/lit/ - Literature

>>17954713
I like Sowell because his books are technically political but are mostly completely removed from modern political rhetoric. Basic Economics for instance doesn't mention republicans or democrats or anything related to general political discourse, it just depicts economic principles in a self contained sphere of logic with real world examples. I say this because I also hate politics, but I like Sowell. I would say Sowell hates politics, though maybe in a different way from what you mean. I know I hate politics myself, but I enjoy Sowell.

>>16649158
Probably read Sowell.

>>16297521
Imagine fucking actually finally reading Sowell and coming to the conclusion that he is extremely biased, holy shit.
He speaks plenty about where in society government can do better than the masses, generally military and other forms security, things which a government would naturally need control over to exist in the first place.
Secondly on your idea of bias; Sowell presents very few opinions, at least in his own mind. His conclusions are derived from the perspective of viewing massive amounts of complementary data and outcomes throughout history which form a narrative or logic about that environment. It's a form of analytical conclusion making derived from empiricism rather than a conclusion derived from rationality or logic. If there is any real bias in Sowell's writing, it is towards utilizing history as a decision making tool for the present and the future, whilst ignoring sentiments or rationalizations which might seem "correct" on the surface to the uninformed.
The only valid counter arguments to Sowell must function within that same conclusion-deriving framework, and for practically everything in basic economics, there are none. The only people who might argue that minimum wage and rent control helps poor people are those which either do not know or do not care about the statistical facts and history of such policies throughout the world. This person could not be called an economist by any verifiable or accountable definition, and if you consider that form of conclusion making to be valuable in the first place (i.e. derived from what sounds valid rather than what is proven to be valid through empiricism), then you're a fucking moron and you missed half the point of the book.
Read more Sowell until you get it. Intellectuals and Society is pretty good.

>>16242879
Based and empiricism-pilled. Read Intellectuals and Society to better understand his critics and the psueds itt.

>>16027491
I would recommend Intellectuals and Society. None of what he writes is dogma, he's an excellent debunker of dogma through empiricism and history. His writing is very good. I would highly recommend Intellectuals and Society. It explains a lot of how people like this
>>16027526
come to be so backwards logically.

Another good book by him is Black Rednecks and White Liberals. It goes over basically a large portion of the cultural history of the United States, and how different groups have evolved over that time. It's a good overall cultural history of minorities, slavery, and immigration in the US.

And then there's Basic Economics, which is a really simple explanation of how various economic systems and principles work separate from political and moralist rhetoric. I think any of these three points would be good.

Did you just say labour theory?