File : 1296218084.jpg-(56 KB, 600x426, 1280427029119.

jpg)
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)07:34 No.1500459
ITT:
Non-fiction books that had a profound
influence on you.
Ethics of Liberty (Rothbard)
The Road To Serfdom (Hayek)
Amusing Ourselves To Death (Postman)
Man and His Symbols (Jung)
Democracy: The God That Failed (Hoppe)
Theory of Moral Sentiments (Smith)
Human Action (Mises)
Black Swan (Taleb)
Hard-mode: No Rand.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)07:39 No.1500467

>>

Capital by Karl Marx

In Defense of Lost Causes by Slavoj Zizek
The Value of Nothing by Raj Patel
What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas
Frank
Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva 01/28/11(Fri)07:45 No.1500470
File1296218724.jpg-(2 KB, 126x72, mysextalk.jpg)
this game

>>
its deep as shit
there's demons from real hell
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)07:56 No.1500490
>>

Come on lit, don't tell me that you read escapist literature all
day long.
Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva 01/28/11(Fri)08:03 No.1500501
>>

>>

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

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)08:12 No.1500513

File1296220367.jpg-(24 KB, 300x366, Abraham-Lincoln-2.jpg)
An Introduction To Logic And Scientific Method by Cohen.
Nietzsche's Ecce homo.
Aristotle's Metaphysics
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations
Orwell's collection of "Such such were the Joys"
Kant's "A critique of pure reason " (WOW Nietzsche and Kant in the same list!!!
oneoneone111
The Rights of Man by paine
The declaration of Independence as a Document.
And No, I am NOT an American.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)08:20 No.1500525
>>

>>1500513
Very good.
Wealth of Nations is a classic and should be considered mandatory for anyone who
wants to take a position on any economic problem.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)08:21 No.1500526

>>

>>1500513
Jesushchrist
I have to read Rights of Man and Ecce homo. Thats a
good list.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)08:22 No.1500529

>>

>>1500525
>>1500526
hivemind?
I liked it too. Yes, Wealth of nations is rather the foundation of economics. Micro +
macro both.

>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)08:26 No.1500533

>>1500459
Good list op.
Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is his second magnum opus and people should

pay more attention to it in my opinion.

onionring !Rrxa7zePwI 01/28/11(Fri)08:27 No.1500535
>>

pathetic list op, bad job.

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)08:52 No.1500548

>>

>>1500535
Why?
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)15:08 No.1501088

>>

bump
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)15:09 No.1501091

>>

>>

The Bible
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)15:23 No.1501129
File1296246233.jpg-(61 KB, 454x700, Guns, Germs, and Steel(...).jpg)
>>

>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)15:25 No.1501136

File1296246305.jpg-(56 KB, 323x500, The Undercover Economist by
Ti(...).jpg)
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)15:39 No.1501187
>>1501129
this and Collapse are really good.
and
existentialism is a humanism by
sartre

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)17:14 No.1501434

>>

>>

+1 on Black Swan. An interesting

read,
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)17:17 No.1501438
The Revolution of Everyday Life by
Vaneigem
Essays in Existentialism by Sartre
Walden by Thoreau
History of Madness by Focault
Discipline and Punish by Foucault

The Marx/Engels Reader

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)17:32 No.1501464

>>

I wonder why people are so interested in Marx these days. Is it the hip thing to do ?
Because the guy was wrong on every prediction he made and his theory was proven
disastrous everywhere it had been put in practice.
It's good that people read him so that they know what he was all about but I think
it's more relevant to read authors like Smith, Ricardo, Hume, Weber, Mill, Bastiat
and Hayek whose theories are still relevant today and many people forget the
lessons they taught us.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)17:44 No.1501477

>>

>>1501464
>predictions
I don't think he really made "predictions" so much as critiques, and I don't think he
was trying to be psychic.
>disaster
I don't think it's fair to say this, because capitalist economies are failing all over the
world. Marxism has been tried, and some things worked while others did not. There
is always room for improvement, of course, but I think people have a double
standard when it comes to this issue--they criticize marxist states for what went
wrong, but they conveniently ignore the daily failures of capitalist states.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)17:47 No.1501482
>>1501464

>>

No, it's more hip to be a lolertarian douchebag. Just look at the sales of Ayn Rand
books among deluded college youth.
All the college radicals are now capitalist asspies.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)17:51 No.1501488
>>1501477

>>

Excellent point. When capitalism fails, "It's not REALLY capitalism," but when
regimes that call themselves Marxist fail, "it's because Marxism doesn't work!"
Capitalism needs to become falsifiable again. Too much confirmation bias among
its supporters. (And yes, I realize the same is true among socialists--don't bother
pointing that out--which makes it all the more ironic.)
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)18:02 No.1501502

>>

Kierkegaard. Lots and lots of

Kierkegaard.

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)18:42 No.1501594

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

>>

>>1501482
So easy to dispute the philosophy by calling it's adherents douchebags, isn't it. Yet
history shows us that libertarian policies worked much well than what we have
today.
>>1501488
What we have today (and every serious person will agree with this) is a MIXED
economy. That is part capitalism and part socialism.
We have relatively more capitalism in areas like high tech industries, services,
luxuries, entertainment, IT etc
We have socialism (state control/heavy regulation) in areas like education, banking,
health care, public transportation, social security.
Which areas are failing again?
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)18:45 No.1501600
The Autobiography of Malcolm X

>>
I read it when I was twelve, never really having thought about race
before.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)18:49 No.1501608
>>1501488
It's not so much capitalism vs socialism.
We can reduce it down to simpler, more neutral terms.
Private ownership versus public ownership.

>>

We have hundreds of years of evidence and a logical explanation showing that

private ownership yields much better results than public ownership.
This is because of incentives. If you propose that public ownership is better than
private then you're pretty much ignoring 200 years of moral philosophy/economics
and I would like to see how you'd solve the lack of incentives, economic
calculation, competition for best products etc
Until I see a reasonable and logical theory that explains how a public ownership
system would solve these problems I can't take any of that shit seriously. It just
shows that most people are economic illiterates and ideologues.

>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)18:50 No.1501614

>>1501594
The biggest failure lately has been finance, which is probably the most "capitalist"
industry of all. When you say we have a "mixed" economy of capitalism and
socialism, you are stating a fallacy. There can be no mixture of capitalism and
socialism. What we have is state-subsidized capitalism with a big dose of
authoritarian police-state/military complex. Marx did not predict that socialism
would occur just like that, he did predict increasingly bad crises for capitalist
economies, and the rolling financial black outs of the past few years seem to
confirm this. When you say public institutions like schools are "socialist" you are
really being a fool--capitalist states require socially funded institutions because the
private sector never "stepped in" to do the job--without public schooling, only a
select group of young people could attend school and you would have a hell of a
time dealing with the ones who don't (most likely solution would be, and currently
is, making prisons more numerous in order to collect the people jettisoned from the
social safety net)..At any rate, when you say "libertarian" principles are superior, I
have no idea what you are talking about--are you speaking purely from theory...at
least marxism has been tried in the real world, and it has in fact succeeded at many
things, even though it failed at many things too (and to be honest the west made it
as hard as possible)
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)18:53 No.1501621
>>

>>1501608
Are you seriously suggesting that we follow a reductionist line of reasoning? You
sound like you've been brainwashed by Glenn Beck, bro.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)18:53 No.1501622

>>

>>1501614
Finance being capitalist ? Are you shitting me? The banking industry is THE most
regulated industry of all.
The big banks are so intertwined with the government that you can't tell who's
working for who.
I'd agree with you if you said banking is crony-capitalism/fascism.
We definitely don't have a free market in banking, trust me on that one.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)18:59 No.1501635

>>

>>1501621
I don't know who glenn beck is and no, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that every public ownership system is inherently inferior to private
ownership in it's efficiency because of many factors (incentives, calculation,
ownership rights etc).
If you want a good and thorough explanation I suggest you read Socialism by
Ludwing von Mises and The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek.
I don't think a post is enough to persuade a person so if you want to make an
enlightened, non-ideological opinion I suggest you do some reading first.

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:00 No.1501639

>>

>>1501622
I didn't say "free market" I said capitalism--and capitalism is what it is--you can
throw qualifiers on it and try to pretend like it's different than what it should be, but
that isn't changing the fact that even if we started at a free market "zero point" it
would inevitably lead to cronyism and corruption (when competing for limited
resources, the tendency is to do whatever is necessary in order to secure the
most)..The only way to even keep a market "free" would in theory be state
intervention--otherwise there would be pseudo-state powers formed by the
wealthy..Seriously, where does this libertarian line of reasoning even come from?
Socialists at least aspire to something greater for humanity, that we would stand
strong together and face our lives in common brotherhood..but libertarians just say
we need more "freedom" to chew eachother to pieces.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:01 No.1501645
File1296259271.jpg-(103 KB, 650x650, 1273513246188.jpg)

>>

A Journey- Tony Blair.

Reading his arguments for thing such as the Iraq war,
civil liberties, the war on terror and his public sector
reforms opened my eyes to see past the bias media and
haters from both the left and the right.
Another book that had a profound influence on me was an anarchist book called
"Days of war, night of love" It's a collection of essays on various things with cool
graphics. While I don't agree with the politics any more I often find myself reading
it. Opens my mind to a more radical perspective.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:01 No.1501647

>>

>>1501635
I intend to look at von mises and hayek, but I'm fully aware that it would be about
as unbiased as the socialist propaghanda I read--there really is no neutrality
possible when it comes to political theory..if one were neutral about it, then he
would probably not exert the effort required for writing a book.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:02 No.1501652

>>

>>

>>1501645
Yeah being radical is really more about your perspective than any political dogma
you could subscribe to.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:02 No.1501657
>>1501614
You can't say the private sector chose not to step it.
Private sector will step in everywhere it can make a profit. Schooling can be very
profitable but you can't compete with the government, you just can't because the
government has an almost endless pool of resources (taxpayer, the printing press)
and a monopoly on power and legislation whereas the private sector doesn't (it has

to satisfy it's customers in order to make money).

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:05 No.1501662
>>

The Commanding Heights - Daniel Yergin and Joseph

Stanislaw
The Turning Point - Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov
State of Denial - Bob Woodward
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:08 No.1501669

>>

>>1501657
So basically the government "beats" the private sector at its own game? I don't get
it--are you for competition or not? At any rate, what do you think the private sector
was doing before public schooling came along? There are places where mandatory
public education isn't available and ,yes, there are private schools but most children
in those situations don't get to go.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:08 No.1501670
>>1501464

>>

There's no more cold war and we have a whole generation who don't even
remember the Soviet Union - hence, there's no animosity towards extreme left wing
thought.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:08 No.1501674

>>

>>1501647
Actually Mises emphasizes not making value-judgments. He will show you the
logic, tell you what will and will not work and why. He doesn't try to tell you what
to think. He's like the old economists, more philosopher than an economist in the
modern sense of the word which is good in my opinion.
Hayek is also great, his thoughts about the distribution of information among
people is critical in understanding why central planning can never work (no central
planner can ever have enough information to make good economic decisions).

>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:10 No.1501678

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

Bernstein
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:13 No.1501688

>>

>>1501674
I'm interested, but ultimately I am a socialist from personal conviction. I can find
plenty of logical economists to detail how and why socialism would work or I
could read Hayek and Mises to see the other side of the spectrum, but like I said
earlier, Socialists aspire to something greater, and it is not possible for us to have it
exist in the most functional way before we overthrow the capitalist state...we have
to jump in and then figure it out...The soviet union was an attempt that did not
work out so well, and I think a lot of the reason why is that it was in an adversarial
relationship with the west.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:16 No.1501697

>>

>>1501600
Is the actual writing of it primarily by Malcolm X, or does Alex Haley receive more
credit for it? I was never sure how this worked.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:19 No.1501705
>>1501669
Ok imagine a market where only private firms exist.
These firms compete for a finite number of customers, each firm is all about
maximizing profits. In order to maximize profits they must satisfy as many
customers as possible and charge them the highest price possible but because these
firms are competing they keep undercutting one another and looking for ways to
get the most bang for the buck so in the end the firms that survive are the ones that
managed to offer the best possible service for the best possible price.

>>

If however there is a firm ran/subsidized/owned by the government on the market

this firm can afford to undercut so much that they have negative profits (they lose
money) but they make it up by having the taxpayer pay (involuntarily and
unknowingly) the difference.
This is a hidden price.
This is very common and in the end people end up pay for services they didn't ask
for (poor subsidizing colleges for middle class kids though taxes, people who ride
bikes paying for public transportation through taxes etc...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Ain%27t_No_Such_Thing_As_A_Free_Lunch

>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:25 No.1501726

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

relationships, or the way you would personally like to relate to society in general.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:35 No.1501745
>>1501688
I don't pretend to know how you got that conviction but my experience with
socialists is that they have this illusion that capitalism is all about greedy people
looking out only for themselves. This is of course not true. I'll agree that people in
capitalistic society are motivated by their self interest but this can only be observed
at the micro level (when you only focus on individual interactions). From the
macro perspective the whole system is very vibrant, innovative and progressive.
>>

I know the ideals of socialism and I'll admit that it does look somewhat nice on
paper but in reality it leads to a stagnant society.
There's also the social issue, when people are made dependent on a central faceless
authority instead of one another (and themselves) they lose the motivation to create
social networks (friendships with neighbors, co-workers, customers etc). I know
this from my personal experience because I live in a post-communist country.
My favorite argument for libertarianism is that we don't really know much, we
don't know what's possible and what we're capable of creating so we should give
people the freedom to experiment and try as many things as possible and let the
market decide what is desirable and what isn't.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:40 No.1501757

>>

>>1501726
No. This isn't true. I argue that the best way to improve the lives of ordinary folk is
NOT to give them subsidies but to give them the freedom and opportunity to
become all that they can.
I mean look at Africa. We're sending in bilions of dollars and euros and it doesn't
have any measurable effect. At the same time we bash multinational corporations
for "exploiting" the local population. Yet when you ask the locals they would kill to
work for one of the multinationals because they pay twice as much as local firms.

>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:42 No.1501764

>>1501745
There is more to socialism than just a planned economy, you know. The early
movement towards socialism was also for the liberation of prisoners, gender
equality, improved conditions for workers, more personal freedom (this being
freedom to live in a way that is not dominated by your survival routine). Socialism
was really the most extreme end of classic progressive thinking. When it comes to
capitalist states, what we have seen is that for some people life is vastly improved,
but in general there is a banality to life engendered by the economy being the
foremost aspect of your individual life--life is defined by consumption and
competition--socialism ideally would make survival a background issue and allow
individuals to develop in any way that they wish. Now, the level of "comfort'' will
most likely not compare to the level of comfort that the current bourgeois has in the

west, but ultimately a socialist does not desire that kind of comfort anyway. I am no
Stalinist, nor do I favor the kind of authoritarian communism that happened in
eastern europe, so I am probably not so different in some ways from a libertarian-it's just that I think that without the government, and with total freedom of private
firms, embryonic pre-states will emerge, we will be at the hands of the most
powerful and it just seems like a step back in time.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:46 No.1501775

>>

>>1501757
It is still exploitation--of course a lot of the corporations in africa pay far more than
the average company there, but this is still exploitative. You should read about how
industrialization changed the lives of provincials in france...the mines opened and
at first, since peasants could subsidize their incomes and resources with subsistence
farming, they would only mine as a secondary source of income. The mines raised
wages, making many of the peasants full time miners. The miners who went full
time were made to live in the company neighborhoods, with no plot of land at all to
grow food on, and they became totally dependent on the mine. Once they were
totally dependent, the mine lowered the pay to starvation wages, but at that point
the workers could not quit their jobs.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:49 No.1501783
>>1501639
Ok first of all that's a horrible straw man. Libertarians see competition as a positive
and motivating, not a destructive force.

>>

I have no doubt about the sincerity of your intentions. What I argue is that they are
incompatible with human nature. This is why most radical attempts at socialism
end up in genocide, because when it comes to actually doing it people find out they
don't like it.
Socialism simply cannot work as long as humans are humans, because deep down
we all want to be autonomous beings, we don't like to be commanded.
Also I know that the word capitalism is being thrown around a lot these days, every
politician says how capitalism is great (because it's popular to say it) but they all
hate it.
When I say capitalism I really mean the free-market, laissez faire type, not the one
we supposedly have now.

>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:55 No.1501802

>>1501775
I wasn't there 200 years ago, the time was different, you know being a farmer then
wasn't that much better.
I won't deny that those were harsh times but so was the whole history of
civilization before then. We're over it, we're never going back there and thanks to
those people we're much better off today.
Many of the first capitalists were the former aristocrats so no surprise there.

But today is different. An average joe with a truly innovative idea can change the
world and become a millionaire.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:56 No.1501803

>>

>>1501783
I think we have to change our human nature, of course. I think there is a lot of
psychology that has been influenced by our way of life these past thousands of
years--Socialism desires to put the fast-forward on individual development, and I
suppose there is something essentially irrational about this ideal--but it is to have
these irrational desires and to act on them that is the draw of socialism--the
difference between libertarianism and socialism would probably be that the
workers would control the industries via councils, and I suppose with libertarian
capitalism their would be a board of directors or something of that sort? How is this
individual freedom? You will still have masters in that sort of
libertarianism...Socialism would put into your hands as a producer the rights to
what you have produced, it would recognize that each person is capable of
contributing to the production and would therefor compensate each person in an
equitable way..we really don't need the bosses, they need us.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:57 No.1501806

>>

>>1501802
But why would you want to be a
millionaire?
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)19:58 No.1501810

>>

>>1501764
As a libertarian I agree with many of the things the progressives say about noneconomic policies, but I disagree whenever they want to use the government to
achieve their goal.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:03 No.1501825

>>

>>1501810
Well, the type of socialism I am in favor of wouldn't really have this "big
government" calling the shots--it would be very much council-oriented and would
utilize localized direct democracy to decide various issues..
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:03 No.1501829

>>

>>1501803
There would be no outside force stopping you from becoming one of the "rulers"
under libertarianism.
If you're smart, educated, willing and capable enough to do whatever job you want
nobody will have a reason to stand in your way, in fact people will be motivated to
seek out guys like you.

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:06 No.1501834

>>

>>1501803
Change human nature? I think that it's by definition impossible, no?
I can think of neither a peaceful nor a violent way of changing human nature. We're
not robots, you know.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:09 No.1501843

>>

>>1501829
Some people are against rulers simply out of principle--these people are socialists-I thought libertarians were against masters too, but it doesn't sound like it. It really
sounds like some people believe that the government is standing in their way to
becoming a big shot, but there are more factors at work than that...
>>1501834
Well, we aren't robots and we aren't pre-programmed either. I think that at one time
human nature would be to smash your neighbors skull with a rock and rape his
daughters..we aren't doing that much anymore, although it still happens sometimes.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:11 No.1501848

>>

>>1501825
Haven't you noticed that politicians don't have an interest in public welfare?
A politician will do or say anything to get re-elected. If he can fool people into
thinking anything he will do it and use it to get (re)elected.
Again you have a problem of motivation.
People (the majority) would use popular vote to confiscate the property of/bully
people they don't like (the minority) and they'd always find a politician willing to
do it.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:12 No.1501850

>>

Into the Wild

Born to Run
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:12 No.1501851

>>

>>

>>1501848
I don't really think there would be much motivation for such vindictive behavior
since property would be "the commons"..of course there will be some corruption
but you don't think your system will somehow be perfect do you? There wouldn't
be any politicians either, people would vote directly on the issues.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:18 No.1501861
>>1501843
That's over simplifying. I don't believe one bit that libertarians want to minimize or
abolish the state so that they could rule. I know a lot of libertarians and none of

them have that ambition. They scorn the idea of one man ruling over another.
Libertarians argue for 'negative liberty', socialists argue for 'positive liberty'.
You can look these terms up on wikipedia to learn the difference because it's key to
understanding libertarianism.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:21 No.1501867

>>

>>1501851
Tragedy of the commons
How would you solve that?
My experience with publicly owned property is that everybody feels entitled to use
it and nobody has the motivation to take care of it (land, machinery etc).
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:22 No.1501868
>>1501848

>>

Only a child or a fool could see the rich as a bullied minority. Politicians have
always used monied interests to convince everyone else to vote for them. Some
politicians are better than that, but they rarely get very far.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:25 No.1501877

>>

>>

>>1501861
"negative liberty" vs. "positive liberty" sounds very interesting...
>>1501867
You know how in western culture people will go into debt, will freak the fuck out
to see a big football game? Well, ideally, a socialist culture would make taking care
of the commons (i.e. doing community service while you chill with friends) as
exciting as a football game...or something like that. I know, I know, the alteration
would be very difficult and I don't honestly know if it is possible on a large
scale...to be honest I think that socialism really only works if everyone is a socialist
and since not everyone is...well...I am just being honest right now..I'm a little
bummed out today and so I'm maybe not as motivated to candy-coat things, but the
truth is that many people are just fucked up and will fuck up any perfect system we
could throw at them. I am a socialist to some extent because I think it defines my
life and understanding in positive ways..
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:26 No.1501879
>>1501851
And no i don't believe that capitalism is perfect. Nothing human is perfect and
under ANY system you will find some people who will suffer.
I'm fairly convinced that of all the systems we know capitalism is the one where
people suffer the least.
If you don't believe me then how would you explain our standard of living

compared to the rest of the world.

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:27 No.1501884

>>

>>

>>1501879
Our capitalism creates the shitty conditions for the rest of the world--there is a
positive side to capitalism (where some people enjoy nice lives) and then there is
the exploited, destitute and impoverished side...which we try to forget as much as
possible by inventing/watching things like jersey shore...
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:28 No.1501886
File1296264503.jpg-(17 KB, 350x348, dad1.jpg)
>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:32 No.1501892

>>1501867
I'm part of several distinct "commons" - a community
centre on Crown land which houses a theatre, and a rural
co-op, to name two - and we take quite good care of these
things, thank you. If the comcentre (which belongs to
everyone) didn't exist, it would likely be another tourist
development and underground carpark.

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:34 No.1501895

>>

>>1501868
Not only the rich, the poor as well.
The middle class is feeding off both the rich AND
the poor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtBskFDiOC4
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:37 No.1501902
>>1501884
Not really capitalism but protectionism.

>>

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

>>

Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:40 No.1501909

>>1501902
Actually "free trade" policies just open up new impoverished groups for

exploitation--that is what has happened and what will continue to happen with free
trade--it fucks the worker at home and it double-fucks the worker abroad. Sure,
they might have televisions in their shanties, but we would like to do better than
that. The way of life in the west is untenable and I personally think it is a little
gross and do you ever wonder why we have probably one of the highest rates of
mental illness/mood disorders/personality disorders in the US?
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:40 No.1501911
>>

>>1501892
These things are exceptions to the rule.
Probably because they have a community associated with the property, which is
almost never the case with public property.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:43 No.1501919
>>1501902

>>
You obviously have no clue what you're talking
about.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:47 No.1501937
>>1501902
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong and wrong. Those are popular myths and economic fallacies
that were debunked in the 18th century.
>>
Read this:
http://blog.mises.org/7889/free-trade-versus-free-trade-agreements/
http://mises.org/liberal/ch3sec7.asp
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:48 No.1501942

>>

>>1501919
It is you who has no clue.
read:
>>1501937
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:51 No.1501949

>>

>>

>>1501937
the mises institute slants their information a bit too much, i mean, that is the point
of course, but i'm unconvinced..either way when people say "free trade'' i assume
they mean the *actual* current policies associated with that term, and not some
kind of theoretical free trade situation.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:53 No.1501950

>>1500459
mises and rothbard on the same list
mfw
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:55 No.1501954
>>1501949
Well let's make it clear. There's the real free trade (ie no artificial barriers to trade)
and then there's free trade agreements (all kinds of artificial barriers to trade).
>>
As I observe this conversation I see that the biggest issue here is probably the
meaning of words and phrases. It's so depressive seeing how politicians and interest
groups manage to distort the true meaning of words and make people believe they
are doing one thing when in fact they are doing the exact opposite.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:57 No.1501958
>>

>>1501950
Why?
Mises taught Rothbard.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)20:58 No.1501961

>>

Forgotten Fire by: Adam

Bagdasarian
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)21:01 No.1501969

>>

>>1501954
"There is no power in words, only words in the service of power."
I think foucault said that, but it's important to realize that words are used to support
arguments, and that it is inevitable that terminology will get crossed up when
discussing opposing ideologies.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)21:10 No.1501985

>>

>>1501438
la societe du spetacle, you mean
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)21:12 No.1501991

>>

>>

>>1501958
yep, but theyre very opposite positions. just sayain to say, its not nonsense, im just
sayain. dont minde me, keep on.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)21:14 No.1501997

>>1501464
>>1501464
>>1501464
lrn2sociologyandeconomy
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)21:14 No.1501998
>>

>>1501985
I liked that one, but Vaneigem just impacted me with his direct style, whereas
debord kind of left me deflated because he is just so smug and witty. Society of the
Spectacle is good to read before the revolution of everday life, though.
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)21:19 No.1502013

>>

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

capitalism's failures everywhere
Anonymous 01/28/11(Fri)21:26 No.1502040
>>1501911

>>

That's because public property - the kind ran by government - is nearly always an
historical attempt to offset, at best, to facilitate at worst, gross and persistent
economic disadvantage/abuse. Not to actually counter or dismantle it. Providing
parks, housing, libraries, transport, etc., isn't a solution, it's a social patchwork that
can only absorb the conditions surrounding it. The destruction of public property is
not anyone's tragedy, it's merely the upshot of economic conditions which persist
unchecked.
Anonymous 01/29/11(Sat)05:33 No.1502912

>>

>>1501991
Lol. did you even read them? Rothbard took Mises' economic theories with only
some adjustments of his own.
Anonymous 01/29/11(Sat)05:47 No.1502918

>>

On Revolution (Hannah Arendt)

Two Concepts of Liberty (Isaiah Berlin)
The Opiate of the Intellectuals (Raymond Aron)
In addition to the Groundwork, the Republic, the Genealogy of Morals, and all
those classics

>>

Anonymous 01/29/11(Sat)05:48 No.1502919

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

Gellner.
Anonymous 01/29/11(Sat)05:55 No.1502925
>>

Ogilvy on Advertising. But then, I'm a

copywriter.
Anonymous 01/29/11(Sat)05:59 No.1502931
Oh also just skimmed the thread

>>

it's reductionist as fuck to argue that 'negative liberty = libertarian, positive liberty
= socialist'. it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that, although that's the basic
distinction by which people who lack any kind of commitment to individual rights
can claim to be committed to freedom.
the whole negative / positive liberty schema was first elaborated by Berlin in Two
Concepts and you should really read that essay if you want to grasp the concept