Where do I start with legal and political philosophy?

W E W

even blackout drunk i am better than you

good job, gnatbrain

Whatever you say Libertard, have a nice sleep

hahaha hey OP check it out

user say starts with Aristotle and Plato. maybe you can get your law degree in like 10 years maybe!

Dude go to bed, he never said anything about wanting a law degree

Rawls, Nozick, Sandel, in that order.

Bentham, Mill, Marx, Adam Smith.

Then you're basically done.

i can't go to bed. waiting for this shit to process. gotta be upright or tumtums will be mad.

Marx AND Smith really? homeboy OP said legal and political, not economics. the 19th-21st century concept of property is pretty easy to understand.

The Republic

Read the Leviathan by Hobbs and some Nietzsche, Gay Science.

I was going to buy "A Plato Reader" which contains eight dialogues. Once I finish them, then what?

Do you know the term "political economy"?

Start with Chomsky

Actual law student here, from Europe. Mostly chronogical list, maybe missing something. Look for the author's political works alongside most influential ones as legal philosophy isn't removed from ethics and metaphysics.
Plato
Aristote
Cicero
Augustine
Aquinas
Suarez
Hugo Grotius
Locke
Hobbes
Rousseau
Montesquieu
Kant
Hegel
Feuerbach
Bentham
Mill
Kelsen
Jacques Maritan
Carl Schmidt (maybe spelled it wrong, my bad if I did)
Alsadair MacIntyre

He's a Libertarian, he barely knows the word economy

Now this guy is a class act

Would also add Tocqueville and Marx.

yeh. OP asked where to *start*. Smith and Marx are thousands of pages of economics with some politics.

>Grotius
Not a lawfag, so this is a sincere question: is he required reading (as I would expect), or are you in a particularly sound program?

Studying law never ever in any way requires any philosophy since like 50 years back because the holistic approach to education and philosophy as an integral part of law have been abandoned. That's why Kelsen is on the list, as the man who fucked it all up for us and MacIntyre who shows the importance of it.

>recommends Bastiat
>irrational drunk fumbling when contemporaries and antecedent philosophers are mentioned
It might be time to stop posting.

saved. saged.

That's disappointing, but actually not surprising. I hoped some kind of philosophical grounding was at least hinted at, but now that I think about it, there is probably a metric ton of statute books or more in some of the larger university law libraries

How hard is law?

OP here. Thinking of apply for next year's JD intake. I should easily get in.

It's hinted at in the historic sections where you need to know that the philosophers of the classical school of criminal law were Kant and Hegel who believed in the categorical imperative or negation of negation and retributive justice. That's where it ends really (in various other subjects you'll in the same way hear of a name, but that's it).
I'm from a German system of law, but a shitty ex commie country so it's very, very hard. Lasts for 5 years, but most take 6-8 and I'll probably take 6.5-7.5.

Is it often intrinsically hard or merely tedious?

Mostly the first

t. other German lawfag

Both. The professors are often sadists and it isn't uncommon to study for an exam for 3-6 months on average 25 hours/week, not counting breaks, which is 8-10 hours/day.

It seems even Europeans have forgotten Pufendorf

Never even heard of him desu

Giorgio Agamben

Aristotle's Politics

>Cicero
>Augustine
Squeeze the Bible between them.

>Machiavelli
>Hobbes
>Locke
>Price
>Burke
>Paine
>De Maistre
>Tocqueville
Fixed.

>Feuerbach
Marx and Engels after him, then the classical sociologists:
>Dilthey
>Mead
>Durkheim
>Weber

>Alsadair MacIntyre
read Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy before him

You forgot some contemporary writers:
>Jürgen Habermas
>John Rawls
>Robert Nozick
>Philip Pettit

This desu

I didn't forget anyone (except Tocqueville and Marx who I posted later, maybe wasn't clear enough), I just like to keep it to the authors I have read.

>that pic
What are you trying to imply?
Also. for phil for legal / political

There's literally no point in "studying" legal or ethical philosophy. The zeitgeist of pro-justice liberalism is the ultimate conclusion to thought.

strauss and schmitt for 20th

Start with Main's wonderfully short and involved Ancient Law-- Everyman used to print it, appears here and there in used book shops.

My friend is a lawyer and he says it's difficult and tedious. You have to read hundreds of pages a day, of what I'm not sure, case briefs I guess?

Europe doesn't have case law, case law is an anglo thing. You almost don't see practice here until you start working and then you will most probably have a practice of certain types of cases which you'll have in your office unless you are starting solo.

>start here

also lawfag here. just don't really don't. also if you wish to learn anything about political/legal philosophy then law is definitely the wrong way to go. in law school you will learn to apply the law and not engage in any philosophical underpinning. mostly because there is no justification for law except privilege and violence. hobbes is full of shit.
thehustle.co/why-you-shouldnt-go-to-law-school-by-tucker-max

>mostly because there is no justification for law except privilege and violence
And children, religion and beliefs.

It's almost as if our beliefs would shape the world. Except yours, since you don't believe that.

I was just reading this AMA with a professor of Political Philosophy and he answers this question.

Leftism overload desu.

>Machiavelli

What a pseud

Please tell us why that's your conclusion?

Because it has Nietzsche and Focault in the most essential works, which they are far from.

of course i believe that. however instead of strawmanning me you might explain the genesis of the state and why this institution is justified

Nice, thanks.

This reads like somebody who has been teaching the same course since the 50's.

It's obvious this professor started with an endpoint (Foucault and muh power relations) and worked backwards; this user is right, Foucault and Nietzsche aren't considered foundational to political philosophy by the vast majority of thinkers in this area, it's bizarre to include D&P, which is more sociological/ anthropological in orientation, and omit people like Rawls, Aquinas, Mill, Burke, Locke, Strauss, Grotius, and others.

There's a reason why anytime serious diplomacy needs to happen the Government calls upon military negotiators; Britain just called in favours with America and asked to borrow a bunch of west point trained negotiators for the Brexit negotiations.

This guys opinions on IR are pseud AS FUCK.

>No Chanakya, Creveld, Hart or Clausewitz
Even worse >No Thucydides
What the actual fuck.

>Focault

into the trash it goes

bump

lol u never had sex

Jordan Peterson please go.

I can't speak to legal philosophy, but for politics the absolute necessities are:

*** Plato: The Republic
*** Aristote: Politics
*** Machiavelli: The Prince
*** Locke: Two Treatises of Government
*** Hobbes: Leviathan
*** Rousseau: Second Discourse, The Social Contract
*** Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France
*** Hegel: Philosophy of Right
*** Marx: The Communist Manifesto, The Marx-Engels Reader (abridged)
*** Rawls: A Theory of Justice

However, I will also add more "must-reads" for general political knowledge:

** Confucius: Analects
** Aquinas: Summa Theologica (Part II)
** Montesquieu: The Spirit of the Laws (abridged)
** Kant: Theory and Practise, Perpetual Peace
** Paine: The Rights of Man
** Bentham: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
** Wollstonecraft: A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
** Mill: On Liberty, Utilitarianism
** Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morality
** Bernstein: Evolutionary Socialism
** Lenin: The State and Revolution
** Trotsky: Their Morals and Ours
** Schmitt: The Concept of the Political
** Arendt: The Origins of Totalitarianism, The Human Condition
** Hayek: The Constitution of Liberty
** Oakeshott: On Being Conservative, On Human Conduct
** de Beauvoir: The Second Sex
** Fanon: The Wretched of the Earth
** Foucault: Discipline and Punish
** Marcuse: One-Dimensional Man
** Habermas: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
** Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia

communist faggot detected

># of Liberals: 10+
># of Conservatives/Reactionaries: 5
># of Communists: 3

You got me, I'm a communist.

You can't understand the context of the law until you know the law.

Bump.

What is Veeky Forums's view on Hobbes?

nah

I love Hobbes, he was the first to use the state of nature thought experiment and brought philosophy forward immensely by doing so. Also, the later parts of the leviathan that nobody reads are really interesting. However, I always found him horrible to read, so it is something you have to do intently.

Best of the pre-Kantian political philosophers honestly

Really? I read parts 3 & 4 and youre right, few bother with that. It all but subverts the common characterization of 'Hobbes'. Question refers to the bother. I rather enjoyed reading him.

I tend to have problems with poor writers. Hobbes and Hegel were both impenetrable for me, whereas most older philosophers I have read tended to be fairly easy, even when their ideas are dense or convoluted. The post-modernists on the other hand...

and what do you recommend?

>Tr*tsky
>Necessary for anything

I read quite a bit of 17th c. English prose when in school so compared to (say) Hooker or even John Milton (check out Areopagitica!) Hobbes seems a comparitively clear writer, but I see what you mean.
Hegel was in the habit of speaking like an ordinary human being in his lectures. The tomes on the history of philosophy, of religion, and of art are all wonderfully readable, fwiw.

>Carl Schmidt (maybe spelled it wrong, my bad if I did)
Double-t my man. Also good taste.

irregulare aliquod corpus et monstro simile :3

>Kelsen

Another law student here. I'm writing my Master's dissertation on Kelsen.

good recs.