Good Counter-Liberalism books ?

[matlock]

I read Hayek etc, and their arguments were well written in their volumns.
I'm looking for something on the other side, literature that offers systematic counter arguments, especially from a historic perspective.
Can someone help to recommend any writers/books ?
Much thanks in advance.

 

[Ikari]

I have oft found that people mistake Hayek. What sort of "proof" are you looking for?

 

[YoungConserv]

Atlas shrug lays out good morale arguments, John Locke gives good perspective into a founders influence and the federalist papers are allways good for understanding the intent of the constitution.

 

[X Factor]

The US Constitution? :mrgreen:

 

[Ikari]

Atlas shrug lays out good morale arguments, John Locke gives good perspective into a founders influence and the federalist papers are allways good for understanding the intent of the constitution.

The anti-federalist papers are a better source of information, IMO.

 

[Carjosse]

Anything by Ayn Rand as long as you enjoy reading crap.

 

[YoungConserv]

Anything by Ayn Rand as long as you enjoy reading crap.

What's wrong with rand I loved atlas read it in 3 days couldn't put it down.

 

[274ina]

Every other western nation if you want pro left examples. LOL

 

[YoungConserv]

Every other western nation if you want pro left examples. LOL

Yes because Greece, France and Italy are great examples of where liberal social programs get you.

 

[gavinfielder]

I read Hayek etc, and their arguments were well written in their volumns.
I'm looking for something on the other side, literature that offers systematic counter arguments, especially from a historic perspective.
Can someone help to recommend any writers/books ?
Much thanks in advance.

An education helps.

 

[Carjosse]

What's wrong with rand I loved atlas read it in 3 days couldn't put it down.

I the political aspect of it and as an authour she is horrible.

 

[matlock]

Every other western nation if you want pro left examples. LOL

yeah true, is there any systematic theoretical foundation of these government practice ?

 

[Cyrylek]

I read Hayek etc, and their arguments were well written in their volumns.
I'm looking for something on the other side, literature that offers systematic counter arguments, especially from a historic perspective.
Can someone help to recommend any writers/books ?
Much thanks in advance.

I am a little confused. Hayek having been, indeed, a classical liberal - what we awkwardly call "libertarian" in America - you are asking for an equally good example "on the other side"? Which other side? The social democrats (incongruently called "liberals" in America) or the conservatives? (I assume "other other sides", like orthodox Marxists, are of little interest).

 

[YoungConserv]

I the political aspect of it and as an authour she is horrible.

The morale arguments she lays out are great.

 

[beerftw]

I read Hayek etc, and their arguments were well written in their volumns.
I'm looking for something on the other side, literature that offers systematic counter arguments, especially from a historic perspective.
Can someone help to recommend any writers/books ?
Much thanks in advance.

no book is ever a counter anything,they can be informative but you yourself must critically anylize the world around you,not be told how to see your world.

 

[274ina]

Yes because Greece, France and Italy are great examples of where liberal social programs get you.

Yes they are! How about you show me the 26,000 each year in France that die because of denied HC. (like in USA)

 

[Cyrylek]

Anything by Ayn Rand as long as you enjoy reading crap.

Reading Ayn Rand BEFORE reading less idiosyncratic classical liberals, from Bastiat to Hayek, from Mill to Mises, etc can be quite toxic for a young mind.
(And after reading them all, there's really no need to read Ayn Rand)

 

[Carjosse]

The morale arguments she lays our great.

No they are not, pretty weak exaggerated arguments, that would never apply in any real society. Not to mention I just hate her writing, it's quite obviously an ideological rag where there is no attempt to hide it in subcontext or an interesting plot. She is either a horrible writer or thinks her audience is a complete idiot.

 

[Carjosse]

Reading Ayn Rand BEFORE reading less idiosyncratic classical liberals, from Bastiat to Hayek, from Mill to Mises, etc can be quite toxic for a young mind.
(And after reading them all, there's really no need to read Ayn Rand)

I have never read any political based authour besides Ayn Rand, which I read for school because I form my own opinions.

 

[matlock]

I have oft found that people mistake Hayek. What sort of "proof" are you looking for?

not sure if I made the mistakes, but generally counter point for minimal governance, spontaneous order vs design in social science, attribute any historic progress to increase of freedom and reduction of government power, etc.

 

[ecofarm]

I have never read any political based authour besides Ayn Rand, which I read for school because I form my own opinions.

You need to avoid reading stuff to form your own opinions?

 

[gavinfielder]

not sure if I made the mistakes, but generally counter point for minimal governance, spontaneous order vs design in social science, attribute any historic progress to increase of freedom and reduction of government power, etc.

There is no definitive proof of any of it; social sciences is like that. Milton Friedman would probably be your best bet, honestly, but even his policy stances are more a product of his ideology than his empirical work (which I readily grant is brilliant).

But you can't really read Friedman's empirical work without having a strong background in economics; frankly, most people even lack the reading comprehension, at least in my generation. It's the same for anything. You need a strong education to really get any value from the most valuable political theorists of any field, and a strong foundational education will go much further than simply reading stuff.

 

[matlock]

I am a little confused. Hayek having been, indeed, a classical liberal - what we awkwardly call "libertarian" in America - you are asking for an equally good example "on the other side"? Which other side? The social democrats (incongruently called "liberals" in America) or the conservatives? (I assume "other other sides", like orthodox Marxists, are of little interest).

Thanks, yes I probably will be more interested in the main stream alternatives. But anything you find logically sound and is in depth is also good.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

But you can't really read Friedman's empirical work without having a strong background in economics; frankly, most people even lack the reading comprehension, at least in my generation. It's the same for anything. You need a strong education to really get any value from the most valuable political theorists of any field, and a strong foundational education will go much further than simply reading stuff.

This is very true. You need a sound understanding of economics and monetarism. "Econ 101 and 102" will not get you very far (then again that's true for most things). :lol:

 

[gavinfielder]

Wait, you meant counter-liberalism as in pro-liberalism? God that's confusing.

Mainstream liberalism has too many hackjobs. Critical thinking is the best ally.