No matter your age, nor how many years of school, you haven’t completed your left right-of-passage until you’ve read two ancient essays by Jean-Jaques Rousseau. One is The Social Contract, another is Discourse on Inequality. They were penned in the mid-1700s, and inspired the French Revolution. They are available in a paperback books. And these days since nobody wants to read anything longer than a few paragraphs (pop culture), you will be miles ahead when you finish.
More left ideology is contained in a modern treatise by John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, which is a big, thick book. So again, most people don’t even try. But if you get through the first 100 pages, you’ll be able to dominate dinner-table arguments, astonishing people. You will be able to turn off the tv, stand up, and explain why there is a higher priority than liberty (freedom), and what happens in a totally free society when capitalism comes along with no conscience attached.
Rawls: what’s prior to freedom is justice. Justice is equity (so it is close to equality.) Justice is fairness.
The basic problem is that freedom and equality are always opposed. The more of one, the less of the other. Free market economics has no morality, it is just differences in strength and survival-of-the fittest, and makes produces precipitious inequalities in wealth: which means no possibilities of justice-for-all. Rawls’s book explains the best way to preserve freedom while promoting more equity in a forward-moving society.
The next source is protected by pay-to-read, so any way you can get hold of Robert Sapolsky’s article in Scientific American December 2005, p. 92, “Sick of Poverty.” After a decade of meticulous public health research, they’ve found that communities, states, nations with more social inequality have shorter life expectancies for all. That’s it. And which of the developed nations has the most social inequality? You guessed it, the USA. A puzzle is, why isn’t this scientific fact making headline news, in our culture that’s obsessed with health issues? Well, because it is diametrically opposed to the free market system: free markets always create inequality as they go. There’s a whole edifice of market ideology which tries to tell us that the free market is good for all. Sapolsky’s thin, eight-page article walks up and kicks the struts out from under that.