Good literature for budding libertarians/austrian economists

I know a lot of people (not necessarily on this site) that are interested in ideas of sound economics and liberty. A major problem is that they have no idea what kind of resources exist for them to continue their intellectual journey. So I figured I would give some of my personal favorites that I have stumbled upon through my own journey.  
 
I have broken the literature up into subjects, which any learned individual should be educated in. These are the subjects in which libertarians have written extensively on, and it does no good to just be educated in one subject. A worldview needs to encompass all areas of life.   
  
Not all literature I am listing is written by libertarians, but there are many areas of many disciplines which are not opinions, but rather things we should just know.  These obviously don't come exclusively from libertarian authors. 

So let's get started: 
 
History 
 
-Conceived in Liberty: Volumes I-IV,  Murray Rothbard 
-The Real Lincoln,  Thomas DiLorenzo 
-Hamilton's Curse,  Thomas DiLorenzo 
-Founding Brothers, Joseph Ellis 
-Recarving Rushmore, Ivan Iland 
-History of Money and Banking, Murray Rothbard 
-The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes 
-33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, Thomas Woods 
-Who Killed the Constitution, Thomas Woods 
-America's Great Depression, Murray Rothbard 
-FDR's Folly, Jim Powell 
-Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs  
-The Panic of 1819, Murray Rothbard
 -The Origins of the Keynesian Revolution, Robert Dimand
 -Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, Robert Ekelund Jr
 
Philosophy 
 
-Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Murray Rothbard 
-Constitution of Liberty, Friedrick von Hayek 
-The Road to Serfdom,  Friedrick von Hayek  
-Our Enemy the State, Albert Jay Nock 
-Against Intellectual Property, Stephan Kinsella 
-For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard 
-The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard 
-Anarchy and the Law, Edward Stringham 
-Rights of Man, Thomas Paine 
-Democracy: The God that Failed, Hans Hermann Hoppe 
-Economics and the Ethics of Private Property,  Hans Hermann Hoppe 
-Liberalism, Ludwig von Mises 
-Socialism, Ludwig von Mises  
-Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman 
-Four Essays on Liberty, Isaiah Berlin 
-The Cambridge Companion to Kant, Immanuel Kant edited by Paul Guyer
-On Liberty, John Stuart Mill  
-Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes 
-An Essay Concerning Human Understand, John Locke 
-Two Treatises of Government, John Locke
 
Basic Economics 
 
-Man, Economy, and State, Murray Rothbard 
-Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt  
-Meltdown, Thomas Woods 
-What Should You Know About Inflation?, Henry Hazlitt 
-The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrick von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Gottfried Haberler
-Give Me a Break!, John Stossel 
-The Fatal Conceit, Friedrick von Hayek 
-The Economics of Liberty, Various Authors, Edited by Lew Rockwell  
-What Has Government Done to Our Money?, Murray Rothbard 
-The Case Against the FED, Murray Rothbard  
-Deflation and Liberty, Jorge Guido Hulsmann  
-Profit and Loss, Ludwig von Mises 
-Economic Logic, Mark Skousen 
-Privatization of Roads and Highways, Walter Block
 
Advanced Economics 
 
-Human Action, Ludwig von Mises 
-Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Hans Hermann Hoppe 
-Power and Market, Murray Rothbard 
-The Ultimate Method of Economic Science 
-The Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises 
-Epistemelogical Problems of Economics, Ludwig von Mises 
-Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, Jesus Huerta de Soto 
-Prices and Production, Friedrick von Hayek 
-The General Theory of  Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes 
-The Failure of the New Economics, Henry Hazlitt  
-The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith 
-A Theory of Full Employment, Y.S. Brenner and N. Brenner-Golomb  
-The Structure of Production, Mark Skousen 
-Capital, Interest, and Rent: A Theory of Distribution, Frank Fetter 
 
Fiction 
 
-Time Will Run Back, Henry Hazlitt 
-Animal Farm, George Orwell 
-1984, George Orwell 
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand 
-The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand
 
 
I hate fiction, but some people can't take philosophy straight, so they settle with fiction. That's the only reason I threw Rand's books on here. Even though the message in Atlas Shrugged could be written on 2 pages as opposed to 1,000, it's a hell of a book written by a very bad person.  
 
I'll be adding more to the list in the future. Also, I may add the credentials of the authors as well. Maybe some short biographies will be included as well.  
 
But for now, this list should keep anyone interested in ideas of liberty and prosperity happy. 

I know a lot of people (not necessarily on this site) that are interested in ideas of sound economics and liberty. A major problem is that they have no idea what kind of resources exist for them to continue their intellectual journey. So I figured I would give some of my personal favorites that I have stumbled upon through my own journey.  
 
I have broken the literature up into subjects, which any learned individual should be educated in. These are the subjects in which libertarians have written extensively on, and it does no good to just be educated in one subject. A worldview needs to encompass all areas of life.   
  
Not all literature I am listing is written by libertarians, but there are many areas of many disciplines which are not opinions, but rather things we should just know.  These obviously don't come exclusively from libertarian authors. 

So let's get started: 
 
History 
 
-Conceived in Liberty: Volumes I-IV,  Murray Rothbard 
-The Real Lincoln,  Thomas DiLorenzo 
-Hamilton's Curse,  Thomas DiLorenzo 
-Founding Brothers, Joseph Ellis 
-Recarving Rushmore, Ivan Iland 
-History of Money and Banking, Murray Rothbard 
-The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes 
-33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, Thomas Woods 
-Who Killed the Constitution, Thomas Woods 
-America's Great Depression, Murray Rothbard 
-FDR's Folly, Jim Powell 
-Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs  
-The Panic of 1819, Murray Rothbard
 -The Origins of the Keynesian Revolution, Robert Dimand
 -Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, Robert Ekelund Jr
 
Philosophy 
 
-Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Murray Rothbard 
-Constitution of Liberty, Friedrick von Hayek 
-The Road to Serfdom,  Friedrick von Hayek  
-Our Enemy the State, Albert Jay Nock 
-Against Intellectual Property, Stephan Kinsella 
-For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard 
-The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard 
-Anarchy and the Law, Edward Stringham 
-Rights of Man, Thomas Paine 
-Democracy: The God that Failed, Hans Hermann Hoppe 
-Economics and the Ethics of Private Property,  Hans Hermann Hoppe 
-Liberalism, Ludwig von Mises 
-Socialism, Ludwig von Mises  
-Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman 
-Four Essays on Liberty, Isaiah Berlin 
-The Cambridge Companion to Kant, Immanuel Kant edited by Paul Guyer
-On Liberty, John Stuart Mill  
-Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes 
-An Essay Concerning Human Understand, John Locke 
-Two Treatises of Government, John Locke
 
Basic Economics 
 
-Man, Economy, and State, Murray Rothbard 
-Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt  
-Meltdown, Thomas Woods 
-What Should You Know About Inflation?, Henry Hazlitt 
-The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrick von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Gottfried Haberler
-Give Me a Break!, John Stossel 
-The Fatal Conceit, Friedrick von Hayek 
-The Economics of Liberty, Various Authors, Edited by Lew Rockwell  
-What Has Government Done to Our Money?, Murray Rothbard 
-The Case Against the FED, Murray Rothbard  
-Deflation and Liberty, Jorge Guido Hulsmann  
-Profit and Loss, Ludwig von Mises 
-Economic Logic, Mark Skousen 
-Privatization of Roads and Highways, Walter Block
 
Advanced Economics 
 
-Human Action, Ludwig von Mises 
-Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Hans Hermann Hoppe 
-Power and Market, Murray Rothbard 
-The Ultimate Method of Economic Science 
-The Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises 
-Epistemelogical Problems of Economics, Ludwig von Mises 
-Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, Jesus Huerta de Soto 
-Prices and Production, Friedrick von Hayek 
-The General Theory of  Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes 
-The Failure of the New Economics, Henry Hazlitt  
-The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith 
-A Theory of Full Employment, Y.S. Brenner and N. Brenner-Golomb  
-The Structure of Production, Mark Skousen 
-Capital, Interest, and Rent: A Theory of Distribution, Frank Fetter 
 
Fiction 
 
-Time Will Run Back, Henry Hazlitt 
-Animal Farm, George Orwell 
-1984, George Orwell 
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand 
-The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand
 
 
I hate fiction, but some people can't take philosophy straight, so they settle with fiction. That's the only reason I threw Rand's books on here. Even though the message in Atlas Shrugged could be written on 2 pages as opposed to 1,000, it's a hell of a book written by a very bad person.  
 
I'll be adding more to the list in the future. Also, I may add the credentials of the authors as well. Maybe some short biographies will be included as well.  
 
But for now, this list should keep anyone interested in ideas of liberty and prosperity happy. 

Here are the faces of some of the authors on this list: 
 

Dude, I hate to completely change the topic.  
But what is with your avatar?

What? Is that style not "in" anymore? Must have missed the memo...

Not sure how well known this is but Orwell was a socialist yet is often cited by free market libertarians
 
also this is entitiled good authors. yet on 
http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic/31/who-are-the-worst-authors/377725/#50
you mention rand as a bad author? what changed in these months?

" Not sure how well known this is but Orwell was a socialist yet is often cited by free market libertarians  also this is entitiled good authors. yet on  http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic/31/who-are-the-worst-authors/377725/#50 you mention rand as a bad author? what changed in these months? "

... 
I don't know what to say. 
You have Keynes on your reading list. 
Now I've seen everything

" ... I don't know what to say. You have Keynes on your reading list. Now I've seen everything "

" ... I don't know what to say. You have Keynes on your reading list. Now I've seen everything "

-Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Murray Rothbard

George Orwell - Animal Farm
George Orwell -1984,

" @AgentJ said:

" ... I don't know what to say. You have Keynes on your reading list. Now I've seen everything "

Well, considering he's the most relevant economics author to this day, EVERYONE should read the utter garbage that he wrote. The better you understand him, the easier to refute.   Anyone interested in economics will inevitably be taught keynesianism anyways, so you might as well get ahead on it. Not reading him would be like studying philosophy without ever reading Karl Marx.  "

Say what you will about Rand, you can't deny that she wasn't afraid to bring her stories grinding to a halt in an uninterrupted novel-length speech by one character, that just goes on, and on, and on. And on. And on. And on.  The question quickly stops being "who is John Galt?" and starts being "When will John Galt shut up?"

I have been doing a little reading on Rothbard and I did find much of his work, including a full text of this: 
Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market  
 
I don't know that I will read his book entirely, but I will try (I don't want to give to much credence to largely crackpot ideas - yes, I have prejudged).  The whole Austrian School method of economics is fully opposite to my thinking. The underlying aspect of tax as theft and complete withdrawal of the state from the affairs of business and society just cannot work in my view.  It is truly pixie dust stuff.  A good government will provide the services we need for a functioning and cohesive society.  The fact that there are many poorly functioning services in place is not a fault of the system, but of those who run it.  Good governance would fix most and it is up to the population to be annoyed enough to vote out the major parties and introduce true independence in politics.  To think that a system without the state involvement would work is truly fanciful.  Social democracy is the best of what is available to us and all western governments are social democracies in some way. 
 
I say, the Libertarians should buy a small country somewhere and run it their way.  Then, when it all falls apart, we can just tell them -"we told you so".  Any countries up for sale?

" I have been doing a little reading on Rothbard and I did find much of his work, including a full text of this: 
Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market   I don't know that I will read his book entirely, but I will try (I don't want to give to much credence to largely crackpot ideas - yes, I have prejudged).  The whole Austrian School method of economics is fully opposite to my thinking. The underlying aspect of tax as theft and complete withdrawal of the state from the affairs of business and society just cannot work in my view.  It is truly pixie dust stuff.  A good government will provide the services we need for a functioning and cohesive society.  The fact that there are many poorly functioning services in place is not a fault of the system, but of those who run it.  Good governance would fix most and it is up to the population to be annoyed enough to vote out the major parties and introduce true independence in politics.  To think that a system without the state involvement would work is truly fanciful.  Social democracy is the best of what is available to us and all western governments are social democracies in some way.  I say, the Libertarians should buy a small country somewhere and run it their way.  Then, when it all falls apart, we can just tell them -"we told you so".  Any countries up for sale? "

" @lilburtonboy7489 said: 

-Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Murray Rothbard

I just read this: it's pure demagoguery. First he equates "egalitarianism" with "equality" and then he defines "equality" as some sort of biological equality where everyone is literally the same, like anybody would want that! 
By equality I argue that most people from the left refer to a sort of social equality where one person has no right to more wealth than entire countries worth of people, where one person has no more right to the natural resources of Earth than another, where one person has no more right to have food and water while hundreds of millions starve, where every person has equal decision-making in social policies that will effect everyone etc, etc.
 
This "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature" is nothing but vile apologetics for the social elites, the wealthy.
 I'm sure when a person jumps into a river to rescue someone who is drowning it is a "Revolt Against Nature." I'm sure that it is due to their nature that these millions of people are starving and due to their nature that some people own more wealth than the collective wealth of millions of other people.
 
No, it's due to the social order, due to the structure of society, that is what the left argues against and these people who are argue that changing society would be a revolt against nature, or other such bullshit, are the people who want to conserve the current order for their own trivial ends. 

 
@lilburtonboy7489 said:

George Orwell - Animal Farm
George Orwell -1984,

No, George Orwell does not argue for the "liberty" and "prosperity" that you are referring to. He certainly did not want the whole of society to be at the mercy of a small group of business elites. In Animal Farm Orwell advocates socialist ideas like collective ownership. If anything the character of Jones (the farmer who owns all the animals in the beginning) is an allegory of current Capitalist society. What follows is a revolution from socialist, class conscious animals and then an allegory for the soviet union where the leaders of the revolution establish their own oligarchy. 
 
1984 is essentially a horror story of what would happen if complete totalitarianism were to occur.
 
@lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @AgentJ said:

" ... I don't know what to say. You have Keynes on your reading list. Now I've seen everything "

Well, considering he's the most relevant economics author to this day, EVERYONE should read the utter garbage that he wrote. The better you understand him, the easier to refute.   Anyone interested in economics will inevitably be taught keynesianism anyways, so you might as well get ahead on it. Not reading him would be like studying philosophy without ever reading Karl Marx.  "

Marx's philosophy was but an extension of Hegel's. "

" As far as "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", that's simply not true. Rothbard explains different types of equality, including both material and biological. As far as biological, he is explaining how egalitarianism cannot cope with a society where certain people are smarter than others, more motivated than others, better looking than others, etc...If certain people biologically have these properties, such as a high IQ, inequality will exist. Therefore, egalitarians have no way of coping with people of different attributes. And I do believe that people want that. If someone is smarter than others, he will get better grades, go to a better university, get a better job, make more money, and overall live better than some who are not as smart. That is an abomination to egalitarians. "

All those people live in hell. I will become a member, low ranked of course.

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" As far as "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", that's simply not true. Rothbard explains different types of equality, including both material and biological. As far as biological, he is explaining how egalitarianism cannot cope with a society where certain people are smarter than others, more motivated than others, better looking than others, etc...If certain people biologically have these properties, such as a high IQ, inequality will exist. Therefore, egalitarians have no way of coping with people of different attributes. And I do believe that people want that. If someone is smarter than others, he will get better grades, go to a better university, get a better job, make more money, and overall live better than some who are not as smart. That is an abomination to egalitarians. "

As an egalitarian, I am calling BS on that.  We see it as having the same opportunity based on our own individual and unique properties.  We refer to it as the cream rising to the surface.  What we don't like is those who have money, connections et cetera that gives them opportunities beyond their innate capabilities - nepotism mainly.  We are all equal, but not the same. "

Much chin stroking and pipe smoking. Much indeed.

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" As far as "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", that's simply not true. Rothbard explains different types of equality, including both material and biological. As far as biological, he is explaining how egalitarianism cannot cope with a society where certain people are smarter than others, more motivated than others, better looking than others, etc...If certain people biologically have these properties, such as a high IQ, inequality will exist. Therefore, egalitarians have no way of coping with people of different attributes. And I do believe that people want that. If someone is smarter than others, he will get better grades, go to a better university, get a better job, make more money, and overall live better than some who are not as smart. That is an abomination to egalitarians. "

As an egalitarian, I am calling BS on that.  We see it as having the same opportunity based on our own individual and unique properties.  We refer to it as the cream rising to the surface.  What we don't like is those who have money, connections et cetera that gives them opportunities beyond their innate capabilities - nepotism mainly.  We are all equal, but not the same. "

No, we are not equal in any way, shape, or form.  Intellectually, characteristically, by out appearance, or any other way, we are not equal.   Okay, so if I am a really good video game player, and every individual is willing to pay half their income every month to watch me play xbox for 10 minutes a day, is that evil? They are becoming considerably poorer, and I am now much richer. I can now burn money if I want. I can make connections. I can go to any university I want, buy any car I want, and get any girl I want. We are now unequal.  My skill has given me an advantage over other people and I am compensated for this. Due to my biological or learned abilities, I become better off economically.   Is that wrong? What have I done wrong by this exchange?       "

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" As far as "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", that's simply not true. Rothbard explains different types of equality, including both material and biological. As far as biological, he is explaining how egalitarianism cannot cope with a society where certain people are smarter than others, more motivated than others, better looking than others, etc...If certain people biologically have these properties, such as a high IQ, inequality will exist. Therefore, egalitarians have no way of coping with people of different attributes. And I do believe that people want that. If someone is smarter than others, he will get better grades, go to a better university, get a better job, make more money, and overall live better than some who are not as smart. That is an abomination to egalitarians. "

As an egalitarian, I am calling BS on that.  We see it as having the same opportunity based on our own individual and unique properties.  We refer to it as the cream rising to the surface.  What we don't like is those who have money, connections et cetera that gives them opportunities beyond their innate capabilities - nepotism mainly.  We are all equal, but not the same. "

No, we are not equal in any way, shape, or form.  Intellectually, characteristically, by out appearance, or any other way, we are not equal.   Okay, so if I am a really good video game player, and every individual is willing to pay half their income every month to watch me play xbox for 10 minutes a day, is that evil? They are becoming considerably poorer, and I am now much richer. I can now burn money if I want. I can make connections. I can go to any university I want, buy any car I want, and get any girl I want. We are now unequal.  My skill has given me an advantage over other people and I am compensated for this. Due to my biological or learned abilities, I become better off economically.   Is that wrong? What have I done wrong by this exchange?       "

That doesn't disagree with my egalitarian point.  Egalitarianism is about single common denominator, it is about equal opportunity in line with your own abilities.  If you are better than one thing than others, it isn't against egalitarianism to profit from it.  In fact, that is the point of egalitarianism.  Getting opportunity not available to all is not egalitarianism.  That opportunity is there, but those with the best abilities should be the one that gets it.  It promotes competitiveness.  You want something, you work for it.  That is never wrong.  However, a good society underpins all of this with a social safety net to ensure that those left behind are taken care of and that is what taxes are all about - social cohesion through the redistribution of wealth.  Without that, we get an underclass that will eventually revolt. "

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" As far as "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", that's simply not true. Rothbard explains different types of equality, including both material and biological. As far as biological, he is explaining how egalitarianism cannot cope with a society where certain people are smarter than others, more motivated than others, better looking than others, etc...If certain people biologically have these properties, such as a high IQ, inequality will exist. Therefore, egalitarians have no way of coping with people of different attributes. And I do believe that people want that. If someone is smarter than others, he will get better grades, go to a better university, get a better job, make more money, and overall live better than some who are not as smart. That is an abomination to egalitarians. "

As an egalitarian, I am calling BS on that.  We see it as having the same opportunity based on our own individual and unique properties.  We refer to it as the cream rising to the surface.  What we don't like is those who have money, connections et cetera that gives them opportunities beyond their innate capabilities - nepotism mainly.  We are all equal, but not the same. "

No, we are not equal in any way, shape, or form.  Intellectually, characteristically, by out appearance, or any other way, we are not equal.   Okay, so if I am a really good video game player, and every individual is willing to pay half their income every month to watch me play xbox for 10 minutes a day, is that evil? They are becoming considerably poorer, and I am now much richer. I can now burn money if I want. I can make connections. I can go to any university I want, buy any car I want, and get any girl I want. We are now unequal.  My skill has given me an advantage over other people and I am compensated for this. Due to my biological or learned abilities, I become better off economically.   Is that wrong? What have I done wrong by this exchange?       "

That doesn't disagree with my egalitarian point.  Egalitarianism is about single common denominator, it is about equal opportunity in line with your own abilities.  If you are better than one thing than others, it isn't against egalitarianism to profit from it.  In fact, that is the point of egalitarianism.  Getting opportunity not available to all is not egalitarianism.  That opportunity is there, but those with the best abilities should be the one that gets it.  It promotes competitiveness.  You want something, you work for it.  That is never wrong.  However, a good society underpins all of this with a social safety net to ensure that those left behind are taken care of and that is what taxes are all about - social cohesion through the redistribution of wealth.  Without that, we get an underclass that will eventually revolt. "

Okay, so a billionaire has to pay the same into the social safety net as a poor man right? That would be equal treatment right? "

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" As far as "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", that's simply not true. Rothbard explains different types of equality, including both material and biological. As far as biological, he is explaining how egalitarianism cannot cope with a society where certain people are smarter than others, more motivated than others, better looking than others, etc...If certain people biologically have these properties, such as a high IQ, inequality will exist. Therefore, egalitarians have no way of coping with people of different attributes. And I do believe that people want that. If someone is smarter than others, he will get better grades, go to a better university, get a better job, make more money, and overall live better than some who are not as smart. That is an abomination to egalitarians. "

As an egalitarian, I am calling BS on that.  We see it as having the same opportunity based on our own individual and unique properties.  We refer to it as the cream rising to the surface.  What we don't like is those who have money, connections et cetera that gives them opportunities beyond their innate capabilities - nepotism mainly.  We are all equal, but not the same. "

No, we are not equal in any way, shape, or form.  Intellectually, characteristically, by out appearance, or any other way, we are not equal.   Okay, so if I am a really good video game player, and every individual is willing to pay half their income every month to watch me play xbox for 10 minutes a day, is that evil? They are becoming considerably poorer, and I am now much richer. I can now burn money if I want. I can make connections. I can go to any university I want, buy any car I want, and get any girl I want. We are now unequal.  My skill has given me an advantage over other people and I am compensated for this. Due to my biological or learned abilities, I become better off economically.   Is that wrong? What have I done wrong by this exchange?       "

That doesn't disagree with my egalitarian point.  Egalitarianism is about single common denominator, it is about equal opportunity in line with your own abilities.  If you are better than one thing than others, it isn't against egalitarianism to profit from it.  In fact, that is the point of egalitarianism.  Getting opportunity not available to all is not egalitarianism.  That opportunity is there, but those with the best abilities should be the one that gets it.  It promotes competitiveness.  You want something, you work for it.  That is never wrong.  However, a good society underpins all of this with a social safety net to ensure that those left behind are taken care of and that is what taxes are all about - social cohesion through the redistribution of wealth.  Without that, we get an underclass that will eventually revolt. "

Okay, so a billionaire has to pay the same into the social safety net as a poor man right? That would be equal treatment right? "

No, and I think it is both silly and beneath you to say that.  That is part of a socially cohesive society, where those with, ensure the welfare of those without.  Payment of taxes will always be greater (in pure money terms) the more you earn, if it is on a percentage ratio.  So in effect, they do pay much the same in that they pay what they can afford.  It depends on you definition of equal.  It is about egalitarianism meeting socialism for a better society. "

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" As far as "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", that's simply not true. Rothbard explains different types of equality, including both material and biological. As far as biological, he is explaining how egalitarianism cannot cope with a society where certain people are smarter than others, more motivated than others, better looking than others, etc...If certain people biologically have these properties, such as a high IQ, inequality will exist. Therefore, egalitarians have no way of coping with people of different attributes. And I do believe that people want that. If someone is smarter than others, he will get better grades, go to a better university, get a better job, make more money, and overall live better than some who are not as smart. That is an abomination to egalitarians. "

As an egalitarian, I am calling BS on that.  We see it as having the same opportunity based on our own individual and unique properties.  We refer to it as the cream rising to the surface.  What we don't like is those who have money, connections et cetera that gives them opportunities beyond their innate capabilities - nepotism mainly.  We are all equal, but not the same. "

No, we are not equal in any way, shape, or form.  Intellectually, characteristically, by out appearance, or any other way, we are not equal.   Okay, so if I am a really good video game player, and every individual is willing to pay half their income every month to watch me play xbox for 10 minutes a day, is that evil? They are becoming considerably poorer, and I am now much richer. I can now burn money if I want. I can make connections. I can go to any university I want, buy any car I want, and get any girl I want. We are now unequal.  My skill has given me an advantage over other people and I am compensated for this. Due to my biological or learned abilities, I become better off economically.   Is that wrong? What have I done wrong by this exchange?       "

That doesn't disagree with my egalitarian point.  Egalitarianism is about single common denominator, it is about equal opportunity in line with your own abilities.  If you are better than one thing than others, it isn't against egalitarianism to profit from it.  In fact, that is the point of egalitarianism.  Getting opportunity not available to all is not egalitarianism.  That opportunity is there, but those with the best abilities should be the one that gets it.  It promotes competitiveness.  You want something, you work for it.  That is never wrong.  However, a good society underpins all of this with a social safety net to ensure that those left behind are taken care of and that is what taxes are all about - social cohesion through the redistribution of wealth.  Without that, we get an underclass that will eventually revolt. "

Okay, so a billionaire has to pay the same into the social safety net as a poor man right? That would be equal treatment right? "

No, and I think it is both silly and beneath you to say that.  That is part of a socially cohesive society, where those with, ensure the welfare of those without.  Payment of taxes will always be greater (in pure money terms) the more you earn, if it is on a percentage ratio.  So in effect, they do pay much the same in that they pay what they can afford.  It depends on you definition of equal.  It is about egalitarianism meeting socialism for a better society. "

Right. Unequal treatment. People who are "unequal" and have more, receive unequal treatment to give a systematic unfair gift to those who are less fortunate.   So let's see, unequal status justifies unequal treatment. Is that the egalitarian way? Doesn't seem to be much equality there. "

Um, your list is missing Das Kapital by Karl Marx.

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" As far as "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature", that's simply not true. Rothbard explains different types of equality, including both material and biological. As far as biological, he is explaining how egalitarianism cannot cope with a society where certain people are smarter than others, more motivated than others, better looking than others, etc...If certain people biologically have these properties, such as a high IQ, inequality will exist. Therefore, egalitarians have no way of coping with people of different attributes. And I do believe that people want that. If someone is smarter than others, he will get better grades, go to a better university, get a better job, make more money, and overall live better than some who are not as smart. That is an abomination to egalitarians. "

As an egalitarian, I am calling BS on that.  We see it as having the same opportunity based on our own individual and unique properties.  We refer to it as the cream rising to the surface.  What we don't like is those who have money, connections et cetera that gives them opportunities beyond their innate capabilities - nepotism mainly.  We are all equal, but not the same. "

No, we are not equal in any way, shape, or form.  Intellectually, characteristically, by out appearance, or any other way, we are not equal.   Okay, so if I am a really good video game player, and every individual is willing to pay half their income every month to watch me play xbox for 10 minutes a day, is that evil? They are becoming considerably poorer, and I am now much richer. I can now burn money if I want. I can make connections. I can go to any university I want, buy any car I want, and get any girl I want. We are now unequal.  My skill has given me an advantage over other people and I am compensated for this. Due to my biological or learned abilities, I become better off economically.   Is that wrong? What have I done wrong by this exchange?       "

That doesn't disagree with my egalitarian point.  Egalitarianism is about single common denominator, it is about equal opportunity in line with your own abilities.  If you are better than one thing than others, it isn't against egalitarianism to profit from it.  In fact, that is the point of egalitarianism.  Getting opportunity not available to all is not egalitarianism.  That opportunity is there, but those with the best abilities should be the one that gets it.  It promotes competitiveness.  You want something, you work for it.  That is never wrong.  However, a good society underpins all of this with a social safety net to ensure that those left behind are taken care of and that is what taxes are all about - social cohesion through the redistribution of wealth.  Without that, we get an underclass that will eventually revolt. "

Okay, so a billionaire has to pay the same into the social safety net as a poor man right? That would be equal treatment right? "

No, and I think it is both silly and beneath you to say that.  That is part of a socially cohesive society, where those with, ensure the welfare of those without.  Payment of taxes will always be greater (in pure money terms) the more you earn, if it is on a percentage ratio.  So in effect, they do pay much the same in that they pay what they can afford.  It depends on you definition of equal.  It is about egalitarianism meeting socialism for a better society. "

Right. Unequal treatment. People who are "unequal" and have more, receive unequal treatment to give a systematic unfair gift to those who are less fortunate.   So let's see, unequal status justifies unequal treatment. Is that the egalitarian way? Doesn't seem to be much equality there. "

Now you are being churlish.  Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status, background or family.  Safety nets are separate as they seek to ensure that society does not feed on itself.   It is not giving them a better deal,it is ensuring them a reasonable, but very basic life, but one from which they still have an opportunity to progress. If you choose to argue black and white in a world of grey, then your position is marginal at best, as it is simplistic dogma.  No single system can satisfy a complex society and there will always be a need to incorporate bits from different places.  If you advocate that society will take care of itself, then you don't know the real world. "

Yeah cause yu know everything that comes out of austria is morally sound. Hitler for example.

" Yeah cause yu know everything that comes out of austria is morally sound. Hitler for example. "

" @lilburtonboy7489:  Interesting thread. Curiousity question though to the OP. Is your profession in economics or is this a hobby for you? I've read a decent amount of the books you mention but after a couple years it got fairly tedious and I've since lost interest. I'd consider myself fairly in-line with most libertarian ideals but as someone who mostly read the literature as a hobby I got bored once I started to witness flavors of essentially the same ideals in the writing. I'm sure that pattern is the same for almost any philosophical / political view but the preachiness got to me eventually. That's not to say I disagree with the core concepts, just that I didn't find the need to explore any further. Guess I'm curious how you got into all this stuff. "

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

Right. Unequal treatment. People who are "unequal" and have more, receive unequal treatment to give a systematic unfair gift to those who are less fortunate.   So let's see, unequal status justifies unequal treatment. Is that the egalitarian way? Doesn't seem to be much equality there. "

Now you are being churlish.  Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status, background or family.  Safety nets are separate as they seek to ensure that society does not feed on itself.   It is not giving them a better deal,it is ensuring them a reasonable, but very basic life, but one from which they still have an opportunity to progress. If you choose to argue black and white in a world of grey, then your position is marginal at best, as it is simplistic dogma.  No single system can satisfy a complex society and there will always be a need to incorporate bits from different places.  If you advocate that society will take care of itself, then you don't know the real world. "

You can't say "with no regard to status" because that is a lie. If status was not considered, then everyone would pay X amount of dollars into the safety net. A percentage of income is taking status into account because the amount paid in is relative to your status.   You keep using the word equal opportunity. That "equal opportunity" is only achieved through unequal treatment of individuals which is dependent on their status. To give someone aid, you advocate taking from x and giving to y. That is unequal treatment to achieve "equal opportunity".   This isn't simplistic dogma, it's me showing you the inconsistencies and incoherency of egalitarianism. You can't call me dogmatic when I haven't advocated anything, but have just pointed out flaws in your ideology.  "

  @lilburtonboy7489:

 I'm starting to wonder if you have actually read it. There is no work ever published by Rothbard which defends the social elite or the wealthy. He wants systematic equal treatment for all people and finds the results of society to be irrelevant.

"   @lilburtonboy7489:

 I'm starting to wonder if you have actually read it. There is no work ever published by Rothbard which defends the social elite or the wealthy. He wants systematic equal treatment for all people and finds the results of society to be irrelevant.

 "He wants systematic equal treatment for all people" I didn't get the impression that he was an egalitarian. "

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

Right. Unequal treatment. People who are "unequal" and have more, receive unequal treatment to give a systematic unfair gift to those who are less fortunate.   So let's see, unequal status justifies unequal treatment. Is that the egalitarian way? Doesn't seem to be much equality there. "

Now you are being churlish.  Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status, background or family.  Safety nets are separate as they seek to ensure that society does not feed on itself.   It is not giving them a better deal,it is ensuring them a reasonable, but very basic life, but one from which they still have an opportunity to progress. If you choose to argue black and white in a world of grey, then your position is marginal at best, as it is simplistic dogma.  No single system can satisfy a complex society and there will always be a need to incorporate bits from different places.  If you advocate that society will take care of itself, then you don't know the real world. "

You can't say "with no regard to status" because that is a lie. If status was not considered, then everyone would pay X amount of dollars into the safety net. A percentage of income is taking status into account because the amount paid in is relative to your status.   You keep using the word equal opportunity. That "equal opportunity" is only achieved through unequal treatment of individuals which is dependent on their status. To give someone aid, you advocate taking from x and giving to y. That is unequal treatment to achieve "equal opportunity".   This isn't simplistic dogma, it's me showing you the inconsistencies and incoherency of egalitarianism. You can't call me dogmatic when I haven't advocated anything, but have just pointed out flaws in your ideology.  "

Of course status is taken into account, status being ability to pay.  That has nothing to do with so called "equal" rights.  That is about fairness.  Your position is dogmatic as you seek to see a single ideology, when in fact, many different ideologies can co-exist and benefit all.  Your view on egalitarianism is skewed.  I repeat, it is about ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity regardless of where they are stationed in society.  Those who are successful have a social responsibility to ensure the welfare of society.  That doesn't contradict the fundamental belief of egalitarianism that everyone has the same opportunity - what you do with your opportunity is your concern. "

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

Right. Unequal treatment. People who are "unequal" and have more, receive unequal treatment to give a systematic unfair gift to those who are less fortunate.   So let's see, unequal status justifies unequal treatment. Is that the egalitarian way? Doesn't seem to be much equality there. "

Now you are being churlish.  Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status, background or family.  Safety nets are separate as they seek to ensure that society does not feed on itself.   It is not giving them a better deal,it is ensuring them a reasonable, but very basic life, but one from which they still have an opportunity to progress. If you choose to argue black and white in a world of grey, then your position is marginal at best, as it is simplistic dogma.  No single system can satisfy a complex society and there will always be a need to incorporate bits from different places.  If you advocate that society will take care of itself, then you don't know the real world. "

You can't say "with no regard to status" because that is a lie. If status was not considered, then everyone would pay X amount of dollars into the safety net. A percentage of income is taking status into account because the amount paid in is relative to your status.   You keep using the word equal opportunity. That "equal opportunity" is only achieved through unequal treatment of individuals which is dependent on their status. To give someone aid, you advocate taking from x and giving to y. That is unequal treatment to achieve "equal opportunity".   This isn't simplistic dogma, it's me showing you the inconsistencies and incoherency of egalitarianism. You can't call me dogmatic when I haven't advocated anything, but have just pointed out flaws in your ideology.  "

Of course status is taken into account, status being ability to pay.  That has nothing to do with so called "equal" rights.  That is about fairness.  Your position is dogmatic as you seek to see a single ideology, when in fact, many different ideologies can co-exist and benefit all.  Your view on egalitarianism is skewed.  I repeat, it is about ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity regardless of where they are stationed in society.  Those who are successful have a social responsibility to ensure the welfare of society.  That doesn't contradict the fundamental belief of egalitarianism that everyone has the same opportunity - what you do with your opportunity is your concern. "

You just said before this: "Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status" .....Now you say: "Of course status is taken into account".  So, to repeat myself...again....Egalitarianism REQUIRES unequal treatment to achieve equal results due to the differences in humans. The treatment of individuals in an egalitarian society depends on the status of the members, meaning unequal treatment. If it was equal treatment, every member would have to pay X amount into the safety net. Only then would the status not be considered.   Are you seriously going to be so dogmatic as to continue to defend this joke of a philosophy?  "

This is pretty pretentious.

I love George Orwell and Ayn Rand, and my economic/political views fall in line with many libertarian ideals so I will look into some of the recommendations you have here. There's a great, if somewhat simple, philosophy behind libertarianism that has been the center of some of the finest novels of our time. I am currently reading 1984 for the first time and it is one of the best novels I have ever read, even if I feel really depressed every time I crack it open. It is achieving its purpose though, that's for sure.

God bless you for being interested in this stuff, but this looks like the most boring and depressing thing ever from where I'm sitting.

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

Right. Unequal treatment. People who are "unequal" and have more, receive unequal treatment to give a systematic unfair gift to those who are less fortunate.   So let's see, unequal status justifies unequal treatment. Is that the egalitarian way? Doesn't seem to be much equality there. "

Now you are being churlish.  Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status, background or family.  Safety nets are separate as they seek to ensure that society does not feed on itself.   It is not giving them a better deal,it is ensuring them a reasonable, but very basic life, but one from which they still have an opportunity to progress. If you choose to argue black and white in a world of grey, then your position is marginal at best, as it is simplistic dogma.  No single system can satisfy a complex society and there will always be a need to incorporate bits from different places.  If you advocate that society will take care of itself, then you don't know the real world. "

You can't say "with no regard to status" because that is a lie. If status was not considered, then everyone would pay X amount of dollars into the safety net. A percentage of income is taking status into account because the amount paid in is relative to your status.   You keep using the word equal opportunity. That "equal opportunity" is only achieved through unequal treatment of individuals which is dependent on their status. To give someone aid, you advocate taking from x and giving to y. That is unequal treatment to achieve "equal opportunity".   This isn't simplistic dogma, it's me showing you the inconsistencies and incoherency of egalitarianism. You can't call me dogmatic when I haven't advocated anything, but have just pointed out flaws in your ideology.  "

Of course status is taken into account, status being ability to pay.  That has nothing to do with so called "equal" rights.  That is about fairness.  Your position is dogmatic as you seek to see a single ideology, when in fact, many different ideologies can co-exist and benefit all.  Your view on egalitarianism is skewed.  I repeat, it is about ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity regardless of where they are stationed in society.  Those who are successful have a social responsibility to ensure the welfare of society.  That doesn't contradict the fundamental belief of egalitarianism that everyone has the same opportunity - what you do with your opportunity is your concern. "

You just said before this: "Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status" .....Now you say: "Of course status is taken into account".  So, to repeat myself...again....Egalitarianism REQUIRES unequal treatment to achieve equal results due to the differences in humans. The treatment of individuals in an egalitarian society depends on the status of the members, meaning unequal treatment. If it was equal treatment, every member would have to pay X amount into the safety net. Only then would the status not be considered.   Are you seriously going to be so dogmatic as to continue to defend this joke of a philosophy?  "

This is how dogmatic people work  :-(  You have the most ridiculous and nutty interpretations of egalitarianism I have ever heard.  It simple means rights opportunity, not ability.  It doesn't assume we are equal in your dogmatic narrow way. Egalitarianism means that everyone has equal opportunity and rights, regardless of status.  It assumes that any role in society has the opportunity to take a role regardless of where they have come from.  It removes nepotism, racism, sexism et cetera.  However, it does not assume a role of strict communism, where everybody is truly equal and gets exactly the same thing from life and has choice removed from them.  Natural competitive advantage is not against egalitarianism.  If you want to be a doctor, you have to have the ability and have acquired the qualifications.  If you then get paid for that ability, the egalitarians have no issue.  That person had the same opportunity as anyone else, and they worked for it.  A safety net is a complete separate issue.  It does not conflict with egalitarianism, in fact it enhances it.  It ensures that everyone gets a decent education (relative to the society), proper medical care and proper housing and food, by giving them money through taxes to provide for that.  This gives everyone the opportunity for self improvement and to go after those opportunities everyone else has.  If they are homeless, destitute, malnourished and unwell, then they will never get that opportunity.  The safety net is about those who can, providing for those that can't.  Those who have more, provide more.  That does not contradict egalitarianism.  Your view of it is both wrong and utterly bitter.  Status is irrelevant other than capacity to pay- redistribution of wealth.    "

" This is pretty pretentious. "

" I love George Orwell and Ayn Rand, and my economic/political views fall in line with many libertarian ideals so I will look into some of the recommendations you have here. There's a great, if somewhat simple, philosophy behind libertarianism that has been the center of some of the finest novels of our time. I am currently reading 1984 for the first time and it is one of the best novels I have ever read, even if I feel really depressed every time I crack it open. It is achieving its purpose though, that's for sure. "

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

Right. Unequal treatment. People who are "unequal" and have more, receive unequal treatment to give a systematic unfair gift to those who are less fortunate.   So let's see, unequal status justifies unequal treatment. Is that the egalitarian way? Doesn't seem to be much equality there. "

Now you are being churlish.  Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status, background or family.  Safety nets are separate as they seek to ensure that society does not feed on itself.   It is not giving them a better deal,it is ensuring them a reasonable, but very basic life, but one from which they still have an opportunity to progress. If you choose to argue black and white in a world of grey, then your position is marginal at best, as it is simplistic dogma.  No single system can satisfy a complex society and there will always be a need to incorporate bits from different places.  If you advocate that society will take care of itself, then you don't know the real world. "

You can't say "with no regard to status" because that is a lie. If status was not considered, then everyone would pay X amount of dollars into the safety net. A percentage of income is taking status into account because the amount paid in is relative to your status.   You keep using the word equal opportunity. That "equal opportunity" is only achieved through unequal treatment of individuals which is dependent on their status. To give someone aid, you advocate taking from x and giving to y. That is unequal treatment to achieve "equal opportunity".   This isn't simplistic dogma, it's me showing you the inconsistencies and incoherency of egalitarianism. You can't call me dogmatic when I haven't advocated anything, but have just pointed out flaws in your ideology.  "

Of course status is taken into account, status being ability to pay.  That has nothing to do with so called "equal" rights.  That is about fairness.  Your position is dogmatic as you seek to see a single ideology, when in fact, many different ideologies can co-exist and benefit all.  Your view on egalitarianism is skewed.  I repeat, it is about ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity regardless of where they are stationed in society.  Those who are successful have a social responsibility to ensure the welfare of society.  That doesn't contradict the fundamental belief of egalitarianism that everyone has the same opportunity - what you do with your opportunity is your concern. "

You just said before this: "Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status" .....Now you say: "Of course status is taken into account".  So, to repeat myself...again....Egalitarianism REQUIRES unequal treatment to achieve equal results due to the differences in humans. The treatment of individuals in an egalitarian society depends on the status of the members, meaning unequal treatment. If it was equal treatment, every member would have to pay X amount into the safety net. Only then would the status not be considered.   Are you seriously going to be so dogmatic as to continue to defend this joke of a philosophy?  "

This is how dogmatic people work  :-(  You have the most ridiculous and nutty interpretations of egalitarianism I have ever heard.  It simple means rights opportunity, not ability.  It doesn't assume we are equal in your dogmatic narrow way. Egalitarianism means that everyone has equal opportunity and rights, regardless of status.  It assumes that any role in society has the opportunity to take a role regardless of where they have come from.  It removes nepotism, racism, sexism et cetera.  However, it does not assume a role of strict communism, where everybody is truly equal and gets exactly the same thing from life and has choice removed from them.  Natural competitive advantage is not against egalitarianism.  If you want to be a doctor, you have to have the ability and have acquired the qualifications.  If you then get paid for that ability, the egalitarians have no issue.  That person had the same opportunity as anyone else, and they worked for it.  A safety net is a complete separate issue.  It does not conflict with egalitarianism, in fact it enhances it.  It ensures that everyone gets a decent education (relative to the society), proper medical care and proper housing and food, by giving them money through taxes to provide for that.  This gives everyone the opportunity for self improvement and to go after those opportunities everyone else has.  If they are homeless, destitute, malnourished and unwell, then they will never get that opportunity.  The safety net is about those who can, providing for those that can't.  Those who have more, provide more.  That does not contradict egalitarianism.  Your view of it is both wrong and utterly bitter.  Status is irrelevant other than capacity to pay- redistribution of wealth.    "

My view isn't wrong or bitter, it's critical.    Alright, I can see I need to adopt the "talking to a 5-year-old kid" approach.   Consider this:  1) Egalitarianism advocates taking more from some and less from others.  (We have already agreed on this)2) Taking more from some and less from others is unequal treatment.   (From the dictionary:    not of the same measurement, quantity, or number as another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Therefore, Egalitarianism advocates unequal treatment.  (Somehow, you still disagree with me on this) Okay, can it be any more obvious that? I don't think even you can spin this. Yet, I predict another paragraph rant. Let's try this: You reply to each of the three points. That's all, no rants.  "

" This is pretty pretentious. "

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

Right. Unequal treatment. People who are "unequal" and have more, receive unequal treatment to give a systematic unfair gift to those who are less fortunate.   So let's see, unequal status justifies unequal treatment. Is that the egalitarian way? Doesn't seem to be much equality there. "

Now you are being churlish.  Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status, background or family.  Safety nets are separate as they seek to ensure that society does not feed on itself.   It is not giving them a better deal,it is ensuring them a reasonable, but very basic life, but one from which they still have an opportunity to progress. If you choose to argue black and white in a world of grey, then your position is marginal at best, as it is simplistic dogma.  No single system can satisfy a complex society and there will always be a need to incorporate bits from different places.  If you advocate that society will take care of itself, then you don't know the real world. "

You can't say "with no regard to status" because that is a lie. If status was not considered, then everyone would pay X amount of dollars into the safety net. A percentage of income is taking status into account because the amount paid in is relative to your status.   You keep using the word equal opportunity. That "equal opportunity" is only achieved through unequal treatment of individuals which is dependent on their status. To give someone aid, you advocate taking from x and giving to y. That is unequal treatment to achieve "equal opportunity".   This isn't simplistic dogma, it's me showing you the inconsistencies and incoherency of egalitarianism. You can't call me dogmatic when I haven't advocated anything, but have just pointed out flaws in your ideology.  "

Of course status is taken into account, status being ability to pay.  That has nothing to do with so called "equal" rights.  That is about fairness.  Your position is dogmatic as you seek to see a single ideology, when in fact, many different ideologies can co-exist and benefit all.  Your view on egalitarianism is skewed.  I repeat, it is about ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity regardless of where they are stationed in society.  Those who are successful have a social responsibility to ensure the welfare of society.  That doesn't contradict the fundamental belief of egalitarianism that everyone has the same opportunity - what you do with your opportunity is your concern. "

You just said before this: "Egalitarianism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity, with no regard to status" .....Now you say: "Of course status is taken into account".  So, to repeat myself...again....Egalitarianism REQUIRES unequal treatment to achieve equal results due to the differences in humans. The treatment of individuals in an egalitarian society depends on the status of the members, meaning unequal treatment. If it was equal treatment, every member would have to pay X amount into the safety net. Only then would the status not be considered.   Are you seriously going to be so dogmatic as to continue to defend this joke of a philosophy?  "

This is how dogmatic people work  :-(  You have the most ridiculous and nutty interpretations of egalitarianism I have ever heard.  It simple means rights opportunity, not ability.  It doesn't assume we are equal in your dogmatic narrow way. Egalitarianism means that everyone has equal opportunity and rights, regardless of status.  It assumes that any role in society has the opportunity to take a role regardless of where they have come from.  It removes nepotism, racism, sexism et cetera.  However, it does not assume a role of strict communism, where everybody is truly equal and gets exactly the same thing from life and has choice removed from them.  Natural competitive advantage is not against egalitarianism.  If you want to be a doctor, you have to have the ability and have acquired the qualifications.  If you then get paid for that ability, the egalitarians have no issue.  That person had the same opportunity as anyone else, and they worked for it.  A safety net is a complete separate issue.  It does not conflict with egalitarianism, in fact it enhances it.  It ensures that everyone gets a decent education (relative to the society), proper medical care and proper housing and food, by giving them money through taxes to provide for that.  This gives everyone the opportunity for self improvement and to go after those opportunities everyone else has.  If they are homeless, destitute, malnourished and unwell, then they will never get that opportunity.  The safety net is about those who can, providing for those that can't.  Those who have more, provide more.  That does not contradict egalitarianism.  Your view of it is both wrong and utterly bitter.  Status is irrelevant other than capacity to pay- redistribution of wealth.    "

My view isn't wrong or bitter, it's critical.    Alright, I can see I need to adopt the "talking to a 5-year-old kid" approach.   Consider this:  1) Egalitarianism advocates taking more from some and less from others.  (We have already agreed on this)2) Taking more from some and less from others is unequal treatment.   (From the dictionary:    not of the same measurement, quantity, or number as another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Therefore, Egalitarianism advocates unequal treatment.  (Somehow, you still disagree with me on this) Okay, can it be any more obvious that? I don't think even you can spin this. Yet, I predict another paragraph rant. Let's try this: You reply to each of the three points. That's all, no rants.  "

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

My view isn't wrong or bitter, it's critical.    Alright, I can see I need to adopt the "talking to a 5-year-old kid" approach.   Consider this:  1) Egalitarianism advocates taking more from some and less from others.  (We have already agreed on this)2) Taking more from some and less from others is unequal treatment.   (From the dictionary:    not of the same measurement, quantity, or number as another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Therefore, Egalitarianism advocates unequal treatment.  (Somehow, you still disagree with me on this) Okay, can it be any more obvious that? I don't think even you can spin this. Yet, I predict another paragraph rant. Let's try this: You reply to each of the three points. That's all, no rants.  "

If you want to have a sensible discussion, you may wish to refrain from being a prat.   Your view on this is simply being a dick now.  I am all for a sensible discussion, but your incessant dogma and poorly interpreted position has just shifted to insult.  After this, do not expect me to waste any of my valuable time debating you ever again.  I love a good debate and this isn't one of them due to your behaviour and now, pithy and churlish insults. 1)  We have not agreed that egalitarianism is taking from some and less than others.  Just so you know, read my reply again, that is the second part, the safety net and that is socialism - redistribution of the wealth.  What that does is compliment egalitarianism.    2) Taking more from some and less than others is not egalitarianism, it is socialism.  3)  Egalitarianism simply means equal rights and opportunities for everyone.  That means everyone can do whatever it is they want as long as they are capable.  It is about barrier removal.  It isn't about people having competitive advantages over each other as it it isn't a problem for an egalitarian for one people to be smarter or more clever than the next person.  You are so massively inept or intentionally deceptive to portray egalitarianism the way you do.  I miss Suicrat, at least he was worth having these discussions with.  You disappoint me. "

One thing that I find interesting about Libs is that there are both right and left wingers among its' ranks.For instance, I'm right, but someone sititng next to me could espouse free hypodermic needles to Indians who manage casinos and want to use drugs on the job.I would be repulsed, but would let the person speak their mind.Then we  would both go to the polls and vote Ron Paul.Most Repubs and many Democrats couldn't handle this scenario.

I consider myself libertarian. 

I'ma just throw this out because the argument that taking more from the rich then the poor is unequal isn't going anywhere:
 
There are two ways of looking at how taking a percentage of someone's wealth costs them.  
   -You can say that taking 10,000 from everyone is equal, because everyone's bank account is affected in the same way.  
   -You can, however, also compare it  based on the effect that losing 10,000 would have on someone. If you make 20,000 in a year and you lose 10,000, you've lost half your income and your life just got a lot harder. If you make a million in a year and you lose 10,000...you're still a millionaire. A tax that isn't based on a proportion of income hurts the poor more than anyone else, so to be equal in this regard one must tax a percentage to be equal.  
 
Either way is equal in one way but not in another.
 
Maybe that clears things up a bit? Either way,I won't take any sides in this discussion because I've found that economic theories tend to be wrong regardless of what side they're coming from.

Half of these we are currently discussing in my AP European History class, thanks to it being the chapter on the scientific revolution and enlightenment.