The HC/E "What are you reading right now?" Thread

[whiteminority]

Currently I'm reading:
Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzche
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
and less preteniously
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

What are you guys reading? I know we have enough people in here who are in school that read some really interesting books. Let's have a good discussion on what we are reading and why we enjoy/hate the book that we are currently reading.

[cbmartinez]

Just finished The Republic by Plato for class, it was sick, about to start Leviathan by Hobbes. Other than that, I've been meaning to pick up The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides or complete my Bret Easton Ellis collection by grabbing Glamorama.

Nietzche is pretty bad though.

[santi3hg]

Collapse by Jared Diamond. Anthro/Socio Prof from UCLA or something like that I believe.

[team_racket]

Literally just started Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capital, and I just finished The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Vol. 1 by Alan Moore. I loved the style and sense of adventure in league, it was something a bit different.

[whiteminority]

Just finished The Republic by Plato for class, it was sick, about to start Leviathan by Hobbes. Other than that, I've been meaning to pick up The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides or complete my Bret Easton Ellis collection by grabbing Glamorama.

Nietzche is pretty bad though.

I dig Nietzche personally. His style can get a bit long-winded but at his best it's outstanding, I chose this particular work because I didn't feel like reading his various essays and the such which can get a little boring to say the least.

Is The Virgin Suicides supposed to be a good book? I saw the movie and it was really good from what I remember, and I know the rule of thumb is that the novel is always leaps and bounds better than the movie but I'm curious.

I also just finished reading Friday Night Lights. That was a great book. I loved how Bissinger made the struggles of the team so captivating where each win was like a personal mountain conquered and each loss a sheer pitfall that not even the most dedicated eyes could see light out of.

[whiteminority]

Collapse by Jared Diamond. Anthro/Socio Prof from UCLA or something like that I believe.

What is it about?

Literally just started Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capital, and I just finished The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Vol. 1 by Alan Moore. I loved the style and sense of adventure in league, it was something a bit different.

I though DOD was just a photo collection?

[team_racket]

nope. theres plenty of photos, but its mainly text. covers many periods and happenings such as revolution summer and straight edge.

[DFelon204409]

I just read two pretty good books for class. The Beggar Maid by Alice Munro and Jesus' Son by Denis Johnson. Now I'm writing my own short stories for the class. Obviously they are awesome.

[santi3hg]

What is it about?


A look at a couple civilizations which have failed and died out or succeeded. Reasons why and etc and modern societies. A good read but it encompasses a mass amount of information so I can't summarize it well enough, but if you are into anthropology, sociology and the such, you'll enjoy.

[cobert]

Just finished The Republic by Plato for class, it was sick, about to start Leviathan by Hobbes. Other than that, I've been meaning to pick up The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides or complete my Bret Easton Ellis collection by grabbing Glamorama.

Nietzche is pretty bad though.

I still need Glamorama and Lunar Park.

[PenguinOfDoom]

Albert Camus - The stranger
Dostoevsky - Notes from undeground
Jean paul sartre - Nausea

Existential angst = teenage angst for the more pretentious.

[DFelon204409]

The first two of those three blow pretty hard. Having to read Camus in French as well as English didn't help either.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

I am Legend
Zombie Survival Guide
Stephen Colbert's I Am America and So Can You
Jon Stewart - America (The Book)

[cbmartinez]

I still need Glamorama and Lunar Park.

Lunar Park is ****ing incredible.

[cbmartinez]

I dig Nietzche personally. His style can get a bit long-winded but at his best it's outstanding, I chose this particular work because I didn't feel like reading his various essays and the such which can get a little boring to say the least.

Is The Virgin Suicides supposed to be a good book? I saw the movie and it was really good from what I remember, and I know the rule of thumb is that the novel is always leaps and bounds better than the movie but I'm curious.

Nietzche is way too pessimistic for me. But yeah, The Virgin Suicides is supposed to be very good, so is his other novel Middlesex, but the plot for that one looks like it kinda sucks.

[PenguinOfDoom]

I dig Nietzche personally. His style can get a bit long-winded but at his best it's outstanding, I chose this particular work because I didn't feel like reading his various essays and the such which can get a little boring to say the least.

Is The Virgin Suicides supposed to be a good book? I saw the movie and it was really good from what I remember, and I know the rule of thumb is that the novel is always leaps and bounds better than the movie but I'm curious.

I also just finished reading Friday Night Lights. That was a great book. I loved how Bissinger made the struggles of the team so captivating where each win was like a personal mountain conquered and each loss a sheer pitfall that not even the most dedicated eyes could see light out of.


I always found Thus spoke zarathustra to be too social Darwinistic for my liking. It's an interesting angle, but too long and too much is lost in translation.

[PenguinOfDoom]

The first two of those three blow pretty hard. Having to read Camus in French as well as English didn't help either.

Two such highly regarded books in psychology and philosophy can't just be written off as "blowing" dude. I mean these are pinnacles of western literature not some Crappy grind band that you don't like.

[DFelon204409]

Two such highly regarded books in psychology and philosophy can't just be written off as "blowing" dude. I mean these are pinnacles of western literature not some Crappy grind band that you don't like.

Then why do they read like Job for a Cowboy and Vincent Price's Orphan Powered Death Machine?

[PenguinOfDoom]

Actually, now you come to mention it, last time I was reading them in the living room, mid page I jumped up and spun kick my mum in the face.

I couldn't figure out why,
I'm glad you've cleared it up,
I was awfully confused.

[BuddyBigsby]

Just finished Kerouac "On the Road", am about to start another Kerouac book I can't remember the name of right now because I didn't sleep last night/am a zombie right now

Also trying to read what's supposed to be an introductory instructional book on digital recording that has way too many electric engineering terms that are flying way over my head

[i am the robots]

Currently rereading LOTR, since I haven't read the series since 5th grade probably.

[AIRIC]

Just finished Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt. I liked it at first and started to hate it after. It's the memoirs of an Irish boy growing up in Ireland with an alcoholic dad and way too many siblings. Read that for BEST SELLERS

Just started the Kite Runner which takes place in Afghanistan/California and is about the relationship between two boys who are Shi'a/Sunni and Master/Servant etc but also best friends kind of. that was for school too.

And I've been reading As I Lay Dying by Faulkner for myself.

[DFelon204409]

Just finished Kerouac "On the Road", am about to start another Kerouac book I can't remember the name of right now because I didn't sleep last night/am a zombie right now

Also trying to read what's supposed to be an introductory instructional book on digital recording that has way too many electric engineering terms that are flying way over my head

If you like Kerouac you'd probably like Denis Johnson. He deals a lot with drug use but in Jesus' Son it's in Iowa. So really its like the MLIW of post-hippie contemporary literature.

[Mr. Ron]

Currently I'm reading:
Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzche
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
and less preteniously
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

What are you guys reading? I know we have enough people in here who are in school that read some really interesting books. Let's have a good discussion on what we are reading and why we enjoy/hate the book that we are currently reading.

good ****. I just finished it last week. read The gay science by him

[NewKindofArmy03]

Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer

[srt-4]

Just finished The Republic by Plato for class, it was sick, about to start Leviathan by Hobbes.
did you like the style of the republic or the ideas themselves?

[srt-4]

Collapse by Jared Diamond. Anthro/Socio Prof from UCLA or something like that I believe.
guns, germs and steel was impressive. i'm planning on reading collapse sometime soon.

[srt-4]

Just started the Kite Runner which takes place in Afghanistan/California and is about the relationship between two boys who are Shi'a/Sunni and Master/Servant etc but also best friends kind of. that was for school too.
i haven't read fiction for a while, but i have been considering breaking that for this book. its supposed to give a lot of insight into afghanistan. let me know what you think.

[santi3hg]

I just picked up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, always wanted to see his point of view.

[SunnyDayRealEstateAM]

About to read The Motorcycle Diaries by Che for the second time.

[Flagjacket]

Just finished Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt. I liked it at first and started to hate it after. It's the memoirs of an Irish boy growing up in Ireland with an alcoholic dad and way too many siblings. Read that for BEST SELLERS

Just started the Kite Runner which takes place in Afghanistan/California and is about the relationship between two boys who are Shi'a/Sunni and Master/Servant etc but also best friends kind of. that was for school too.

And I've been reading As I Lay Dying by Faulkner for myself.

Kite Runner is a good book.

[Gnarmageddon]

Kite Runner comes before A Thousand Splendid Suns, doesn't it? Or are they even related?

[Mr. Ron]

I just picked up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, always wanted to see his point of view.

I read it. its pretty comprehensive.



did you like the style of the republic or the ideas themselves?

Plato pretty much made an fascist archetype with the republic.

[santi3hg]

I agree with Plato on the "philosopher kings". And sometimes I get confused between Socrates and Plato since Plato's early works are sooo similar. I can't tell who wrote what sometimes so I can't recall memory well.

But the political elite as described in it for the "philosopher kings" is something I would institute.

[Twin Human Highway Flares]

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. She's a bitch but I like the book.

[srt-4]

Plato pretty much made an fascist archetype with the republic.
ya, i know. thats why i asked that question in response to him saying the book was "sick."

[santi3hg]

guns, germs and steel was impressive. i'm planning on reading collapse sometime soon.

Yes it was quite good, pick up Collapse you'll enjoy it.

[cbmartinez]

did you like the style of the republic or the ideas themselves?

the style moreso, I mean obviously the republic is impossible but the way he defines justice is interesting and legitimate. But yeah, it has a socialist tinge at points and I dig that. It feels like Leviathan caters much more to modern day conservatives, don't dig that. I'm sure it will be great though.

[Mr. Ron]

I think Plato is pretty overrated. He hated art, emotion and democracy. This doesn't negate all of his views, not by any means. It just means that I wouldn't really take adivce from him. :^p


Aristotle > all

[Brewing Up With]

Kurt Vonnegut and Carlos Fuentes FTW

[Matt?]

a lot of isabelle allende at the moment.

i'm also reading some book a friend is lending me, i think it's called like a history of ukranian tractors or something. it's pretty good but i think it's like the authors debut so i don't remember his/her name, or the title

[Jawaharal]

dhalgren - Samuel R Delaney

pretty awesome book.

[srt-4]

the style moreso, I mean obviously the republic is impossible but the way he defines justice is interesting and legitimate. But yeah, it has a socialist tinge at points and I dig that. It feels like Leviathan caters much more to modern day conservatives, don't dig that. I'm sure it will be great though.
its been years since i read it, but i do remember some specific things that could be called socialist. but the larger vision was disturbingly fascist.

i'm not sure how you can say the leviathan caters to a group that didn't exist when it was created. and more than that, i think "modern-day conservatism" is too diverse to make a statement like that about it. the conservatism of reagan and goldwater is almost the opposite of the ideas of the leviathan.

I think Plato is pretty overrated. He hated art, emotion and democracy. This doesn't negate all of his views, not by any means. It just means that I wouldn't really take adivce from him. :^p


Aristotle > all
ya, i'm not a fan of plato either. for me, mill and locke > all.

[cbmartinez]

its been years since i read it, but i do remember some specific things that could be called socialist. but the larger vision was disturbingly fascist.

i'm not sure how you can say the leviathan caters to a group that didn't exist when it was created. and more than that, i think "modern-day conservatism" is too diverse to make a statement like that about it. the conservatism of reagan and goldwater is almost the opposite of the ideas of the leviathan.

Yeah, parts of the Republic were definitely fascist, but like I said, I don't think anything Socrates says is even plausible, so it was just interesting to read the theory behind it.

And I've read maybe 6 pages of Leviathan and from what I read it seems like Hobbes says that a government's goal is to provide defense, not deal with what makes the people happy because people will always be occupied with their desires. And I think that modern day conservatism, or maybe better put, republican values put national security as a top priority, definitely over domestic spending programs. Like I said, I haven't read much but that's where I was coming from.

[srt-4]

Yeah, parts of the Republic were definitely fascist, but like I said, I don't think anything Socrates says is even plausible, so it was just interesting to read the theory behind it.

And I've read maybe 6 pages of Leviathan and from what I read it seems like Hobbes says that a government's goal is to provide defense, not deal with what makes the people happy because people will always be occupied with their desires. And I think that modern day conservatism, or maybe better put, republican values put national security as a top priority, definitely over domestic spending programs. Like I said, I haven't read much but that's where I was coming from.
the key thing about hobbes is that while he did specify areas where he thought government should best operate and others where he thought it shouldn't, in the end he gave it absolute authority. it had complete control of everything from courts to the church. he thought that this was necessary to control the natural violence of man and ensure peace. (not to discount his contributions to social contract theory and the idea of the state of nature, though.)

i think you might be trying to draw connections that aren't there. the attitude towards national defense has little to do with this type of political theory, because it deals with the relationship of the nation to other nations. this type of political theory is most concerned with the relationship of the government to the governed.

its tricky to define "republican values" these days, especially since george w bush (and big government conservatism) came to office. but the ideal in the republican party that the government should have as little involvement in domestic affairs as possible is the opposite of hobbes. hobbes maximizes the power of the state relative to the individual (hence the name leviathan). goldwater/reagan-style republicans want to maximize individual liberty in relation to the state.

[cbmartinez]

I see what you're saying, it's valid. Like I said, I haven't read much of it, so my opinions can't really be backed by much, I just got that vibe.

And Republicans (minus Lincoln) just suck, no matter what they believe in.

[srt-4]

And Republicans (minus Lincoln) just suck, no matter what they believe in.
a statement like that is beneath your level of education. libertarian republicans, in general, believe in the values that the nation was founded upon. you really think that sucks?

[Mr. Ron]

Neo-conservatives suck. Key word neo. But, then again I'm a huge liberal and I'm not a fan of the concept of conservatism anyways.






a statement like that is beneath your level of education. libertarian republicans, in general, believe in the values that the nation was founded upon. you really think that sucks?



its been years since i read it, but i do remember some specific things that could be called socialist. but the larger vision was disturbingly fascist.

i'm not sure how you can say the leviathan caters to a group that didn't exist when it was created. and more than that, i think "modern-day conservatism" is too diverse to make a statement like that about it. the conservatism of reagan and goldwater is almost the opposite of the ideas of the leviathan.


ya, i'm not a fan of plato either. for me, mill and locke > all.


They are good too.


My favorite philosophers are Aristotle, Nietzsche, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.

[santi3hg]

**** I hate Ann Coutler sucks soo much. I'll be rejoicing the day she dies.

I'm reading El Cid Campeor for fun as well. Spanish epics ftw.

[cbmartinez]

a statement like that is beneath your level of education. libertarian republicans, in general, believe in the values that the nation was founded upon. you really think that sucks?

I'm honestly pretty much on the border of socialist, I hate Republicans.

[Mr. Ron]

I consider myself a democratic socialist.

[BuddyBigsby]

Whoa, this thread just got way too intelligent for MX.

[DFelon204409]

I consider myself a democratic socialist.

Whoa, this thread just got way too intelligent for MX.

Word.

[Mr. Ron]

No no no this is good!

@_@

[santi3hg]

Yeah holy **** are we all socialists here!?

[Let's Chop Cats!]

**** socialism, I'm gonna be rich as hell.

[cobert]

Yeah holy **** are we all socialists here!?


Yeah.

[whiteminority]

Neo-conservatives suck. Key word neo. But, then again I'm a huge liberal and I'm not a fan of the concept of conservatism anyways.













They are good too.


My favorite philosophers are Aristotle, Nietzsche, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.

All I've read by Zinn is a few chapters of The People's History of the United States before I dropped AP US History last year and I absolutely loved what I read. I really liked the differing viewpoint from traditional History text books. What else would you suggest by him to read?

And since everyone is mentioning their political viewpoints, I like to consider myself a democratic socialist though I have leanings towards towards Individualist Anarchism specifically as espoused by Thoreau, and though it's completely incapable of ever working I like the environmental issues raised by Anarcho-Primitivism though the idea of destroying civilization in favor of the primitives like I said is an obvious impossibility and retared idea.

[Ghostfire3]

Neo-conservatives suck. Key word neo. But, then again I'm a huge liberal and I'm not a fan of the concept of conservatism anyways.













They are good too.


My favorite philosophers are Aristotle, Nietzsche, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.

Chomsky and Zinn are great. A People's History of the United States is a great read.

[AIRIC]

I read it after I took AP History and yeah it was great. When I tried to read it during AP History it felt like I was doing more busy reading than I was all ready.

[srt-4]

Neo-conservatives suck. Key word neo. But, then again I'm a huge liberal and I'm not a fan of the concept of conservatism anyways.
neoconservatism is the bastard child of the socialist left and the socially conservative right.

They are good too.


My favorite philosophers are Aristotle, Nietzsche, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
nietzsche called mill a blockhead, haha.

Yeah holy **** are we all socialists here!?
i definitely am not. i believe that every person is naturally free. i believe the object of government is to preserve individual liberty. i believe in equality before the law. these ideas are antithetical to socialism.

[iamrockzorz]

Albert Camus - The stranger
Dostoevsky - Notes from undeground
Jean paul sartre - Nausea

Existential angst = teenage angst for the more pretentious.

I love love love the stranger.

Reading An oral biography of buster clay - chucky p.

Not bad, but not his best.

[cbmartinez]

John Locke- Two Treatises Of Government

Kicks ***.

Ken Kessey- One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Very good so far

[pixiesfanyo]

Guitar Army

[BarrenFields]

wow this is a great thread topic.

i just finished reading "catcher in the rye", which never gets old.
currently reading "on the road" by Jack Kerouac.

[Tyler]

On The Road is really good, I read it a while back.

currently reading Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse, Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk and Welcome To The Monkey House by Kurt Vonnegut. I'm really bad at reading one book at a time.

[Mr. Ron]

neoconservatism is the bastard child of the socialist left and the socially conservative right.

nietzsche called mill a blockhead, haha.


i definitely am not. i believe that every person is naturally free. i believe the object of government is to preserve individual liberty. i believe in equality before the law. these ideas are antithetical to socialism.


You can have all of that under a socialist based society.

[BarrenFields]

neoconservatism is the bastard child of the socialist left and the socially conservative right.

nietzsche called mill a blockhead, haha.


i definitely am not. i believe that every person is naturally free. i believe the object of government is to preserve individual liberty. i believe in equality before the law. these ideas are antithetical to socialism.
You can have all of that under a socialist based society.

i would have to agree with my friend above me. many countries throughout europe are considered to be socialist countries, but still maintain a controlled capitalistic system. i think your thinking of communism? in my opinion i think a socalist society would be good. that way you dont have people f'ucking each other over all in the name of the almighty dollar.

[cbmartinez]

On The Road is really good, I read it a while back.

currently reading Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse, Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk and Welcome To The Monkey House by Kurt Vonnegut. I'm really bad at reading one book at a time.

How is Steppenwolf? Siddhartha is one of my favorite books ever, I recommended it to my friend here and he liked it so much he went out and borrowed Steppenwolf.

[srt-4]

John Locke- Two Treatises Of Government

Kicks ***.
I agree. But you know that is the opposite of socialism, right? Those are the ideas socialism was designed to replace.
You can have all of that under a socialist based society.
It seems to me that you can’t have those three things, and I’ll try to explain why I believe this. 1) Socialists do not begin with the belief that every man has a natural, inalienable right to freedom. Their analysis of human nature is that it is one of class struggle, not of natural freedom. For reasons I’ll mention in addressing the second issue, a socialist system could never be based on such a belief.

2) The goal of a socialist government is not to preserve individual liberty; it is to promote material equality. This naturally results in a system that usurps individual liberty. This can be demonstrated. If people are left to make free choices in their own self-interest, there will be no redistribution of wealth. Therefore, the government has to infringe upon free choice in order to achieve its goals. It has to take from one class, against its will, in order to benefit another.

Furthermore, freedom largely exists as an absence of government control. Freedom is the power that resides in the individual, not the government. The more power the people have over their lives, the more free they are. Conversely, the more power the government has over the people’s choices, the less free they are. In a socialist system, the government has vast control over human life. A person is dependent upon the government for income, shelter, food, medicine, ect. The government owns or produces all the essentials of life. How can man be free when he is completely dependent on the government for his existence? It seems clear that in such a system the power lies with the government, not the people. A government that seeks to maximize individual liberty can only do so by limiting its own power. Most people naturally see this. That is why a totalitarian government (a government that controls nearly all aspects of life) is viewed to be the opposite of a free society.

Also, it is the natural tendency of those in power to use that power to advance their own beliefs and self-interest. This is true whether it is a minority or the majority in power. That is why the Founding Fathers feared direct democracy. They knew that there is a natural tendency in humans to abuse power. That is why the Constitution delineates so much of what the government can't do in relation to the people. The only way to guard against oppression is to limit the power of government, which socialism certainly does not seek to do. For these reasons, as well as others, I believe that socialist systems are naturally oppressive, and that their aim could never be to maximize individual liberty.

3) A system of equality before the law and a socialist system are opposites. Socialist systems are based on the goal of material equality. People are different. So if they are all treated equally (given equality before the law), then they will naturally end up in unequal positions. To ensure that people maintain equal positions, they have to be treated unequally.

[CatfishJones]

A Clockwork Orange

[cobert]

Im probably going to reread Slaughterhouse Five pretty soon.

[srt-4]

i would have to agree with my friend above me. many countries throughout europe are considered to be socialist countries, but still maintain a controlled capitalistic system. i think your thinking of communism? in my opinion i think a socalist society would be good. that way you dont have people f'ucking each other over all in the name of the almighty dollar.
They are not socialist. They can't be socialist and have a capitalist system. They are mixed, or socialist leaning. But what makes you think we can point to those mixed systems as supporting socialism? Why would a socialist leaning liberal system give support to socialism? How do we know that it isn't the strength of the liberal system being so great that it can somewhat absorb the destructive effects of socialism? It seems to me that we can know. It seems logical to determine the practical successes of the two systems by examining them where they have, to greater extents, existed separately, rather than together. What I mean by this is that we can look at a mostly liberal system against a mostly socialist system, rather than liberal and socialist aspects of a single system. So instead of looking simply at say, Sweden, we can look at East vs West Germany or North vs South Korea. I think these illustrate the practical strengths of the systems well, because we are controlling for culture. Socialism doesn’t work because the natural right of man is to be free to work in his own interest. Liberalism is based on this. That is why it works.

Socialist policies mostly get support due to envy. To illustrate this, we can look at the condition of the “exploited” laborers. Just as Smith claimed, capitalism does create universal wealth. Everyone working in their own self-interest allocates resources most efficiently, resulting in the creation of wealth. Among people who work a full week, nearly everyone is wealthy. Absolute poverty has almost been eradicated by capitalism. Think about it. The advances of capitalism has resulted in a situation where most of the people we call poor have running water (approximately 100% of Americans as of 1995), electricity (approximately 100%), televisions (99%), telephones (95%+), automobiles (93%), microwaves (92%), ect. These are luxuries undreamt of even by the most wealthy 200, or even 100 years ago. In that time, capitalism has advanced everyone. Poverty is mostly relative. Some people can’t appreciate what they have simply because other people have more. That’s sad, and is certainly no grounds for taking from those who have more to give to the envious. In addition, the opportunities given by capitalism have advanced many. A study done in 1975 broke up people in 5 groups based on income from lowest to highest. Out of the 100% of people in the lowest group in 1975, by 1991, only 5.1% remained in the lowest group of earners. A full 29% had even made it to the highest income group, and over 30% were in the second highest. The idea of capitalist oppression of workers is largely a myth.

And regarding capitalism being a system of people ****ing each other over for money, I believe you are mistaken. In fact, one of the few roles accorded to the government by the great capitalist thinkers like Smith was to prevent that very thing. That is in fact one of the cornerstones of the system: rule of law. Everybody is free to compete in an open and fair system. Cheating, lying, stealing, ect are not acceptable. They degrade the efficiency of the system; they transfer wealth to the undeserving. So you are agreeing with a central tenet of capitalism, not opposing it.

Rather, it is socialism that “****s people” for wealth. It is based on transferring wealth from some to others. That’s theft. What if I was to go over to my neighbor’s house and take money from him simply because he had more than me, and I was envious and wanted to make myself better off at his expense? That would generally be regarded as morally wrong. So why is it morally acceptable for the government to do the same thing? I believe it isn’t. I believe that socialism by its very nature is state robbery, which is morally no better than any other robbery. The government has no right to make one person worse off simply to make another better off. Socialism is the embracing of one of the basest of human impulses, envy.

Socialism is antithetical to freedom. People should, in general, be free to produce what they want, consume what they want, and own what they want, just as they should be free to say what they wish, worship as they wish, and associate as they wish. I believe man has a natural right to freedom, and any government that seeks to deprive man of that is unjust.

[srt-4]

haha, i get carried away with that ****^^^

[cobert]

At the fall of MX, you will be remembered in hc/e for your long winded political posts.

[Times Ten]

Republic 2.0 by Cass R. Sunstein
Surf Science by Tony Butt and Paul Russell

[santi3hg]

Yeah holy ****. I'm referencing your post for w/e political argument I get in to now.

[cbmartinez]

I agree. But you know that is the opposite of socialism, right? Those are the ideas socialism was designed to replace.

Yeah, I just really enjoy in the first treatise how he just owns that Sir Robert dude on the whole divine monarchy justification and he's like, "oh yeah, I'm totally not trying to be a dick, but seriously you people are dumb."

As for the second treatise, I just like his thinking way more than Hobbes. I like the idea of retaining certain rights while sacrificing some to the social contract. Seems like pertinent stuff for American democracy.

[whiteminority]

They are not socialist. They can't be socialist and have a capitalist system. They are mixed, or socialist leaning. But what makes you think we can point to those mixed systems as supporting socialism? Why would a socialist leaning liberal system give support to socialism? How do we know that it isn't the strength of the liberal system being so great that it can somewhat absorb the destructive effects of socialism? It seems to me that we can know. It seems logical to determine the practical successes of the two systems by examining them where they have, to greater extents, existed separately, rather than together. What I mean by this is that we can look at a mostly liberal system against a mostly socialist system, rather than liberal and socialist aspects of a single system. So instead of looking simply at say, Sweden, we can look at East vs West Germany or North vs South Korea. I think these illustrate the practical strengths of the systems well, because we are controlling for culture. Socialism doesn’t work because the natural right of man is to be free to work in his own interest. Liberalism is based on this. That is why it works.

Socialist policies mostly get support due to envy. To illustrate this, we can look at the condition of the “exploited” laborers. Just as Smith claimed, capitalism does create universal wealth. Everyone working in their own self-interest allocates resources most efficiently, resulting in the creation of wealth. Among people who work a full week, nearly everyone is wealthy. Absolute poverty has almost been eradicated by capitalism. Think about it. The advances of capitalism has resulted in a situation where most of the people we call poor have running water (approximately 100% of Americans as of 1995), electricity (approximately 100%), televisions (99%), telephones (95%+), automobiles (93%), microwaves (92%), ect. These are luxuries undreamt of even by the most wealthy 200, or even 100 years ago. In that time, capitalism has advanced everyone. Poverty is mostly relative. Some people can’t appreciate what they have simply because other people have more. That’s sad, and is certainly no grounds for taking from those who have more to give to the envious. In addition, the opportunities given by capitalism have advanced many. A study done in 1975 broke up people in 5 groups based on income from lowest to highest. Out of the 100% of people in the lowest group in 1975, by 1991, only 5.1% remained in the lowest group of earners. A full 29% had even made it to the highest income group, and over 30% were in the second highest. The idea of capitalist oppression of workers is largely a myth.

And regarding capitalism being a system of people ****ing each other over for money, I believe you are mistaken. In fact, one of the few roles accorded to the government by the great capitalist thinkers like Smith was to prevent that very thing. That is in fact one of the cornerstones of the system: rule of law. Everybody is free to compete in an open and fair system. Cheating, lying, stealing, ect are not acceptable. They degrade the efficiency of the system; they transfer wealth to the undeserving. So you are agreeing with a central tenet of capitalism, not opposing it.

Rather, it is socialism that “****s people” for wealth. It is based on transferring wealth from some to others. That’s theft. What if I was to go over to my neighbor’s house and take money from him simply because he had more than me, and I was envious and wanted to make myself better off at his expense? That would generally be regarded as morally wrong. So why is it morally acceptable for the government to do the same thing? I believe it isn’t. I believe that socialism by its very nature is state robbery, which is morally no better than any other robbery. The government has no right to make one person worse off simply to make another better off. Socialism is the embracing of one of the basest of human impulses, envy.

Socialism is antithetical to freedom. People should, in general, be free to produce what they want, consume what they want, and own what they want, just as they should be free to say what they wish, worship as they wish, and associate as they wish. I believe man has a natural right to freedom, and any government that seeks to deprive man of that is unjust.

Is there possibly an online copy of that study you referenced in paragraph 2? I am very interested in seeing it.

[cbmartinez]

yeah that sounds fishy

[pixiesfanyo]

saying that any standard government is right for something is completely stupid. its like saying any standard girl is right for someone. sure, i can settle for her if she's got a tight *** but i won't really enjoy it that much. fact is a blended approach is the best for a government and proving that capitalism is better than socialism or vice versa is a quest in the mundane. they both suck sometimes, and they both work extremely well sometimes.

i still don't agree with the fact that capitalism makes those who want to work ultimately wealthy. it is inherit in a capitalist system for their to be a variety of classes. when you are born into the lowest class it is possible to get out but extremely unlikely. people that do succeed in doing it in the U.S. are not the norm who are achieving the "american dream" but rather outliers in comparison to most of their peers. without africa, south america, etc. the U.S. and Europe in no way could be as powerful as they are.

[Tyler]

How is Steppenwolf? Siddhartha is one of my favorite books ever, I recommended it to my friend here and he liked it so much he went out and borrowed Steppenwolf.

Actually my friend recommended Siddhartha to me and I loved it so I got Steppenwolf from the used book store. It's pretty slow...I still haven't read much of it due to short attention span/trying to read like 5 books at once.

[srt-4]

saying that any standard government is right for something is completely stupid. its like saying any standard girl is right for someone. sure, i can settle for her if she's got a tight *** but i won't really enjoy it that much. fact is a blended approach is the best for a government and proving that capitalism is better than socialism or vice versa is a quest in the mundane. they both suck sometimes, and they both work extremely well sometimes.

i still don't agree with the fact that capitalism makes those who want to work ultimately wealthy. it is inherit in a capitalist system for their to be a variety of classes. when you are born into the lowest class it is possible to get out but extremely unlikely. people that do succeed in doing it in the U.S. are not the norm who are achieving the "american dream" but rather outliers in comparison to most of their peers. without africa, south america, etc. the U.S. and Europe in no way could be as powerful as they are.
The “fact is a blended approach is the best…” is a pretty strong statement considering you gave absolutely no evidence or even argument to support it. When has socialism worked “extremely well?” It has only been able to function without causing massive deprivation where supported by the strength of liberalism, but liberalism, on the other hand, has worked without socialism. So what is your basis for mixing a failed system with a successful one and then calling that the best?

I believe that mixed systems aren’t the best. Furthermore, I believe they are inherently contradictory. Man has a right to freedom. How can you say man has the right to freedom in some areas (the parts of liberalism you wish to keep), but has no right to freedom in other areas (the parts of socialism you wish to adopt)? Freedom doesn’t know neat little policy divisions. Freedom is a natural right that applies to all of human activity.

I know my posts were very long, so maybe you didn’t read them. Of course it is inherent in a capitalist system for there to be classes. People are different. So when they are free, they will naturally arrive at different stations in life. Some people will do better with the opposite sex (or the same), some people will be more athletic, and yes, some people will make more money than others. There will always be poor in relative terms. As I already said, due to the universal increase in wealth that capitalism has brought about, every class has been made better off. The wealth of the “poor” has been greatly advanced due to capitalism. See my response to BarrenFields for my support for this statement.

You also claim that the poor have little chance of achieving the “American Dream.” Again, you give no support for this. And again, you can see my same post for my support for the opposite claim. However, even if you were right, and the poor never moved out of poverty, due to capitalism, what is today called poverty would have been called wealth a century ago. So if we didn’t have capitalist “exploitation” for the last 200 years, and everybody had been living in blissful material equality, then we would all be living below the standard of living that we currently define as poverty! Like I have already said, the goal of reducing material inequality isn’t about improving the conditions of mankind over time. It is about making sure that some people don’t have it better off than other people, even if everybody is worse off for this in the long-run.

And could you elaborate on your last claim?

[srt-4]

At the fall of MX, you will be remembered in hc/e for your long winded political posts.
haha
Is there possibly an online copy of that study you referenced in paragraph 2? I am very interested in seeing it.
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf
that whole report is on income distribution, but the pages that discuss the study i mentioned are 8, 10, and 12 as adobe marks them, 6, 8, and 10 as report itself numbers them.

[pixiesfanyo]

my last claim was that a country can't succeed in a capitalist system without another one failing. it literally isn't possible for every country to be an america in a capitalist system. also i don't reallhy feel like taking the time to look up sources for my explanations since i'm just shooting **** on a message board. just the working poor have been the same for the past one hundred years and sure maybe now they have more avenues to spend their money on (tvs, cars) but that certainly doesn't make their life "better".

[srt-4]

my last claim was that a country can't succeed in a capitalist system without another one failing. it literally isn't possible for every country to be an america in a capitalist system. also i don't reallhy feel like taking the time to look up sources for my explanations since i'm just shooting **** on a message board. just the working poor have been the same for the past one hundred years and sure maybe now they have more avenues to spend their money on (tvs, cars) but that certainly doesn't make their life "better".
The working poor are immensely better off by measures of material wealth (which is all socialists are concerned with) than they were 100 years ago. I’m not even sure how you can claim they aren’t. You're saying simply because they have cars and tvs (material wealth) that the poor 100 years ago didn't have doesn't mean they have more material wealth. Your argument doesn’t make sense.

And as for: “a country can’t succeed in a capitalist system without another one failing,” that shows such a lack of understanding of economics that it’s shocking. The belief that capitalist economics is zero-sum is so easily demonstrated to be false that it’s hard to understand how an intelligent person could hold it.

I’ll provide a simple example. You have a record I want to buy. I give you $20 and you give me the record. You obviously wanted the $20 more than you wanted the record, or you wouldn’t have sold it to me. In other words, you valued the record less than $20. I clearly wanted the record more than I wanted the $20, or I wouldn’t have bought the record. In other words, I valued the record more than $20 dollars. So by engaging in free trade, we both received something that we valued more than what we gave up. We both gained. That is capitalism, but that obviously isn’t zero sum.

By contrast, it is socialism that is zero-sum. It is based on making one person worse off in order to make another better off. That is zero-sum.

To further disprove your claim, the entire world experiences net economic growth (4.5% in 2005). If one nation’s growth had to come at the cost of another’s, net world growth could never be above 0. More than that, the theory of comparative advantage has been around almost 200 years. It shows how nations benefit from free trade. Instead of spending more time typing out a description, I’ll let you read it here: http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch40/T40-0.php.

Also, we can look at areas that have opened themselves up to trade with the West, such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, ect, which are vastly more wealthy than similar nations that isolate themselves from Western “exploitation.” For a 15 year period from the 1980s through 1990s, they had an average GDP growth rate of 7-8%. Also, China began abandoning socialist economic policies and opening its economy up to the West in 1978. In the following 25 years, it experienced an average annual GDP growth rate of above 9%. We can also look at India, which after independence was focused on socialist policies and economic protection from Western “exploitation.” The deleterious effects of these policies were obvious, and they were abandoned in the 1990s. It began liberalizing and opening itself up to the West. Since then, India has seen increases in life expectancy, decreases in poverty, and had an average GDP growth rate of more than 7% from 1996-2006.

[whiteminority]

haha

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf
that whole report is on income distribution, but the pages that discuss the study i mentioned are 8, 10, and 12 as adobe marks them, 6, 8, and 10 as report itself numbers them.

Thank you, got this bookmarked.

=)

[whiteminority]

Reading these that I got for my birthday/Christmas:
I am America and so can You by Stephen Colbert
America: The Book by Jon Stewart
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

[cbmartinez]

America the book is amazing, I got Colbert's book too, Stewart's is funnier so far but I Am America is awesome. The zinn book is great too, I've read some. I also got:

The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Euginedes
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
The Stranger by Albert Camus
The Informers by Bret Easton Ellis
White Noise by Don Delillo

[santi3hg]

I'm rereading Catch 22 and Clockwork Orange.

[team_racket]

Black Hole by Charles Burns. Theres a David Lynch feel too it, but overall its a pretty mediocre graphic novel.

[whiteminority]

The Virgin Suicides is so good. It has this weird detective story feeling and can seem so damn dark and melencholy but at other times is ****ing hilairious in a dark way of course.

[cobert]

Started reading Lunar Park yesterday.

[cbmartinez]

you're gonna like it alot

[illpressureurhinges1]

Anyone read Everybody Hurts by Leslie Simon and Trevor Kelley?

[DFelon204409]

Nahh I read the first chapter and at a book store. That book subscribes to a Dashboard-Confessional-inclusive view of emo so I didn't think it was worth the read.

This may seem really nerdy and weird but I just finished a book called Unknown Quantity by John Derbyshire, which is book documenting a general history and development of algebra. It reads like a History Channel show and is really great for beginning college undergraduates or casual math people.

[whiteminority]

Algebra kicks ***.

I'm a nerd, especially for that kind of ****.

[cbmartinez]

math sucks

[AndreTheHyena]

Actually my friend recommended Siddhartha to me and I loved it so I got Steppenwolf from the used book store. It's pretty slow...I still haven't read much of it due to short attention span/trying to read like 5 books at once.

Hesse is one of my favorites. You should check his poetry, it's some despondent ****. Some of his poems sound like Converge lyrics...

How heavy the days are.
There's not a fire that can warm me,
Not a sun to laugh with me,
Everything bare,
Everything cold and merciless,
And even the beloved, clear
Stars look desolately down,
Since I learned in my heart that
Love can die

If you like Hesse, you should check out Knut Hamsun. He was a Norwegian writer, and he's often overlooked and not discussed because he was mistaken as a Nazi sympathizer in WWII. He wrote Pan, one of my favorite books of all time, and Hunger, which is comparable to Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller and Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky.

I'm reading lots of poetry recently; Lorca, Blake, and Dylan Thomas. Also trying to wade through Walden, and I just bought a book by Don Delillo, one of my favorite authors, and one of the few modern fiction writers I can stand, that I'm pretty excited about.

I just finished This Land Was Made for You and Me by Elizabeth Partridge, Hyperion, by Dan Simmons, and Story of the Eye, a classic of French pornographic surrealism by Georges Bataille.

And I've been on a search for good books about Hindu philosophy and various Native American histories/sympathies (especially Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto, by Vine Deloria).

White Noise by Don Delillo

My favorite work of modern fiction, by far. Vonnegut who?

I read a lot. I'm totally gay for books.

[whiteminority]

math sucks

Love it.

[siska]

Hesse is one of my favorites. You should check his poetry, it's some despondent ****. Some of his poems sound like Converge lyrics...



If you like Hesse, you should check out Knut Hamsun. He was a Norwegian writer, and he's often overlooked and not discussed because he was mistaken as a Nazi sympathizer in WWII. He wrote Pan, one of my favorite books of all time, and Hunger, which is comparable to Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller and Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky.I love every writer in this quote. Since you guys seem into this kind of writing you should read Journey to the End of the Night by Louiss Ferdinand Celine. Its the darkest, most hilarious book I've ever read.

Reading: Hell's Angels by Hunter S. Thompson

[Ghostfire3]

The Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut

[AndreTheHyena]

Since you guys seem into this kind of writing you should read Journey to the End of the Night by Louiss Ferdinand Celine. Its the darkest, most hilarious book I've ever read.

I've recently discovered that we have three really excellent bookstores in town, so I've been spending lots of time/money at them of late. I'll keep an eye out for this.

[Skyler]

World War Z by Max Brooks. I like zombies.

[Sammy_L_D]

Know Your History by Ignite.

[iamrockzorz]

World War Z by Max Brooks. I like zombies.

is this good? I've noticed it in stores many times when I was looking for other things.

I need some recommendations guys.

My taste includes novels like
Naked Lunch
House of Leaves
All of Chuck Palahniuk books
Douglas Coupland
Slaughterhouse Five/Cat's Cradle etc etc
American Psycho - Ellis's novels

Give me some good authors!

[cbmartinez]

If you like Bret Easton Ellis, look into:

Jay McInerney- Bright Lights, Big City (fellow member of the literary brat pack with ellis, they have cameos with each others characters)
Sylvia Plath- The Bell Jar (this one is kind of a stretch, but if you enjoyed Catcher In The Rye by any chance pick this one up)
Jeffrey Eugenides- The Virgin Suicides

[iamrockzorz]

If you like Bret Easton Ellis, look into:

Jay McInerney- Bright Lights, Big City (fellow member of the literary brat pack with ellis, they have cameos with each others characters)
Sylvia Plath- The Bell Jar (this one is kind of a stretch, but if you enjoyed Catcher In The Rye by any chance pick this one up)
Jeffrey Eugenides- The Virgin Suicides

I've seen the virgin suicides movie but thanks for reminding me, i wanted to read that.

I actually just bought the bell jar ?_?

and I'll look into McInerney! thanks

[Mechanical Kangaroo]

America the book is amazing, I got Colbert's book too, Stewart's is funnier so far but I Am America is awesome. The zinn book is great too, I've read some. I also got:

The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Euginedes
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
The Stranger by Albert Camus
The Informers by Bret Easton Ellis
White Noise by Don Delillo

If you've read it yet, how was The Stranger? It was recommended to me a while ago and I forgot to look into it. I just remember the summary sounded kind of dull. But if it's more of an analytical read I might pick it up. Well, a good analytical read, that is.

Currently Reading:
Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins
Book Of Five Rings by Musashi
Betting On The Muse and The Last Night Of The Earth by Charles Bukowski

[iamrockzorz]

If you've read it yet, how was The Stranger? It was recommended to me a while ago and I forgot to look into it. I just remember the summary sounded kind of dull. But if it's more of an analytical read I might pick it up. Well, a good analytical read, that is.

Currently Reading:
Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins
Book Of Five Rings by Musashi
Betting On The Muse and The Last Night Of The Earth by Charles Bukowski

Charles Bukowski is good

apparently others don't agree with me, but i loved the stranger

[cbmartinez]

i've only read a bit of the stranger but it's good so far

[team_racket]

The perks of being a wallflower and Audio culture are taking up my time.

[Mechanical Kangaroo]

Cool, thanks for your input on The Stranger, guys.

And yeah, I love to read Bukowski's stuff. I find it really interesting. His poems are great but I really like his short stories, as well.

[iamrockzorz]

Cool, thanks for your input on The Stranger, guys.

And yeah, I love to read Bukowski's stuff. I find it really interesting. His poems are great but I really like his short stories, as well.

Yes yes, i just bought "post office" which i'll read after a few others.

The Stranger is a pretty straightforward story, but theres a lot in it if you take the time to think about it. It was the initial spurt of Existentialism in my English class a few years ago, and it thoroughly offended some people... which I loved haha.

[iamrockzorz]

The perks of being a wallflower and Audio culture are taking up my time.

Perks is a good book. It got banned from my school two years ago when we read it because of someones mother reading that part about masturbation. Lawl. I generally hate people who dictate their lives after that book though. If I see "we accept the love we think we deserve" on another myspace, someones going to die.

[cobert]

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin