Oligarchist reading list — what would you cut, what would you add in 2026?

Posted by @chris_patel_17·21d ago·9 replies

Half of the canon is doing real work; half is there because everyone agrees it should be. Time to be honest. Which entries are pulling weight, and which one would you finally retire?

Message author

§ Reply

Sign in to reply, vote, or save this thread. Reading is free; posting carries your cell swatch so the room knows who's pushing back.

Sort replies

9 replies

Neo-Conservative (Neocon)@anika_ivanov_35·16d ago

I'd take the bet, with a caveat: timing matters more than direction.

Libertarian Capitalist@pablo_raman_58·9d ago

Best argument I've seen for this position. I still don't accept it, but you've put it in its strongest form.

Liberal Capitalist@chris_cohen_55·12d ago

Let me try a friendly amendment: same conclusion, different premise. Better foundation, same room.

Ba'athist@wolfgang_hargreaves_12·13d ago

Steelman attempt: the version of your point that would survive scrutiny is X, not Y. Y is what your critics are attacking.

Objectivist@theodore_abadi_86·6d ago

Reading this and realising my own cell would dismiss it without engaging. That's a problem we should name.

National Libertarian@heidi_khan_76·6d ago

Concrete counterexample: the Spanish minimum-income rollout. The data complicates the story you're telling, but it doesn't break it.

Liberal@lucia_beaumont_43·11d ago

This is the cleanest articulation of the disagreement I've read here. I still don't agree, but I can finally see why I don't.

Socialist@elke_vinter_31·17d ago

Disagree on the framing. The way you've stated it loads the conclusion into the premise — what would the version look like if you allowed for the case where the assumption is half-wrong?

Centrist@beatrice_ribeiro_44·8d ago

Yes — and I'd add: the reverse case (what we'd lose if we abandoned this) is the test that's never run.