Excellent list, but one small bone to pick:
And there are a dozen other books. The Well-Read Cypherpunk should know something about free market economics (not the Samuelson technical stuff taught in introductory econ classes in college),
Why not? Why should becoming familiar with Hayek, Mises, Popper etc. preclude 'learning the language' of mainstream economics? For instance, how are you going to be able to understand Hayek's essay 'Economics and Knowledge' if the idea of traditional equilibrium analysis is over your head? Do yourselves a favor and read the Krugman/Obstfeld book 'International Economics: Theory and Policy'. You won't always agree with it, but it's worth the time. Who knows, you might even find that some of these issues are a hell of a lot more complex than you thought they were. I sure did. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that too many people are content to regurgitate dumbed-down bumpersticker platitudes about libertarian ideas without any real understanding to back themselves up. (I'm certainly not referring to you here Tim, but I think you know what I'm talking about.) Anyway, why should there be any distinction between a well-read cypherpunk and a well-read person in general? Everyone has to start somewhere, but jeez, broaden your horizons a little. In a sense, it all comes down to a personal choice: are you content to sit around on the sidelines with your friends throwing the verbal equivalent of cherry bombs, basking in the cozy glow of cliquish moral superiority--or are you going to make the effort to get the education that allows you to speak to knowledgeable people in a way they can respect and understand, getting your foot in the door towards making a real impact, from the inside out? 'There are men who struggle for a day and they are good. There are others who struggle for a year, and they are better. There are those who struggle many years, and they are better still. But there are those who struggle all their lives. These are the indispensable ones.' -- Brecht Something to think about. ~Faustine. **** 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
At 5:32 PM -0400 4/18/01, Faustine wrote:
Excellent list, but one small bone to pick:
And there are a dozen other books. The Well-Read Cypherpunk should know something about free market economics (not the Samuelson technical stuff taught in introductory econ classes in college),
Why not? Why should becoming familiar with Hayek, Mises, Popper etc. preclude 'learning the language' of mainstream economics?
Get a grip. I also didn't mention algebra, history, and dozens of other topics a person here should be familiar with. I was distinguishing the works on free markets (Haye, Von Mises, Popper, Friedman, etc.) from the more general stuff on micro- and macro-economics, price theory, etc.
For instance, how are you going to be able to understand Hayek's essay 'Economics and Knowledge' if the idea of traditional equilibrium analysis is over your head?
By doing background reading.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that too many people are content to regurgitate dumbed-down bumpersticker platitudes about libertarian ideas without any real understanding to back themselves up. (I'm certainly not referring to you here Tim, but I think you know what I'm talking about.) Anyway, why should there be any distinction between a well-read cypherpunk and a well-read person in general? Everyone has to start somewhere, but jeez, broaden your horizons a little.
You're right. I withdraw my "Well-Read Cypherpunk" reading list. Instead of listing half a dozen very important books, take Faustine's advice: -- read the tens of thousands of books out there! -- read the encyclopedias of the world -- broaden your horizons! And don't ask what these references to Vinge or Benson or Friedman are all about: the truly well-read Cypherpunk will have spent the hundreds of thousands of reading time to have read all of these, and more. Of course, in a world of scarce resources, time being one of them, some of you may choose to start with Vinge, Card, Rand, Hayek, and the other main authors, and then get to the "broadened horizons" authors when a spare decade appears on your calendar. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Quoting Tim May
At 5:32 PM -0400 4/18/01, Faustine wrote:
Excellent list, but one small bone to pick:
And there are a dozen other books. The Well-Read Cypherpunk should know something about free market economics (not the Samuelson technical stuff taught in introductory econ classes in college),
Why not? Why should becoming familiar with Hayek, Mises, Popper etc. preclude 'learning the language' of mainstream economics?
Get a grip. I also didn't mention algebra, history, and dozens of other topics a person here should be familiar with.
True, but my point was that the 'Samuelson technical stuff' has its place.
I was distinguishing the works on free markets (Hayek, Von Mises, Popper, Friedman, etc.) from the more general stuff on micro- and macro-economics, price theory, etc.
Point well taken. All I'm saying is that without the micro and macro fundamentals, it's going to be a lot more difficult to get a meaninful grasp of the Austrians: the meaning of the terms they're using, their contexts, who they were fighting against, etc. I ought to know: I did it 'backwards' myself. Too many people read what they know they'll agree with, leave it at that-- and then wonder why nobody but their friends takes their arguments seriously. It's a problem. Not YOUR PERSONAL problem, but a problem nevertheless. heh.
For instance, how are you going to be able to understand Hayek's essay 'Economics and Knowledge' if the idea of traditional equilibrium analysis is over your head?
By doing background reading.
Exactly--and I happen to think Samuelson and Krugman are great places to start. I don't think you'd expect someone who hasn't digested a book comperable to 'Applied Cryptography' to pick up on as many of the fine points of technical crypto articles as they would have otherwise, would you? Which isn't to say they wouldn't get it eventually by reading other articles, or shouldn't bother. All I'm saying is that basic technical knowledge goes a long way toward understanding the larger context, that's all.
Anyway, why should there be any distinction between a well-read cypherpunk and a well-read person in general? Everyone has to start somewhere, but jeez, broaden your horizons a little.
You're right. I withdraw my "Well-Read Cypherpunk" reading list.
Oh come on, I said it was an excellent list.
Instead of listing half a dozen very important books,
Where did that come from? I'm planning on reading some of the ones you mentioned that I wasn't already familiar with, myself. I wasn't being critical of the idea of learning more, quite the contrary. take Faustine's
advice: -- read the tens of thousands of books out there! -- read the encyclopedias of the world -- broaden your horizons!
No, my point was that people should be careful not to let their ideologies and interests box them in.
And don't ask what these references to Vinge or Benson or Friedman are all about: the truly well-read Cypherpunk will have spent the hundreds of thousands of reading time to have read all of these, and more.
Not at all: I just happen to think the 'well read' might have some use for Samuelson and Krugman.
Of course, in a world of scarce resources, time being one of them, some of you may choose to start with Vinge, Card, Rand, Hayek, and the other main authors, and then get to the "broadened horizons" authors when a spare decade appears on your calendar. --Tim May
Reading Samuelson before Hayek will save you a lot of time in the long run. What about your recommended readings for all the other topics you mentioned? Surely they ought to count as horizon-broadening. with respect, ~Faustine. **** 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
-- At 08:28 PM 4/18/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:
True, but my point was that the 'Samuelson technical stuff' has its place.
All that technical stuff is in the Friedman's books, and where there was a conflict between sound economics, and the politically correct fashions of the day, Samuelson tended to cringe before whatever was PC fashion, until the fashion changed and he could get away with more accurate and realistic economics. Most infamously, when many observers noticed that the Soviet Union was imminent danger of collapse, he assured us the Soviet economy was working just fine. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bnTvwrk29oVjTzwk9ruUBvz/i2xr2EwvmLo5zhBP 4QBahbyjUAVp/xz3m33YPWIgNKGjLP/I9sS4kxOTg ----------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
I don't think anyone would say "don't read the classics." I'd venture that they're necessary but not sufficient to achieve True Cypherpunkishness.* More seriously, there are some concepts that lie behind what the recent threads calls an agora, and some books help clarify them in more detail than a mailing list discussion can. I know I've benefited from these recommendations. -Declan * = See the archives On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 05:32:47PM -0400, Faustine wrote:
Anyway, why should there be any distinction between a well-read cypherpunk and a well-read person in general? Everyone has to start somewhere, but jeez, broaden your horizons a little.
Quoting Declan McCullagh
I don't think anyone would say "don't read the classics." I'd venture that they're necessary but not sufficient to achieve True Cypherpunkishness.*
More seriously, there are some concepts that lie behind what the recent threads calls an agora, and some books help clarify them in more detail than a mailing list discussion can. I know I've benefited from these recommendations.
No doubt! That's the beauty of this place. What I was really driving at is that if more libertarians aspired to the creativity, analytical rigor, and breadth and depth of knowledge of people like John von Neumann and Leo Cherne, it would be a very good thing. Last night I was reading an essay (author slips my mind) called 'Intelligence and the Information Revolution'. The author called for getting beyond the old barriers of department and specialty and the creation of 'Super Analysts', omni- talented multidisciplinary people who really, really get it. Wouldn't it be great if more pro-freedom activists took the Super Analyst approach? I think so. I'm in a PhD program myself: when I speak up in class, I try not to give my fellow classmates a reason to say 'oh damn, there goes that tiresome libertarian chick again.' Knowing the material and being able to articulate something interesting and relevant about it is all that matters: if you're intellectually rigorous and responsible you can command respect, whatever your persuasion. I think the ultimate goal for anyone out to shape public policy is to find a way to redefine the questions: re-frame the terms of the debate and you've really accomplished something significant. And nobody ever succeded in redefining the questions by bricking up their mental content with pre-digested ideological constructs: in a sense, once you give up your independence all you can do is 'talk at right angles' to people who don't share your mindset. And what could be less in the spirit of libertarianism than that? Of course the answer isn't 'read everything'. But making the committment to creativity, curiosity and analytical rigor couldn't hurt. ~Faustine. **** 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:41:03PM -0400, Faustine wrote:
What I was really driving at is that if more libertarians aspired to the creativity, analytical rigor, and breadth and depth of knowledge of people like John von Neumann and Leo Cherne, it would be a very good thing.
That is undeniably true. I have been to a good number of libertarian events, including some private invite-only gigs, and there are a disturbing number of second-rate academics in those circles. Not anyone who's been discussed here, but the phenomenon exists, for sure. -Declan
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Faustine -
James A. Donald -
Tim May