/liberty/ - Liberty

>>6554

Hannan's arguments are good, although he tends to be very romantic. This isn't too much of a problem, as history is best applied to contemporary times in this manner. Just don't expect 100% balance or accuracy. His distilling of the argument that the American War of Independence is a continuation of English Civil War is helpful, especially as he recognises that both wars were very, very religious is motivation. Something often overlooked, both in the UK and the USA.

Personally I am re-reading On Libery. Mill's utilitarianism is frustrating but otherwise his arguments stand as true today, as they did when he wrote them.

Still reading "Markets, not capitalism". Have to read a ton of crap for university, so I'm lagging behind reading political stuff.

>>6557

He is rather romantic, but that draws you further into his arguments I guess, you want to see what makes him so enthusiastic about our shared heritage. However, I don't know if he understand the divisions within the US too much being a Brit and all - I'm not done with the book, but I'm on the lookout for that.

I really do like the focus on religion's role, something that has been discounted too much in modern times. I'm an atheist, but I recognize the importance religion has played in human society so it's good to see it given a place in his book.

And if you want an audiobook of On Liberty, check out Librivox.org for a free one. I've yet to dig into On Liberty, but I should probably add it to the list, eh?

>>6558

It seems pretty niche - I have no idea what a techno-commercialist premise means myself, sounds like cyberpunk but more mundane and reasonable.

>>6567

A society without labor sounds like you're building a NEET army. Never heard of this kind of thing before.

>>6568

University's important, so try out speed reading. If you don't know how to do it, it's really easy. Grab a pen and move it under the words as you read them - then speed up and force your eyes to follow the pen on the page. You don't need to read it out loud in your head to get the information from the written text, your mind can generally get it all just by looking at it quickly. Before you know it, you'll be cruising through textbooks.

>>6746

Thanks for the speedreading-tips, based BO. I did try some of them before, and it helped me read faster. Can't do it well with texts on topics I'm not familiar with, however, and these are what I'm currently reading for university. I hope I'll soon be back in the repetition-stage, so I can read a lot faster.

>>6762

I don't read the exact same texts twice, unless I'm looking for a specific passage I forgot about. I often read texts that are similar to ones that have already read, however, mostly as repetition. I pick specific pages when I can, but more often than not, the information I need to get is scattered throughout the entire book, so I'm better off just reading the whole thing.

It's not actually that time-consuming, really. Some people sit on a textbook for a whole month making notes so they retain all the useful information on the first read. I just read four textbooks in the same time, as well as secondary literature and hopefully some novels and books about other topics that interest me.

>>6755

Yeah that gets me too. Slowing down to figure out a new phrase that looks like it was directly lifted from academic-level German kills me.

>>6762

>40,000th millenium

>not reading your Holy Primer over and over again

It's almost like you want to commit heresy; sometimes repetition is key to learning.

>>6554

Even the title of the book is a nationalist bullshit.

I suppose Voltaire, Rousseau and thinkers of other nation at that time were all english-speaking.

>>6554

Even the title of the book is a nationalist bullshit.

I suppose Voltaire, Rousseau and thinkers of other nation at that time were all english-speaking.

>>7730

>>7729

Voltaire and Rosseau were faggots though.

>>7730

Yeah, but those guys didn't have much of an effect on the English system of government - parliamentary democracy - that was current at the time those guys were writing. I mean, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution were before their times, old news to them.

It's a good read, really; it's not just "woo we're the best." I mean, what form of government does most of the democratic world have today? Some form of parliamentary democracy (like the UK) or representative democracy (like the US); these two systems, being the prototypes or blueprint if you will for many modern states, obviously had some effect on the ones created in the 20th century. It's not saying that England created the modern world, it's just pointing out a very handy contribution the UK and US made in shaping it; I'll admit though, his penchant for romantic hyperbole is there.

I actually bought that book fairly recently although I haven't gotten around to reading it. I just read Andrew Jackson: American Lion (terrible fucking book, spends way too much on petty family drama horseshit and not nearly enough time on the bank) and The Struggle To Set America Free I believe it's called, about halfway through that, it's alright, shows what a kike Ben Franklin was.

Also just got through Blacklisted By History as well which is about Joe McCarthy and it's an amazing fucking book, can't shill for it enough.

http://thefreedomline.com/freedom-full-text/

FREEDOM! by Adam Kokesh, available for free on his website.

>>8731

It's entry level shit, but still worth the read.

Reading Echopraxia now, afterwards comes another textbook on inheritance law. Yeah, I'm that guy.

>>8732

Is it worth reading after you've already read For a new Liberty?

>>7730

He spends the prologue explaining how he's a patriot, an advocate of civic nationhood and how the book is not triumphalist or racist in anyway. Anglo-Saxon common law is Ingvaeonic in origin but it was transplanted onto the Romano-Britons and colonial Americans who made the Anglosphere ascendant. He believes Muslims will one day be seen to have "proven their loyalty", as British Catholics have been.

A small group of leftists on /pol/ don't like him very much and have taken to calling him a whole variety of nasty names.

If you want 'nationalist bullshit', I did stumble across a "Anglo-Saxon supremacy; or, race contributions to civilization" by a John Lincoln Brandt. Dated but I enjoyed it.

I'd like to amend what I said about Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free. The book really picks up around the middle.

I finished the "mammoth book of apocalyptic sf" lately. It was a very good read. Now I'm reading Jane Eyre (seems pretty redpilled so far), Towards a new socialism (red, but still bluepilled) and the "mammoth book of mindblowing sf". Also some norwegian book on how to become a good dictator, which is really just a collection of fairly interesting facts about dictators.

Finished "Towards a new socialism". Fuck this piece of shit book.

Started with "Defending the Undefendable" now.

just rereading environment without government

>>9697

Isn't that the jackass that said smoking pot leads to rape?

Currently reading Don Quixote, with Dante's Inferno and some Ron Paul book about gold lined up for afterwards.

Also reading some LNs over at skythewood.

If I'm not at work or shitposting, chances are I'm reading.

>>16165

> which surprisingly doesn't feel like a socialist indoctrination camp!

How is this surprising? Only /pol/ retards think academia was overrun by socialists, everyone else knows it's choking full of classcucks.

>>16205

Good thing you threw in 'classcucks' at the end, I almost mistook you for someone capable of taking in new information and wasted my time explaining the marxist takeover of academia.

that's "notcia@national.shitposting.agency" since 8ch cut off part of the email.

>>16227

>>16230

>>16231

>free books

fuck of commie

>>16259

It's funny, because Marxists will try to sabotage our Libertarian events by hosting one nearby, but you have to pay for the Marxist events whereas the Libertarian ones have donors who cover costs, so all the Marxists end up just coming to our events anyways.

>>16223

/pol/ are a bunch of idiotic neonazi crackpots. No one really denies the marxist takeover of academia at this point I don't think, it's like denying the fucking moon landing. Even normies acknowledge this stuff, fuck, even mainstream horseshit like the simpsons references it.

>>16322

>Implying rich libertarians are "the establishment"

They are.

>Implying academics is not crowded with leftists

It's not.

>Implying children are not fed leftism from an early age

I wonder why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEajfIabv6s

>>16367

>They are.

Let's look at the list of the 100 most powerful people, shall we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_The_World's_Most_Powerful_People

>Putin

Former intelligence officer, now a corrupt head of state pushing military action. Hardly a John Galt.

>Merkel

Head of state, pushing for security policy, welfare and an expansion of the EU.

>Obama

Head of state, pushing for security, welfare and gun control.

>Pope Francis

Openly criticized global capitalism.

>Xi Jinpeng

Head of state of China, an authoritarian state ranked #139 on economic freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

>Bill Gates

Brilliant entrepreneur, but he got rich through intellectual property (last I heard by some shady means, too) and his wikipedia article doesn't even mention libertarianism.

>Janet Yellen

Chairwomen of the fucking FED. Her presence alone subtracts three libertarians from this list.

>David Cameron

Head of the state that banned facesitting and installed three metric tons worth of surveillance equipment per square metre in London.

>Narendra Modi

Head of state of India. He's trying to introduce universal welfare to his shithole of a country. Also wants to make it more business friendly, but that's hardly a uniquely libertarian trait, especially in corrupt shitholes full of redtape.

>Larry Page

Co-founded Google, has collaborated with the intelligence community a few times and is not an outspoken libertarian, either.

Those were the top ten. Not a single outspoken libertarian on it and only two business leaders, both of whom have gratefully accepted help from the government.

>>16374

Let's look at some more people from the list:

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/#tab:overall

>Mario Draghi

Leader of the European Central Bank, which is pretty much our equivalent of the Fed.

>Li Keqiang

Other contender for head of state of China.

>Warren Buffett

Advocates health care and the inheritance tax. Also said this:

>There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.

>Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

He's a Saudi. That should say it all.

>Carlos Slim Helu

Businessman who seems to be active in every industry there is, including heavily regulated ones. Being rich is hardly sufficient to qualify as libertarian.

>Francois Hollande

Another head of state. France is a powerhouse in the EU, and hardly libertarian.

>Jeff Bezos

CEO of Amazon, who has libertarian leanings, according to his friends. He's also supporting the democratic party, so all in all, I'd say he's not very staunch in his beliefs.

>Ali Hoseini-Khamenei

Religious fucknut.

>Mark Zuckerberg

CEO who's collaborating with the intelligence community. Also least interesting person on this list.

>Jamie Dimon

Leader of JP Morgan Chase, supporter of the democrats and he said he doesn't mind high taxes.

Those were the top 20. There's a total of one libertarian on the list so far. Spoiler: If we keep looking, we'll find a SECOND libertarian, David Koch, who's also profitting from eminent domain, so really, he can go fuck himself. Elon Musk is another kinda business-friendly guy on the list, but he advocates the carbon tax. There is not a single die-hard libertarian on there, but a good dozen heads of state and the leader of the motherfucking Fed.

>>16374

>>16375

Good research. I'd like to add that Bill Gates absolutely loves the public sector. He's a democratic socialist.

A quote from Bill: "Yes, the government will be somewhat inept, but the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them."

>>16376

I think he got lucky with microsoft.

Same with Zuckerberg.

Both are immoral and seem pretty stupid for all their wealth. Posers.

The Koch brothers are the only ones that I think are proper. And Steve Jobs, even though most of Apple was shit.

>>16376

>>16390

They are real business men, not beta imageboard users. If sucking the government's dick is what going to make them rich and powerful, they won't refuse because of some imaginary rules.

>>16390

>The Koch brothers are the only ones that I think are proper.

They did profit from eminent domain. That's hardly compatible with libertarian values. They identify with most libertarian principles, so they still qualify. They just suck at it.

>>16392

That doesn't make them libertarian. Just greedy.

I just finished "The Ghost Brigades", now I'm switching between a textbook on property law and "Consider Phlebas".

>>16392

>muh all businessmen are immoral meme

keke

>>>/leftypol/

>>16398

>greedy

and immoral

and also hypocrites.

and dishonest people

>>16412

>>16413

>morality

Nice meme, but only profit matters.

>>16419

lol

>>>/leftypol/

>>16427

/leftypol/ puts people before profits, not very libertarian

>>16439

If you put profits before people (ie you might intentionally harm them to profit off them) then you are as bad as the commies.

>>16439

/leftypol/ puts feels before reals.

>>16454

lol

>>16451

/liberty/ confirmed to be as bad as /leftypol/

>>16419

Everything below this post is shit. In fact, I'm willing to call shilling on it.

Conceived in Liberty and a textbook on administrative law.

>>6557

>Just don't expect 100% balance or accuracy. His distilling of the argument that the American War of Independence is a continuation of English Civil War is helpful, especially as he recognises that both wars were very, very religious is motivation. Something often overlooked, both in the UK and the USA.

Hannan doesn't pretend that this is his original thesis. He credits it to Kevin Phillips. The issue is explored at greater length and detail in Phillips's The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare and the Triumph of Anglo-America.

Just got through The Honorable Conquerors and American Infidel, a biography of Robert Ingersoll.

Conquerors wasn't the jingoistic romp I was hoping for, but unlike many books it explored communist infiltration of Japanese labor unions and democratic societies and among it's many interesting looks at the psychology of the Japanese it had one great insight in a passage about Japan's reactions to Russia's heavy handed and vicious reaction to incursion into the northern japanese islands it got during the war and America's comparatively soft touch with the southern islands and why one got protests in the streets and the other didn't: "Russia's truculence is perceived as strength, and admired, while America's tolerance and desire for fair play is interpreted as weakness and despised."

Ingersoll was much more fun than I expected and it had one great line that's as current today about fundies as it was then, to paraphrase it was something like "Ingersoll was decried by certain priests for attacking an ancient, strawman version of Christianity while those priests ignored that many Christians subscribed to exactly that form of Christianity." Leading back into my earlier quote was the fact that Ingersoll deeply hated Presbyterians and was comparatively soft on Methodists yet the people who shittalked him the most were the Methodists.

>>18680

>Ingersoll was decried by certain priests for attacking an ancient, strawman version of Christianity while those priests ignored that many Christians subscribed to exactly that form of Christianity

This could as well be a clumsy, but accurate metaphor for the discourse with more moderate feminists. When I make fun of #freebleeding, I don't want to decry every women who objects to forced marriage, I just want to make fun of the crazy people that are sadly part of their movement.

I'm reading The Fountainhead.

SPOILER ALERT it's ego

>>18757

>SHUT UP YOU STUPID GOY, HERE SEE THESE PICTURES OF THE ARABIAN NAZI LEGIONS

Just how stupid are these people? From the 25-point-program:

>Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

The reason why it is such a mess is because it started out as a political program for a particular time and a particular nation. Then it became propaganda for this time, and in this nation. During a war, mind you. It never achieved any kind of ideological purity, being essentially a list of things Adolf Hitler likes and polemics for the masses.

You take this mess, then you try to apply it to your own nation, even though it was a particular german ideology, and you end up with the kind of stupid Russians that talk about their ethnical superiority while praising a man that considered them lesser humans, and Americans that take pride in their nation while forgetting that this nation was explicitly created as a counter-model to authoritarianism and paternalism. Germany never had this kind of libertarian history. Being an authoritarian fucknut is immoral, for a German, but it isn't un-german, as we have a strong sense of duty that can easily escalate into obedience.

With that said, national socialism isn't even the most german thing ever. In fact, if there is one aspect of freedom that is german as fuck, then it's free thinking, and Hitler tried to abolish that.

But I digress. Now, contrast national socialism with socialism and libertarianism. Socialism is incredibly complex and extremely fuzzy around the edges, but it has at least a coherent and pseudo-rational core, and is, in theory, applicable to all nations, without having to be adjusted to their particularities; it is also designed to attract fucking everyone, which means it attracts a lot of dumb people and a lot of intelligent (not smart) people, and when both come together into a room, stupidity happens. Libertarianism, meanwhile, is ultimately very simple, unlike both socialism and national socialism, but it expects you to actually understand what few concepts it does have, unlike socialism.

And this is why we are the only idiots on this planet who have achieved something resembling ideological purity, and not just among our "elite", but across the board.