Suggestion thread

Law school student here. Yeah, context and philosophy of law don't make much since unless you learn the law, and its hard to learn the law without having lawyers helping guide you.

Just do well in school. Learn how the realities of the world will crush and suppress your every action and then go to law school as a bitter and cynical radical.

so can either of you fucks update the list then?

READ SCALIA

so... this is supposed to be the big KO punch shitpost?

this is it? really? "haha laws and also jewish references"? Yeah, I'm reeling.

"Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government's power [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a fundamental aspect of golf."

>Learn how the realities of the world will crush and suppress your every action and then go to law school as a bitter and cynical radical.

I wish there were was a subject that tried to understand what this is, why this happens, and how to work around it... the universal application of power and how leverage is formed.

Is it sociology? Political science? Psychology? Game theory?

The trial

>suggestion thread

What Evola book should I start with?

Business management.

But the problem is that they teach it like its a good thing.

This is actually the big question that the book Understanding Power culminates to. There's a part where a student wants chomsky to participate in one of her big thesis papers about power structures in some African country, no department would accept her topic until she went to him, and then when Chomsky went on the project, the rest of the school started watching them like a hawk.

>But the problem is that they teach it like its a good thing.

A good thing that leverage exists? A good thing to use leverage? If you want to get anything done, then you need to be cognizant of power structures and how to navigate them.

If you're talking about how the law is selectively applied depending on the willingness to enforce it (and this is terrible), then sure I agree with you.

>This is actually the big question that the book Understanding Power culminates to.

Apparently it's a collection of random seminars and whatnot. The table of contents looks odd and disorganized. Is the book structured enough or insightful enough to be really worth the read? Where else to go from there?

The systematic use of leverage over a vast number of people in order to perpetuate the wealth of a minority isn't a good thing.

>If you're talking about how the law is selectively applied depending on the willingness to enforce it (and this is terrible), then sure I agree with you.

lol, I have my contracts II final tomorrow, this is extremely relevant.

It seems disorganized, and it an extent it is, but the overarching themes are organized well and it covers a lot of ground. Sadly it doesn't go into as much detail because it's seminars and things. But basically you take a Chomsky lecture and cut out all the parts that aren't about power structures and put them in a cohesive order and thats the book. I listened to it on audible at x2 speed while I was driving or washing dishes. So I don't know how good it is in print, but it was very interesting.

>I listened to it on audible at x2 speed while I was driving or washing dishes. So I don't know how good it is in print, but it was very interesting.

Good idea. Thanks for the input. Apparently, there's a website with footnotes to it as well, so it would be a good experience.

Not too terribly familiar with it outside Adorno. He had great ideas but man, how I hated his writing. It was obnoxious even if I found myself agreeing with most.

Why would we? I mean, you probably haven't read even 1/3 of the authors.

>wants to become a good lawyer
You won't need philosophy. Even when judges have to interpret tough and unprecedented situations the idea is to just be fair and equitable. You're trying to become a well-paid institutional peon who gets to wear a suit to work, not a shepherd of your fellow man. Unless your ambition is to one day create your own legal system just don't fuck up your classes and study what you're told to study. You'll get all the important bits.

Or of course you could save time and just kill yourself now. Trust me, you'll want to soon enough.

I don't know enough about anti-establishment left besides Chomsky to complete "libertarian" and "classical liberal" thought. I would add John Stuart Mill I guess.

What else would I add, that I don't know enough about? Anything that would help to understand how easy it is to concentrate power in the hands of the state (capitalist, communist, fascist), in the hands of corporations (capitalist and communists), in the hands of "the people" (an ideal "communist" society before the bureaucratic state usurps power, a capitalist state with a sufficiently motivated middle class and a sufficiently checked central government, etc.), and in the hands of individual people (i.e., leverage, not to be confused with "the people" collectively).

Where could you this out find out? I don't know. See >I wish there were was a subject that tried to understand what this is, why this happens, and how to work around it... the universal application of power and how leverage is formed.

>Is it sociology? Political science? Psychology? Game theory?

>Plato
>Aristote
>Cicero
>Augustine
>Aquinas
>Suarez
>Grotius
>Machiavelli
>Bodin
>More
>Hobbes
>Locke
>Rousseau
>Montesquieu
>Kant
>Hegel
>Marx
>Feuerbach
>De Maistre
>Burke
>Tocqueville
>Kelsen
>Strauss
>Schmidtt
>Hayek
>Maritain
>MacIntyre
>VILLEY
>ZOLO
here you go

t. Lawyer and Master in Law

The good thing is, I didn't miss much.

Underrated

did top100 2017 come out yet?
I didn't visit since the poll

>wants to become a good lawyer
spooked

do you mean 'good' as in virtuous? or technically adroit?

this, also holmes

As someone with a master's in philosophy of law: you don't need to study it in order to be a good lawyer. But read the basics: The Concept of Law, by Hart; Pure Theory of Law, by Kelsen; and Taking Rights Seriously, by Dworkin. Later on you can start studying Alexy.

This, good advice. Don't bother with "philosophy of law", the only people who might be able to make use of that are appellate judges who are trying to justify their own jurisprudence. Learn procedure.

Are any of these authors "redpilled"? If not, I won't read them.

You are an illiterate cretin anyway, nobody expects you to read anything.

But why?

The FRCP?? You can't cut your teeth on that. If you really want to get a feel for the law, read the advance sheets. A subscription to the federal reporter costs $20 or so per month (paperbacks only) and the material is interesting. Plus you get a feel for what are the legal issues of the day. If you'd like, you could just get the reporter for your state or region, like the N.E. Reporter or the Southern Reporter. This will give you a real feeling of what it's like to be a lawyer; the kind of matters that come up. And the stories are interesting.

You haven't said what country you're living in. In most countries, law is an undergraduate subject. If you're an American, get a used copy of the BarBri bar review materials. Even if they're several years old. This is an outline of the law. Just skim them. Then, read West's advance sheets for your jurisdiction. They come out every month or so. If you come across a concept that's not well explained in the appellate opinion, look it up in the bar review materials. Edward Levi's book, Dworkin, etc. just aren't necessary. Law is as practical as plumbing. Learn how the pipes are connected and you will be fine.

For someone who wants to be a lawyer, these books are superfluous. Read them if you're bored, but if you want to find out what's really going on, read the advance sheets.

No Rawls?

If you're an undergraduate interested in law as an academic discipline, sure. Use this list. If you want to be a lawyer, though, it's useless. Read the advance sheets.

And if you really want to be a lawyer, learn shorthand. It will always come in handy. Learn a language spoken by a minority in your geographic area. It will be useful to communicate with clients. Since so much of the law is the injury business, take an EMT course if they're offered, or find an alternative to learn medical vocabulary or procedures. Or take an engineering course.

>If you really want to be a lawyer take an engineering course
Solid advice user

?

I asked a serious question about whether these authors are redpilled... okay well it was mostly a shitpost but there's a genuine intent.

I'm not interested in another radical bashing the Constitution or another sperg praising the rigidity of law. It seems like this MIGHT be a list that is rather broad and incorporates multiple sides, but then again I know nothing about law.

What should i start reading if i want to study philosophy/economy?
I know you is gon say "THE GREEKS", but which one first, which edition, in what language; should i read a lot of them at the same time?

Is nobody going to answer me? Redpill me on law. What are rights?

Trying to get my mother to read something else besides her usual trash crime fiction. She read Siddhartha and liked it. Anything Veeky Forums but easy reading, if there is a murder to be solved Ill be able to sell it better.

People who use the category of redpill to determine if they will read something are cretins who don't deserve an answer.

If you're going to read Machiavelli make sure to read both 'The Prince' and 'Discourses on Livy'. Discourses on Livy is excellent and you're a psued if you only read The Prince.

Now you're just being prejudiced. I want to know my rights! Where can I read about them?

Lurker here, ty will do

The list I made has a rather clear personal bias to inclusion of a lot of thomists, but it has most authors that get referenced by both mainstream democratic liberals and marxists in the context of political philosophy in textbooks and irl alike.
All of these should have an article on Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Look them up there.

>18 year who wants to become a good lawyer

Have you been secretly killing small animals and burying them in the woods? Keep practicing - you don't want to start off behind the rest of your law school class.

...