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

[PierzStyx]

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.

Sure he does. Rand Paul believes that interventionist steps (such as sanctions) can be taken when a nation presents a danger to the country, but that open war should only take place under situation of an open attack and only when declared by Congress. Very paleo-Republican. Is this nonintervention in its purest sense? Not at all. But there is a philosophical guide there.

Ayn Rand was if anything a hypocrite. She openly was against intervention except in the case of Israel where she was about as gung-ho as our Evangelical friends who think God wills we protect America. Note I am not saying she believed this for religious reasons, but that her dedication was as intense.

The imperfection of both of them though doesn't mean they should be totally rejected in my book. The Fountainhead is still one of my favorite books. And Rand Paul has done a lot of good but his isn't his father.

 

[PierzStyx]

That's a bit heavy for a starter

Yeah. If you're starting on economics, "END THE FED" has a list of Beginner, Moderate, and Advanced books on the subject in the back of it.

 

[PierzStyx]

Always found Orwell's socialism simply fascinating since he wrote perhaps the two most anti-socialists books in history...

Orwell believed that socialism could be used for the good and to expand liberty and justice if practiced correctly. But he also recognized that socialism could also be twisted and warped into what you saw in Stalinist Russia (as he portrayed in 1984). He was a utopian, but wasn't completely blind. I'd say its sad he never got that utopian socialism just is impossible. Socialism will always lead to 1984 if not interrupted.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Orwell believed that socialism could be used for the good and to expand liberty and justice if practiced correctly. But he also recognized that socialism could also be twisted and warped into what you saw in Stalinist Russia (as he portrayed in 1984). He was a utopian, but wasn't completely blind. I'd say its sad he never got that utopian socialism just is impossible. Socialism will always lead to 1984 if not interrupted.

Orwell was never a socialist. He was an anarcho-syndicalist. If he were alive today I think he would be very sympathetic to our movement and ideals, and not as douchey and idiotic as someone like Noam Chomsky who is a rabid Statist parading around as a farce of An-Sync.

 

[axiomata]

There's plenty of good short online nudges towards libertarianism listed in this thread. But the final push and the cement is Human Action by Mises.

 

[Shane Harris]

imo the best, shortest read on individualism vs. collectivism is Anthem.

 

[enoch150]

So many people here say this...It's definitely the other way around... In Brave New World everyone was grown out of test tubes and the entire society was scientifically calculated- controlled by massive amounts of sex and drugs.

You wouldn't go from BNW to 1984... you'd go from 1984 to BNW as technology advanced itself to make BNW possible...

Agreed. The point of the test tubes was more illustrative, I think. The idea was that children belong to the state. Germany, Japan, Australia, Russia, and other countries now directly subsidize people to have children. After they're born, most get a factory education that teaches them flag waving worship of the state. Once they're older, they get Ritalin or Prozac. Some would include fluoride. Drugs like alcohol, marijuana, and, increasingly, extasy and cocaine are culturally glorified. And that is really the goal, just like in Brave New World. Forcible medication by the government is difficult because people instinctively rebel. Encouraging cultural acceptance is better, but many will still stand aside if there is no peer pressure to join in. Creating societal peer pressure to make your problems disappear with Soma allows for a much more docile and controllable society. And then there's the distractions on the idiot box every night - baseball, porn, American Idol, video games, and the daily play struggle between Republicans and Democrats.

The stick of 1984 is only used by incompetent rulers who haven't yet learned that control is much easier when people love their servitude.

 

[qh4dotcom]

 

[realtonygoodwin]

Total Money Makeover - Dave Ramsey

 

[qh4dotcom]

Total Money Makeover - Dave Ramsey

Ramsey is a clown who claimed Peter Schiff was an idiot and he was wrong...he bragged he didn't own any gold and it's a stupid investment...can't believe you are recommending this clowns book

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S98_eMax9xo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amluk6HxUH8

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

imo the best, shortest read on individualism vs. collectivism is Anthem.

By Ayn Rand?

 

[thoughtomator]

I always found Ayn Rand to be an absolutely horrible writer... every damn thing is about 10x as long as it needs to be (minimum) to get the point across.

 

[idiom]

Is there anywhere you can check to see if everybody in a thread has set you to 'ignore'?

 

[fisharmor]

Of the ones I've read so far, The Road to Serfdom makes the most cogent argument.
1) Freedom caused an unprecedented rise in standard of living
2) For some reason, people weren't content with the pace of that rise
3) Enter the idea of central planning
4) Central planning by nature attracts the worst elements of society
5) Therefore, Nazi Germany
6) Here's what the rule of law is
7) Central planning can't give us what it promises, only tyrants
8) Here's how to get back to #1

I like a lot of the other books suggested, but I don't see a whole lot of writing style difference between Henry Hazlitt and Anne Coulter. "Let's just throw a bunch of stuff together that supports the idea and make it readable".

If the reader can't cope with unabridged Hayek, I'd definitely go with The Law, though.