If you like libertarian/market anarchist fiction, I cannot recommend any book more highly, either to libertarians, or to people who just like good fiction, than L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach."
I also loved Rothbard's book, but I love his other, more general readership-oriented book, "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto", even more!!! That, and Morris & Linda Tannehill's "The Market for Liberty" are my political bibles! ;-D
have you read the Capitalist Manifesto , by Andrew Bernstein? He does an excellent job of dispelling the myths people have about capitalism being associated with imperialism ,war, and slavery and he also does a pretty good job at explaining how capitalism shaped western society and how it made it easy for ordinary people to produce wealth compared to people in previous eras of human history.
I think you're right. Alongside Night was a short novel and I didn't try to give it the philosophical detailedness of Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged tries to encapsulate an entire philosophy of life. Alongside Night was intended to be a dramatic introduction to Agorism, not a detailed treatise. I think I make more of a distinction between fiction and non-fiction than Rand did, and I have plenty of nonfiction, also, if you're interested (plus two more novels and a feature film I wrote & directed.
Wow, kinda awesome to have the actual author reply. I did like it, but I think there was either a quote on the book itself or on the website I ordered it where someone compared it to Atlas Shrugged, which is a pretty tall order that one could hardly be blamed for not meeting.
One of the things I didn't like about Alongside Night was that I think it was a little unrealistic that the agorists were able to have that entire underground complex with people coming and going for so many years before the feds finally caught on and raided the place. A guy in the book explained how they were able to accomplish that but it still seemed kind of out there.
I am going to disagree with you majorly dude. Really the whole sturture of the Rothbardian argument is taking the notion of atomistic self ownership and pushing it to logical extreme. I don't think this is a convincing arugement because I think most people have a sense of a "public self" or "super-ego" that is socially oriented and controlled.
so when people stand and rise for the national anthem or pray in a public prayer they are just participating in a divison of labor and that is why they feel something greater then themself?
I said nothing about irrational activity based on misplaced feelings. I only said the reason people feel that way is because of the division of labor. Saying the national anthem in tandem is as unifying as giving the fascist salute in tandem. Public prayer is misplaced and naive. People are free to do these things but it does not change the fabric of reality.
my arugement doesn't make any value judgements on the vailidity of collectvist notions such as the warm feeling some people get during the anthem or prayer. My arugement says most people do think in a collectvist manner so when confronted with the Rothbardian arugement most people respond "I don't own myself in the sense you describe and that is a good thing". Like the Randian arugement the Rothbardian has nothing to convice the collectvist to support libertarianism or stop being a collectvist
The Rothbardian argument for liberty includes prosperity and the right to make yourself happy. Collectivism is deleterious to this process. If that is nothing, well, life itself may not be worth living.
Now you need to read some critiques of anarcho-capitalism. An interesting on is "The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View" by Susan Love Brown, which is in the book called Meanings of the Market edited by James G. Carrier. I'd be interested in seeing your response to it.
Anyone who would like to read ethics of liberty but for some reason does not have the time to dedicate. Ethics of liberty also exists as a sound book on mises dot org.
Agreed on Ethics of Liberty -- easily among the best on that subject. Friedman's ideas are fairly practical, and it's possible to read Machinery without his consequentialism getting in the way too much. I have Alongside Night but haven't read it yet.
I recently posted a review of Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior" on my site, and I'll probably read it in a video some time this week. Highly recommended.
I've yet to read The Ethics of Liberty, though I've started it. I read For a New Liberty about four years ago, and for me at least, it was the last nail in the coffin of my minarchist beliefs. Which were dying pretty fast anyway.
Agree with you on Friedman btw. I don't think his critique of natural rights is very good either. The book is entertaining and well written, but not on par with the Tannehills or Rothbard (whose For a New Liberty is very comprehensive.)
I got Friedman's book a few years ago and found him to be good economically but very bad ethically. Rothbard is a bright guy; thanks for the link, but it's unlikely to convince me on anarchism, but I'll check it out.
The best "social ethics" book I've read so far is actually George Reisman's _Capitalism_: it's nothing like most economic text books. Reisman ties virtually principle back to ethics.
I've read human action, and some of his essays on the Mises website. He seemed to be a minarchist, primarily. Yet his students lean more toward anarchocapitalism. Particularly Rothbard, but lately Lew Rockwell as well. Hasn't outright stated so, but came pretty close in several of his recent articles.
He is a minarchist, yes. He believed in secession down to the individual level though, where feasible, so some of his students argue that he bordered on market anarchism. I think he is one of the most important scholars of the 20th century. Friedman pales by comparison.
I agree with you on Reisman. He is brilliant. I am more of a full-blown Austrian than he is (he is to an extent a Classical economist), but he is amazingly clear in his expositions.
Great video. Thanks for the reviews!
If you like libertarian/market anarchist fiction, I cannot recommend any book more highly, either to libertarians, or to people who just like good fiction, than L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach."
I also loved Rothbard's book, but I love his other, more general readership-oriented book, "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto", even more!!! That, and Morris & Linda Tannehill's "The Market for Liberty" are my political bibles! ;-D
RationalDischarge 2 years ago
have you read the Capitalist Manifesto , by Andrew Bernstein? He does an excellent job of dispelling the myths people have about capitalism being associated with imperialism ,war, and slavery and he also does a pretty good job at explaining how capitalism shaped western society and how it made it easy for ordinary people to produce wealth compared to people in previous eras of human history.
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
I think you're right. Alongside Night was a short novel and I didn't try to give it the philosophical detailedness of Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged tries to encapsulate an entire philosophy of life. Alongside Night was intended to be a dramatic introduction to Agorism, not a detailed treatise. I think I make more of a distinction between fiction and non-fiction than Rand did, and I have plenty of nonfiction, also, if you're interested (plus two more novels and a feature film I wrote & directed.
jneilschulman 3 years ago 5
Wow, kinda awesome to have the actual author reply. I did like it, but I think there was either a quote on the book itself or on the website I ordered it where someone compared it to Atlas Shrugged, which is a pretty tall order that one could hardly be blamed for not meeting.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
One of the things I didn't like about Alongside Night was that I think it was a little unrealistic that the agorists were able to have that entire underground complex with people coming and going for so many years before the feds finally caught on and raided the place. A guy in the book explained how they were able to accomplish that but it still seemed kind of out there.
BWF89 3 years ago
Didn't Rothbard hate Rand?
G4000 3 years ago
He disagreed with her on some things, but far as I know he didn't hate her.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I am going to disagree with you majorly dude. Really the whole sturture of the Rothbardian argument is taking the notion of atomistic self ownership and pushing it to logical extreme. I don't think this is a convincing arugement because I think most people have a sense of a "public self" or "super-ego" that is socially oriented and controlled.
I look forward to your thoughts on utilitarianism
Tragdor 4 years ago
They do? So whose actions and thoughts (other than yourself) do you have direct control over?
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I would need your defination of control to answer that. (sorry about the long time I took to respond)
Tragdor 4 years ago
Rothbard doesn't say we are atomistic. Anyways the sense of something greater than yourself comes from the division of labor.
georgeme89 4 years ago
so when people stand and rise for the national anthem or pray in a public prayer they are just participating in a divison of labor and that is why they feel something greater then themself?
Tragdor 4 years ago
I said nothing about irrational activity based on misplaced feelings. I only said the reason people feel that way is because of the division of labor. Saying the national anthem in tandem is as unifying as giving the fascist salute in tandem. Public prayer is misplaced and naive. People are free to do these things but it does not change the fabric of reality.
georgeme89 4 years ago
my arugement doesn't make any value judgements on the vailidity of collectvist notions such as the warm feeling some people get during the anthem or prayer. My arugement says most people do think in a collectvist manner so when confronted with the Rothbardian arugement most people respond "I don't own myself in the sense you describe and that is a good thing". Like the Randian arugement the Rothbardian has nothing to convice the collectvist to support libertarianism or stop being a collectvist
Tragdor 4 years ago
The Rothbardian argument for liberty includes prosperity and the right to make yourself happy. Collectivism is deleterious to this process. If that is nothing, well, life itself may not be worth living.
georgeme89 3 years ago
Now you need to read some critiques of anarcho-capitalism. An interesting on is "The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View" by Susan Love Brown, which is in the book called Meanings of the Market edited by James G. Carrier. I'd be interested in seeing your response to it.
LeeGeeGee 4 years ago
Man economy and state might peak your interest. Glad to see you enjoyed the Ethics of Liberty as much as I did.
:-)
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
I am *certainly* going to read The Ethics of Liberty.
DemonzLunchBreak 4 years ago
The Ethics of Liberty is probably the book that pushed me over the edge.
brainpolice2 4 years ago
I cant honestly say if a single book or concept did it for me. I wish I knew when or what my "ah-ha!" moment was.
I do however think that utility TIED with ethics brought me there. I believe they are unquestionably intertwined.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Anyone who would like to read ethics of liberty but for some reason does not have the time to dedicate. Ethics of liberty also exists as a sound book on mises dot org.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Agreed on Ethics of Liberty -- easily among the best on that subject. Friedman's ideas are fairly practical, and it's possible to read Machinery without his consequentialism getting in the way too much. I have Alongside Night but haven't read it yet.
I recently posted a review of Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior" on my site, and I'll probably read it in a video some time this week. Highly recommended.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Thats next on my big pile 'o' books to read. I take it I will not regret the purchase?
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Thanks man, I just got The machinery of freedom. And now you've definetely inspired me to order The Ethics of Liberty.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Some advice: read TEoL with For A New Liberty. The two are complementary.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
I've yet to read The Ethics of Liberty, though I've started it. I read For a New Liberty about four years ago, and for me at least, it was the last nail in the coffin of my minarchist beliefs. Which were dying pretty fast anyway.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
...I'll add it to the list
;D
Luke12000 4 years ago
i really like it when you give us free books
Durgeofcerberus 4 years ago
Agree with you on Friedman btw. I don't think his critique of natural rights is very good either. The book is entertaining and well written, but not on par with the Tannehills or Rothbard (whose For a New Liberty is very comprehensive.)
Elhan2005 4 years ago
I got Friedman's book a few years ago and found him to be good economically but very bad ethically. Rothbard is a bright guy; thanks for the link, but it's unlikely to convince me on anarchism, but I'll check it out.
The best "social ethics" book I've read so far is actually George Reisman's _Capitalism_: it's nothing like most economic text books. Reisman ties virtually principle back to ethics.
qtronman 4 years ago
Of course Rothbard and Reisman were long-time friends, until (I think) Rothbard converted to anarchism.
qtronman 4 years ago
Have you read Mises btw? In spite of his ethical views, he was a great economist.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Yes, just a bit though.
qtronman 4 years ago
I've read human action, and some of his essays on the Mises website. He seemed to be a minarchist, primarily. Yet his students lean more toward anarchocapitalism. Particularly Rothbard, but lately Lew Rockwell as well. Hasn't outright stated so, but came pretty close in several of his recent articles.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
He is a minarchist, yes. He believed in secession down to the individual level though, where feasible, so some of his students argue that he bordered on market anarchism. I think he is one of the most important scholars of the 20th century. Friedman pales by comparison.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
I would agree on that account of Mises. Great man.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Even if he doesn't convince you of anarchism, I'm confident that you will find value in The Ethics of Liberty.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Funnily enough, I like Hoppe more than Rothbard. He is refreshing compared to most philosophers I've read.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
I agree with you on Reisman. He is brilliant. I am more of a full-blown Austrian than he is (he is to an extent a Classical economist), but he is amazingly clear in his expositions.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
I love new books!
I'll be checking out the ethics of liberty.
wouellfee 4 years ago