What are the "must-reads" in the realm of political philosophy?

i'm sorry on his behalf, most of us aren't particularly well-read
any works in particular by schmitt you'd recommend?

Free pdf versions of all of his major works were linked in this thread by me here

Central regulation has always proven to be less efficient. If efficiency is the main thing you're prioritizing, it should be avoided.

I suggest alongside to read something sciencey and contemporary just for a different view and as something complementary. You could look into some pop-sci book about behaviour like Sapolsky's Behave for a contemporary view on human nature. You can read anthropology for the noble savage vs short, nasty and brute. Systems science for economics. Etc. Add some history to it too, like maybe the Great Leveler.
As for political science stuff The Dictators Handbook.

Why are you only recommending him pop literature? Is this a thinly valid insult?

It depends on how much you want to be depressed and hopeless

ted kaczynski - industrial society and its future

Textbooks tend to be expensive and harder to get. If he has access to a school library he could look for stuff that's complimentary. I do this myself but am limited by what the school offers.
There's always google scholar too.

Pick up the Strauss-Cropsey reader to start.

Ligotti???
Good post
Mass market original sources tend to be less expensive than pop-sci memery in my experience

Now I'm confused. Is the issue that I'm not recommending philosophers? The idea behind my post is that philosophers can be prone to bias so it might be good to add some scientific or historian books for a balanced view.
Just look at /leftypol/ or /pol/ charts and yeah of course you could read both sides. But I think that isn't enough.

No, it is that OP asked for "must-reads in the realm of political philosophy" and you proceeded to recommend him a bunch of pop-sci stuff about Anthropology and Behavioral Psychology.

You posted stuff that wasn't asked for in the
OP. And it isn't a problem. It just didn't click why you posted that. So, I assumed that you were saying that he was to dumb to read from the requested source material, which is rather rude.
But, I think we just have a misunderstanding.

Any Veeky Forums people here familiar with neo-classical liberalism? I think it has potential, a lot of the natural rights to conceptions of the good and property that libertarians advocate with a redistribution that deviates from capitalism. Not sure if it's actually possible especially if you accept Locke's theory of ownership and his proviso. Nevertheless interesting to think about.

Are there any arguments against libertarianism that aren't wholly based on consequential arguments is appeals and shitting on the modern form of capitalism?

I just see it as the same shit as >lol communism never works
What are the actual arguments against self-ownership as a primary principle?

Leviathan.

Rawls, Locke, Rousseau, Nozick.

search for the pdf

the true must-read

>thinly valid insult
do you mean thinly veiled insult?

why are is Veeky Forums so bad at grammar

>and yeah of course you could read both sides
lol that's gay, just pick a side and a keep to it despite any contradictory evidence

Libertarianism is like 80% correct, The best author I found that corrects and expands libertarianism in Curt Doolittle,

propertarianism.com/

Shitty auto correct and foreigners

Alan Ryan's On Politics
Don't get paperback

American libertarianism is the biggest fucking joke on the political spectrum. It can only be prevalent in such a soulless society with no tradition. Strong public services like healthcare and free education are a no-brainer for anyone with a sane mind.

Must reads on state building:

Plato: Republic
Aristotle: Politics
Machiavelli: Prince
Hobbes: Leviathan
Locke: Treatise on Government
Rosseau: Discourse in Inequality
Rawls: Theory of Justice (I've heard his other works are just refinements of this, they might be better)

Dependin on your stance on economy:

Smith: Wealth of Nations
Mill: Principles of Political Economy
Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia

Marx: Kapital
Habermas: Social Transformation of the Public Sphere
Gramsci: Prison Notebooks
Focault: Discipline and Punish (what you want is his concept of Governmentality, not really sure this book is the best way to get to it, might want to check out secondary literature)

thucydides
aristotle
plato
jean bodin
christine de pizan
maquiavel
lockes
hobbes
the federalists
burke
kant/hegel
schmitt
nozick
rawls
agamben

this is the route i went through

Public education is an absolute joke. Private is infinitely better, private tutors , even more valuable.

Mill Marx Raz Rawls Hobbes Locke and maybe Rousseau after that point it's good to familiarize yourself with more fundamental but less relevant philosophies like that of Plato but you could certainly discuss politics without doing so

>What are the actual arguments against self-ownership as a primary principle?
The current state of America is a pretty good one :^)
youtube.com/watch?v=Zq_IhJwCpSg

>doesn't recognize the public private division is at the source of all squalor and inequality
>thinks the solution is found in doubling down on capitalist dysfunction while retreating into ideology
lol

>Private is infinitely better
Have you seen that state of non-religious private education in the US? Would you really send your child to an overpriced adult-baby factory like Evergreene or Oberlin? Not to mention the toll that private policies have taken on the ivy leagues.
As for private non-religious secondary education, it produces defective narcissists who are incapable of thinking outside of the lens of competition.

You are correct when you say that public schools are a fucking joke but, that is because they need a massive reform by people who care about the welfare of our children and society. What they certainly do not need to be put in the hands of free market.

...

Good post, thanks

I disagree that the consequential arguments against things like libertarianism, ancap, etc. are as bad as "lol communism don't work."

However, the arguments against self-ownership are largely going to be of three forms:

1. Property rights are not a valid construct.
2. The human body is not a member of the class of things we call property.

There is all sorts of semantic hairiness in there.

The Communist Manifesto. The Conquest of Bread.

Plato's Republic
Aristotle's Politics (Read the ethics first, you need it to properly appreciate his political science)
Confucius' Analects (It's outside the western tradition, but it's very interesting and has many parallel with Aristotle)
Augustine's City of God (this is mostly non-political, but it's such an influential text later on that you should understand it and be able to apply its political implications)
Machiavelli's The Prince and Discourses
John Locke's Second Treatise
Thomas Hobbe's Leviathan
Hegel's Philosophy of Right
Trenchard's Cato's Letters
Rousseau's The Social Contract
Marx's Communist Manifesto and The German Ideology (It's trash, but it's hugely influential)
Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France
Mill's On Liberty
Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition
Evola (Haven't read him but from what I've heard he's very unique and has a view of politics worth exploring and understanding, if only because it influences certain right wing groups)
Rawls' A Theory of Justice

Those are the big ones I can think of off the top of my head. Read these and you'll have a solid grasp of political philosophy.

Another good post, thanks!