If you absolutely had to pick only 1 book to recommend...

[A Son of Liberty]

Drat. Beat me to it.

ETA:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wesker1982 again.

 

[PierzStyx]

lol @ people recommending 1984 and brave new world. Many current americans had to read those books in school growing up; looking around at the state of things i can only come to the conclusion that they thought the scenarios in those books sounded like a good idea.

But most did not apply what they were reading. When you begin applying the ideas, start thinking and comparing, that is when they come alive. Schools get you to regurgitate, not think about what is going on.

 

[PierzStyx]

That is a fine book with a lot of very good themes, but it is only a Science Fiction novel.

It's good to have read that book when you want to participate on forums like these and know what people are talking about when they reference it, but you should not look at it as though it were a comprehensive guide to all things to avoid from government, because it's not.

Its barely science fiction. The conditions of the people and mentality of the state were based on Soviet Russia during Stalin's reign. That said, I disagree about its comprehensiveness. It doesn't list everything you should be wary about, but it does hit the big ones and the things it does talk about it does cover in depth.

 

[PierzStyx]

1984 wasn't even good enough to convert the one who wrote it! If one is to recommend something like that, go with Atlas Shrugged. At the very least the author wasn't a socialist.

Just the first neocon.

 

[jj-]

Just the first neocon.

Some people don't need any help to humiliate themselves.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

"1984" was my first pick too
Second one was "Brave New World"
Third would be "Animal Farm"

If you want educational: Bastiats "Law"

*I dont play by your rules

If I ever have kids I'm going to read that to them when they're young. I didn't get a chance to read it until the 6th grade.

 

[PierzStyx]

Some people don't need any help to humiliate themselves.

Apparently not. Go study up on how Ayn Rand was all for using US military forces and money to defend Israel, even though she preached nonintervention for everyone else.

Though I will admit she wasn't the first neocon.

Also, I think its hilarious how many people here love Ayn Rand and hate Rand Paul on foreign policy even though they both waffled on pure nonintervention.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

That is a fine book with a lot of very good themes, but it is only a Science Fiction novel.

It's good to have read that book when you want to participate on forums like these and know what people are talking about when they reference it, but you should not look at it as though it were a comprehensive guide to all things to avoid from government, because it's not.

The book actually draws from history in case you didn't know:

Much of Oceanic society is based upon the U.S.S.R. under Joseph Stalin—Big Brother; the televised Two Minutes Hate is ritual demonisation of the enemies of the State, especially Emmanuel Goldstein (viz Leon Trotsky); altered photographs and newspaper articles create unpersons deleted from the national historical record, including even founding members of the regime (Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford) in the 1960s purges (viz the Soviet Purges of the 1930s, in which leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were similarly treated

Orwell was a socialist but his book seems to be warning against it. The party is named IngSoc which comes from English Socialism.

 

[farreri]

For the evils of foreign aid and interventionism:

Dollars & Dictators: A Guide to Central America

 

[danda]

Libertarianism in one Lesson, by David Bergland

The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible, by Ken Schoolland.

The philosophy of Freedom. online animation.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

A lot of people like the fiction books mentioned here, but don't "get" the message being conveyed. Non-fiction is the way to go, IMO. Subtlety seems to be lost on modern audiences. I may change my mind later, but I think "Man, Economy, and State" is what I would recommend.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

A lot of people like the fiction books mentioned here, but don't "get" the message being conveyed. Non-fiction is the way to go, IMO. Subtlety seems to be lost on modern audiences. I may change my mind later, but I think "Man, Economy, and State" is what I would recommend.

nvm it hit me

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The book actually draws from history in case you didn't know:

Much of Oceanic society is based upon the U.S.S.R. under Joseph Stalin—Big Brother; the televised Two Minutes Hate is ritual demonisation of the enemies of the State, especially Emmanuel Goldstein (viz Leon Trotsky); altered photographs and newspaper articles create unpersons deleted from the national historical record, including even founding members of the regime (Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford) in the 1960s purges (viz the Soviet Purges of the 1930s, in which leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were similarly treated

Orwell was a socialist but his book seems to be warning against it. The party is named IngSoc which comes from English Socialism.

Indeed. The book was based on "We"-written by Yeveny Zamyatin in the 1930s as a sort of satire of Soviet life. "We" and "1984" are the most accurate fictional depictions of the future (our present) I'm aware of.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Could you elaborate?

They don't see the correlation/parallels between the story world/events and real life. Outside libertarian circles, I don't even hear the word "Orwellian" or "Dystopian" anymore. Make sense?

 

[jj-]

They don't see the correlation/parallels between the story world/events and real life. Outside libertarian circles, I don't even hear the word "Orwellian" or "Dystopian" anymore. Make sense?

Idiot leftists talk about Orwell all the time. They are morons just like him.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

In that genre, Napoleon Hill is better, IMO.

 

[kuckfeynes]

Apparently not. Go study up on how Ayn Rand was all for using US military forces and money to defend Israel, even though she preached nonintervention for everyone else.

Though I will admit she wasn't the first neocon.

Also, I think its hilarious how many people here love Ayn Rand and hate Rand Paul on foreign policy even though they both waffled on pure nonintervention.

I'm not an Ayn Rand disciple, but I don't think you can really compare the two. They come from totally different places. Ayn Rand's minor interventionist streak was due to deeply embedded prejudices, and she was just a philosopher (albeit an influential one).

Rand Paul has no discernible philosophy guiding his interventionism besides the desire to seek influence, and is one of only 535 whose decision is needed to to engage in such matters of life and death.

Two very different shortcomings affecting two very different degrees of responsibility.

 

[green73]

I think "Man, Economy, and State" is what I would recommend

That's a bit heavy for a starter

 

[jj-]

That's a bit heavy for a starter

A bit? I bet HB wouldn't pass a quiz on it either.

 

[COpatriot]

Machiavelli's "The Prince"