Good sci-fi books or NWO books.

[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.

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