The most complete online offering of the literature of the Austrian School and libertarian ideas, including books, journal articles, and other writings, sorted by author or any method you choose.

On this site there are a number of publications and essays on economics and politics etc.

'High Alert' by Anthony Wile - is available for free here: PDF FILE
How the Internet and the global power elite are causing a financial hurricane and how to profit from it.

Frog wrote:
Erm...

oioioi wrote:
That is the byline of the book title. It's just a source of information what people do with the information is what matters surely? Of course people can chose to ignore it and bumble around in ignorance. I haven't read it so I can't pass comment I found it while looking at something else and thought it may interest other people.

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

Er....he gave an interview to FrontPage?!?

here it is

Di Lorenzo is even worse


So he's a shill for the Tobacco Lobby and a white supremacist

It's a source of books if you have an issue with what you read and who writes it then I guess that is a matter for you to deal with! Don't bother trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't read or how I should interpret it.

Frog wrote:
It sure is.
Frog wrote:
And discuss here.
Frog wrote:
I must have missed that post. Where did anybody do that?

mikey mikey wrote:
That would be this part 'Di Lorenzo is even worse' which is a copy and paste from sourcewatch.org so it's hardly your views they are the views of an organisation which is devoted to telling you what you should think of a given source!

That's a stretch Frog.

You recommend a site bunch of wingnuts and then get pissy when I point out that the one of the fellas suck Phillip morris cock through a white hood.

Hahahahaha

mikey mikey wrote:
Recommend? It's a source of books! Going by your logic these authors and the subjects they discuss and agendas they server should be ignored because some fucking crackpot website tells you what they want you to think! Humm maybe you should go and join some book burning society and help everyone remain ignorant or other peoples views and opinions.

I never got pissy and I never used foul language or threw a fit over nothing!

I also could have quoted your closing comment "So he’s a shill for the Tobacco Lobby and a white supremacist". which is clearly you stating your opinion and directing how other people should think. I guess in your mind that conclusion would be a stretch.

All I have done is add a source to books which people can read and then form their own opinion. For some reason you seem to have an issue with people doing that!

The point is that many of the views expressed in some of these books are exactly the type of material that the establishment don't want people to read and they certainly don't want people having an informed opinion. Would you object to a thread linking to Tragedy and Hope or Darwin's work on eugenics? Are they authors and books you would ban us from reading?

hey, i like those 2 sites actually. not like im a purveyor of politcal polarities, i hate em all. some of the books look interesting

Frog wrote: Yeah, it's in the name of the sub forum doncha know?
Frog wrote:
Are you familiar with the "strawman fallacy"?
Frog wrote:
So when you offer your opinion by recommending a site, you are using your freedom of speech. But when I offer my opinion on one of the authors of said site, I am "directing how people should think. Is that it?
Frog wrote: And yet when I offer a refernce using wikipedia and sourcewatch (a poltically neutral and reputable site) you say I am citing a "fucking crackpot site". Nice.
Frog wrote: Nope I just pointed out the background of two prominent authors. the problem is clearly anybody posting anything critical of your recomendation.
Frog wrote:
Have you stopped torturing your pets?

(I can couch strawmen fallacies in rhetorical questions too. )

mikey mikey wrote:
I provided a source to some books which some members may actually be interested in. It's the equivalent of directing someone to a library. In that respect it's a recommendation a heads up to something which is available to them.

The Daily Bell site has some current articles and happens to be the source of a pdf. Personally I don't see an issue with people recommending anything to read! I recommend The Grand Chessboard, not because I condone its contents or because I have some deep obsession with Brzezinski! The whole point is to get a balanced view and an understanding of both sides of a debate. Something you seem to have an aversion to. Books such as Tragedy and Hope were never intended to the eyes of the working man. The information that is available in these books is important and I would say that certain people would rather we couldn't access them. That is where the power of the internet comes in and the ease of access to digital copies of these books is a benefit.

Yes I am and clearly you're not - which is amazing considering your prolific use of fallacies.

It's not your opinion it's the opinion of the site you have referenced. I doubt very much that you are familiar with the all the writings of the people you're spouting off about! I'm certainly not in a position to make a claim either way. I'm not about to take the opinions of a website and some whacko on a forum when I have no basis to form an opinion of my own.

I don't think any site which tells people what and how to think could be considered unbiased or politically neutral. Just because you put your trust in such sources doesn't mean that others should follow suit.

You're using that source as an appeal to authority, not in support of your personal opinion based on your own understanding. That can hardly be considered an opinion now can it? *Retorical*

Your not being critical of my recommendations simply because I haven't made a recommendation. I have provided a source where information is available. I have only just found the sites myself. I haven't read all or even a fraction of what is available on those sites, so I am hardly in a position to recommend or endorse the content! The point you seem totally unable to grasp is that I have recommended a location which provides access to content.

How exactly do you think people should evaluate information if they don't actually have access to it? By search the authors name on sourcewatch.org?

It's a valid question would you recommend that people actually read Darwin especially if they are going to pass comment on his work and his conclusions? Recommending The Assent of Man to someone doesn't mean that the person recommending the book is pro-eugenics or a fan of Darwin! Some loon pasting piles of shit, highlighting Darwin's past associations and personal beliefs in an attempt to discourage someones investigation of his work is on a par with a book burning mentality. Either you're happy for people to draw their own conclusions or you're not. Evidently you would rather ward people off than allow them to gain their own insight, or are you claiming that your input was intended as encouragement for inquiring minds?

G'day Frog.

Thanks for the link mate.

I had a quick look at the book titles and will get around to downloading some of them.

Frog wrote: Strawman #1
The phrase above suggests that this is in comparison to me: i.e. you are implying that I have objected to you recommending someting to read. I have not. That is a deliberate distortion and indeed a lied. I only offered the background of two authors of one of the sites you linked to.111Frog wrote: Strawman #2
I have not suggested that you have any obsession
Frog wrote: Strawman #3
I have not tried to offer either side of any debate on this thread.
Frog wrote: Strawman #4
I have never mentioned this book, nor its author
Frog wrote: By all means point them out.
Frog wrote:
Well wikipedia and Sourcewatch were the sites that I quoted from. Please demonstrate that these are "whako" or "crackpot" websites and please show the information that I provided by them is indeed false.
Frog wrote:
Sourcewatch does not "tell people how to think" . Infromation on Sourcewatch here.
Frog wrote:
My point precisely. Cos that goes for your OP links right?
Frog wrote:
I was supplying information about the background of two authors. Please decide whether or not you think that constitutes expressing my personal opinion. Thank you.

Frog wrote:
You began this post conceding that the OP is indeed a recommendation. Now you are negating that. Please decide if you are and may I remind you that the sub forum is entiteld with the word "recommended".

Frog wrote:
So in fact now you are recommending the site. When a few lines ago, you er..weren't.
Frog wrote:
Strawman #5
I never suggested people should not have access to the site.
Frog wrote:
Strawman #6
I have not said that these authors reflect on you in any way.
Frog wrote:
Strawman #7
I have not suggested that anybody burn any book. Nor have I suggested that people not read the authors' works. I just pointed out their backgrounds. Something freely available on wikipedia.
Frog wrote:
Strawman #8
I have not expressed any reluctance for people to draw their own conclusions: indeed that was the purpose of supplying the information about those two authors. Information that is freely and easily available on wikipedia.

I can see both viewpoints no problem here.
Its pointless getting wound up over it, there's some really evil people in history who have some valuable input just as there's some good people with valuable input.
Its just a case of applying your own filter to the info and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

You'll never get a liberal education unless you read/watch some books/films that are also boring/distasteful etc etc.
The more the input the better the output.

Its like the leftie vs wingnut debates that bore the crap out of me so much and when I get labelled by each as being in the other camp...its simply that I've read a lot of stuff from both sides and I've come to the conclusion that its all bullshit because even when its not authoritarian material it still adheres to the economic paradigm. Coming to that conclusion though obviously requires investigating all the usual stuff and analyzing all their strengths and weaknesses.

For example tobacco...I am not against the sale of it any more than any other drug, what I am against is govt sticking its dick in where its not needed. The same applies to advertising.
If people learned to ignore it then the companies wouldn't bother using it and we'll never learn to do anything like that unless we're set free to make our own decisions.

Thats the freedom side of things but purely from an economic perspective.

Then there's the social perspective, how do you have as many people as possible enjoying life in general, getting a good education, healthcare, uncensored media and all the quality of life aspects yet at the same time maintain economic freedom?

This is basically the dilemma, the core of it so to speak. The only correct answer has to be to ditch money altogether and not only that but to ditch government too because we have had an economic paradigm in place for hundreds if not thousands of years and it is well ingrained into the human psyche of all but the most well educated and importantly RICH people who have so much money that they have obviously had the time and inclination to consider the deeper aspects of money and control and the paradigm and how it serves their interests to maintain it...
To somehow decentralize control, to never again have a situation that can be manipulated by psychos for their own ends. Such an answer has never even been discussed by politicians or media until Jacques Fresco came along...who again is not someone I agree with 100% even after seeing so much I admire about his ideas.

To sum up I would say, never be afraid to put forward your views but accept that its unlikely you'll ever agree with anyone 100%
Try not to take it personally I suppose, some people will never see your POV no matter what.

At what point did I say "don't read this"?

I just think it is wise to know the context of the author.

Why this knowledge should be seen as censorship and close minded remains unanswered.

I suspect that it is the usual process of reducing opposition down with a strawman often enough until the debate resembles partisan politics.

That's how the NAN brigae does it. That's how America does it. And that is what I have seen so far.

At the end of the day everyone who isn't a psycho nutjob wants the same thing.
A fantastic life for all, no poverty, no disease, no stress, no crime, max freedom, utopia basically.

The psychos just want it for a small exclusive group at the expense of everyone else.

The only thing normal people disagree on is how to bring it about
The psychos count on that ofc