What are some good books about libertarian philosophy and individualism?

they only like the most popular and critically acclaimed things, because they have an unwavering belief in the free market.

it's kind of a chicken and egg thing as well. a lot of libertarians i've met have used their terrible taste in the arts as proof that the free market works.

Robert Nozick

Anarchy, State and Utopia

this is good advice

there are decent libertarians out there, it's a shame that idiots on the internet seem to have gravitated to the likes of molyneux and then the likes of rothbard and mises more than hayek or friedman

though i would probably say don't really read left anarchists and marxists and just shut up about them as they're largely irrelevant in modern day politics, unless you really must win internet arguments against internet marxists

t. non libertarian

>Goy Gary Johnson

Please don't put Hayek with Rand and rothbard. Sure he got his economics wrong ( can we gas all Austrians please?) But he deserves more than to be put with those lot.

True, theyre going to need to update that to President Gary Johnson next edition

That's not how it works. The market allocates the most resources to the musical genres that people are willing to pay for, fulfilling their demands. Supporting markets does not mean liking what most people like. One could allow others to choose what they want using the market mechanism but have a different taste in music.

The libertarians you know must be pretty stupid if they think markets are always right. I would consider myself a libertarian but only from a utilitarian pov, none of that natural rights nonsense. Allowing people to choose themselves is the best way to make people happy. When markets fail then governments can step in (e.g healthcare).

There was a lot that the Austrians got right. The problem is, that what was right has been integrated into the mainstream for a long time. What they got wrong, though, was really wrong, and it's all that modern Austrians have to talk about.

In any case, Hayek and Road to Serfdom especially fell more on the side of political philosophy than strict economics.

That's why I like Hayek, as a political theorist, not as an economist (aside from price signals).

What did the Austrians get right?
I know subjective theory of value
Marginal revolution (but Jevons and Walras came up with it at the same time independently)
That central planning doesn't work due to information??

That said, I like Schumpeter's work. The real problem is how Mises still has influence online.

Mainstream economics is the worst possible combination of all the traditions. It's Autism: the subject.

It seems most self proclaimed "libertarians" are just straight up boring liberals but don't want to call themselves so!

The economic basis of politics by Charles A. Beard [short history on various theories on property]
archive.org/details/economicbasisofp00bearrich

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill [Mill despite his flaws is still essential]

"Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital" by Thomas Hodgskin [this is a very interesting article from 1825 that attacked the wage-fund theory that was prevalent at the time and had a very idiocentric capital formation theory. it was getting at the notion of "free market socialism", kinda in the sense of Proudhon but way better. I think Engels in a footnote somewhere called Hodgskin the most important economist pre-Marx]
marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/hodgskin/labour-defended.htm

Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko [interesting revisionist history on the progressive era]

The United States as a Developing Country: Studies in U.S. History in the Progressive Era and the 1920s by Martin J. Sklar

t. Man who can't do maths.

Surprised Benjamin Tucker has not been mentioned. One of my personal favs.

Others in the american individualist tradition: Josiah Warren, Ezra Heywood, Lysander Spooner, William B. Greene.. Then there is the European tradition of 'libertarianism' which can be said to have developed more in line with, and/or in response to socialist/communist thought.

But ultimately the roots of american individualists can be traced back to french mutualism and british owenite influence which is also the roots of european social anarchism and the coop movement. The dichotomy between socialist and individualist 'libertarian' gets blurred when you dig in.

>I know subjective theory of value
>Marginal revolution (but Jevons and Walras came up with it at the same time independently)
actually that goes way back. i'm convinced the marginalists really just stole their ideas from an early obscure anti-Ricardian economist named Samuel Bailey. marx actually talks about him in his Theories of Surplus Value in chapter 20 [marx never lived to have a response to marginaism so this is as close as you get interstingly to what marx would have probably responded to the likes of the austrians himself]

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch20.htm#vol32-p312

>That central planning doesn't work due to information??

the only people who think "central planning" could work is if you really believe in neoclassical mathemathical models and that you can formalize everything and remove the dialectical human element which is impossible

I have a BA in math. There is nothing wrong with applying mathematical modelling in an empirical setting to generate predictions that can be tested. Mainstream economics, in contrast, takes what is essentially a moral and political subject and imposes unverifiable faith-based mathematical structures that smuggle in a capitalist ideology under the pretext of 'idealization'. It's just fundamentally not an intellectually honest discipline.

...

I fell for the Economic in One Lesson meme. It's the only economics book I own, and I'm entirely ignorant in the subject. What should I read after it?

Greg Mankiw's principles of economics. I pic attached is the Uk version I think.

The only good thing about EiOL is the title, I would not bother reading it.

Hilarious.

keke

Howdo you know? The accusations of ideology tend to come from people who are themselves very ideological.

So what evidence do you have as a BA to dismiss the entire field of economics? Do you write off even people like Picketty and Stiglitz?

t. Man who dislikes capitalism.

Libertarianism is dead. The mainstream of the movement has pretty much fused with the neoliberal establishment. Oligarchy+gays & legal weed. While the right-wing represented by ancaps/rothbard etc. has gone full redpill
and neofascist

Neoliberalism does not mean oligarchy. Competition is essential to neoliberalism.

Lmao. Keep telling yourself that while you try to suck VC cock to fund your startup.

Robert Nozick

Libertarianism is the least aesthetic, least literary philosophy.

The most is probably monarchy or fascism or something.

Thats some pretty S+ grade alt right trolling material desu

Yeah, I'm sure the Brownshirts were serious bookworms.

Even Islamism or national socialism have a greater spiritual drive, even if it's total bullshit. Libertarianism is muh gumbmint gonna take mah shit oh noes! It's a form of secular Protestant moralism blended with autistic right wing pseudo Marxism and fedora tipping 'rationality'

Anarchism: a documentary history of libertarian ideas
PDFs of vol. 1 and 2 here
libcom.org/library/anarchism-documentary-history-libertarian-ideas-volume-1-2

Are you retarded? Libertarianism doesn't tell you to do certain things, it allows you to make up your own mind and do it so long as it doesn't harm any unconsenting people.

Libertarianism does imply humans are utilitarian profit maximizing units. In a 'libertarian' society, power is based on property. this is unlikely to result in a Jeffersonian pothead utopia but in a pseudo feudal regime where landowners/employers hold unrestricted power over their tenants. This is justified with vague moralizing platitudes (capital='hard work', property='freedom')

If following a certain philosophy makes you more happy than the alternatives/you would rather do that then a rational utilitarian agent would follow that philosophy. My argument wasn't about property. The problem is that people mix up libertarianism with Anarchocapitalism (worst system possible). Libertarianism does have a role for the state, especially preventing monopolies. A proper libertarian system would have a land value tax anyway as the rent from unimproved land doesn't come from ones own efforts. That tax could be used to fund some sort of minimum standard of living.

This. Even Foucault liked Hayek.

The Constitution of Liberty is a neat book.

What did Foucault have to say about Hayek?
I'm guessing something to do with biopolitics and spontaneous order. But I don't know much about Foucault.

I know he talks about him in The Birth of Biopolitics. He commends him and the classical liberals on their dislike of government. They have things in common. Both F and H studied power, and F tells his students to read H carefully.

What did they get wrong?

Praxeology
Rejection of mathematics and empirical evidence from economics.

...

Fuck off Ancap

...

Fuck outta here reading Mankiw

i laughed

so many levels on that

Well no shit, every intellectual does.

>private property
lmao

>Incentives don't exist
Lmao

>still thinking in terms of property
lol

Essential for any anti-statist, gold buying, ammo-hoarding survivalist individual.