So I’ve spent the last year and a half reading libertarian literature, and any allegiance to the idea of a minarchy I have left is hanging by a thread. I’d like to balance my reading though with some hardcore statist reading. So who are the great statist philosophers? Who can elucidate the concept of the collective for me, the “public good”? Who justifies the existence of the state in the most eloquent and hard hitting way?
Thanks in advance.
I would say Rousseau.
Why exactly? Have you read much economics yet?
Or anarcho-capitalist sources?
If you want to read the statist books, why not do so - via Austrian critiques?
We only have so much time on earth.. there is only so many books you can read. [:)] Why read the bad ones?
Employ your time in improving yourself by other men’s writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for.
- Socrates
I can offer you some ineloquent soft hitting ones?
Doesn’t that smack of cultish faith being afraid of touching the writings of others in case one destroys one’s deepest prejudices? I know this may not be true for all of us, but surely many are here because they have been able to see that libertarian positions are the only ones that are logically consistent with the most basic truths and values that we hold dear? If this is the case, why should one be scared to read the writings of others? As a scientist, surely we must treat every opposing doctrine as fully and consistently as possible, otherwise we emulate those who we criticise as ignorant.
Besides, doing it the hard way(socialism first), and reserving judgement until one has a read a full range of opinions could make one really hardcore, like another Hoppe![6]
Plato was a pretty hardcore statist philosopher…
No, it doesn’t - since faith has nothing to do with it. And “afraid” ? Haha what?!
If you mean - afraid of wasting my time reading fallacies, lies and invalid arguments - sure!
The thing is I get the same level of ignorant discourse at university - daily. I live the counter (statist) arguments, of all stripes & colours - daily… in fact, these “books” speak back and try to refute my arguments.
Now… why on earth - having already spent 9/10th’s of my “intellectual journey” reading statist retarded dribble, should I suddenly feel compelled to read more of it, so that I can maintain some kind of “balance”, or so I can avoid the claims of “blind faith”?
It’s a personal choice. If you want to ‘dominate’ a field, by all means - you’ll have to read the “opposition”, and then provide your own critiques - which is great!
What I object to is the suggestion a laymen needs to read Das Capital first hand, instead of say - Bohm Bawerk’s refutation, or they should read General Theory instead of Hazlitt’s line by line refutation…
Personally, I don’t see the point - when I already know the LTV is a crock, partly because I previously believed it, same goes with nearly ever other fallacy out there. The only reason I am “here”, is because I have maintained an open mind and willing to consider my position. I always will. As such, charges of "close mindedness’ are baseless.
Schopenhauer (extrapolating upon Lichtenberg’s aphorism): Life is too short to read all the good books, so why would you read poor books?
I simply want to know more about the framework in which most people think. I’m trying to find someone who explains the idea of the State to me. I know everyone here rejects the idea, but it’s still a discrete concept that has been debated for hundreds of years. So I wanna know what the origin and basis of the concept is. I understand individual liberty, it stems from self-ownership. I don’t understand the state, where does it stem from. It seems like a fantasy to me, a convoluted idea. Maybe that IS the final analysis, but I think there are some pretty smart people out there who have written about the idea of the State and their justification of its existence. I don’t mean as a necessary evil, either, but as a natural thing.
So yeah, know the opposition. Jason Sorens recommended John Rawls “A Theory of Justice”. Anyone heard of this book?
I like Hobbes, also Machiavelli.
Leviathan and The Prince. Also the Social Contract by Rousseau.
The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are pretty hardcore Statits readings…
Yeah. Rawls is pretty much the Nozick of egalitarianism.
It’s really difficult to say what you should pick and read without knowing a little more about your interests. From the point of view of an economics students I don’t think it makes much sense to say you want to read some “statist” economics. At the end of the day, there’s good economics and there’s bad economics, and Austrian economics doesn’t have a monopoly over the former. Austrian economics is just one approach to describing the real world, one that focuses on entrepreneurship, information and realism in general.
Like I said, if you recommend a specific area of economics or whatever other discipline you’re interested in then it may be easier for people to give helpful suggestions.
First off, thanks a lot for everyone’s responses, including the LOLcats.
I’m not so much interested in the economics of communism or socialism. I am more interested in reading about the human institution of the State. Like, there are philosophers (like Plato, Aristotle) who talk about the State as if it is a feature of the natural world. The State being a just and natural outgrowth of human organization. If anyone knows where the Greek philosophers talk about this OR other philosophers throughout the ages, I would greatly appreciate it.
There’s a philosophy behind the State, and it’s more than just the appeal to emotion of “we need to protect the children!” and “it’s a necessary evil”. I want to read someone who believes THAT. 
And as far as deciding how to spend your time reading books - when you are making a huge shift, i.e. from minarchy to anarchy, you need to be absolutely sure and convinced before you take such a bold step. In my opinion anyway. The bigger the question, the more time you need to spend before you make a decision on it. The question of any government or no government is a huge one because of its obvious moral consequences. So I just wanna make sure I hear exactly what the other side is saying before I make my choice on such a deep matter.
PEACE!
How about Jeremy Bentham, the British utilitarian philosopher who conceived of the “ultimate prison” , what he called “The Panoptican”?
From the Wikipedia entry on the** Panoptican**:
"The Panopticon is a type of prison building designed by English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham in 1785. The concept of the design is to allow an observer to observe (*-opticon) all (*pan-) prisoners without the incarcerated being able to tell whether they are being watched, thereby conveying what one architect has called the “sentiment of an invisible omniscience.”
"Bentham himself described the Panopticon as “a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.” "
Although I have read very little Bentham myself, it seems to me that any one capable of dreaming up such an idea and taking it seriously must have written some pretty extensive justifications for the state in their lifetime.
P.S. [ irrelevant info]: There is a tremendous [in my opinion[:D] ] famous, modern work of fiction [ i.e a “dystopian Sci-Fi” novel ]called “The Traveller” , by John Twelve Hawks , an author who apparently lives entirely “off the grid”,[a big point in his favor, from my point of view[:)] ], where the main plot centers around a plan by a sinister group called “The Brethren” to create and install a modern, up-dated Panoptican system to house the states dissenters/criminals and thereby create a “more peaceful world” for “everyone else”.
In “The Traveller” there is a working government camera on every street corner- a fact of everyday life in a few cities already, as most of you are probably aware.
Regards, onebornfree
Hobbes Leviathon should be your first stop on the road back here - IMHO
You should compliment your study by reading “The State” by Franz Oppenheimer. It’s not a pro-statist book like you seem to be after, but it is a thesis on the genesis and evolution of the State from ancient tribal society to the modern constitutional era. A really good read.
That may be so, and I commend you on coming through your intellectual journey the hard way with an open mind consistently, before arriving at your current position, but this thread wasn’t about adivsing you but the opening poster.