What is the most scientific, logically sound treatment of political

>>8578442
A nice introduction to political philosophy is "On Politics" by Alan Ryan. Don't read Marx first.

Leviathan, literally based on Euclids elements.

There is a simple reason why there is so much disagreement. And it is that if there were one "correct" viewpoint, we would all know it right now.

>literally asking to be told how to think

Focus primarily on free-market types early on (adam smith, hobbes)

Progress into reading more modern day thinkers across a broad and varied scope ala kenyes and sowell

File: 1483475045938.jpg (32KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x500px

Thomas Piketty

There's no good entry if you're hostile to philosophy.

>>8580176
Fuck- read your post wrong and thought you wrote something else. What I mean to say is that you're starting from the wrong place if you're asking for what's most 'scientific,' as if any amount of empirical research can be done to tell you what's correct of broad and vague political ideologies. Political philosophy itself arises out of the fact that it's not so simple.

>>8580009
this tbqh

>>8578442
Nothing
Its shit
I studies political science before switching to physics
Dont fucking do it, 2 years of my life and loans went to waste