If you haven’t read Malcolm Gladwell’s books those are good; he reads his own audiobooks and I like his speaking style. He also has a podcast called revisionist history that I really like.

Tetlock’s superforecasting is a bit long-winded but good; it’s a lay-person’s book on his research for IARPA (intelligence research) to improve intelligence assessments. His intro mentions Kahneman and Duckworth’s grit. I haven’t read it yet, but Nate Silver’s signal and the noise is in a similar vein to Tetlock’s book and is also recommended by IARPA.

Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind was really eye-opening to me to understand the differences in the way that liberals and conservatives (both in the political and cultural sense) view the world around them and how that affects social cohesion. He has a few TED talks if you’d like to get an idea of his research. Related, if you’re interested in an application of Kahneman’s research in politics, the Rationalizing Voter was a good book.

As a “be a better person” book, I really liked 7 habits of highly effective people by Stephen Covey (recommend it on audiobook). Particularly, unlike other business-style self-help about positive thinking and manipulating people—this book really makes you examine your core values, what’s truly important to you and gives you some tools to help refocus your efforts in those directions. Though, as I’m typing this I’m thinking about the time I’m spending on reddit and not reading the book I’ve been meaning to all night =p

Boom! I've hit the motherload! Thank you, I really appreciate this!

I think I'm pretty eager and pretty decent at analysis. I think you mean the general canon of political theory though right? Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Burke, Rawls, Nozick etc etc - I've reading quite a bit of those guys already. I've been working my way through an anthology of their most influential texts (it's slow going but I'm getting there, I'm choosing chapters as my interest dictates but I need to read most texts like 2-3 times to grasp it). But yeah, mostly bits and pieces. I think I can find most of those foundational writers myself. I understand generally where to go for which discussions (which philosopher concerned himself primarily with what etc etc).

I'm going to read those books over the summer man, thanks for the advice. Would you mind if I hit you up for any further suggestions once I'm through with them?

Again, thanks a lot!

I think you are on to some themes that overlap my areas of research (primarily political philosophy and philosophy of religion). Jean Jacques Rousseau suggests that there must always be a civil religion; he advocates a sort of "catechism of the citizen." Though I have some severe doubts about that project, I find Rousseau's notion of a sort of spiritual binding force for the social sphere to be highly attractive. It seems we already function that way, whether we are religious or not (one might call the Super Bowl a religious and liturgical event--a definite catechism of the citizen).

Simon Critchley has done a lot of work on formulating the uses of religion, loosely understood, for political practice. He is an atheist, but he draws some significant points from theological voices. His article The Rigor of Love is excellent on that point, and he just published a book called Faith of the Faithless which tries to navigate those issues as an atheist.

I completely agree with Dawkins' quote above--what a world it would be if religion was not known for its violence. But, as you rightly point out, such a position does not necessitate a rejection of religion wholesale. On this, I think William T. Cavanaugh is especially good.

As a side note, thanks a lot for posting a thoughtful and interesting discussion topic. Hope to see you around the board!

In political science most of the literature on vote choice, at least in contexts with stable party systems, builds out of the loyalties people have to political parties. Partisanship creates what the authors of the seminal work The American Voter call a "perceptual screen" which filters information in ways that reinforce these ties. In other words, people first identify with a political party, then interpret the world in ways that support these views (think confirmation bias and motivated reasoning). This identification, moreover, typically [comes from parents](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/654.html] or other early social experiences.

Vote choice and candidate preference then follows from these loyalties. Loyalties to a political party is symbolically and psychologically meaningfully, much like supporting a sports team or adhering to given religious tenets. That's why you'll see people sticking by candidates regardless of information, among many other political phenomena.

See this in the NYTimes for a quick overview.

FWIW: Thomas Meyer has a go at distinguishing between liberal, libertarian and social democracy:

> The present theoretical sketch also attempts to conceptualize social democracy as one of the key components of political science by imbedding it in a more encompassing theory of democracy. In the latter, the notion of social democracy has clear affinities to and contrasts with both liberal and libertarian democracy. Following well-established intellectual traditions, we shall mean by liberal democracy a pluralistic regime that respects human rights and abides by the rule of law. It is legally and conceptually flexible enough to accomodate both subcategories libertarian and social demoracy. The former restricts the scope of democracy and fundamental rights to the political sphere, and defines the self-regulating market and unregulated private property as the institutional counterparts of democracy in the economic and social sphere.

> Social democracy, by contrast, insists that democracy and its associatied charter of rights must be extended into the social and economic spheres as well. Specifically, the social order must meet higher standards of democracy by allowing for well-regulated participation, a legal claim to social security, a distribution of wealth and income that takes justice into account, and a democratic state, the regulative and distributive policies of which accord with all of these values.

> One could also distinguish liberal from social democracy by emphasizing the former's commitment to economic liberalism, as ordinary language usage suggests.

Two PDFs:

Basics of Social Democracy

Foundations of Social Democracy

For introductory purposes, it's best to read surveys of the literature and tradition, simply because there are many anarchist schools of thought and people often direct you to read books from the school to which they are sympathetic.

I recommend starting off with [Peter Kropotkin's 1909 essay for Encyclopedia Britannica on Anarchism] (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html).

Next, I'd recommend [Men Against the State] (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-State-Expositors-Individualist/dp/0879260068), a historical overview of the American Anarchist traditions, which were a kind of anarchist melting pot but admittedly skewed individualist (you could probably find a free pdf of this quickly).

These books should provide good introductions to various schools. After that, just pick up the books in whatever school suits your fancy and enjoy.

My biased recommendations are Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism and Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority. They are both works done by conteporary academic philosophers but written simply and without jargon.

edit: It would be wonderful if whoever downvoted my comment could explain why.

As a disclaimer, I haven't read the book, but it seems as though the published edition does not contain the offensive artwork, nor was it ever going to if the parties involved had any objection to it. Also, I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems like the controversy between Chase Rachels and the Mises Institute may be more nuanced than one might think.

Rachels claims he tried working with Hoppe and the MI in good faith prior to the publication of the book but that they were unwilling to work with him and even went so far as to lie about their dealings. I am obviously not privy to all the details and as such I am withholding judgement for either side, but I am wanting to provide some clarity if I can.

> I'm gonna read that book just to get a better idea of what exactly I'm advocating for.

LOL, not my intention to spread the ideas I disagree with. But it sounded like a thesis you would.

> Do we know this? I don't think we do

I think the evidence suggests this. And it makes sense to me that the lives of people who highly value self-reliance are going to generally be far better than those who don't share that value and who are perfectly content to be on the dole.

At the risk of going down a completely different rabbit trail my view is actually a little more complex since I DO think interdependence in the context of family and community is important and of great value. I'm all for Edmund Burke "little platoons" of family, church and local neighborhood. It is large impersonal institutions that reliably fail, they cannot know and love the individual, they cannot make the moral judgments that a loving parent, or an increasingly impatient neighbor might make when presented with yet another plea for next month's rent. I very much agree with the title of Hillary Clinton's book "It takes a village" I don't think she understood the full meaning of the proverb... since she turned it around to mean: "It take a large impersonal bureaucracy" which is NOT the same thing at all.

> If you have any other reading suggestions then I'll take a look. I don't want to become massively entrenched in my views

None of these are necessarily related to your discussion though they might touch on some similar topics.

I recently read Haidt's The Righteous Mind not actually a conservative book but one which is really interesting in terms of figuring out why liberals and conservatives talk past each other.

And there's always the conservative classics that you'll always get when people ask. A few personal favorites: Kirke's The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom though technically he'd insist on calling himself as a "liberal" (By which he means a classical 19th century liberal) I liked Bastiate's The Law if you want an actual 19th century liberal. The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis

Those last two are both relatively quick and easy reads.

And of course Sowell has written extensively on exactly this subject. I think Race and Economics was his first book so it may be a bit dated now.

Sadly I've not read that one nor his other books that seem most directly related to our discussion. Personally I've only read his Basic Economics and I read Race and Culture years ago which is somewhat related but about the impact of race, ethnicity and culture in an international setting. His ideas about the primacy of cultural capital in explaining group differences in economic capital are consistent but he's applying those concepts internationally in how various cultural groups have done economically as majorities, as minorities, migrants, conquers or conquered etc. it's been a while but I remembered more about the overseas Chinese minorities in Southeast Asia than about blacks in America.

The Society of the Spectacle - Guy Debord

The best critique of modern capitalist society that has been made yet. This particular translation is terrible, though. You'll have to buy this version if you want the best translation.

Edit: You can buy the kindle edition on Amazon for only $3. Quite the bargain, and you can read it on your PC.

Spectacular Capitalism - Richard Gilman-Opalsky

Gives a great overview of socialism, Debord's philosophy, and so forth. It also contains a great critique of Jean Boudrillard.

Reactionary Thought

Chartism – Thomas Carlyle
Latter-Day Pamphlets – Thomas Carlyle

The Bow of Ulysses – James Anthony Froude
Popular Government – Henry Summers Maine

Shooting Niagara – Carlyle
The Occasional Discourse – Carlyle
On Heroes, Hero Worship & the Heroic in History – Carlyle

The Handbook of Traditional Living – Raido
Men Among the Ruins – Julius Evola
Ride the Tiger – Julius Evola
Revolt Against the Modern World – Julius Evola

Reflections of a Russian Statesman – Konstantin Pobedonostsev
Popular Government – Henry Maine
Patriarcha (the Natural Power of Kings) – Sir Robert Filmer
Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler
Hour of Decision – Oswald Spengler
On Power – Jouvenel
Against Democracy and Equality – Tomislav Sunic
New Culture, New Right – Michael O’Meara
Why We Fight – Guillaume Faye
The Rising Tide of Color – Lothrop Stoddard
Liberty or Equality – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Democracy: The God that Failed – Hans-Hermann Hoppe

****

Economics

Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
Basic Economics – Thomas Sowell
That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen – Frederic Bastiat***
Man, Economy, and State – Murray Rothbard
Human Action – Ludwig von Mises

****

​

Jesus Christ. Do you even know what the NAP is? Libertarians are for as much free trade as possible as well as open borders to support free trade. Libertarians believe the governments job, only job, is making sure your rights arent being violated and you arent violating anyone elses. A strict interpretation of the constitution.

Jesus Christ man. Educate yourself, especially if you go around calling yourself a libertarian. Especially when you don't even know the basics.

Those are three resources for you to ponder on.

You are just seeing the tip of the iceberg friend. As many as they deport, round up, lock up, or let them be beaten by Golden Dawn members, the influx of immigrants won't stop.

EU law has deliberately turned Greece into a buffer zone of immigration while they (edit: I mean the states of EU) also struggle with maybe the biggest issue in the planet nowadays. These waves of immigrants were created by the western economic system and civilization that capitalized and exploited for centuries the third world. Now that there is a surplus of people there are no more places for them to go. So now they knock on your door but you say "I don't care, let them go somewhere else" while your country contributed to this (as a western country and a member of the EU - and even practically, we are in the NATO you know, NATO attacks Afghanistan and Iraq, immigrants fled to Greece). We buy our iPhones and iPads and our cool trendy shoes that are made by child labor in Asia but when these people knock on our doors, no, no, we don't want them here.

Who are you and our politicians to deem a human being as "legal" and "illegal'? Have you ever thought about that?

I can't really use a reply on reddit to convince you to see the bigger picture. I will link some books for you to read though and maybe these will change your mind:


Wasted Lives: Modernity and Its Outcasts

The End of Human Rights

Europe's 21st Century Challenge

Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life - this book really sheds a light on the "legal" and "illegal" issue for humans.


Guests and Aliens

>[...] our freedom depends on the severity of other states, especially, but not only, neighbouring states whose populations wish to leave their own country. Our freedom supposes more controls at the borders and more suspicion against tourism of the poor. Tourism as the freedom to move is for the rich but the poor are by definition a threat against the order as they are supposed to want to stay in a host state in order to profit from social benefits.

EU (and the western civilization in general) speaks a lot about freedom and liberty but it can only comprehend that freedom in a context of banishment of the "others". Raising walls, patrolling the borders stricter, rounding up people to lock them up in hideous detainment centers all around Europe won't stop them from coming. We are only making their road more difficult resulting in more of them being drown or frozen to death.

Oh and by the way even if you drive away from Greece all the "foreigners" that won't solve the crisis. Immigrants in Greece nowadays are just the scapegoats for anger to be unleashed and votes to be gained by the same people that brought you here and by the people that today are speaking of driving away "foreigners" but after will also speak of driving away the ones that aren't "pure Greeks" - if you catch my drift.

> To start, by repealing much of the crap legislation we currently have, and introducing small, specific bills that address clear problems. The bigger the bill, the more they'll rely on expert analysis of the consequences.

Okay, they tried that in California? Why didn't it work?

I thought I presented a pretty good list of arguments for why the direct democrazy you propose would probably be neither more representative, produce better legislation nor be less susceptible to corruption. Why is it that you think that direct democrazy will solve the problems of government (that I acknowledge exists)? What evidence do you have to support this conclusion. I submit that the evidence does not speak in favor of direct democrazy, as per the example of California.

In any case, if you truely wish to change your view about it, then you should read The Future of Freedom. It is a relatively short book and easy to read, and it demolishes the idea that more democrazy is always good.

Russel Kirk - Must read

Burke - Reflections on the Revolution in France

Nietzche - Thus spoke zarustra - don't read unless your 21+

Road to serfdom - Hayek

Weber - The Protestent Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism

Toqueville - Democracy in America

Liberals

Rawls - A Theory Of Justice

Keynes - the general theory

Acelewhatever & Robinson - Why Nations Fail

Sen - Development as Freedom
Picketty - Capital

Assorted Left

Hobswan - Age of Trilogy - by far the best economic history of the modern era starting in late 1700's to 1950

Polyani - The Great Transformation

Marx - grundrisse

>Most of us think people can come to a conscious understanding of their condition

How do you feel we can accomplish this? Capitalism has debased our culture into one of the consumer. The most profit goes to what appeals to the greatest number of people, and what enters the public consciousness is largely watered down spectacle, rather then substance. Does the average four hour-a-day TV watcher even read, let alone read Marx? The public is more disinterested in politics then ever - why care about something largely regarded as a spectator sport, where different wings of the oligarchy present false dichotomies to create the illusion of "choice"?

The most compelling argument against anarchism, for me at least, is socialism will provide the break needed for society can recognize the alienation of labor, realize the difference in class, and create the necessary culture for the end goal of communism to someday arise. An Off button, if you will, from the white noise drowning out all else in the present day.

Just stumbled upon this, it may be more useful in observing everyday egalitarianism:

Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play

by James C. Scott (Yale Anthropologist and Political Scientist)

They called him out because Bernie kept calling these countries socialist when in fact they are social democracies mostly centered around the Nordic Model. Which is not socialist and still very much a capitalist system typically with a coordinated market economy; one superior to our own at that. You'd know this if you actually read your own article.

I see below that you even managed to call Bernie a communist which is incredibly off base. Bernie describes himself as a Democratic Socialist which is the Socialist lite on that spectrum. Even then, his policies don't reflect Democratic Socialism, they reflect Social Democracy. Several actual socialists have even called him out on it. Clearly, you need a good read to educate yourself on these matters. Both this and this book should work wonders for you. Have a video that's short, snappy, and free while you're at it.

Inventing the Future

Postcapitalism This one is not explicitly "socialist", but it's got a lot of good stuff to convince your more moderate friends.

Malign Velocities

#ACCELERATE

I dunno, there are a few. I'm a filthy left accelerationist though. Here is the manifesto, if you're interested

I highly recommend this book “Meaning of Marxism” which is a great introductory text and comes with study questions for your group. I used this during my socialist reading group while I was in college. Haymarket Books is a great publisher for many of the texts you’ll need and they often run sales. https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Marxism-Paul-DAmato-ebook/dp/B003P9X72Q

Democratic theory, which is a study area of political science, comes down to the question, "What is good?"

All our arguments are "normative," we are expressing a value or belief about what is good.

If we define politics as "a relationship of power between two or more individuals," then we can see how fragile all our relationships are, including between a person and their government.

Who do we decide to be? Where were we born? Why did we do something?

Legend of the Galactic Heroes is why I went to law school and why I work in government now.

If you are interested in different political theories, Justice by Michael Sandel and Political Philosophy by Ronald Beiner compare different political theorists or political philosophers, and are great companion pieces to LOGH.

Fareed Zakaria has a reasonably interesting coverage of this topic in his 2007 "Future of Freedom"
http://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Revised/dp/0393331520

In this book he basically debunks the American notion that "More Democracy" always equals "Better" and that Americans have Democracy confused with civil liberties.

Oh holy shit it's stainslemountaintops. He's the resident alt-right poster over at the german sub /r/de. I once posted a comment under a post about fascism explaining how, curiously enough, there doesn't appear to be any fascist philosophy, as opposed to conservative, liberal, marxist philosophy. What is fascism? What are its main textss? Fascists don't really want to tell as otherwise you'd be able to intellectually refute them. I linked to Umberto Ecos essay on the main attributes of fascism, including its antiintellectualism as an explanation.

This is where stains provided me with a few links to nouvelle droite literature, mostly by alain de benoist and Tomislav Sunic. Gems like Manifesto for a European Renaissance:

> It offers a strong argument in favor of the right to difference among cultures and civilizations, and the right of peoples to defend themselves from cultural homogenization. It also offers a vision of a regenerated Europe which will find its strength in a return to its authentic values and traditions, in opposition to the new imperialism of multiculturalism and the global marketplace. Alain

And Against Democracy and Equality:

>Dr. Sunic examines the principal themes which have concerned the thinkers of the New Right since its inception by Alain de Benoist in 1968, such as the problematic nature of the label 'New Right' for a school which sees itself as being beyond traditional concepts of both the left and the right; its revolutionary political philosophy; its conception of history in terms of cycles; its attitude toward democracy, capitalism and socialism; and its endorsement of 'pagan' spirituality

Not exactly the kind of proper, academic philosophy in the vein of Hobbes, Locke or Rawles I was looking for. I still maintain that fascism has no philosophy as it runs against its syncretic and antiintellecutal nature.

So anyway, that's how I came to know stains. He may be a new-righter, but he is a courteous poster.

Sounds like you need to read some political theory: https://www.amazon.com/Political-Philosophy-Essential-Texts-3rd/dp/0190201088/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Trying to learn about politics without a philosophical foundation is like building a house without a foundation; it's not going to last very long and it won't stand up to much pressure.

More importantly, take your time and relax. You've got two more years till enfranchisement. This isn't something you're going to knock out in a weekend.

As for a great and modern introductory book, I highly recommend first reading(I have it in epub if you want it):

The meaning of Marxism - Paul D'Amatto

Next would be:

• Reform or Revolution - Rosa Luxembourg
  
  
• Socialism, Utopian and Scientific - Engels
  
  
• State and Revolution - Lenin
  
  All of which are online and are ~< 50 pages each.
  
  As for longer books, I'd suggest:
  
  
• The conquest of bread - kropotkin
  
  and finally
  
  
• Capital Volume 1 - Marx

I like this order too. In addition, he recently put out a short book that is meant to be an invitation to conservatism in general. Here are links for convenience.

• How To Be A Conservative
  
• The Meaning Of Conservatism
  
• Conservatism: An Invitation To The Great Tradition

If you get a good copy of The Prince, I like the Harvey C. Mansfield version, then there is footnotes which briefly summarize the 16th century events so that Machiavelli's work is more easily understood.

The issue isn't that we need more direct democracy. Direct democracy can be dangerous, because quite frankly, while individuals may be perfectly reasonable, the masses are stupid and prone to poor judgement. Group think is incredibly powerful.

There must be checks in place to counteract this. Having a representative democracy is one check, though that clearly has some disadvantages as well. I don't think they outweigh the positives, though.

The other important thing...perhaps the MOST important thing...is to have is a constitution and an ingrained reluctance in the system to mess with it too much.

Great, and very accessible, book on this general topic:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy/dp/0393331520

Books:

#ACCELERATE

Inventing the Future (Left Accelerationism)

Libidinal Economy (Lyotard)

Anti-Oedipuis: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Deleuze and Guattari)

Capitalist Realism (Fisher)

K-Punk(Fisher, a newly released anthology)

Articles:

This is the best introduction I've come across

The MAP (Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics)

This article from The Guardian

The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476752842/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_aKgHAbM92QCZ5

I understand the universalizing of interests to mean that citizens should look beyond the "national interest" to create the European-wide public sphere that is necessary for a democracy that is not tied to the confines of individual nation-states.

As for whose interests those are, it should be of those citizens who must formulate in public discourse their substantive critiques and objectives.

Now, I do not know as much about his position regarding modernity. Ronald Beiner's Political Philosophy goes into how Habermas defends modernity and how it is most pronounced in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, and ultimately how it is an imperfect formulation (as with the other major theorists surveyed in the book).

So I cannot really comment on his views on that at this time, but this makes me want to more thoroughly read that section.

By original intentions I referred more to the concrete formulation of the EU constitution and how it failed in the referendum. Surely the roots of the Union are more in the Cold War-onward economic policies of Western Europe, with the political union as an afterthought by the elites.

Most of the political elite desire the existing constitutional states as methods to consolidate power. But the pace of economic adversity that affects the citizens, combined with the nation-state's increasing impotence to alleviate it, will create an impasse.

Economic globalization will force nation-states to choose *between constitutional institutions at the supranational level in order to have coherent political and economic policy with functioning democracy; or the multi-national corporation model, with individual nation-states utterly incapable of holding corporate entities accountable while they employ or economically affect a significant number of the human race.

Thank you Roger!
Here are the Audiobooks available on Amazon:
Murray N. Rothbard
Conceived in Liberty
A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II
Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
America's Great Depression
Henry Hazlitt
Economics in One Lesson
Frederick Bastiat
The Law
F. A. Hayek
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism
The Constitution of Liberty
David Boaz
Libertarianism: A Primer
Ludwig von Mises
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
The Theory of Money and Credit
Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition
Friedrich Engels
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto
Milton Friedman
Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
Capitalism and Freedom
Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History
John Maynard Keynes
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
Robert T. Kiyosaki
Rich Dad Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!

>Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #14,292 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

9 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political

25 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political

145 in Kindle Store > Whispersync for Voice > Politics & Social Sciences

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26


I think it was higher up there when it came out.
Or when the cucks started buying it

I'm currently reading a great book about libertarianism.

https://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-A-Primer/dp/B000056F22/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=libertarianism+david+boaz&qid=1568646736&s=books&sr=1-1

If you want to borrow my ebook copy send me a pm.

Absolutely! The points I've been making are based on a Marxist analysis of capitalism. Here's some excellent resources:

• Welcome to Socialism by /r/socialism
  
• Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein (yep!)
  
• Introduction to Marxism by Professor Richard D. Wolff
  
• The Meaning of Marxism by Paul D'Amato
  
  Lots more can be found on the /r/socialism suggested reading list. Additionally, Socialist Alternative run weekly Introduction to Marxism discussion groups in most capital cities.

The Prince

The Art of War My dad is the translator, and I believed him when he said his translation is the best one available.

Looking for a single textbook, thanks to everyone who has helped me find books already. $15, PDF preferred.

• Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts Third Edition, Steven Cahn
  
  Amazon link:
  https://www.amazon.ca/Political-Philosophy-Essential-Texts-3rd/dp/0190201088
  

I personally enjoyed this read

This is such an uninformed and stupid post. If you are actually capable of reading a book I'd recommend reading one written by the article's author - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Meaning-Conservatism-Roger-Scruton/dp/1587315033

It assumes basic knowledge of political philosophy

You see the conservative viewpoint as attacking the sick / poor / disabled, cutting everything (to accomplish this goal), turning people against each other and wanting smaller government for no apparent reason. Do you really think that 42% of this country are that mean? They literally want to hurt and deprive people for no reason?

Alternatively you could see that maybe they believe that smaller government is better for people . Maybe they actually care about human beings as well, but have a different opinion about how best to do it.

>Property is the coercive exclusion of others from entering certain areas or touching certain objects. That's what it is.

Aside from alll those times when it isn't.

Not enough words to make all the citations: more and more and more and more and more

The book on Amazon has a preview, and it's probably enough for you to get where he's going to go for the rest of the book lol.

> Near future: Stef releases a book titled "The Art of the Argument".

I literally thought this was a joke when you wrote it yesterday, I actually laughed.

Then, this just got released today:

• The Art of the Argument - By Stefan Molyneux
  
  What are the fucking chances?

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/

It's been out for a couple of days now, he went on all the shows to promote it, I'm surprised you missed it.

Haven't gotten around to it yet myself, but my law & literature professor recommended Homo Sacer by Giorgio Agamben.

https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Sacer-Sovereign-Meridian-Aesthetics/dp/0804732183

If you aren't aware of his work, take a look at Stephen Batchelor's Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist. Critchley's Faith of the Faithless might also be useful for you to cut through some of the cognitive dissonance you might be experiencing when balancing an atheistic standpoint with other ontological traditions. Take what is useful from the tradition to reduce the level of suffering you experience. The Buddha doesn't care; he's dead.

The Libertarian Mind by David Boaz.

I see you've ignored Sun Tzu then? There's a reason I included him when pontificating on Mark Twain.
The point being that one does not need a formal education in an institute you consider reputable (if at all) to contribute to philosophy. If someone engages in this as their profession or hobby of choice then they could be considered a philosopher.

It's not symantics, it's literally the definition. You yourself earlier admitted ;

"It's fair to call him an amateur philosopher."

Which wouldn't be quite correct, given:

Amateur
[ˈamədər, ˈaməˌtər, ˈaməCHər]
NOUN
a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis.

He is paid for his philosophy via donations, ad revenue by people that find value in it. Likewise his book which is currently on Amazon as the #1 best seller in political philosophy. [1]

So he would be a 'Professional" philosopher...now you may not find much value in what he says or disagree with some things ( I do too, after all) but that doesn't make him an amateur.
And why would I defend Stephan from other people's arguments or other arguments aside from "He's not a philosopher"?

My original argument was only ever:

>Well spoken and a voice for radio (which he does do) he has some interesting points that are often eloquently spoken. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he does cover some very interesting topics.

-----------

So then if we can agree with him being a professional philosipher, I'd have no problem leaving it at that. But if you want to make another argument as to what he's contributed of value, or move the goalposts a bit to question whether or not he's "worthy" of being considered a philosipher based on his contributions IE asking me to defend them, we could agree on that shifting of goalposts.

Check out Stefan Molyneux's new book

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/

you beat me to it: https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/ref=sr_1_2/139-9559165-2243958?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504113574&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3AStefan+Molyneux

The piece by Ray Brassier in this reader

The History of Sexuality is where it's first used, but Foucault doesn't really use it much in that way. You might also consider looking into reading Agamben, particularly Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life.

Bare Life.

That concept reminds me of a quote I jotted down from Sunic's book Against Democracy and Equality

>"For the New Right, the fundamental problem with liberalism is its self-contradictory attitude towards equality. The New Right emphasises time and again that equality cannot be controlled; once it is proclaimed in the legal and political fields, equality must run its full course in all other fields, including the field of economics. Accordingly, equal legal rights make no sense, unless they are backed up by equal economic rights, i.e., rights to equal shares of affluence."

Normalizing pedophilia is simply an extension of egalitarianism into the sexual realm.

Yanna Krupnikov (YK):Much of the research in political science focuses on the idea that people aren’t likely to change their minds Even though many scholars (see for example Lodge and Taber’s [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Rationalizing-Cambridge-Studies-Political-Psychology/dp/052117614X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478273033&sr=8-1&keywords=lodge+and+taber)) find this in many contexts, but not all people are immune to persuasion.

First – and most obviously – people who have weak opinions are most open to new information and changing views. But its more than just a weak opinion. In their [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Persuadable-Voter-Issues-Presidential-Campaigns/dp/0691143366/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478273091&sr=8-1&keywords=hillygus+and+shields), Hillygus and Shields show that people who have positions that are in some way unusual for their partisan group (so, for example Republicans who hold a liberal position on one issue or Democrats who hold a conservative position on one issue) are also more likely to change their minds.

Your question is about individual characteristics, but there is also the question of context. Some people are more or less open to persuasion depending on the context they are in. In my own research with Eric Groenendyk, I've shown that once you put someone into a very combative, political context, their “shields” go up and they become much more likely to dismiss a lot of information. In contrast, you may find people to be more open to political information in a situation that is less combative and less political.

Similarly, Bashir’s [work] (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/lockwood/PDF/Bashir%202013.pdf) in psychology suggests that people are resist \ information transmitted by those who call themselves “activists.”

So, what this may suggest people are more likely to resist information from those who have a long history of trying to persuade them or a long history of combative behavior but may be more welcoming of new information from those that they do not necessarily view as having purely political goals.

Of course, some people are closed to persuasion no matter what, but for others context/persuader may play a key role.

You can actually see that chapter if you go to the amazon page and click the cover to use amazon's "look inside" feature which shows some preview pages, and then search for the keyword "plumber" to find the page where that excerpt came from. This page is in the "Limits of Deductive Reasoning" section of the chapter titled "What Is An Argument?", and that's the last section before the next chapter, titled "Correlation and Causation"...there is nothing in the rest of the first chapter that gives any explanation of the difference between objecting to the logic and objecting to the premises edit: my bad, in the next chapter I see he does actually have a section called "the difference between 'logical' and 'true'" where he explains how a syllogism can be logically sound even if its premises are false, though from the sections available in preview it doesn't look like he revisits the plumber example to show how it applies to that one.

My logic is the same as that of James Madison. See Federalist Paper No 10. See also Fareed Zakaria's essays on the matter in The Future of Freedom. Direct voting leads to all manner of dysfunction such as unfunded or contradictory programs. See California's Proposition 187 as an example.