Read these books or go to hell.

[Circa2113]

I've been reading a lot of Ayn Rand stuff lately.

The woman was a genius, IMO.

[JoshF]

Genious isn't the first word that comes to mind.

[Neon]

Yeah she's a d-bag.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

[Krooze L-Roy]

I got about two thirds of the way through Atlas Shrugged and just couldn't force myself to finish it. It caused me not to pick up another book for about a year. I couldn't stand ANY of the characters, and their conversations were absolutely cringe-inducing to my sensibilities.
If she'd thinned out about 75% of the meaningless relationship fluff, the book perhaps wouldn't have been so exhausing to me, because when Rand did feel the idol desire to actually push the core story forward, it was pretty good.
A lot of female authors tend to carry on a bit much IMO.

[Acid King]

Yeah she's a d-bag.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

That website doesn't work right. I was interested to read the criticisms of libertarianism but it wouldn't load past the list of hack libertarian statements he criticizes.

[JoshF]

Any libertarian I know of is a pretentious anarchist who's too afraid to call themselves an anarchist. Maybe there's a different kind.

[Acid King]

Any libertarian I know of is a pretentious anarchist who's too afraid to call themselves an anarchist. Maybe there's a different kind.

Thats because when people think anarchist they think of stupid punk kids that bitch about capitalism and free trade.

[Neon]

Sun Tzu's Art of War and Moby Dick

I felt like an arr-tard checking these out, being such an uncultured fuckface that I haven't even read the classics! I wanted to check out something underground and new just to be hip. lol

[Pirate1019]

I've read a little of the Art of War but I didn't finish it. I have a .pdf of it somewhere on this piece of garbage.

I'm currently reading through Live from Death Row by Mumia Abu Jamal and I have to say that it's an interesting read. I'm not sure if it's kosher for me to say I enjoy the book seeing as the content is mostly about how people in high security prisons or on death row are abused and mistreated much more then the press lets you see.

[doctorx0079]

I've been reading a lot of Ayn Rand stuff lately.

The woman was a genius, IMO.

<RANT>

That's great Circa2113. I would just like to mention here that AYN RAND WAS NOT A LIBERTARIAN. The Libertarians have been feeding off of her since they started in the 70's. She was always specifically against Libertarians and anarchism. Rand was an advocate of individual rights, which cannot exist without a government to protect them. So . . . getting back on topic somewhat, I recommend The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, which is about the dishonesty of the Libertarians to her and the Brandens in particular. Fascinating stuff.

</RANT>

Okay, carry on.

[Acid King]

I've been reading a lot of Ayn Rand stuff lately.

The woman was a genius, IMO.

<RANT>

That's great Circa2113. I would just like to mention here that AYN RAND WAS NOT A LIBERTARIAN. The Libertarians have been feeding off of her since they started in the 70's. She was always specifically against Libertarians and anarchism. Rand was an advocate of individual rights, which cannot exist without a government to protect them. So . . . getting back on topic somewhat, I recommend The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, which is about the dishonesty of the Libertarians to her and the Brandens in particular. Fascinating stuff.

</RANT>

Libertarians don't object to government existing, just limiting the powers of government. Most libertarians aren't anarchists (except anarcho capitalists) they're "minarchists".

[doctorx0079]

I've been reading a lot of Ayn Rand stuff lately.

The woman was a genius, IMO.

<RANT>

That's great Circa2113. I would just like to mention here that AYN RAND WAS NOT A LIBERTARIAN. The Libertarians have been feeding off of her since they started in the 70's. She was always specifically against Libertarians and anarchism. Rand was an advocate of individual rights, which cannot exist without a government to protect them. So . . . getting back on topic somewhat, I recommend The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, which is about the dishonesty of the Libertarians to her and the Brandens in particular. Fascinating stuff.

</RANT>

Libertarians don't object to government existing, just limiting the powers of government. Most libertarians aren't anarchists (except anarcho capitalists) they're "minarchists".

Libertarians want to oppose government any way they can. They permit anything as long as it is anti-government. They disagree about what point to stop opposing government at. If they ever got a momentum going though, it's hard to see how it could stop at less than total anarchy, as the most radical members would be pushing the change. Ayn Rand by contrast was very critical of the government we have, but she was not anti-government. She paid all her taxes and otherwise followed the law, because she believed in the rule of law, even those she opposed many of the specific laws. It is Libertarians who incite people to disobey the rule of law on principle.

[Acid King]

Libertarians want to oppose government any way they can. They permit anything as long as it is anti-government. They disagree about what point to stop opposing government at. If they ever got a momentum going though, it's hard to see how it could stop at less than total anarchy, as the most radical members would be pushing the change. Ayn Rand by contrast was very critical of the government we have, but she was not anti-government. She paid all her taxes and otherwise followed the law, because she believed in the rule of law, even those she opposed many of the specific laws. It is Libertarians who incite people to disobey the rule of law on principle.

I think that's a misrepresentation of libertarians. I mean, you do have the crazies that say people shouldn't pay their taxes because taxes are "theft" or advocate violent revolution but that's the minority. You can't judge something by the extremists. Most libertarians want to keep the government down to essential functions, like police and the military and allow room for plenty of government functioning. Parties are driven by the moderates, not the fringe. The heart of libertarianism is letting people do what they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other people. The government definitely has a role in protecting our rights (or eroding them as the case may be). The average libertarian is more like Trey Parker, not Jim Bell.

[doctorx0079]

Libertarians want to oppose government any way they can. They permit anything as long as it is anti-government. They disagree about what point to stop opposing government at. If they ever got a momentum going though, it's hard to see how it could stop at less than total anarchy, as the most radical members would be pushing the change. Ayn Rand by contrast was very critical of the government we have, but she was not anti-government. She paid all her taxes and otherwise followed the law, because she believed in the rule of law, even those she opposed many of the specific laws. It is Libertarians who incite people to disobey the rule of law on principle.

I think that's a misrepresentation of libertarians. I mean, you do have the crazies that say people shouldn't pay their taxes because taxes are "theft" or advocate violent revolution but that's the minority. You can't judge something by the extremists. Most libertarians want to keep the government down to essential functions, like police and the military and allow room for plenty of government functioning. Parties are driven by the moderates, not the fringe. The heart of libertarianism is letting people do what they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other people. The government definitely has a role in protecting our rights (or eroding them as the case may be). The average libertarian is more like Trey Parker, not Jim Bell.

I'm talking about the capital-L party faithful, like the presidential candidates that get on the ballot most elections. If you want to use small-l libertarianism to refer to something else, fine. I stopped using that term for Rand's position because I think it confuses people.

[Acid King]

I'm talking about the capital-L party faithful, like the presidential candidates that get on the ballot most elections. If you want to use small-l libertarianism to refer to something else, fine. I stopped using that term for Rand's position because I think it confuses people.

Eh... see, I think even with the LP, most members are more realistic than ideological, least all the ones I've come across. Your experience may vary. I'd recommend Reason magazine as a good representation of libertarianism or, in reality, classical liberalism (before the word liberalism was raped of all original meaning, of course).

The problem with the LP is that it's not as pragmatic as it should be, too radical for the most part. Most everyone would agree that the government is too fucking big, but not many are going to agree with dumping the FDA altogether or legalizing drugs overnight. That's why I think a libertarian (running as a Republican or Democrat, of course) candidate could have a good chance at winning a presidential election if only they would ditch the radical rhetoric and promote "baby" steps like sentencing reform for drug offenders, cutting subsidies (agricultural and oil especially), simplifying our bloated tax code, dealing with illegal immigration by streamlining the INS and legal immigration procedures... etc etc but I digress.

[dave4shmups]

How's Piers Anthony for fantasy? I knew someone in school who loved his books, so I've always been curious.

[Pirate1019]

Right now I'm in the process of reading Live From Death Row by Mumia Abu Jamal. Quite the interesting read.

[Acid King]

Every week I pick up Naked Lunch and read a random section. That's whats good about a book with no linear narrative. You can read it however you want.

[Randorama]

Jared Diamond's "Germs, guns and steel" and " Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed". Ah, did I suggest Dawkin's "The god delusion"?

[CMoon]

I still have yet to pick up a book by Jared Diamond, but it seems everyone I read references him...

[Randorama]

I still have yet to pick up a book by Jared Diamond, but it seems everyone I read references him...

They are both fabolous and awesome, like my neighbour says. Some people simply can be better at writing (another one is "soccer mom" Pinker), and get their point in a few words. I quoted him during a meeting with people from the biology department and I got a lot of enthusiastic feedback. The academia equivalent of bulging pants!

EDIT:

"Dynamics of meaning" by Gennaro Chierchia (1995). Rarely I have read books that gave me such a clear and sharp feeling of a subject, let alone my main specialization. By no means an introductive book (rather a state-of-the-art one), but really the most useful thing I have read on the most advanced topics of semantics.

And if you've read this far, I'd be rather surprised.

[Minzoku]

How's Piers Anthony for fantasy? I knew someone in school who loved his books, so I've always been curious.

All over the place. Of the Xanth novels, the earlier the better--later installments are kinda... he's just stretching things out for the sake of posterity or something.

Most of his standalone books are pretty good, though. I recall being pretty enthralled with Steppe when I read it, although Triple Detente is a bit heady and goes off on this whole frightful notion that the world would be better off with maybe 10% of its population. [This might be true, but it means the executors of this plan will be more hated than the Nazi regime--hence why the alien "invaders" have to do it.]


It occured to me that plugging Philip Reeve's Mortal Engines would be capital OOP, though, so you may have to dig to find it. Cities on wheels, WOOT!

[dave4shmups]

How's Piers Anthony for fantasy? I knew someone in school who loved his books, so I've always been curious.

All over the place. Of the Xanth novels, the earlier the better--later installments are kinda... he's just stretching things out for the sake of posterity or something.

Most of his standalone books are pretty good, though. I recall being pretty enthralled with Steppe when I read it, although Triple Detente is a bit heady and goes off on this whole frightful notion that the world would be better off with maybe 10% of its population. [This might be true, but it means the executors of this plan will be more hated than the Nazi regime--hence why the alien "invaders" have to do it.]


It occured to me that plugging Philip Reeve's Mortal Engines would be capital OOP, though, so you may have to dig to find it. Cities on wheels, WOOT!

Ok, thanks for that info! What are some good standalone books from him, besides Steppe?

And how about Alan Dean Foster? IMO, he did a fantastic job novelizing the first three Alien movies, but I've never read any of his other stuff.

[Krooze L-Roy]

Kurt Vonnegut Jr (easily my favorite author), died last week with hardly any fanfare or publicity. I wouldn't have even known he was dead now if I hadn't tried to look up a funny quote of his to post on another board.

Anyway, much respect and R.I.P. to the man.



If you've never actually read any of Vonnegut's books, you should definately check one of them out to see what you've missed. I recommend Slaughterhouse-Five if you want to see him in top form, Breakfast of Champions if you want to see him at his most bizarre and hilarious, or God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater if you want something fun and easily to digest.


As a side note, little over two months ago, a talentless psuedo-celebrity, known only for her profound lack of intelligence and taste, also died. For literally weeks this was all you could see on TV, and still to this day, if you channel surf for a just couple minutes, you're almost guaranteed to see something regarding her pitiful life and pointless, sloppy death. Meanwhile, a great American author dies and it probably only got a 30 second blurb on the 11 o'clock news.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01159.html


So it goes.

[Randorama]

Neon should read any book by Daniel Dennett, possibly now. "Breaking the spell" is made of win and good! (My nerdism is going beyond the limits of decency).

EDIT:

Vision" by David Marr is a great book, even if many things have been improved over the years, it still retains its original ground-breaking flavour. Shame he had an ill hand played on him.

[Minzoku]

Ok, thanks for that info! What are some good standalone books from him, besides Steppe?

I completely blanked after I thought about that My reading habits were pretty spastic back then, as they are now, so I haven't gotten a thorough sampling of his non-Xanth works. Through the Ice was pretty good, although the end was kinda sappy, but a lot of that was he was actually fixing up Robert Kornwise's manuscript. [The author's note explains why he was doing that.] My friends like the Pale Horse books, though.

Ditto on Vonnegut as brilliant author to be missed

[Neon]

Neon should read any book by Daniel Dennett, possibly now. "Breaking the spell" is made of win and good! (My nerdism is going beyond the limits of decency).

What vile commie bunk is this you're trying to push on me, auBlander? Wikipedia doesn't really get to the point and I have class in a minute.

Guns, Germs, and Steel ftw although that's the only one of his I've looked into.

About God Delusion, I'm already a devout atheist and from what I gather he attacks religion as the cause of many wars, persecutions, etc. when in reality it just acts as the moral justification for such happenings...but I'll read it after Art of War so I can make an accurate judgement.

Make everyone equal under the law.

Amen!

[Randorama]

What vile commie bunk is this you're trying to push on me, auBlander? Wikipedia doesn't really get to the point and I have class in a minute.

Guns, Germs, and Steel ftw although that's the only one of his I've looked into.

About God Delusion, I'm already a devout atheist and from what I gather he attacks religion as the cause of many wars, persecutions, etc. when in reality it just acts as the moral justification for such happenings...but I'll read it after Art of War so I can make an accurate judgement.

No, both books explain the principles and mechanics of "organized religion" (actually, monotheism, by and at large), including what are the shortcomes into committing blindly to such flogistons. One thing is just saying "I don't believe" and another is "I don't believe because I know how it works and what problems it triggers".

[Minzoku]

Ok, thanks for that info! What are some good standalone books from him, besides Steppe?

My brain started working again!

The Mode Series--Virtual Mode, Fractal Mode, Chaos Mode, and DoOon Mode--is really good, though it's about a suicidal girl and it spends the whole series worrying about if she's actually going to kill herself in the end, or come to terms with why she's suicidal.

And there's a lot of shagging.

[Last Guardian]

Just started in W. Gibson's Neuromancer. The first two chapters are pretty awesome and he describes a kind of gritty future I somehow find strangely attractive.

Kind of dissappointed Case is unable to experience the destructive power of drugs anymore and how the story moved a continent but it's still great reading and I look forward sucking in the rest of his cyber babble.