Good sci-fi books or NWO books.

[PaulConventionWV]

Hello,

I am on my summer vacation from college now, and I want to read some books. I am thinking about getting Huxley's "Brave New World" (I've already read 1984). I also wanted to get more background on this whole NWO thing (those of you that know what I'm talking about, know what I'm talking about).

I'm open for a wide variety of books that follow that general line of thinking, such as those about the freemasons or the creation of the Fed. I'm reading "The Creature from Jekyll Island" right now, and I suggest it to anyone who wants to get a good background on the American and world banking system and how the Fed was created, as well as how the economy works under a fiat currency.

Anyway, discuss good books to read. Even if you think there is something I would be missing outside of that sphere, don't be afraid to mention it. I just want to know what good books everyone has read. :)

[TroySmith]

Atlas Shrugged

...the rest is 2nd tier.

[Travlyr]

"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins is well documented.

[Yieu]

Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein is along the lines of 1984 and Brave New World.

[Endgame]

Freehold and The Weapon. They're an amusing update on TMIAHM.

[Telkandore]

For fiction I'd recommend: Fahrenheit 411, A Clockwork Orange, the Illuminatus! Trilogy and I assume you've already read Animal Farm

Non-Fiction: Armed Madhouse, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, The Temple of the Masters

There's tons more that I am unfortunately too lazy to try to remember :D

[GunnyFreedom]

Look up the "Prometheus Awards" produced by the "Libertarian Futurist Society" for a good Sci-Fi reading list.

http://www.lfs.org/awards.htm

[Yieu]

Look up the "Prometheus Awards" produced by the "Libertarian Futurist Society" for a good Sci-Fi reading list.

http://www.lfs.org/awards.htm

Interesting! I didn't know there was a libertarian futurist society. I heard somewhere that the original "Futurist Society" is less inclined toward liberty.

[buck000]

My office-mate is a big SF reader, and told me about this web page: http://io9.com/5792897/10-greatest-libertarian-science-fiction-stories

I like #8... :)

[specsaregood]

I 'm a fan of the series: red mars, green mars, blue mars

[Dreamofunity]

I've yet to read it, but I've heard good things of the Illuminatus! Trilogy

[VIDEODROME]

I'd recommend Philip K. Dick short story collections. I really liked the original version of The Minority Report.

or another weird short story The Chromium Fence.

[JasonC]

I came across this one by Arthur C. Clarke when browsing through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Childhoods-End-Del-Rey-Impact/dp/0345444051/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I25WZ3EDZ8I7W&colid=L3T0WTAGRODQ

I haven't read it, but the description sounds interesting. Has anyone read this book and want to give their thoughts on it?

[pcosmar]

Hello,

I am on my summer vacation from college now, and I want to read some books. I am thinking about getting Huxley's "Brave New World" (I've already read 1984). I also wanted to get more background on this whole NWO thing (those of you that know what I'm talking about, know what I'm talking about).

I'm open for a wide variety of books that follow that general line of thinking, such as those about the freemasons or the creation of the Fed. I'm reading "The Creature from Jekyll Island" right now, and I suggest it to anyone who wants to get a good background on the American and world banking system and how the Fed was created, as well as how the economy works under a fiat currency.

Anyway, discuss good books to read. Even if you think there is something I would be missing outside of that sphere, don't be afraid to mention it. I just want to know what good books everyone has read. :)
If you want to understand the NWO you need to research the Tower of Babel. I don't know of any one book offhand.
Some to start with here.
http://ldolphin.org/babel.html
Then look into the goals and influence of Fabian Socialism.
http://fabiansocialism.info/
The "League of Nations" and later the United Nations were based on and promoted by Fabian Socialism.

Even if you reject religion or faith, the connections between past history and future plans is not hard to see. And not good for Liberty.

[thehungarian]

I would recommend "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman. Really one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. A man goes off to war in space and because of quantum physics and all that crazy shit they essentially are time travelers, and every time they come back to Earth huge chunks of time has passed while they stayed the same. It is really interesting what the soldiers come back to after 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years. I want to read it again now.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Check out some of Dr. Malachi York's books. I haven't read them, but I am meaning to this summer when I got free time. I've heard great things

[PaulConventionWV]

If you want to understand the NWO you need to research the Tower of Babel. I don't know of any one book offhand.
Some to start with here.
http://ldolphin.org/babel.html
Then look into the goals and influence of Fabian Socialism.
http://fabiansocialism.info/
The "League of Nations" and later the United Nations were based on and promoted by Fabian Socialism.

Even if you reject religion or faith, the connections between past history and future plans is not hard to see. And not good for Liberty.

Thanks, pcosmar. I am really interested in learning about the Tower of Babel and its relation to the NWO. I haven't yet learned anything about the ideology of the NWO and how it got started, originally. That should be very helpful.

Also, has anyone read The Creature from Jekyll Island? What did you think of it?

[nolvorite]

hmm idk - The Lost Symbol / Dan Brown

[AuH20]

Must have:

http://www.amazon.com/Behold-Pale-Horse-William-Cooper/dp/0929385225

[specsaregood]

//

[heavenlyboy34]

Zamyatin's "We" is the book that started the dystopian sci-fi genre-it was read by Rand, Orewll, Huxley, etc., who in turn imitated the style. A must-read if you like sci-fi and NWO stuff.

ETA: Here is a free copy of "We" in English courtesy of LvMI: http://mises.org/resources/5350

[tangent4ronpaul]

Zamyatin's "We" is the book that started the dystopian sci-fi genre-it was read by Rand, Orewll, Huxley, etc., who in turn imitated the style. A must-read if you like sci-fi and NWO stuff.

You beat me to it!

umm, Dalgren is an interesting book. It starts in the middle of a sentence and ends in the middle of a sentence. It's the same sentence. There is stuff at the beginning you won't understand till you've read the end so you basically have to read it twice. he book is a circle. No beginning and no ending.

Shockwave rider is interesting. It's about a hacker tht lives underground, changing his identity periodically. At places, text is fit in sort of like puzzle pieces - like short news items on a sideboard, that are separate from the story but add meaning to it.

Clarkes Gateway and Phol's Rama series. Both very good.

Lucifers Hammer is a post WWIII type thing as is Pulling Through - both good.

Heart of the Comment by Gregory Benford is good.

Heinlien - Stranger in a strange land, Time Enough for Love, and I rather liked Friday, though it's not as popular.

-t

[TheNcredibleEgg]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Sci-Fi & libertarian

http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Harsh-Mistress-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0312863551#_

[Carehn]

Atlas Shrugged

...the rest is 2nd tier.

This^

You must READ THIS BOOK! It will change you.

[2young2vote]

The Unincorporated Man. The main character is an ultra rich capitalist similar to Hank Rearden in Atlas shrugged. He freezes himself and wakes up in the 24th century where he finds that the corporate culture is the dominate culture. Every person in the world has stock that people can buy and sell, just like they would a corporation of today. If the person has some promise and is looking to make lots of money then the value of their stock goes up because they will end up paying out higher dividends. This creates a moral problem because it essentially means that nobody can actually own themselves (except for the main character because he wasn't around when this system was created), they will always be at least partially owned by another person and the government. In this society government plays only a very minor role (basically a very basic judicial system). Currency is created by corporations or other entities (the AmEx is a currency in this universe, one created by American Express). It shows a world where many currencies compete in the market rather than having one dominant currency controlled by the government which is something that libertarians may find interesting.

Overall it is just a really good book. I heard the sequel is nothing like the first book, but i may pick it up soon.

[Agorism]

1984 is my favorite. It's an easy read and it pulls you quickly.

[abolitionist]

Atlas Shrugged is an absolute must read. This book made me a libertarian.

I also recommend reading various L. Neil Smith books. His books show libertarian principles at work in various societies.

Probably the L. Neil Smith book to start with is "The Probability Broach".

[Eryxis]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress unbeknownst to me is probably one of the most influential books in my life. I read for the sci fi and before i knew it i was an anarcho capitalist.

[tangent4ronpaul]

1984 and animal farm are probably 2 of the most banned books in the United States.

[GunnyFreedom]

It is interesting to note that pretty much every book under discussion in this thread.....is listed under the Libertarian Futurist Society Promethius Awards page. :D

[tangent4ronpaul]

It is interesting to note that pretty much every book under discussion in this thread.....is listed under the Libertarian Futurist Society Promethius Awards page. :D

And most of them are probably listed under the American Library Associations banned book project.

[Agorism]

Justin Raimondo famously said that he was almost impossible to talk to for about 10 years or so after reading Atlas. Beware of the Rand cult.

Scott Horton of antiwar likes to brag he's more of a 1984 Libertarian.

[KramerDSP]

Harrison Bergeron is my favorite short Sci-Fi story.

[Carehn]

And most of them are probably listed under the American Library Associations banned book project.

Was that comment a hit against The New Freedom? You will be lashed for this one!

[jaktober]

Sci-Fi: Man in the High Castle and VALIS (both) by Philip K. Dick, Foundation by Issac Asimov, Iron Heel by Jack London - those are my "1984ish" picks.

[PaulConventionWV]

Atlas Shrugged is an absolute must read. This book made me a libertarian.

I also recommend reading various L. Neil Smith books. His books show libertarian principles at work in various societies.

Probably the L. Neil Smith book to start with is "The Probability Broach".

Welcome to the forums!

I have not read Atlas Shrugged, but it doesn't sound like Ayn Rand was exactly a libertarian. She was an objectivist, and from my understanding, that is quite different.

[PineGroveDave]

Harrison Bergeron is my favorite short Sci-Fi story.

Very good read. My wife and I were just talking about that one this morning. I would also recommend a classic...A.E. Van Vogt's "The Weapon Shops of Isher" and "The Weapon Makers". Quite political and an excellent read that I've read many times over.

[Kylie]

I came across this one by Arthur C. Clarke when browsing through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Childhoods-End-Del-Rey-Impact/dp/0345444051/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I25WZ3EDZ8I7W&colid=L3T0WTAGRODQ

I haven't read it, but the description sounds interesting. Has anyone read this book and want to give their thoughts on it?



I have read it, and it was good. Sad in the end(for us), but a great read.

I've also liked the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke(I think) and The Giver(don't know who wrote it).

[tangent4ronpaul]

Was that comment a hit against The New Freedom? You will be lashed for this one!

I don't think you understand. The ALA produces a list of books that have been banned somewhere in the US (usually school districts) and encourages people to read them. Every year, Borders books takes this list and sets up table displays with said books stacked high!

http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/bannedbooksweek/index.cfm

Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read
September 24−October 1, 2011

Banned Books Week (BBW) is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment. Held during the last week of September, Banned Books Week highlights the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States.
[...]

[tangent4ronpaul]

This one is a history lesson wrapped in a fiction novel. The government really hates people reading it, almost as much as "The Turner Diaries". Ordering it will probably put you on some list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences_%28novel%29

Unintended Consequences is a novel by author John Ross, first published in 1996 by Accurate Press.[1] The story chronicles the history of the gun culture, gun rights and gun control in the United States from the early 1900s through the late 1990s. Although clearly a work of fiction, the story is heavily laced with historical information, including real-life historical figures who play minor supporting roles. The novel also features unusually detailed and intricate facts, figures and explanations of many firearms-related topics. The cover has a picture of Lady Justice being assaulted by an ATF agent.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Book-cover_unintended_consequences.jpg

Its thesis, as discussed in the Author's Note - A Warning and Disclaimer in the beginning of the book, is that enough bullying by what is widely perceived as a hostile occupation government will inevitably end in revolt if the occupied area is large enough and has a culture that is significantly different from the occupying state, and that this revolt will be undefeatable if the rebels use very low-tech "leaderless resistance."

-t

[Razmear]

http://www.amazon.com/Illuminatus-Trilogy-Pyramid-Golden-Leviathan/dp/0440539811

Read The Illuminatus Trilogy. It will change your life.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hnDH%2BJS6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[abolitionist]

Justin Raimondo famously said that he was almost impossible to talk to for about 10 years or so after reading Atlas. Beware of the Rand cult.

It's popular for lefists to talk about people who recommend Atlas Shrugged as a "cult" because they have figured out that it is an insult, given that Rand was not a fan of religion and they think it is super neat to ascribe to a group of people a characteristic that is anti-thema to what they believe. It is, quite literally, an ad hominem.

The book presents a philosophy, that, if you have read it, and you look at the arguments made for libertarian positions, you'll recognize is the philosophy that underlies essentially the entirety of libertarianism. While there are some pragmatic and economic arguments for libertarianism, even these are effectively derivatives of the objectivist philosophy.

The book also completely demolishes collectivism, and thus is a threat to both parties-- the collectivists on the Left and the Right-- and thus generation after generation of partisan statists are trained to reject the book out of hand, and to warn each other not to read it. In fact, what prompted the "Agorist" here to recommend you NOT read a book? Especially a book as significant as this one? It doesn't really mater what the motive was, the point is, it is pretty outrageous and extraordinary that one would recommend you deny yourself knowledge.

The reason for this campaign is the book converts statists into anarchists, collectivists into individualists, and is itself quite a threat to partisans.

Frankly, I can't think of a better argument for reading it, that you were just warned off of it!

---

Edit to add: Not my intention to say the person I'm replying to is a leftist or a statist, only that I think their comments come from a time before they were as enlightened. I myself am an agorist, an objectivist, libertarian, anarchist, and consequently, an abolitionist.

[TroySmith]

It's popular for lefists to talk about people who recommend Atlas Shrugged as a "cult" because they have figured out that it is an insult, given that Rand was not a fan of religion and they think it is super neat to ascribe to a group of people a characteristic that is anti-thema to what they believe. It is, quite literally, an ad hominem.

The book presents a philosophy, that, if you have read it, and you look at the arguments made for libertarian positions, you'll recognize is the philosophy that underlies essentially the entirety of libertarianism. While there are some pragmatic and economic arguments for libertarianism, even these are effectively derivatives of the objectivist philosophy.

The book also completely demolishes collectivism, and thus is a threat to both parties-- the collectivists on the Left and the Right-- and thus generation after generation of partisan statists are trained to reject the book out of hand, and to warn each other not to read it. In fact, what prompted the alleged "Agorist" here to recommend you NOT read a book? Especially a book as significant as this one? It doesn't really mater what the motive was, the point is, it is pretty outrageous and extraordinary that one would recommend you deny yourself knowledge.

The reason for this campaign is the book converts statists into anarchists, collectivists into individualists, and is itself quite a threat to partisans.

Frankly, I can't think of a better argument for reading it, that you were just warned off of it!


+ 1000.
Nailed it. Agorism is entirely ignorant of Rand. Atlas Shrugged is the magnus opus of freedom and achievement.

[abolitionist]

I have not read Atlas Shrugged, but it doesn't sound like Ayn Rand was exactly a libertarian. She was an objectivist, and from my understanding, that is quite different.

You can't be an objectivist without being a liberatarian. You can call yourself a libertarian without being an "objectivist", but that is essentially like being a liberal: EG: when you do so, you're a libertarian because you've selected a bunch of policy positions without an underlying philosophy behind them.

If "libertarian" to you means someone who believes in the NAP (the definition I use) then libertarians are pretty nearly objectivists. Objectivism is merely the philosophy that shows why the NAP is just and why it is practical. (IF you've never heard the term NAP before it stands for "non-aggression principle")

I am not aware of any non-libertarian conclusions of objectivist philosophy, nor any libertarian positions that conflict with objectivism. They of course, are not the same thing, as libertarianism is an ideology while objectivism is a philosophy, but they are as intrinsically tied together as libertarianism is with austrian economics.

I can say with certainty that every libertarian who wants to have better arguments for libertarianism would benefit greatly by reading Atlas Shrugged.

Because Rand was so effective in laying out her philosophy, and because this philosophy is devastating to collectivists, there are many who attempt to denigrate her and her philosophy. Thus, it is an unfortunate occurrence that when mentioning Atlas Shrugged-- even among "libertarians"-- you can get an objection.

Sometimes, dishonest people will provide quotes from Rand that seem to indicate she rejected the libertarian movement or anarchism. These quotes are taken out of context. Remember, the modern libertarian movement (and the one that used that term) was formed in the mid 1970s. At that time period, as with every other time period there are socialists who have tried to co-opt and undermine every "radical" movement. When Rand denounced "libertarianism" or "anarchism" she was actually denouncing collectivism, and the collectivists that were calling themselves by those terms.

I believe it is impossible for someone who is philosophically honest to read Atlas Shrugged and not become both a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist. Rand herself, however was limited in her thinking having been educated in Soviet Russia and thus was not a true anarchist, and I believe consequently she wasn't actually an objectivist. But you can't fault people for reaching the wrong conclusion (eg: she supported taxation as a method of funding the state)... and it would be throwing he baby out with the bathwater to ignore the very important work she contributed to the libertarian movement!

With so many disaffected statists calling themselves libertarians, and with the decreasing awareness of the NAP that I've been seeing, and the Libertarian Party's takeover by Republicans, I'm tempted to think that I wouldn't believe anyone who hadn't read Atlas Shrugged was really a libertarian. I'm unaware of a better litmus test. However, I do recognize that if I took such a position that would be merely an expression of a form of bigotry. My point in bringing that up is to say that I consider this book to be a critical read for anyone who is serious about liberty. I fear that it has become popular among young people to hate Rand without ever understanding her, and that this might turn the grassroots growth we've seen under Ron Paul into a movement that may be large but may be incapable of responding-- due to lack of philosophical underpinnings-- to challenges, and consequently unable to have the impact it could have.

I've read (I think) every book mentioned in this thread. There are many great ones, such as The moon is a harsh mistress, and Unintended Consequences, and the Creature from Jekyll Island. Some I like more than others, of course, and I'd never tell anyone not to read any of those.

But Atlas Shrugged is the book anyone interested in libertarianism must read. You may not like it, you may disagree with it, but you'll be a better libertarian on the other side of it, guaranteed.

PS - Can you imagine Ron Paul telling people not to read Atlas Shrugged?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI
Here he is saying she was an influence on him and that its a good book and that it "speaks the truth", though he also repeats the belief that "she didn't like libertarians". I consider this an acceptable error on his part.

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.amazon.com/Illuminatus-Trilogy-Pyramid-Golden-Leviathan/dp/0440539811

Read The Illuminatus Trilogy. It will change your life.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hnDH%2BJS6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

It's rare to find a US Snail mail address in a SF novel... They used to write back... Wonder if they are still in business?

While you are at it, get a copy of the Prinicpia Discordia or how I found the goddess and what I did to her when I found her.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Principayellow.jpg

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=principia+discordia&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=16715549179226989213&sa=X&ei=35biTcjQEoHHgAfg5rXABg&ved=0CDsQ8wIwAw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Discordia

Wikipedia lists a number of online versions...

HAIL ERIS!

-t

[PaulConventionWV]

You can't be an objectivist without being a liberatarian. You can call yourself a libertarian without being an "objectivist", but that is essentially like being a liberal: EG: when you do so, you're a libertarian because you've selected a bunch of policy positions without an underlying philosophy behind them.

If "libertarian" to you means someone who believes in the NAP (the definition I use) then libertarians are pretty nearly objectivists. Objectivism is merely the philosophy that shows why the NAP is just and why it is practical. (IF you've never heard the term NAP before it stands for "non-aggression principle")

I am not aware of any non-libertarian conclusions of objectivist philosophy, nor any libertarian positions that conflict with objectivism. They of course, are not the same thing, as libertarianism is an ideology while objectivism is a philosophy, but they are as intrinsically tied together as libertarianism is with austrian economics.

I can say with certainty that every libertarian who wants to have better arguments for libertarianism would benefit greatly by reading Atlas Shrugged.

Because Rand was so effective in laying out her philosophy, and because this philosophy is devastating to collectivists, there are many who attempt to denigrate her and her philosophy. Thus, it is an unfortunate occurrence that when mentioning Atlas Shrugged-- even among "libertarians"-- you can get an objection.

Sometimes, dishonest people will provide quotes from Rand that seem to indicate she rejected the libertarian movement or anarchism. These quotes are taken out of context. Remember, the modern libertarian movement (and the one that used that term) was formed in the mid 1970s. At that time period, as with every other time period there are socialists who have tried to co-opt and undermine every "radical" movement. When Rand denounced "libertarianism" or "anarchism" she was actually denouncing collectivism, and the collectivists that were calling themselves by those terms.

I believe it is impossible for someone who is philosophically honest to read Atlas Shrugged and not become both a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist. Rand herself, however was limited in her thinking having been educated in Soviet Russia and thus was not a true anarchist, and I believe consequently she wasn't actually an objectivist. But you can't fault people for reaching the wrong conclusion (eg: she supported taxation as a method of funding the state)... and it would be throwing he baby out with the bathwater to ignore the very important work she contributed to the libertarian movement!

With so many disaffected statists calling themselves libertarians, and with the decreasing awareness of the NAP that I've been seeing, and the Libertarian Party's takeover by Republicans, I'm tempted to think that I wouldn't believe anyone who hadn't read Atlas Shrugged was really a libertarian. I'm unaware of a better litmus test. However, I do recognize that if I took such a position that would be merely an expression of a form of bigotry. My point in bringing that up is to say that I consider this book to be a critical read for anyone who is serious about liberty. I fear that it has become popular among young people to hate Rand without ever understanding her, and that this might turn the grassroots growth we've seen under Ron Paul into a movement that may be large but may be incapable of responding-- due to lack of philosophical underpinnings-- to challenges, and consequently unable to have the impact it could have.

I've read (I think) every book mentioned in this thread. There are many great ones, such as The moon is a harsh mistress, and Unintended Consequences, and the Creature from Jekyll Island. Some I like more than others, of course, and I'd never tell anyone not to read any of those.

But Atlas Shrugged is the book anyone interested in libertarianism must read. You may not like it, you may disagree with it, but you'll be a better libertarian on the other side of it, guaranteed.

PS - Can you imagine Ron Paul telling people not to read Atlas Shrugged?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI
Here he is saying she was an influence on him and that its a good book and that it "speaks the truth", though he also repeats the belief that "she didn't like libertarians". I consider this an acceptable error on his part.

Bump.

I disagree. I think libertarianism can spring from more than one source. Your presumption that it can only spring from a Randian style objectivism is a false pretense. Libertarianism is not about objectivism, nor does it come from it.

On another note, I would like to move on and not make this about Rand or objectivism. I want more book suggestions! The list is great so far. Thanks!

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.amazon.com/Illuminatus-Trilogy-Pyramid-Golden-Leviathan/dp/0440539811

Read The Illuminatus Trilogy. It will change your life.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hnDH%2BJS6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

That looks very interesting. What's the genre of the Illuminatus Trilogy? Is it a fictional or factual work? In-between?

[trey4sports]

edit, nvm: picture no work

[Agorism]

My main problem with Ayn is that she is judgmental and trashes various artistic movements especially the post-modern movement, which I'm a huge fan of, and if you haven't noticed is where all modern creativity has sprung from in the last 70 years (Jazz music is post-modern by nature as it never was not one of the artistic Cannons at the time.) The influence of the post-modern movement has only accelerated in recent years.

Rand also despises Libertarians and she even states this (and I have read her two main books)

[Agorism]

Could use your summer break for an internship or trying to figure out what the heck you want to do with your life. Your 20's disappear rather quickly and if you aren't where you want to be in life by 30 or getting close to it, you're going to be in trouble. When you hit about 24-28, mid to late 20's you'll look back at high school classmates and realize that some of them have already made it or are on their way, and then there will be some who haven't done anything at all with their youth.

Your 20's are your most productive years, and those are the years you have the energy to sprint to where you want to get to.


http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1626/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1626R-17729.jpg

[PaulConventionWV]

Could use your summer break for an internship or trying to figure out what the heck you want to do with your life. Your 20's disappear rather quickly and if you aren't where you want to be in life by 30 or getting close to it, you're going to be in trouble. When you hit about 24-28, mid to late 20's you'll look back at high school classmates and realize that some of them have already made it or are on their way, and then there will be some who haven't done anything at all with their youth.

Your 20's are your most productive years, and those are the years you have the energy to sprint to where you want to get to.


http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1626/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1626R-17729.jpg

Depressing.

But yes, I think I have a pretty good plan in place right now. Reading isn't going to inhibit that, if that's what you're suggesting.

[GunnyFreedom]

Could use your summer break for an internship or trying to figure out what the heck you want to do with your life. Your 20's disappear rather quickly and if you aren't where you want to be in life by 30 or getting close to it, you're going to be in trouble. When you hit about 24-28, mid to late 20's you'll look back at high school classmates and realize that some of them have already made it or are on their way, and then there will be some who haven't done anything at all with their youth.

Your 20's are your most productive years, and those are the years you have the energy to sprint to where you want to get to.


http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1626/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1626R-17729.jpg


I'm 37 and I'm nowhere near where I want to be in life. in fact, since I got involved in politics I am getting further and further from those goals every year...

[TroySmith]

Bump.

I disagree. I think libertarianism can spring from more than one source. Your presumption that it can only spring from a Randian style objectivism is a false pretense. Libertarianism is not about objectivism, nor does it come from it.

On another note, I would like to move on and not make this about Rand or objectivism. I want more book suggestions! The list is great so far. Thanks!

Actually, Rand shows quite emphatically that any form of libertarianism must come from the philosophical root of individualism and natural law. I just can't emphasize enough how important Atlas Shrugged is.

[Agorism]

Well it takes a decade (or maybe a decade and 1/2 for some harder things) of sprinting to get to the top of pretty much any field, and it's hard to sprint if your not in your 20's.

[peterv]

Everybody has their favorites, many I've enjoyed have been mentioned previously in this thread. Here are a few I couldn't put down.....

Anything by Vernor Vinge, especially his hugo winners and the mind blowing Marooned in Realtime.
Heinlein, especially the future history series and his hugo winners
F. Paul Wilson but if you read any Repairman Jack books be warned they should be read in order and start with The Tomb.
Early L. Neil Smith books, particularly The Probability Broach, Tom Paine Maru, Pallas and later with Aaron Zelman, Hope.
Rand is excellent but can be tough rowing at times, for example Galts speech in Atlas Shrugged.
James P. Hogan, Voyage from Yesterday is a great libertarian/anarchist novel.
I could go on and on but this bunch will keep you more than busy, at least on the SF side of things.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well it takes a decade (or maybe a decade and 1/2 for some harder things) of sprinting to get to the top of pretty much any field, and it's hard to sprint if your not in your 20's.

In my 20's I was doing plenty of sprinting, and 3 mile runs, and obstacle courses, and trips to the rifle range....

[GunnyFreedom]

Everybody has their favorites, many I've enjoyed have been mentioned previously in this thread. Here are a few I couldn't put down.....

Anything by Vernor Vinge, especially his hugo winners and the mind blowing Marooned in Realtime.
Heinlein, especially the future history series and his hugo winners
F. Paul Wilson but if you read any Repairman Jack books be warned they should be read in order and start with The Tomb.
Early L. Neil Smith books, particularly The Probability Broach, Tom Paine Maru, Pallas and later with Aaron Zelman, Hope.
Rand is excellent but can be tough rowing at times, for example Galts speech in Atlas Shrugged.
James P. Hogan, Voyage from Yesterday is a great libertarian/anarchist novel.
I could go on and on but this bunch will keep you more than busy, at least on the SF side of things.

Aye, Marooned in Realtime is a brain-breaker. I've been collecting a Vernor Vinge library on my iPad (BECAUSE of having read Marooned), to be quite frank. I have to say that I am liking the Kindle better than iBooks because the Kindle lets you do white text on a black background...but I end up in iBooks mostly because the purchase interface is so much better.

[Razmear]

That looks very interesting. What's the genre of the Illuminatus Trilogy? Is it a fictional or factual work? In-between?

I would say that it is fact based fiction, but then our current world is filled with fiction based facts, so it's hard to say for certain. Consult your pineal gland for further instructions. When I first discovered the book it was in the Non-Fiction section of the Boston library. The book was written in 1975, and is set in it's present day political environment.
There are also good reviews of the book on the Amazon link in my post that will provide some insight. A google of Robert Anton Wilson will also provide some interesting results.

eb

[tangent4ronpaul]

That looks very interesting. What's the genre of the Illuminatus Trilogy? Is it a fictional or factual work? In-between?

Operation Mind Fuck is very real....

;)

[Razmear]

Not to be a thread hog or anything, but just found this RAW quote that fits in quite well:

My early work is politically anarchist fiction, in that I was an anarchist for a long period of time. I'm not an anarchist any longer, because I've concluded that anarchism is an impractical ideal. Nowadays, I regard myself as a libertarian. I suppose an anarchist would say, paraphrasing what Marx said about agnostics being "frightened atheists," that libertarians are simply frightened anarchists. Having just stated the case for the opposition, I will go along and agree with them: yes, I am frightened. I'm a libertarian because I don't trust the people as much as anarchists do. I want to see government limited as much as possible; I would like to see it reduced back to where it was in Jefferson's time, or even smaller. But I would not like to see it abolished. I think the average American, if left totally free, would act exactly like Idi Amin. I don't trust the people any more than I trust the government.
"Robert Anton Wilson: Searching For Cosmic Intelligence" - interview by Jeffrey Elliot (1980)

source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Anton_Wilson

[Captain America]

Zamyatin's "We" is the book that started the dystopian sci-fi genre-it was read by Rand, Orewll, Huxley, etc., who in turn imitated the style. A must-read if you like sci-fi and NWO stuff.

ETA: Here is a free copy of "We" in English courtesy of LvMI: http://mises.org/resources/5350

Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 05-28-2011 at 06:27 PM.

Was sifting through the posts before I posted We. Quite incredible.

[Agorism]

In my 20's I was doing plenty of sprinting, and 3 mile runs, and obstacle courses, and trips to the rifle range....
Did you stay in for your 20 years?

[abolitionist]

Your presumption that it can only spring from a Randian style objectivism is a false pretense. Libertarianism is not about objectivism, nor does it come from it.

Wow. How can a pretense be false, anyway? Also, do you really think you're going to persuade me by knocking down a strawman?

This is my point. If you come to "libertarianism" because you think it is a big tent of policy positions you support, you end up in a position where you can't really argue libertarian ideals. You totally failed to construct an argument there, and near as I can tell, you were just trying to insult me by pretending I said something I didn't.

Read Atlas Shrugged and you'll be better equipped to defend libertarian ideas going forward.

But I know you won't. You've already revealed that your mind is poisoned against Rand, and to the extent that you represent others of your generation, we're producing a lost generation. "Libertarians" who don't believe in libertarianism.

And this was my point. You can recommend The Moon is a harsh mistress and get away with it. It is a good book. But Atlas Shrugged is devastating to the collectivist ideology, and that is why the collectivists have been running an anti-rand campaign since it came out. That is why even people who think they are libertarians will bash it. They haven't read it, they're just repeating what the "cool kids" say.

You know I'm right because they have no arguments against the philosophy. You even tried to parrot an argument here, and you weren't able to, because you don't know what objectivism says, so you can't claim that it has a conflict with libertarianism.

Think about that-- in the bit quoted above, you're trying to make an argument about a philosophy you're not knowledgable in, to support your desire to remain ignorant about it!

What are the motives, do you suppose, that would cause someone to make you desire to remain ignorant about libertarian philosophy?


My main problem with Ayn is that she is judgmental and trashes various artistic movements especially the post-modern movement, which I'm a huge fan of,

You disagree with her taste? Really? You reject a philosophy and apparently won't read the books because you don't like the authors taste in music?


Rand also despises Libertarians and she even states this /QUOTE]

This is an outright lie.

If you had read Rand's books, you'd know that what I say is true, and that there is no conflict between objectivism. Further, it shows great disregard for the realm of ideas to have posted this response and repeat this lie after I already debunked it.


[QUOTE=TroySmith;3307893]Actually, Rand shows quite emphatically that any form of libertarianism must come from the philosophical root of individualism and natural law. I just can't emphasize enough how important Atlas Shrugged is.


You're right. Maybe, though, since this is the Ron Paul forums, this isn't a place for libertarians. Maybe, like the free state project, this is a place where disaffected collectivists gather and decide to call themselves libertarians without any understanding or knowledge of concern for what libertarian actually means. Maybe to them-- and I can see a lot of college students falling into this trap, because they haven't yet formed a cohesive world view-- libertarian simply means "not liking either party".

Maybe for them "libertarian" means being anti-deficit and pro-pot.... but in absolute support for collectivism in all its forms. In that case, if you define "libertarian" as an ideology that supports collectivism, then Rand really did denounce them.

But Libertarian is a word defining a movement we've spent the last 30 years building. We should not cede it lightly.

[magoo7042]

http://www.amazon.com/Daemon-Daniel-Suarez/dp/B003L1ZXCU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307798339&sr=8-1

pretty interesting twists and also has a sequel.

[PaulConventionWV]

I would say that it is fact based fiction, but then our current world is filled with fiction based facts, so it's hard to say for certain. Consult your pineal gland for further instructions. When I first discovered the book it was in the Non-Fiction section of the Boston library. The book was written in 1975, and is set in it's present day political environment.
There are also good reviews of the book on the Amazon link in my post that will provide some insight. A google of Robert Anton Wilson will also provide some interesting results.

eb

Well said, sir. I will check it out!

[PaulConventionWV]

Not to be a thread hog or anything, but just found this RAW quote that fits in quite well:

My early work is politically anarchist fiction, in that I was an anarchist for a long period of time. I'm not an anarchist any longer, because I've concluded that anarchism is an impractical ideal. Nowadays, I regard myself as a libertarian. I suppose an anarchist would say, paraphrasing what Marx said about agnostics being "frightened atheists," that libertarians are simply frightened anarchists. Having just stated the case for the opposition, I will go along and agree with them: yes, I am frightened. I'm a libertarian because I don't trust the people as much as anarchists do. I want to see government limited as much as possible; I would like to see it reduced back to where it was in Jefferson's time, or even smaller. But I would not like to see it abolished. I think the average American, if left totally free, would act exactly like Idi Amin. I don't trust the people any more than I trust the government.
"Robert Anton Wilson: Searching For Cosmic Intelligence" - interview by Jeffrey Elliot (1980)

source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Anton_Wilson

That sums up my beliefs about anarchism to the "T". The people ARE the government.

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow. How can a pretense be false, anyway? Also, do you really think you're going to persuade me by knocking down a strawman?

This is my point. If you come to "libertarianism" because you think it is a big tent of policy positions you support, you end up in a position where you can't really argue libertarian ideals. You totally failed to construct an argument there, and near as I can tell, you were just trying to insult me by pretending I said something I didn't.

Read Atlas Shrugged and you'll be better equipped to defend libertarian ideas going forward.

But I know you won't. You've already revealed that your mind is poisoned against Rand, and to the extent that you represent others of your generation, we're producing a lost generation. "Libertarians" who don't believe in libertarianism.

And this was my point. You can recommend The Moon is a harsh mistress and get away with it. It is a good book. But Atlas Shrugged is devastating to the collectivist ideology, and that is why the collectivists have been running an anti-rand campaign since it came out. That is why even people who think they are libertarians will bash it. They haven't read it, they're just repeating what the "cool kids" say.

You know I'm right because they have no arguments against the philosophy. You even tried to parrot an argument here, and you weren't able to, because you don't know what objectivism says, so you can't claim that it has a conflict with libertarianism.

Think about that-- in the bit quoted above, you're trying to make an argument about a philosophy you're not knowledgable in, to support your desire to remain ignorant about it!

What are the motives, do you suppose, that would cause someone to make you desire to remain ignorant about libertarian philosophy?



You disagree with her taste? Really? You reject a philosophy and apparently won't read the books because you don't like the authors taste in music?

Rand also despises Libertarians and she even states this

This is an outright lie.

If you had read Rand's books, you'd know that what I say is true, and that there is no conflict between objectivism. Further, it shows great disregard for the realm of ideas to have posted this response and repeat this lie after I already debunked it.





You're right. Maybe, though, since this is the Ron Paul forums, this isn't a place for libertarians. Maybe, like the free state project, this is a place where disaffected collectivists gather and decide to call themselves libertarians without any understanding or knowledge of concern for what libertarian actually means. Maybe to them-- and I can see a lot of college students falling into this trap, because they haven't yet formed a cohesive world view-- libertarian simply means "not liking either party".

Maybe for them "libertarian" means being anti-deficit and pro-pot.... but in absolute support for collectivism in all its forms. In that case, if you define "libertarian" as an ideology that supports collectivism, then Rand really did denounce them.

But Libertarian is a word defining a movement we've spent the last 30 years building. We should not cede it lightly.

That was uncalled for. All I did was express my view that I don't think objectivism quite gets the different starting points from which a libertarian ideology can be reached. I don't know what that whole charade about my beliefs was, but I am quite confident that I know what libertarianism is, and it basically comes down to the Constitution. Objectivism is nice, but I don't think it is all-encompassing. And you thought I was trying to insult you? You're going on a rant about nothing.

Also, pretenses can't be false? Are you serious? "False pretenses" is commonly used language. I refuse to be pulled in by your post-modernist objections to my well-set views of political ideology. They may change as I grow older, but to think you have it right and I don't is just arrogant.

[abolitionist]

http://www.amazon.com/Daemon-Daniel-Suarez/dp/B003L1ZXCU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307798339&sr=8-1

pretty interesting twists and also has a sequel.

Just started reading the sequel. The first is an interesting book because it really isn't clear whether the author is a libertarian or not, who ultimately is the good guys, etc. (or maybe it is clear and I'm dense.)


That sums up my beliefs about anarchism to the "T". The people ARE the government.

The Soviet Union called itself a "dictatorship of the proletariat". You saw how well that worked out. I worked on the campaign of one of the Libertarian Party presidential candidates. The night of the election was interesting... as more votes were counted, in certain precincts our vote counts *went down*. EG: %1 were counted and we had 10,482 votes. %4 were counted and we only had 9,233 votes. This is impossible in an honest system, of course.



I am quite confident that I know what libertarianism is, and it basically comes down to the Constitution.

Hi there! I see you're new. Welcome to Libertarianism! Since you're asking for books to read this summer, might I suggest:

Down With Power, by L. Neil Smith
http://down-with-power.com/

This book is currently being written, but Smith is putting the chapters up for people to read. Since you're new to libertarianism, I think you might get a great deal of enjoyment out of this chapter:
http://down-with-power.com/0-zap.html

What "El Neil" calls the "ZAP", or "Zero aggression principle" is also called the "NAP" or "Non-aggression principle". The Libertarian Party, back in the good old days, used to have on its membership cards a pledge:
"I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

It so happens, that pledge is the definition of libertarianism. "El Neil" goes into more detail in the chapter I linked above, and you can find many others who have written about this, because of course, it is the core concept of libertarianism.

If you believe the initiation of force against the innocent is immoral, you're a libertarian. If you believe it is justified sometimes, you're not. It's that simple.

I'll leave determining whether the constitution advocates the initiation of force as an exercise.


Objectivism is nice, but I don't think it is all-encompassing.

I'm not sure what a philosophy would be if it weren't "all encompassing" or whether it even needs to be.

I was trying to open your mind. That's all. Unfortunately, despite not being aware of what objectivism says, you've got a prejudice against it. That's understandable, given that so many non-libertarians absolutely hate the philosophy. Now that you've started to get into libertarianism, it would be a good time to discover what they were so afraid of.


Also, pretenses can't be false? Are you serious? "False pretenses" is commonly used language. I refuse to be pulled in by your post-modernist objections to my well-set views of political ideology. They may change as I grow older, but to think you have it right and I don't is just arrogant.

The term is "false premises", not "pretenses". A pretense is, by definition, false. Thus "false pretense" is redundant, which is what made your accusation so hilarious. Your views of "political ideology" may well be "well-set", in fact you'll find no argument from me on that point, but I couldn't even hazard a guess at what you mean by "post modernist objections". I'm not a painter!

Since you obviously think I have something wrong, doesn't you're accusation of arrogance apply to yourself as well?

More to the point, why do you feel the need to characterize me (as arrogant or anything else?) Why not address the position I have taken and the argument I've made?

See, all I did was recommend a book. A book that I am certain you will find enlightening.

But my recommendation of this book was so radical-- so offensive to your prejudices-- that you feel the need to characterize me?

Who gave you this prejudice against Objectivism? (And by the way, you seem to be fronting like you think you know all about what objectivism is, but if that were the case, you could cite a disagreement with it, instead of spending your time characterizing me.)

I'll tell you one thing-- I'm a better friend to you, than whoever it was who made you fear a woman whose been dead for three decades!

[KingRobbStark]

Try Oison Scott Card's "Enders Game" or anything by him.

[GunnyFreedom]

Um,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_pretenses

is a legal definition.

[ShowMeLiberty]

By F. Paul Wilson - An Enemy of the State, Healer, and Wheels Within Wheels. Together the three novels comprise "The LaNague Chronicles".

Read anything (or better yet everything) by Wilson. The libertarian message comes through very clearly, especially if you're looking for it, but he's also an outstanding storyteller. "Beach reads" that you won't be able to stop thinking about. Guaranteed.

[R3volutionJedi]

I'm jumping on some summer reading of my own. Hopefully I 'll learn alot. Hoping to better understand the NWO myself.

[Slutter McGee]

Just started reading the sequel. The first is an interesting book because it really isn't clear whether the author is a libertarian or not, who ultimately is the good guys, etc. (or maybe it is clear and I'm dense.)



The Soviet Union called itself a "dictatorship of the proletariat". You saw how well that worked out. I worked on the campaign of one of the Libertarian Party presidential candidates. The night of the election was interesting... as more votes were counted, in certain precincts our vote counts *went down*. EG: %1 were counted and we had 10,482 votes. %4 were counted and we only had 9,233 votes. This is impossible in an honest system, of course.




Hi there! I see you're new. Welcome to Libertarianism! Since you're asking for books to read this summer, might I suggest:

Down With Power, by L. Neil Smith
http://down-with-power.com/

This book is currently being written, but Smith is putting the chapters up for people to read. Since you're new to libertarianism, I think you might get a great deal of enjoyment out of this chapter:
http://down-with-power.com/0-zap.html

What "El Neil" calls the "ZAP", or "Zero aggression principle" is also called the "NAP" or "Non-aggression principle". The Libertarian Party, back in the good old days, used to have on its membership cards a pledge:
"I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

It so happens, that pledge is the definition of libertarianism. "El Neil" goes into more detail in the chapter I linked above, and you can find many others who have written about this, because of course, it is the core concept of libertarianism.

If you believe the initiation of force against the innocent is immoral, you're a libertarian. If you believe it is justified sometimes, you're not. It's that simple.

I'll leave determining whether the constitution advocates the initiation of force as an exercise.



I'm not sure what a philosophy would be if it weren't "all encompassing" or whether it even needs to be.

I was trying to open your mind. That's all. Unfortunately, despite not being aware of what objectivism says, you've got a prejudice against it. That's understandable, given that so many non-libertarians absolutely hate the philosophy. Now that you've started to get into libertarianism, it would be a good time to discover what they were so afraid of.



The term is "false premises", not "pretenses". A pretense is, by definition, false. Thus "false pretense" is redundant, which is what made your accusation so hilarious. Your views of "political ideology" may well be "well-set", in fact you'll find no argument from me on that point, but I couldn't even hazard a guess at what you mean by "post modernist objections". I'm not a painter!

Since you obviously think I have something wrong, doesn't you're accusation of arrogance apply to yourself as well?

More to the point, why do you feel the need to characterize me (as arrogant or anything else?) Why not address the position I have taken and the argument I've made?

See, all I did was recommend a book. A book that I am certain you will find enlightening.

But my recommendation of this book was so radical-- so offensive to your prejudices-- that you feel the need to characterize me?

Who gave you this prejudice against Objectivism? (And by the way, you seem to be fronting like you think you know all about what objectivism is, but if that were the case, you could cite a disagreement with it, instead of spending your time characterizing me.)

I'll tell you one thing-- I'm a better friend to you, than whoever it was who made you fear a woman whose been dead for three decades!

This is why objectivists drive me nuts. You are the most pretentious, pompous, pigheaded, and pedomorphic people to ever live. How is that for alliteration. And yes, I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and what I could mange of We the Living. Yes. They are fasinating. But to hold them up some pinnacle of libertarian thought is foolish.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee