down in a single sitting.

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein (1966)

In his novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, which is arguably his best, Robert Heinlein depicts a remarkably plausible future in which a lunar penal colony rebels against Earth’s oppressive absentee rule. Lunar society is a far cry from what most people would consider ideal (monogamists, at least), but Heinlein’s messages of self-reliance and the necessity of rebelling when independence is at stake are certain to resonate even with readers who may not consider themselves libertarian.

Honorable Mentions: More Great Libertarian Books

We would be remiss to omit several other great libertarian books just because the number ten looked so neat in this article’s title. Here are a few more to leaf through while you’re waiting to collect enough rainwater so you can brew your morning coffee.

• The Law, Frédéric Bastiat (1850): Bastiat begins with the premise that “each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.” He proceeds to argue that the further a government infringes on this right, the worse it becomes, and explains that a government concerned with philanthropy becomes effectively limitless in the scope of its power.

• No Treason, Lysander Spooner (1867): As one of natural law’s strongest proponents, Spooner contended that everyone is born with equal rights regardless of their race or sex. He then employs his razor-sharp legal wit to demonstrate precisely how the Constitution violates natural law.

• The State Against Blacks, Walter Williams (1982): Williams was a great economist – not a provocateur. Rather than solely blame racism for economic inequality, Williams identifies government policies such as minimum wage, property tax, and the creation of the welfare state as the primary drivers of disparity.

• Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz (1997): A primer in full, Boaz’s surprisingly accessible book offers a comprehensive guide to the history and ideas of libertarianism complete with illuminating anecdotes. (Updated as The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom in 1995.)

• The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul (2008): Based on notes written during his 2008 presidential campaign, The Revolution details the former congressman’s advocacy for constitutionalism, limited government, and auditing the Federal Reserve.

• The Berenstain Bears and Too Much Junk Food, Stan and Jan Berenstain (1985): In this classic of American literature, Papa, Brother and Sister Bear receive a much needed lecture from Dr. Grizzly about the perils of eating too much candy. Not necessarily a libertarian message, but indispensable advice all the same.

Final Thoughts

We hope you enjoyed our recommendations for your own libertarian reading list! Just be sure to buy your own books – we hear tell that socialists are now taking credit for the existence of libraries.

Books on Libertarianism Everyone Must Be Forced to Read originally appeared on Thought Grenades, the blog on Libertas Bella.
Jump to: