Quoting Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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).