In that section the upper row are the big scary books that ancaps are afraid to read, and right below them are the books they think are refutations for those specific books, for example for the “Capital” the so called refutations are “Socialism” by Mises and article by Hoppe (literally 12 pages article and marxism destroyed!), for Keynes main book there is Mises again, and hey, they even refute some ordinary textbook looking “Economics” by Hoppe again (this time entire 93 pages, big font). Lmao they even refute a book by Hayek there insert two austrian cult spidermen meme.
I haven’t read it, but from what I’ve seen, “the prince” is just a description of the state, but in history up to the 17th century.
It seems to be a refutation to anarchism in that it documents the necessity of a state to exercise state power to capture, create, and maintain a society.
what I’ve seen, “the prince” is just a description of the state, but in history up to the 17th century.
Mostly accrute. It was written in the late Renaissance do its the start of the 16th century, early 1500s. But it does mostly describe the state as it is/was. The best scholarship on the book is that Machiavelli wrote it as essentially a job application, and may have been trying to enter the court of the Medici Pope.
There is also some compelling scholarship that book was written out of PTSD from his imprisonment and torture by the Medici govenmrnt in Florence.
Machiavelli was actually a civil servant during the time of the Florentine Republic. The Republic ruled the city at the time when the Medici had been forced out. Later, backed by their French allies (Sister was married to King of France), the Medici defeated the Republic and retook control.
Some time after, a plot was uncovered to overthrow the Medici and a note of conspirators names was found. Machiavellis name was on it and he was arrested and tortured repeatedly. He was to be excecuted, but some kind of saints feat day where prisoners are spared occured and he was released, but under house arrest gor the rest of his life.
This was when he started righting. His primary interest was in politics. He studied politics in a uniquely Renaissance way. Where Dante and Petrach brought back the style and imagery of the Classical Period, Machiavelli was interested in a return of Republican governments and democracy. While the Prince is the most remembered work, he wrote a far more substantial book on the Riman Republic and Classical Democracy called Discourses on Livy which is often overlooked in how influential it was on Elightenment thinkers (Book iv of The Social Contract is basically taken from Discourses).
As for the Prince, the “job application” and PTSD ideas work hand in hand. His idea was to write a book that would describe the actions of States and State actors as they actually are, as opposed to books about how to be a good Christain Prince, which was the prevailing style of the time, despite obviously not being hiw states acted. The idea is that rationally Machiavelli believed this could impress someone to hire him and get him out of house arrest (most likely believed to be the Pope at the time - based on a letter to his friend Vettorio). It is theorized that beneath the surface composing the Prince was a reaction to his torture. It was a way to show that he could understand and overcome the cruelty of his torturers, by understanding their minds and showing in the book the unvarnished way in which they think and act.
I studied Machiavelli and his works quite a bit, so i hate seeing him reduced to the concept of “Machiavellinusm.” I hate that in the contemporary times he’s only really read are talked about by edgelords who think they’d be the Prince in ancapistan. His political thought is actually extremely interesting, especially in the context of the Renaissance and his influence in the Enlightenment is over ignored.
He was also a good playwrite. He wrote well recieved Italian sex comedies which had thoughtful politic subtext
‘the prince’ is attributed to coining one of the three dark triads, machelvallian; when it was written it was considered so absurd people wherent sure if it was a parody or not; it wasnt.
Its essentially what happens when a sociopath colonizer tries to justify themselves, its worth a read.
das kapital and the prince at the bottom as if they’ve read either
In that section the upper row are the big scary books that ancaps are afraid to read, and right below them are the books they think are refutations for those specific books, for example for the “Capital” the so called refutations are “Socialism” by Mises and article by Hoppe (literally 12 pages article and marxism destroyed!), for Keynes main book there is Mises again, and hey, they even refute some ordinary textbook looking “Economics” by Hoppe again (this time entire 93 pages, big font). Lmao they even refute a book by Hayek there insert two austrian cult spidermen meme.
I bet i’d be able to find at least half of the reccomended books aboves authors advocating for removal of age of consent laws
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1990/05/lew-rockwell/in-defense-of-child-labor/
lmao the first fucking one, author of ‘Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto’
I quickly reached the expected total amount of -zero- surprise just now.
😂
Those are under the category “refutations”
as if ‘the prince’ doesnt just exactly describe there own ideology lol
I haven’t read it, but from what I’ve seen, “the prince” is just a description of the state, but in history up to the 17th century.
It seems to be a refutation to anarchism in that it documents the necessity of a state to exercise state power to capture, create, and maintain a society.
AFAIK, it doesn’t address capitalism.
Mostly accrute. It was written in the late Renaissance do its the start of the 16th century, early 1500s. But it does mostly describe the state as it is/was. The best scholarship on the book is that Machiavelli wrote it as essentially a job application, and may have been trying to enter the court of the Medici Pope.
There is also some compelling scholarship that book was written out of PTSD from his imprisonment and torture by the Medici govenmrnt in Florence.
Machiavelli was actually a civil servant during the time of the Florentine Republic. The Republic ruled the city at the time when the Medici had been forced out. Later, backed by their French allies (Sister was married to King of France), the Medici defeated the Republic and retook control.
Some time after, a plot was uncovered to overthrow the Medici and a note of conspirators names was found. Machiavellis name was on it and he was arrested and tortured repeatedly. He was to be excecuted, but some kind of saints feat day where prisoners are spared occured and he was released, but under house arrest gor the rest of his life.
This was when he started righting. His primary interest was in politics. He studied politics in a uniquely Renaissance way. Where Dante and Petrach brought back the style and imagery of the Classical Period, Machiavelli was interested in a return of Republican governments and democracy. While the Prince is the most remembered work, he wrote a far more substantial book on the Riman Republic and Classical Democracy called Discourses on Livy which is often overlooked in how influential it was on Elightenment thinkers (Book iv of The Social Contract is basically taken from Discourses).
As for the Prince, the “job application” and PTSD ideas work hand in hand. His idea was to write a book that would describe the actions of States and State actors as they actually are, as opposed to books about how to be a good Christain Prince, which was the prevailing style of the time, despite obviously not being hiw states acted. The idea is that rationally Machiavelli believed this could impress someone to hire him and get him out of house arrest (most likely believed to be the Pope at the time - based on a letter to his friend Vettorio). It is theorized that beneath the surface composing the Prince was a reaction to his torture. It was a way to show that he could understand and overcome the cruelty of his torturers, by understanding their minds and showing in the book the unvarnished way in which they think and act.
I studied Machiavelli and his works quite a bit, so i hate seeing him reduced to the concept of “Machiavellinusm.” I hate that in the contemporary times he’s only really read are talked about by edgelords who think they’d be the Prince in ancapistan. His political thought is actually extremely interesting, especially in the context of the Renaissance and his influence in the Enlightenment is over ignored.
He was also a good playwrite. He wrote well recieved Italian sex comedies which had thoughtful politic subtext
‘the prince’ is attributed to coining one of the three dark triads, machelvallian; when it was written it was considered so absurd people wherent sure if it was a parody or not; it wasnt.
Its essentially what happens when a sociopath colonizer tries to justify themselves, its worth a read.