Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Talk about music, movies, TV, books, other types of entertainment and what your vices are. Also, if you're addicted to the high you get off Aspirin, this is the place to talk about it.
For non-fiction I'd start with The Gulag Archipeligo.
Well, sure, but I was thinking more along the lines of...
Niccolò Macchiavelli - The Prince
John Rawls - A Theory of Justice
Carl Schmitt - The Concept of the Political
Sūnzǐ - The Art of War
John Dunn - The Cunning of Unreason
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
Adam Smith - An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Wow you mention some good stuff here. What's The cunning of the Unreason and Leviathan about? I've heard about Leviathan but it was some time ago. Never heard about TCoU.
I could google it but that would spoil the discussion.
Actually I'm googling anyway. Can't wait for your slow ass Kashluk. You're supposed to reply when I write!
I think I'm gonna read the Gulag thing first though. Seems interesting to.
Updating as it goes along. I just google Leviathan. I've read something about this in the past I think.
The Cunning of Unreason's subtitle is Making Sense of Politics, so it's more or less a 'guide book' to modern political science, political thought and concrete political action. And it also goes through the links between those three. The issues it handles include democracy, corruption, globalization and conservatism, to mention a few. It's a good read, very enlightening. Builds a nice 'big picture', which you often miss when reading lone classics here and there.
Leviathan being one of them (lone classics). It's basically all about building a nation in form of a human body, where the Sovereign is the head and controls the rest unchallenged. It's one of those societal contract - theories that have the idea of 'natural state' from which men sign a deal to get rid of: they give away some of their 'natural' rights in order to gain some rights (security, peace, equality etc.). It's a good read. Long, tedious and hard to understand (ye olde English) at times, but still a very good book.
Isn't the idea of social contract that you are duty bound to pay taxes because the previous generation payed them for to create the facilities that you used? Something like this, very short and fuzzily explained by me.
But yeah that's a bit the same I guess.
I think I'll read the Cunning of Unreason and the Gulag thing first so I'm just curious on how he justifies the existant of the sovereign.
Why did you have to post a 100 books? Those lists are rarely meaningful since how are you really going to decide between the 72nd and the 73rd book? Did I spell that right? Should it be 72nd and 73rd or should I say "between the books at 72 and 73?"
Either way I would get rid of all the gay books like the bible and stuff.
Join us on IRC at #fallout on the gamesurge.net network.
Username wrote:Isn't the idea of social contract that you are duty bound to pay taxes because the previous generation payed them for to create the facilities that you used? Something like this, very short and fuzzily explained by me.
Username wrote:Isn't the idea of social contract that you are duty bound to pay taxes because the previous generation payed them for to create the facilities that you used? Something like this, very short and fuzzily explained by me.
Kind of but not really.
Username wrote:The bible is an epic tale dude, don't diss it.
Well my fellow critics of liberalism usually mention it in debate when we are discussing with liberals about how a stateless society with a collective wanting collective financing would be able to work the next generation if even a few object to it.
My side usually mentions something like the social contract as a must if you aren't going to have a strong state. But I think it might be a loss in translation.
Hippies still lived within a capitalist society. Thats like saying communism lost, and ignoring the fact that communism cannot compete with capitalism, as capitalism incorporates all ideologies and manages to make £££ no matter what. Its not even a competition, its a one way roflstomp.
