(Part 2) Best products from r/PoliticalPhilosophy

Seconding /u/ivanthecurious 's suggestion of Manin's Principles of Representative Government, its a really readable historical account of the rise of consent and representation in democracy.

I'm reading JS Mill's 'On Representative Government' and it seems like it might be exactly what you're looking for, not contemporary by any means, but a thorough defence of the principles of representation

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Politics-Walgreen-Foundation-Lectures/dp/0226861147/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369396476&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+science+of+politics

BTW I think the link may be Rousseau. But I agree this is not very clear. Also Kant to some extent. Or maybe plain simply the Prussian Protestantism they lived in had these Gnostic elements without major name-brand authors, dunno.

There's also a collection of some of his writings/interviews on libertarian socialism: Chomsky on Anarchism.

And his essay: Notes on Anarchsim

Chomsky's Understanding Power is a long, organized Q&A and has sections where he discusses libertarian socialism directly, but the entire book is about the same general philosophy.

Hello, French person. You might want to try reading up on another French person named Michel Foucault. His academic career has been dissecting power structures and the effects institutions have on society.

https://www.amazon.com/Foucault-Reader-Michel/dp/0394713400

The Tocqueville scholar in my dept. swears by the Mayer edition. I can't remember his particular reasons, though.

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Perennial-Classics-Tocqueville/dp/B000GH2YX8/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527678326&sr=1-4&keywords=Democracy+in+America+perennial

Haven't read it, but this comes to mind. Two of the essays in the book are available here. Quite a few of the pages are available here.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2952364?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Had the guy as an instructor in college. He was a student of Allan Bloom. You might have seen this edited volume already:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137374233/ref=nav_timeline_asin?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

>a dollar has more value to a person who is poor, and less value to someone who has plenty of money.

that's not even close to what the laws of supply and demand tell us. The laws of supply and demand tell us about how an individual responds to price changes, NOT how much one person values money over another.

your statement can easily be shown to be wrong anyway: there are plenty of wealthy people who are very careful with every dollar they spend, and poor people who dont care much for money. For example, The millionaire next door shows the lives of a bunch of rich people who continue to live extremely thriftily even when they have more money than they could possibly need. Your argument asserts that all of these people dont exist, which is an argument that 0 economists have ever made in the history of the world.

What youre doing is comparing different people's valuations of money, which is called "interpersonal utility comparison". This is something that laws of supply and demand do not tell us. you might be confusing laws of supply and demand with the concept of diminishing marginal returns, which is not always applicable to human satisfaction, and still says nothing about interpersonal utility comparison.

This is... what, a political/historical critique of Losurdo's Liberalism? I feel like it's setup as an independent essay, but I've only gotten through part 1 and it's almost totally reactionary to whatever stances and contradictions Losurdo makes. Not very revealing in and of itself.