AnCap literature

[Anonymous No.18232307]

Recommend me some AnCap/Libertarian books.

[Anonymous No.18232315]

>>18232307
The Unique and Its Property by Max Stirner.

[Rieux No.18232361]

Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom are both classics. Both are considered political science texts; the former leans towards philosophy/theory while the latter is more based in economics. Couldn’t recommend either enough.

[Anonymous No.18232369]

>>18232307
Start with The Tao Te Ching
https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/lao-tzu-c-600-bc

[Anonymous No.18232375]

[Anonymous No.18232420]

>>18232369
This is really interesting

[Anonymous No.18232480]

>>18232307
Don't

[Anonymous No.18232498]

>>18232480
thanks for the answear retard

[Anonymous No.18232503]

>>18232498
guess im retarded, answer.

[Anonymous No.18232681]

>>18232307
This guy isn’t an AnCap but Hoppe’s criticism of democratic wars strikes me as inspired by him:
Carl Schmitt. I’d start with the Nomos of the Earth, gives a good overview on the contrast between pre-WWI and democratic wars.

[Anonymous No.18232745]

>>18232681
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.18232770]

>>18232745
Np

[Anonymous No.18234396]

>>18232315
Stirner didn't believe in "natural rights" or any other nonsensical defense of institutional property

>>18232361
Neither of them are anarchists. In fact both justify a liberal government.

>>18232681
Schmitt justified a totalistic form of statism.

[Anonymous No.18234463]

>>18234396
Stirner is still a libertarian though because libertarians can reject natural rights for consequential-ism
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism
And more so, Stirner had capitalist inclinations - he translated Adam Smith and a ton of Austrians. His book was also extremely anti-communist to the point of making Marx have a seizure. More so, you, can defend private property without even relying on institutional arguments.

[Anonymous No.18234570]

>>18232307

For me, it's Bastiat. He makes good use of vivid thought experiments.

https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2731/Bastiat_CW3.pdf

[Anonymous No.18234584]

For fiction Heinlein has some great libertarian sci-fi books. I'd especially recommend Glory Road and Methuselah's Children.

[Anonymous No.18234649]

>>18234584
I get the sense that much of Science Fiction and even Fantasy was being written in California for a couple of decades. Moreover, most of it had a vaguely libertarian sensibility. Everything from Philip K. Dick to Jack Vance displayed a keen awareness of the importance of freedom and the dangers of tyranny.

[Anonymous No.18234667]

That'll be a token for each post, maams.

[Anonymous No.18234679]

>>18234396
>Stirner didn't believe in "natural rights" or any other nonsensical defense of institutional property
Hoppe rejects natural rights as well. you're thinking of Rothbard.
>>18234463
>Stirner had capitalist inclinations - he translated Adam Smith and a ton of Austrians
I have his translation of Smith but you're wrong about the Austrians. the school didn't exist as such before Carl Menger. he did translate J.B. Say though who was a massive influence on Austrian economic thought.

[Anonymous No.18234695]

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

[Anonymous No.18234756]

>>18234463
>Stirner is still a libertarian though
It depends on how you define "libertarian". I would say he is but he doesn't fit to comfortably with most others.
>And more so, Stirner had capitalist inclinations
He got into translation to make quick cash as much as anything ideological, Marx and Engels had more capitalistic inclinations since Engels literally owned a factory and financed Marxs work out of that profit
>His book was also extremely anti-communist to the point of making Marx have a seizure
Engels liked it
>More so, you, can defend private property without even relying on institutional arguments.
No you can't, if you're defending "private property" from a purely individualist perspective there's no necessity to recognize anyone's claims you don't agree with. You have to bring in god or something to say I'm wrong. Stirner used the term "property" in a philosophical sense not legalistic manner.

>>18234679
>Hoppe rejects natural rights as well.
[citation neeeded]

[Anonymous No.18234811]

>>18234756
>I would say he is but he doesn't fit to comfortably with most others.
I would say it does considering his taoist influence, which is the progenitor of libertarianism, his defense of psychological egoism, utility which is the theoretical justification of capitalism i.g. self interest, and his hatred of the state.
>He got into translation to make quick cash as much as anything ideological, Marx and Engels had more capitalistic inclinations since Engels literally owned a factory and financed Marxs work out of that profit
This is silly argument because you are ironically saying Stirner being an entrepreneur isn't proof of his capitalist inclinations, and the fact that he was a business man who ran a milk co-operative. Engels doesn't count because he advocated for communism and tyranny. Stirner advocated for the most extreme form of liberty.
>if you're defending "private property" from a purely individualist perspective there's no necessity to recognize anyone's claims you don't agree with
There is though. Stirner defends private property out of self interest and consequentialism. Recognizing private property benefits me because the respect for that property means people are less likely to take my property, and more likely to co-operate with me because we share a common, egotistical interest in defending our property.
>used the term "property" in a philosophical sense not legalistic manner
This argument is even stupider considering law if the product of philosophy - they are not mutually exclusive, which Stirner recognize since he considered all laws, regulations to be ultimately egoistical.

[Anonymous No.18235095]

>>18234811
If you think most people defending capitalism are doing it on some sort of utilitarian grounds you're way off, in fact most people doing so think they're being morally correct. In fact pareto optimality is in many ways the ultimate cuck criterion to prevent you from doing based things.
Now you bring up Stirner being involved in some failed milk co-op which is actually pretty pathetic. Compare portfolios being managing between Engels and Stirner, not even close.
Really Stirner never developed a defense of the institutional basis of property. Any possible defense is totally circumstantial and not a rejection of taking whatever you want. What can be alienated from you isn't really yours to begin with. All legislators and judges are spooked not egoists since they think their working in the interest of justice

[Anonymous No.18235212]

This thread was moved to >>>/wsr/1024267