Hey all,
This question was recently raised on the Mises Institute's Facebook page and I found the responses incredibly inspiring. Most surprising to me was that most people there came from a traditionally socialist philosophy. This is encouraging. I'd love to hear how members of this forum came to be libertarians and, in particular, what were the most defining moments in their conversion. It might serve to educate us as to how others may be converted. At the least, it will no doubt serve up some very inspiring reading!
---
I'll start by sharing my personal journey. Thanks for reading!
For a long time, I was indifferent to politics. In 2000 (age 20), I voted for Bush, but I hadn't researched any candidate thoroughly and remember making the decision based on a single statement that he made about science policy.After 9/11, I had a feeling that something wasn't right - the alleged terrorist motivations for the attack ("they hate democracy, our freedoms", etc) didn't make sense. During the buildup to the Iraq war, I had a bad feeling the administration was making a huge mistake, but I gave them the benefit of my doubt - after all, they have a massive intelligence network that surely knows a lot more than I do. They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't know for sure that Iraq was building WMDs - plus, they claimed to "know where they are" - and I'm sure they have our best interests in mind, right?Shortly after the "fall of Baghdad", I become disgusted with the Bush administration. Where are these "weapons"?! Could it be that our government LIED?! I remember a particular report on Fox News. The anchorman was showing footage of some collateral damage and a reporter in the field was describing how some innocent Iraqis were killed. The anchorman stopped and explained to the audience: "We want to remind our viewers that this is not the reason we went into Iraq. It's unfortunate, of course, that innocents have lost their lives, but the United States' intention is to achieve peace and justice (blah blah blah). Remember at all times that it was Saddam Hussein that is at fault here." That really amazed me - it was the most brazen evidence that the media wasn't reporting the situation objectively.The media couldn't be trusted. I started searching for the truth. I came across a variety of alternative websites; most of them, naturally, had a leftist slant. I had a great desire to read. For some reason, I stumbled across Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" which was a great piece of leftist historical revisionism. (Looking back, I realize that book could fit equally well into a libertarian critique of statism!) The take home message from Zinn's book was that both parties have historically combined to support war and government coercion over "the people". He mentioned that alternatives exist, such as Ralph Nader.I started reading about Ralph and I realized his views were consistent for decades and I sensed he had an integrity that other politicians didn't. I respected him for his achievements during the 1960-1970s. I remember looking into the Libertarian party around this time. Michael Barnarik was running for president on their ticket in 2004. I was also attracted to the Green party at this same time. I had a feeling that either of these ideologies could lead to a better world. (Of course, now I realize that while socialists talk a good game, economic theory shows that it isn't possible in practice. Nor had I considered the amount of government coercion necessary to achieve it!)In 2004, I decided the Green Party was better. By this time I had started listening to daily news casts from Democracy NOW! (Amy Goodman is legitimately a good reporter, even given her leftist stance.) My reading (especially Howard Zinn's "Passionate Declarations", which is very inspiring) was starting to lead me toward democratic socialism. My primary goals were ending the war and restoring our civil liberties. For some reason, I hadn't made the connection that economic liberty is also a civil liberty. I talked about "following the Constitution" in one sentence, and in the next I advocated single payer health care for all. Amazing that I did not recognize the contradiction. Looking back, I think the problem was that I was reading only the Bill of Rights - and even that reading was distorted. For example, whereas "free speech" really means that one may use their own property to spread whatever ideas they'd like, I interpreted it to mean that government should act to give "the people" a voice equal to that of the rich, or corporations.I saw "pure" democracy as the ultimate goal. "The People" should be able to "rule themselves". I started advocating direct democracy - democratic control over everything. I wondered if there could be a way to have "the people" vote on every little bill, so as to abolish the legislature. I studied the best ways to achieve a "fair" voting system. I was disheartened to learn that Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that no such "fair" voting system exists.
What happened next was a sort of oddity. I was playing an Xbox game called "Bioshock" which is set in a dystopian anarchocapitalist world. The society's creator was "Andrew Ryan", an obvious reference to Ayn Rand. After playing the game, I was interested in reading Rand's work, so I borrowed Atlas Shrugged from the library. I loved this book. The characters were disappointingly one-dimensional and I still thought that her vision of capitalism was naive, but for whatever reason I really enjoyed the story! I read about some of her views online and found them particularly interesting - in particular, her opinion that civil rights legislation is a violation of one's freedom to discriminate was shocking, yet it made sense in a way. I kept trying to think of ways to undermine her philosophy, but it was difficult.
Around this time, Ron Paul's presidential campaign became popular. He was the only vocal anti-war candidate. How could a REPUBLICAN be anti-war? His exchange with Giuliani was fantastic - and he stuck to his guns, even when under fire. But I was disappointed by Ron Paul's insistence on economic liberty. I didn't understand why he kept talking about the Fed and the gold standard. I started reading economics to see "why he is wrong". To my surprise, I realized that his argument was a very good one. Even as a leftist, I understood that printing money as a means to devalue the currency of the poor was wrong.
I read more...and more...and more. After reading Ron Paul's manifesto, I knew I had reached a tipping point. His consistency was refreshing. He opposed drug laws -- a REPUBLICAN opposing drug laws! He wanted decriminalization of prostitution and anti-homosexual laws, etc. This was radical stuff! Most importantly, he really hit home the importance of economic liberty. And he framed it in a way that made it sound important for poor people; not just the rich.
Afterwards, I read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" - this was an incredible book which convinced me that the entire liberal economic platform actually achieves the EXACT OPPOSITE of its goals. Even if I still believed in the goals of the leftist position, it seemed that I STILL ought to support libertarianism.
But, I wasn't an anarchocapitalist until after I read Rothbard's "For A New Liberty". Every chapter, I said to myself -- "OK, Rothbard...I accept that we can provide service A on the market, but you are out of your mind if you think the market can provide service B!" But sure enough, he made his case time and time again.
Now I am on a path that I must complete. There are aspects of Rothbardianism that I don't accept - Rothbard appears to claim a uniform set of libertarian principles over all private court systems. I want to consider the problem of the private court system completely - what will a free society look like if courts use different sets of principles?
I don't know the perfect answer to this yet - but I think some might call it "panarchy".
I wonder if I was always a libertarian but just hadn't realized it yet. As I made the journey from ignorance & indifference to leftism to libertarianism, at each significant step there was an exciting experience of discovery, not a change of opinion.
In fact, I'd say that it feels most like an adventure of self-discovery of my own morality.
Most influential books:
Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States" (lost trust in the government)
Ralph Nader, "Crash!ng the Party" (became supporter of Nader)
Howard Zinn, "Passionate Declarations" (started to consider democratic socialism)
Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" (introduced me to libertarianism)
Ron Paul, "The Revolution: The Manifesto" (converted me to the liberty movement)
Henry Hazlitt, "Economics in One Lesson" (convinced me of free market capitalism)
Murray Rothbard, "For A New Liberty" (converted to anarchism)
I discussed with people on these forums, and read Hazlitt.
I want to consider the problem of the private court system completely - what will a free society look like if courts use different sets of principles?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan, how did you become a libertarian?
I have always considered myself "pro-Capitalist", until not as much as I consider myself that now. As a Spaniard from Madrid, I have always felt a large degree of nationalism, and so I probably leaned towards national socialism, only in the sense that I supported a strong central government in Spain. At the time, I did not really understand the relationship between the State, economics and freedom. Nevertheless, I did see merit in Capitalism and many of my friends considered me European liberal. I would not call myself that now, though, knowing what I know now. I was originally a Mechanical Engineering student, but then I decided to join the U.S. Army. I only completed infantry one stop unit training (BT + AIT). I suffer from kyphosis (spine problems), and as the weeks went by I also thought that the five years I had promised to do would go to waste (since it's pretty difficult to get a degree when you're deployed, unless you're really motivated and put aside all your free time), and the Army refused to change my MOS (MOS is pretty much a job). The day of my graduation I was supposed to take a bus to airborne school, and instead I took a taxi to the international airport in Atlanta and flew to San Diego, where my mother bought me a ticket to Spain.
In Spain I was subjected to a number of business students and there are plenty of economic problems in Spain. I have always been interested in Spain's "economic miracle" which ocurred during the Franco administration. After spending a year in Spain, I decided to return to the U.S. to complete my degree in economics (I turned myself in and they discharged me, first). During that time I was exposed to Austrian economics, to a degree. I decided to pick up a copy of Meltdown, which I loved. And, since then, I have been absolutely obsessed with Austrian economics.
I would say that so far the most influential book I have read is Jesús Huerta de Soto's Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles, although what led me to read that book (not for any specific reason) was Rothbard's America's Great Depression. I originally bought the latter book (in conjunction with Burton Folsom Jr.'s New Deal or Raw Deal? in order to prove my macroeconomic professor wrong on the Great Depression [he said that FDR was laissez-faire]).
When I admitted to myself that limited government has not and will never work. The old saying that Rothbard hated, "you can't turn back the clock" seems rather true. Federalism and Confederations are a useless check - just look at the US Civil War and Switzerland's Sonderbund War. Former American conservatives like myself kept wanting to move up the date of which the level of government power was 'just right'.
While I did not wake up one morning and say to myself 'Tax is theft' but rather via utilitarian means, I nevertheless arrived at nearly the same conclusions.
I discovered Ron Paul in 2007, before he was labeled as a kook by the MSM. From there, I discovered LRC and LvMI. I went from not caring to constitutionalist to an-cap.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Well, first became aware of libertarianism when I heard about Ron Paul. Before learning about economics, I was pretty much a socialist or close to it. Then after learning about economics I would be called a moderate conservative I guess cus I believed in fiscal conservatism but didn't care about social issues (in my personal life I'm pretty much a social conservative, but i don't believe that people should be put in jail just for having a different lifestyle). Either through the Ron Paul meetup group I'm in, or one of Ron Paul's books, or some vids on Youtube(which I watch a lot) I heard "mises" mentioned and ran a search on yahoo....
well anyways, I wanted to start learning about economics in my spare time cus I like it a lot but I ain't an economics major. I took a class in agricultural econoimcs here in college last year (it was basically an intro economics course....except one chapter desperately tried to justify farm price support programs, lol). However, i found mises.org before taking that class and also came across the misesmedia Youtube channel and learned a lot there. I also started learning about libertarianism from mises.org as well and found out I was a libertarian because a lotta stuff was just what I had a natural tendency to believe in...however before I would always go with utilitarian arguments that "well things don't work that way or wouldn't work that way" ....and the more I learned, the more I learned that libertarianism IS usually supported by utilitarian arguments and pragmatism, but of course also has the moral arguments, so i figure that's a double-whammy and I was won over.
I remember watching Free to Choose with Milton Friedman and lots of vids with Friedman in them and found myself agreeing with pretty much everything he said. I also saw a vid where this guy named Brian Doherty was talking about his book "Radicals for Capitalism" and liked that vid and either in that vid or in another one he mentioned how libertarians usually tend to get more radical over time and i was like "man, i seriously gotta prevent that from happening to me" because I just saw the anarcho-capitalists as crazy people, lol.
Well....low-and-behold after a lot of evidence and moral arguments I eventually became an anarcho-capitalist, lol....at least in principle. I still dunno if I would actively support and promote such a system because i still don't see how we could have a military, but I do acknowledge that it's the morally superior system. In terms of practicality, I'm not one of the "give me liberty or give me death" type of people. I want the most liberty I can get without the death part. , but i always cheer for any time I see voluntary interactions being suggested and working (which they usually do). As for what I promote in terms of policy and stuff, I'm generally for scaling back the state even if it means something that isn't really a free market cus the way I see it, such policies would be a short-term solution and serve as a transition where it would at least be an improvement over the current policies and people could see that markets actually work. then, afterwards we could convince people of going even further.
I went from being the family socialist [ in a NeoCon family] to being a NeoCon after 9/11. After that I became I guess you can say 'moderate' in terms of Conservatism [ thinking Reagan was such a swell guy ] then I got into the Ron Paul movement and became a libertarian. One day I was given a audio reading of Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority [ I was big into the Constitution then but I wouldn't say I was a Constitutionalist ] and after listening to that one book I was instantly convinced that the Constitution cannot work and is a horrible 'social contract'. I was converted to anarchism in a single hour. So I wikipediaed Spooner and found that he was an 'individual anarchist' and upon learning more I heard of Murray Rothbard. I was brought into this movement by a man who passed away more then a decade from when I heard about him. Truly that is the power of Rothbard. The fact that he is still being people into anarcho-capitalism even after his passing.
So it went from:
Socialist --- NeoConservative----Conservative----Libertarian----Anarchist
I still like to talk about Marxism though, such a fascinating ideology.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
confused liberal democrat -> constitutionalist (thanks to Dr. Paul) -> libertarian -> An-cap (thanks to Rothbard and Stef Molyneux.)
Moving from a liberal Democrat to an an-cap took me 2-3 years, give or take.
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
I was always a "fiscal conservative" supporting pro capitalist, free market views and opposed to big government, the welfare state and taxes. This has never changed, I never remotely even entertained idealistic and naive socialist policies. My initial economic views were shaped by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell and in many ways still are today. So I naturally took to the Republican party and Ronald Reagan though supply side economics never made any sense to me, I at the time just assumed I did not understand it. The more I spent time with members of the Republican party, the more frustrated I got with economic issues, arguing against idiots who believed that if Bush did big government, it was ok. The reason was that the Republican party is being taken over by social conservatives who only care about Abortion, Judeo-Christian values and Gay Marriage and don't understand anything about economics. They support protectionist policies and using government to "help" people with idiotic "compassionate conservatism". That was the final straw that pushed me to stop calling myself a "conservative".
Researching on the Internet is what allowed me to properly define myself as a limited government libertarian.
Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" series and John Stossel's various Economic Series on 20/20 have been very influential.
What concerns me is all the initial socialists, I don't even understand how you use emotion over logic.
Financial Conservative (From Birth) -> Limited Government Libertarian (Internet)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
LS:Juan, how did you become a libertarian?
Poor explanations of busts in the economy. Credit bubble -> Peter Schiff -> Ron Paul -> Mises -> making me at least minarchist, if not full out anarchist. (Need to read up on defence, transit and law in an anarcho-capitalist system and then i'd wager that i'd be convinced)
I've always wanted to jot down my growth into the philosophy of an Anarcho-Capitalist. It's actually a short time in my life.. I grew into it rather quickly.
My only stints into the political arena were in 2000, when I let my parents vote George W. Bush on my mail-in ballot for me. I didn't even research who was who and which I would actually support. I didn't even regret this until Bush's 2nd term, because I was really indifferent to the whole process. I had always known one thing about myself: I had an uneasy distrust for the police and politicians, with no real thought to back it up.
Anyway, during the 2008 Presidential debates, I was swept into this sea of "change" that Obama kept blabbering on about. I didn't even pay attention to the Republic side, much. Was just fascinated by Obama's charisma. So when it came to time to vote in November, I put my stamp on Obama. Around Janauary I came to regret that decision. I stumped into this "Ron Paul Revolution", something I hadn't bothered to learn about until after Obama's nomination.
It seemed pretty fantastic, and for one month or so, I actually tried to involve myself into the Libertarian Party and learning about Ron Paul as much as possible. And then I saw his hypocrisies. His view on immigration, abortion, and taxes seemed a bit off to me. And for a short while, I didn't like his stance on School Vouchers (I don't support that idea anymore, tbh). Now I simply do not like the guy, no matter how much he harps on the Federal Reserve (and make no neverminds, I don't like the Fed, either). He's a politician, after all.
So, confused for awhile, I stumbled around seeking out new books and resource materials and I stumbled upon a fellow by the name of Stefan Molyneux on youtube, talking about Ron Paul and the "Truth About Voting". I enjoy his political philosophy much, tho' some of what he says in other areas of life kind of disturb me. Anyway, I just kept eating away at more knowledge, i.e., Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" and Block's "Defending the Undefendable". From there, I fit myself snugly into the 'Anarcho-Capitalist' mindset. And here I have been for a little over two months now.
A lot of this knowledge seeking of mine made me depressed, quite often. And I still feel bitter about how things currently are. I don't believe I will ever see Anarcho-Capitalism being practiced anytime before my death. Maybe I'll crawl out of this pit of stink soon. :/
When I first learned about an-cap, I tried to explain some of it to a couple of friends of me, and they put a stop to it by calling me 'unrealistic'. I havent' spoken to them about it ever since. That conversation lasted all of 5 minutes, when I tried to tell them I am now an anarchist. Maybe I'll get by this someday, as well, and explain it better now that I have better knowledge of my beliefs.
You observe, but you do not see.
Juan: LS:Juan, how did you become a libertarian? I always hated being told what to do.
Thanks for the biography. lol
I'll have to try that Bioshock game when I get a decent PC.
I always liked this Andrew Ryan quote:
"Whenever anyone wants others to do their work they call upon their Altruism. 'Never mind your own needs,' they say, 'Think of the needs of... of whoever. Of the state. Of the poor. Of the Army, of the King. Of God.' The list goes on and on. How many catastrophes were launched with the words 'Think of yourself?' It's the king and country crowd who light the torch of destruction."
Considering I'm fairly young, I don't have a long, drawn-out time line of how I became a libertarian. In fact, compared to some of you, it was very recent.
Before late 2007 I was pretty apathetic toward politics, but whenever an election came around I would support (like I said, fairly young. Can't vote yet.) the democratic candidate. I think it was due to some subconscious belief that the old, white-haired guy (the republican) would kill us all. I now realize that is true for both parties. Also, my mom always voted Democrat and I was a total momma's-boy so that had some influence on me.
Then in late 2007 I started hearing all about Ron Paul on the internet, through various forums I visited and such. That, and I had began to enter my late teens so the thought of some big government telling me what to do wasn't exactly appealing. Come early 2008, I started actually researching Ron Paul, and I guess you could say I fell in love with his ideas. That led me to lewrockwell.com by a former libertarian friend of mine (who jumped ship and is some kind of Marxist now) which led me here. I've downloaded audio books and read many many articles and hope to someday be as well-educated as the rest of you.
Wow, that's TWO votes for Bioshock!
RockyRaccoon:What happened next was a sort of oddity. I was playing an Xbox game called "Bioshock" which is set in a dystopian anarchocapitalist world. The society's creator was "Andrew Ryan", an obvious reference to Ayn Rand. After playing the game, I was interested in reading Rand's work, so I borrowed Atlas Shrugged from the library. I loved this book.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Well for me it started last year with a game called bioshock that was loosley based off of the works of rand and then i became interested in her writings and read Atlas Shrugged and other works of hers.
I was so amused to hear that somebody else was influenced by this game. Apparently, the game creator is a fan of Ayn Rand. While he claims to be a fan of objectivism, the world of Bioshock ("Rapture") was an alternative reality of Galt's Gulch. :)
I wonder what the net effect of this game has been. Anyway, I highly recommend it to those that enjoy this type of entertainment. ;)
Laughing Man: I always liked this Andrew Ryan quote: "Whenever anyone wants others to do their work they call upon their Altruism. 'Never mind your own needs,' they say, 'Think of the needs of... of whoever. Of the state. Of the poor. Of the Army, of the King. Of God.' The list goes on and on. How many catastrophes were launched with the words 'Think of yourself?' It's the king and country crowd who light the torch of destruction."
Sweet! Make that three influenced by Bioshock. :)
RockyRaccoon:It might serve to educate us as to how others may be converted.
Thanks a lot to everybody that's contributed thus far! I've enjoyed reading the responses thus far and I look forward to reading more.
What's striking to me, thus far, is this:
(1) Many people have been successfully converted from socialism to libertarianism.
(2) Conversion to libertarianism in most cases takes quite some time.
In regards to (1), I credit Howard Zinn (socialist) for playing a very important role in my transition. His work destroyed my faith in the state, which is critical. For this reason, I've often thought that socialists may be easier to persuade than we typically imagine. After all, they already reject the "official line" and accept "radical" reformations of society. Instead of consciously avoiding socialists, it may be advantageous to repetitively engage them politely and directly, emphasizing the facts and questioning the apparent contradictions in their ideology.
Also, it's clearly unlikely that anybody will swallow the entire philosophy whole. Perhaps its wise to gauge each person's situation individually and encourage them along the path by offering only what they are willing to digest at a given time. Ron Paul, for example, appears to play a major role for many. Even though many of us desire more than simply "following the Constitution", perhaps turning somebody on to Ron Paul is all they need in order to pursue the rest entirely on their own. In some cases, it may be temporarily counterproductive to reveal the entire case for Rothbardian anarchocapitalism if people aren't prepared to accept it.
What I've been doing recently is engaging as many people as possible only when they reveal a hint of being receptive to small doses of libertarianism. I figure that for every minor point that I persuade somebody, it brings them marginally closer to libertarianism. But if I lose them entirely by scaring them off with full-fledged anarchocapitalism, then they might instead embrace their current ideology even stronger, out of fear. Not to mention the fact that many people appear contented with minarchism. While I disagree, minarchism is clearly better than unrestricted ... archism?
RockyRaccoon:I started searching for the truth.
That is all you need to know. My guess, is that most people start searching for themselves. Those are the only ones that will learn.
My short story. I graduated from college with a B.A. in history, and considered myself a conservative Democrat. I got married. My wife and I got a 350z. I found my350z.com. They had a politics forum. At that point, I was convinced we needed regulations, and more of them. I asked if anyone else on the forum felt the same. Surprisingly to me, it was a resounding no. I had a lengthy discussion with them about it, and they helped me realize that businesses are not evil, because the consumer is king. I talked to them about more political stuff, eventually found out about libertarianism. I found CATO and FEE. Eventually I found Mises.org. Mises and FEE made more sense than CATO. Mises.org created a forum shortly before I found it and I joined. Through conversations on here and through other studying, I finally realized that state is illegitimate. It took about four and a half years of in depth study and thought.
The point is, I asked the questions. I went searching for answers. Those that are not interested in answers, will never give up their faith in the state.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
RockyRaccoon:Not to mention the fact that many people appear contented with minarchism. While I disagree, minarchism is clearly better than unrestricted ... archism?
Minarchism is a pipe dream. People that refuse to let go of it, will never see anything really change. for the better.
Spideynw:Minarchism is a pipe dream. People that refuse to let go of it, will never see anything really change. for the better.
Fair enough. But many minarchists may be paused there as one stop on their long journey toward anarchism. And in that sense, they should be politely encouraged to complete the journey. ;)
On the flip side, a minarchist is still better than most and may still participate in educating others to make the move toward libertarianism.
After all, if we eventually reach a point where minarchists are considered the extreme left political wing, we'd likely have a pretty free society on our hands.
-Michael
I think we were socialists before we knew anything about economics, at leat that's how it was for me, lol. As you said, your views were influenced by Friedman and Sowell....well as soon as I started learning economics I started getting rid of my socialist tendencies and I didn't learn about Friedman or Sowell untill like 2 years ago, lol.
I thnk the important thing is that we're open to logic and evidence. Of course, the morality of libertarianism is important as well, IMO. However, it's enough to become morality because it works so well. All morality has some sort of pragmatic basis to it. Property rights allow us to settle conflicts peacefully(I'm not a pacificist however, like if someone attacks you then i think you can and should defend yourself since the attacker is infringing on your right of self-ownership)
As a child of the 1980s, I identified straight away with the likes of Reagan and Thatcher (okay, they weren't strictly libertarian, but at the time...). The free-market and limited government ideology always made much more sense to me – even as British National Curriculum (the standards/knowledge base all schools are obliged to teach) trumpeted the glories of FDR, socialism, 'Uncle Joe' (Stalin), the 'evil' of the Victorians etc.
I remember being about the only one in my history class who questioned the ridiculous worship of FDR...
Anyhow, after finishing secondary school (high school), I came across Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged seemed like the greatest book I'd ever read, largely because of its unapologetic defence of capitalism and the individual. Then from there, I discovered the Mises Institute and began to agree more and more with the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism.
So here I am, today. :)
As for 'Bioshock', I read that the game creator intended it to be a criticism of Objectivism, and that people were meant to be appalled by Andrew Ryan?
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
I was a conservative throughout most of my teenage years, and always thought leftism was pretty silly. When I say "conservative" I mean it in the 'Wayne Allyn Root' sense of the term (not part of the religious right, but somewhat of a liberventionist). One day I took some random political quiz which ranked me as a libertarian--a term I had never even heard before. I did some more research on what libertarians believe, and found that I agreed with them on most things.
I was still a little skeptical of libertarian views on foreign policy (and to a lesser degree, immigration), thinking that libertarians made some interesting points but were kind of naive. "Maybe the non-intervention stuff could work after we kill al Qeada" was basically my mindset. This was before I stumblied on to Harry Browne's site and became addicted to his columns and radio show. He gave me all the answers on foreign policy I was hoping for. Eventually, I found Lew Rockwell's site (thanks to Browne, who linked to LRC continuously) and the Mises Institute. What converted me to anarcho-capitalism, however, was Strike the Root. Anthony Gregory, Mike Wasdin and other STR columnists eventually won me over. Jeremy Sapienza and the crew at anti-state.com helped as well.
In the end, it was not any grand polemic but a series of short, to-the-point articles that brought me over.
AndrewR:As for 'Bioshock', I read that the game creator intended it to be a criticism of Objectivism, and that people were meant to be appalled by Andrew Ryan?
After reading this, I went back and found the article where the game creator (Ken Levine) explains the connection with Objectivism. It's an interesting read, but I've copied some of the more interesting pieces below:
Kotaku Interview with Ken Levine: Levine says he didn't set out to torpedo objectivism with BioShock. "I think I'm more sympathetic to it," he said. "I find a lot of positive in it. I find her notion of selfishness is very interesting, not living for the abrogation of others, believing in the individual man as the central powerful force in the world rather than a government or a supreme being, the reintegration in belief of man/woman. "We live in a country where atheists are distrusted, but you can be proudly religious and proudly political, but to reject those things and be proud of it I think that's a very brave woman. "But I'm not a person who buys anything hook, line and sinker. I view life more as a buffet style."When I look at anything in my life one of my saving graces is the ability to step back and examine things. It's very easy to get mired in ideology." Levine said he actually wrote the story of BioShock as a fan of Ayn Rand's precepts. "I'm probably way more similar to her in my terms of how I think about religion and politics than any other philosophers," he said. But Levine believes that Rand would reject that take on philosophy, that Rand believed it was "her way or the highway." So BioShock wasn't meant really to be a game about Rand's beliefs, but more about her intensity. "I wasn't setting out to make a game about objectivism, I was setting out to make a game about someone who had a very strong belief in a philosophy that was similar to this philosophy. "It's a cautionary tale about wholesale, unquestioning belief in something." ... "The game was never intended to be a screed against Rand because I think there is a lot to like there, but if you take anything to its extremes it isn't good."
Levine says he didn't set out to torpedo objectivism with BioShock.
"I think I'm more sympathetic to it," he said. "I find a lot of positive in it. I find her notion of selfishness is very interesting, not living for the abrogation of others, believing in the individual man as the central powerful force in the world rather than a government or a supreme being, the reintegration in belief of man/woman.
"We live in a country where atheists are distrusted, but you can be proudly religious and proudly political, but to reject those things and be proud of it I think that's a very brave woman.
"But I'm not a person who buys anything hook, line and sinker. I view life more as a buffet style."When I look at anything in my life one of my saving graces is the ability to step back and examine things. It's very easy to get mired in ideology."
Levine said he actually wrote the story of BioShock as a fan of Ayn Rand's precepts.
"I'm probably way more similar to her in my terms of how I think about religion and politics than any other philosophers," he said.
But Levine believes that Rand would reject that take on philosophy, that Rand believed it was "her way or the highway."
So BioShock wasn't meant really to be a game about Rand's beliefs, but more about her intensity.
"I wasn't setting out to make a game about objectivism, I was setting out to make a game about someone who had a very strong belief in a philosophy that was similar to this philosophy.
"It's a cautionary tale about wholesale, unquestioning belief in something."
...
"The game was never intended to be a screed against Rand because I think there is a lot to like there, but if you take anything to its extremes it isn't good."
RockyRaccoon: AndrewR:As for 'Bioshock', I read that the game creator intended it to be a criticism of Objectivism, and that people were meant to be appalled by Andrew Ryan? After reading this, I went back and found the article where the game creator (Ken Levine) explains the connection with Objectivism. It's an interesting read, but I've copied some of the more interesting pieces below: Kotaku Interview with Ken Levine: Levine says he didn't set out to torpedo objectivism with BioShock. "I think I'm more sympathetic to it," he said. "I find a lot of positive in it. I find her notion of selfishness is very interesting, not living for the abrogation of others, believing in the individual man as the central powerful force in the world rather than a government or a supreme being, the reintegration in belief of man/woman. "We live in a country where atheists are distrusted, but you can be proudly religious and proudly political, but to reject those things and be proud of it I think that's a very brave woman. "But I'm not a person who buys anything hook, line and sinker. I view life more as a buffet style."When I look at anything in my life one of my saving graces is the ability to step back and examine things. It's very easy to get mired in ideology." Levine said he actually wrote the story of BioShock as a fan of Ayn Rand's precepts. "I'm probably way more similar to her in my terms of how I think about religion and politics than any other philosophers," he said. But Levine believes that Rand would reject that take on philosophy, that Rand believed it was "her way or the highway." So BioShock wasn't meant really to be a game about Rand's beliefs, but more about her intensity. "I wasn't setting out to make a game about objectivism, I was setting out to make a game about someone who had a very strong belief in a philosophy that was similar to this philosophy. "It's a cautionary tale about wholesale, unquestioning belief in something." ... "The game was never intended to be a screed against Rand because I think there is a lot to like there, but if you take anything to its extremes it isn't good."
He's taking non-extremism to the extreme.
On a serious note, though. I dont' think it's easy to get mired in ideology at all. I think most people are pragmatic and only later find an ideology simply cus they like it...and if anything, most folks don't think in terms of ideology in my opinion...at least not the ones I know. Most folks I know simply wanna be able to do what they please without someone interfering with that. However, i have often heard that it was "Rand's way or the highway" so to speak when it came to discussing things with objectivists. I personally wouldn't know cus I don't know any objectivists, lol.
I did spend about 10-20 minutes setting my post out and then when i posted it the server crashed. How annoying. I'll try and post it tomorrow or sometime soon .I written my story before It just needs some corrections.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
This place.
pivotal point in my life at this point was my beginning awareness of politics and the horrors of war. The twin towers had collapsed and now there was a ' war' against Afghanistan.The falling of the twin towers in a way representented the changing of my whole world view and also my life. the era of ignorance was over. It was time to put away childish things. innocence was lost-before this point I was a fairly carefree kid, unaware & indifferent to politics.I remember for some reason being strongly in favour of invading Afghanistan and Iraq when it all happened. I knew very little and bought everything the media said.I thought Iraq/Afghanistan was an evil & terrorist and should be destroyed . I hated Saddam and all Iraqi's.I'm so ashamed of how sheepish I was at this point.Individualist (2002)My sheepishness in this areas was contrasted with my individualism in general. As I was growing became acutely aware of how different I was from everyone else. I took extreme pride in this ,seeing anything of a compromise as losing myself completely. Though I didn't know the word yet- i used sheep instead - I was vehemently opposed to Collectivism.these thoughts only began to increase in intensity as I grew older. I was unique and fiercely so.This belief in Independence, free thought and resistance to unthinking conformity continues to this very day.Anti-NaziIn 2003 I was made more political as i came to understand the hideous acts committed by Hitler and the Nazi's .I made a choice then that whatever i believed i would always be against the Nazi's in any form and would fight to avoid there rise to power.From my Foundling understandings of history I decided I was Very Much In favour of freedom,I was opposed to oppression and tyranny Yet i never thought over this much.it was a background thought in my head.Pro war2004, I took religious studies class at high school . Not so much because I had an interest in religion though i did but because I liked the philosophical elements to it which at this point remained untapped in me.Even At That point ,I yearned for philosophy.We covered such topics as abortion,War,euthanasia,death,birth,poverty etc.I think it was this pondering of topics that made me become more politically minded.It was at this time I became pro -choice on the issue of abortion and I supported the right to die .I remember shockingly that even after hearing all this horrendous history of war and the current events and reading arguments against war ,I still wasn't swayed. I believed in vegetius "if you desire for peace, prepare for war". I believed the Liberal lie that if you want peace in the world you must kill people to achieve it.I continued to support the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan .Now that seems so horrible and abhorrent to me ,I don't know what I was thinking.It just makes no sense at all and yet it seemed right to me at the time.I remember it was also in R.s. class that we were asked what we believed would be the right punishment for certain crimes , weird but all the way back then i believed something akin to the libertarian theory of punishment espoused by Stephan Kinsella,I explained that i believed in like for like and thought it was just that rapists etc be castrated and killers killed.Confused Classical and social LiberalIt was also this year that i read a book with a brief simplistic section on politics. It seemed to describe what i believed in:- free speech,free assembly,free association etc It called this liberalism (i never really understood this was classical liberalism which the book declined to mention)it said this begun with john Locke(whereas now i know the tradition goes back much further). It was from reading this that i decided this philosophy was right for me.I fell in love with these ideas, they fit perfectly with my love of Freedom. My parents where always talking about rights -especially my mum and this was what i believed in too.Unfortunately as i see now, the family i grew up in was 'left liberal' thus i also took on this idea.The book i had read failed to distinguish between social liberal & classical liberal.I confusingly believed in positive and negative rights, a belief i now understand is impossible.I wrote a list of what i considered to be human rights and on this I included 'right to health care' and 'right to education'.During this time I was very nearly a socialist( I didn't exactly understand what socialism or other political beliefs were thankfully ) ,In fact my parents branded me "left Wing".Not knowing fully what this meant I accepted it as it seemed to be where my allegiances lay.Even though I carried this label I continued to be relatively Apolitical.Pro Scottish Independence.The only really political part of me was my unwavering support for Scottish independence
Unknowingly Objectivist.Around Late 2004/ early 2005 on typing individualism into a google search engine i was directed to Individualist Voice, a website focusing on the individualism of objectivism. I never knew of Objectivism at the time but from this website i was being an Objectivist.This website made me more radically individualist it also made me think more about my beliefs. (It was probably this that sparked my philosophical mind to start with)slowly but surely thanks to this website I was cured of my previous socialist type leanings. Though not deep I was able to criticise socialism as a virulent brand of collectivism( I continue to be socialist's enemy .I never fail to criticise it wherever I see it and who ever it comes from. Again I appeal to my invention 'Scott's law' :- people are most critical of the beliefs they once held so dearly) .It wouldn't be till later i would have a thorough libertarian critique of socialism -its philosophy,politics and economics.Despite being unknowingly Objectivist I still clung to mysticism(spiritualism) ,it wasn't till later I gave this up.I still had no idea what Objectivism was or who Ayn rand was..Objectivist /Naturalist.It was in 2006 that i discovered the website i read was objectivist and began to look into objectivism.Objectivism strengthened my belief in rights- I now believed in natural rights .Ignorant SNP Supporter/ Critical Of Iraq 'War'.I grew more political mainly from watching the news and debates on TV which led me to become more critical of the invasion of Iraq .Sometime around this point I became opposed to capital Punishment.I somehow discovered the SNP (Scottish national party). I Liked their drive for Scottish independence, other than this I didn't know much about them.I thought they were pretty rubbish other than this policy but I didn't care ,All i wanted was Scottish independence. I later realised this willingness to sacrifice principles to goals was a grave error.
from the beginning of 2007 to its end I absorbed all of objectivism. I became strongly Objectivist following the idea of peikoff and others. I read all I could get my hands on about it.I saw 'animal rights' for the joke it was, I laughed at (statist) environmentalism, I was an egoist ,I hated socialism ,I opposed the criminalization of drugs -all the tenets of rand's philosophy.In many ways I'm glad I came to these positions ,I just wish it had of been from the Austrians instead of rand alas it was not to be . Unwittingly by way of rand I had accepted Libertarianism in a watered down way- I didn't even know what Libertarianism was then and I wasn't really political at all .During this period I also learned about philosophy and consumed it voraciously . I began to weave this into my defences of objectivism.As an objectivist I saw half if not 99% of the world as evil .This resulted in a warped misanthropy inside of me.It really wasn't healthy.
My position on the Iraq 'war' changed yet again ,Now i joined the randroid war lovers.I was opposed to how Iraq was conducted but i believed it was just.I believed Syria and others should have been the true targets. I became a rabid nationalist who felt the west represented by the . U.S.A. was under attack by Islamic collectivist forces.Absurd i know,now.These days I oppose with all the fire in my blood such pro war lunacy and am staunchly Anti-war.Pro SNP Yet Critical.SNP Elected. Pro Scottish Independence Still.2007 was also a year of what i felt was important change .SNP was elected, I cheered strongly. I felt independence was within grasp- such vain beliefs in retrospect.it may never happen definately not if politicians have their way.SNP are content to free Acotland only to bind it up to EU rule.Thankfully my support of the SNP was not to last long.not long before christmas 2007 searching the internet I was to make a discovery that would change my life forever.I discovered a libertarian called Ron Paul.At first when I read about him it said he was a conservative and I was wary but i was somewhat resistant to him though i was a strange objectivist in that i was willing to work with and accept libertarianism.he had many things about him an Objectivist could like and the more and more I read about him the more I agreed.....2008. The Year Of My Libertarian AwakeningReading about Ron Paul made me highly political.I listened to his speeches and read all his writings.I begun to know what fiat money was,was the gold standard was and about all sorts of other issues. in 2008 i didn't read so much objectivist literature- I was moving away from it . Inspired by Ron Paul and discovering more about Libertarianism I looked into it.I read Milton Friedman(bypassing a chicago type phase luckily) ,Ron Paul, ,found the Mises instute and read the writings of the Cato institute etc( I found them to mild for me even then and I was only starting out as a minarchist!).I read all i could get my hands on.-It was Ron Paul who taught me the difference between capitalism and corporatism- I began to take very strong stances on alot of issues.
In all this reading i pretty much gave up Objectivism. Libertarianism was much deeper,more philosophical,more thorough,short on rhetoric and invective and long on thought and theory.Everything Objectivism wasn't.I still accepted and accept some parts of objectivism but in a more rational way because (1) they ARE valid and (2)because they are concepts which pre-date rand e.g. natural rights.Minarchist Libertarian/Supporter of Ron Paul/Big 'L' LibertarianAround the time the recession hit (or at least I became aware of it) through Ron Paul I looked into the causes of the recession .I looked up what a recession was and then listened carefully to what he said was the cause of it . I began linking all the things he said in my mind into a unified whole.Though i only grasped the basics I understood Government working with central banks printing money caused it.I began to think deeply over everything and apply libertarian principles to all sorts of things encouraged in this by Ron Paul and the things i read. I took on a constitutionalist Minarchist non Interventionist Libertarian Position.I was a big 'L' libertarian.I joined the Libertarian party of the U.K. (LPUK) and would've voted for them if they were on the ballot at that time too. I was beginning to engage with various members of that party and was trying to form a Scottish wing.Libertarians in Scotland were and still are bare on the ground.we're a minority in a country awash with 'positive rights' ,socialist leanings, egalitarianism and pessimism. It was tough going.Anti-SNP.I followed all of Ron Paul's campaign.As My Libertarianism grew i realized the SNP was socialist(I hadn't know this previously) as well as a Sham .I stopped Supporting them.As always in my life i now became one of their few critics even among libertarian circles.I- Feminist.Among my readings i discovered Wendy Mcelroy .Due to her influence I became An individualist Feminist.I also discovered Voluntaryism....2009. I Hate The State. Becoming Anarcho-capitalist.Anarcho-capitalismby early 2009 I was wondering how to extend my ideas for a Scottish libertarian party... well that was until i began reading more voluntaryist /Anarcho-Capitalist writings and more literature from Lew Rockwell .com and the mises institute...A podcast by Lew Rockwell on anarchism made me decide political parties can't achieve anything.I wasn't quite an anarchist yet. I was just an extremely radical minarchist.my form of minarchism was essentially just managers running the army,the courts and the police.it was a pipedream i know but its what i believed in.I allowed my LPUK membership to lapse.One day after reading Anarcho-capitalist writings i struggled with the fear. what if there was no state? God ,I couldn't not believe in that.I had believed in that my whole life.It seemed so radical.How could I be so Wrong...But then I had been badly wrong before...it felt so new interesting ,cool,exciting ,Honest but yet deeply terrifying.I was scared about what this would mean for me and the future as well as scared about how society would survive this way.I wouldn't let myself believe it. I resisted.I compromised in my head " Anarcho-capitalism might work but minarchism was good enough and it was just."How wrong I could be!It became my new obsession .I read over and over articles and papers about anarchist courts,law,police and other topics. I grasped the basics of it all .It sounded plausable.Out of the blue a couple of days later I found myself scribbling like a maniac on books and pages the Anarchist ' A'.why am i doing this? "i accept anarchism".my mind finally clicked and accepted it.Anarchism would work ,anything less couldn't and was unjust.When i was asked about these symbols i replied proudly "I'm an anarchist.an Anarcho-capitalist". At this point I didn't fully grasp all the ins and out's if anarcho-capitalism.I wasn't too strong on anarchist law or courts or I.P. for example.As time goes on I grasp more and more of these areas.An important area is law it was this issue that worried me when I received some criticism which made me doubt if it could work at all.I feared then I would be stuck . Anti -state Libertarian and yet without a libertarian system of law.Happily my fears were answered and my doubts erased with a good dose of logic and of course... Rothbard.Small 'l' LibertarianWith this i became a small 'L' libertarian.My support for Ron Paul was gone- I still think he's done great work in attracting people to our movement and spreading our message but as an anarchist I have to disagree wit him . I became Skeptical and critical of LPUK- I mean they were minarchist and fairly unradical at that, more chicagoean rather than austrian. later I went back and looked at their manifesto.For all its rhetoric it was statist still and very tax loving it barely even was Libertarian. How could I have once belonged to this!I absorbed more anarcho-capitalist information and philosophy.From Hans Hermann Hoppe I developed a much more deep seated hatred of Democracy.I saw Monarchy as more perferable.I had never liked democracy since my randian days ,Hoppe just made this stronger.From stephan Kinsella I accepted Libertarian Punishment Theory And refuted my previous opposition to capital punishment.I also agree with his view that voluntary slave contracts are impossible.From walter block I understood and accepted the austrian form of Free Market Environmentalism.I still disagree with his evictionism and beliefs about stem cells and negative homesteading.From Rothbard I believe in a stronger form of natural rights and also natural law. Im stronger in my belief in metaphysical and epistemological realism.I've deepened in all my philosophical position ,finding the austrian school extremely philosophical.I've become a huge critic of 'left libertarians' who i ardently dispise.my knowledge of austrian economics is much deeper and i continue to learn about it. I find lectures on my I-Pod to be extremely helpful in broadening my understanding.I have lots of Pdf's to read through Sadly I don't always have the time especially for a 200 + book. I now grasp the basic's of austrian economics mostly due to a book called the free market reader which although simplistic is a perfect introduction for a beginner which I embarassingly admit I am.There are people who know so much more than me ,I makes me feel so ignorant and humbled.
Bioshock is anti-rand, and anti-free-market, however. Don't recommend it. Warren Spector was the intelligent one while System Shock was being produced, and he left to do better games, such as Thief III and Deus Ex II.
Anyway, I'm Russian. That should explain why I'm not a Socialist (there are idiots, however, in Russia, who've learned absolutely nothing). I am very well read in history. Authors such as Kuznetov or Rybakov, in novels, and nonfiction such as Suvorov, or Solonin.
Edwin Cannan is someone I read, and a great economist.
Hoppe's and Block's writings, and Mises' writing have improved my economic knowledge much further, the first being give. De Soto wrote a monumental book I read, and liked. I like Bastiat and, especially, Gossen. In fact, Gossen, mentions marginal quantities, and knows his partial derivative approach has limitations. He also offers a business cycle theory in agreement with Mises.
I was a philosophy major in college and considered myself a socialist, even an environmentalist. I had gained this worldview from the philosophy curriculum and a career in music.
I began to have doubts in an ethical theory class, when we discussed Rawls. I didn't like the outcome of Rawls's contracted society. It didn't seem to make sense. I began to question the very idea of equality--how can we all be equal anyway? We're all different.
I'm lucky enough to be attending a college with a free-market economics department, namely Western Kentucky University. I took an econ course to fill a gen ed requirement, and that's where the change began.
My professor actually argued that minimum wages cause unemployment! I was shocked. I'd never imagined that what the state does to "help" actually has the opposite effect. I had, after all, been taught in my philosophy classes that the State is the end all, be all, capable of solving every problem.
I read Freakonomics and was fascinated with the idea of unintended consequences--that's exactly what a minimum wage is, after all.
I took to economics like a fish to water. I loved it. I switched my major. But I kept my petit-socialist tinge. After all, even a free-market economics class goes over the so-called "market failures" which plague capitalism. I guess I was one of those people who thought socialism is a "great theory" that may not work in practice.
All of that changed when I read a book called "Markets Don't Fail!" by Brian Simpson. I went to the university library intending to settle the debate between capitalism and socialism in my mind once and for all. I checked out 2 books written by socialists, and 2 books written by capitalists. The Simpson book happened to be one of the two capitalist books. This book changed my life. My big problem with embracing capitalism was my (mistaken) assumption that externalities and the like, market failures, are an unsolvable problem. Simpson's book proved to me that these failures are a fiction, and they are generally caused by the state!
Now I began with new eyes to look at the world around me. Now I knew 1) that the State's policies sometimes had unintended consequences, and 2) the State likes to blame its failures on the market.
Like clockwork, here came the Great Recession. I saw both of these things writ large, every day, in every news story. I watched the economy collapse, realized it was the fault of the state (Thomas Sowell has written about the gov't housing policies of the 80's and 90's that led to this collapse, it's good reading) and watched the state blame the market. And people believed it!
I found George Reisman through the footnotes in Simpson, and ordered his book. I read it intently, and started following his online writings. I read his blog from start to finish, saw him predict the collapse before it happened. I found this website through his blog, I think, he was crossposting here. And that was the beginning of my evolution.
I'm most impressed with Rothbard. I find his libertarianism makes the libertarianism taught in my philosophy classes (Nozick's) look like a strawman.
I also ordered "economics in one lesson" from this website, and it's so good I tried to get my mom to read it! (she's not interested)
Anyway, now I'm a senior, and I'm going on to grad school in economics next fall. I plan to get my PhD and teach. I want to spread the gospel, and try to get America back to where it started, at least--a minimal government is worse than none but it's better than what we've got now. I think the only reason we have semi-socialism in America is because there's so little understanding of economics. I want to change that, one student at a time.
Most Influential Reads:
Markets Don't Fail! Brian Simpson
Capitalism George Reisman
Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand
Economics in One Lesson Henry Hazlitt
Anatomy of the State Murray Rothbard
This Website.
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
Romantivist: I was a philosophy major in college and considered myself a socialist, even an environmentalist. I had gained this worldview from the philosophy curriculum and a career in music. I began to have doubts in an ethical theory class, when we discussed Rawls. I didn't like the outcome of Rawls's contracted society. It didn't seem to make sense. I began to question the very idea of equality--how can we all be equal anyway? We're all different. I'm lucky enough to be attending a college with a free-market economics department, namely Western Kentucky University. I took an econ course to fill a gen ed requirement, and that's where the change began. My professor actually argued that minimum wages cause unemployment! I was shocked. I'd never imagined that what the state does to "help" actually has the opposite effect. I had, after all, been taught in my philosophy classes that the State is the end all, be all, capable of solving every problem. I read Freakonomics and was fascinated with the idea of unintended consequences--that's exactly what a minimum wage is, after all. I took to economics like a fish to water. I loved it. I switched my major. But I kept my petit-socialist tinge. After all, even a free-market economics class goes over the so-called "market failures" which plague capitalism. I guess I was one of those people who thought socialism is a "great theory" that may not work in practice. All of that changed when I read a book called "Markets Don't Fail!" by Brian Simpson. I went to the university library intending to settle the debate between capitalism and socialism in my mind once and for all. I checked out 2 books written by socialists, and 2 books written by capitalists. The Simpson book happened to be one of the two capitalist books. This book changed my life. My big problem with embracing capitalism was my (mistaken) assumption that externalities and the like, market failures, are an unsolvable problem. Simpson's book proved to me that these failures are a fiction, and they are generally caused by the state! Now I began with new eyes to look at the world around me. Now I knew 1) that the State's policies sometimes had unintended consequences, and 2) the State likes to blame its failures on the market. Like clockwork, here came the Great Recession. I saw both of these things writ large, every day, in every news story. I watched the economy collapse, realized it was the fault of the state (Thomas Sowell has written about the gov't housing policies of the 80's and 90's that led to this collapse, it's good reading) and watched the state blame the market. And people believed it! I found George Reisman through the footnotes in Simpson, and ordered his book. I read it intently, and started following his online writings. I read his blog from start to finish, saw him predict the collapse before it happened. I found this website through his blog, I think, he was crossposting here. And that was the beginning of my evolution. I'm most impressed with Rothbard. I find his libertarianism makes the libertarianism taught in my philosophy classes (Nozick's) look like a strawman. I also ordered "economics in one lesson" from this website, and it's so good I tried to get my mom to read it! (she's not interested) Anyway, now I'm a senior, and I'm going on to grad school in economics next fall. I plan to get my PhD and teach. I want to spread the gospel, and try to get America back to where it started, at least--a minimal government is worse than none but it's better than what we've got now. I think the only reason we have semi-socialism in America is because there's so little understanding of economics. I want to change that, one student at a time. Most Influential Reads: Markets Don't Fail! Brian Simpson Capitalism George Reisman Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand Economics in One Lesson Henry Hazlitt Anatomy of the State Murray Rothbard This Website.
awesome! I just bookmarked the page on amazon for Markets Don't Fail! so that I can order it later.
:-)
Was similar for me. I had a little bit of a libertarian for an economics teacher in high school (even though he adhered to Keynesian economics, he still acknolwedged that government policies based on this often failed). He also showed us some vids from 20/20 with John Stossel. However, at the time I considered myself a moderate conservative because i was fiscally conservative but didn't really care much about social issues, even if I disagreed with them. I think this basically stemmed from me just naturally not liking arbitrary authority. Eventually I came across Ron Paul, read some of his work and the same of Milton Friedman(well haven't read his works other than "Capitalism and Freedom" which i thought was great except on what he thinks caused the Great Depression....but i do have some other books of his which i plan on reading). I read stuff on this site as well and came across the vids/audio, which had a huge impact on me, especially Walter Block.
I grew up in Apartheid South Africa so I've always healthily detested government. Then I lived and worked (and had most of my paychecks stolen from me) in England. They abolished the taxes on gambling so I took that up as my major profession. Now I'm in the US and the similarities to the national socialist militarist regime I knew in South Africa are uncanny to me.
Whenever I hear someone say that people in America are "free" I cringe...
As far as becoming a libertarian is concerned, having lived under the extreme left and extreme right I always thought of myself as a centrist. Eventually I realized government could only ever be, at best, a benign malfunctioning parasite and, at worst, the ultimate purveyor of anti-liberty and serfdom. This pretty much happened once I was out living and working for myself so I came to the conclusion that anarcho-capitalism is the only system which offers true liberty to the individual.
Now I found Mises.org and I'm slowly reading and discovering all the economic reasons that, hopefully, can back up my conclusion :)
I was a neo-con. Not knowing anything about politics. My dad mainly was into politics. Naturally, we were "republicans" and I guess supported McCain. But, my parents started to listen to Bob Barr, and that introduced slightly the concept of libertarianism. They were going to vote for him, but ended up voting for McCain instead. I was mixed and didn't know if I wanted to be a conservative or a libertarian. And for a while, found my self asking me, why do you support this and that (banning gay marriage/iraq war).
I found a clip of Ron Paul. That sealed the deal. I started to watch Ron all the time now. Became a libertarian over night. I found Milton Friedman (was disapointed to know he wasn't an Austrian economist) and he put out the message of freedom in a fantastic way. Of course, then found a few documentaries on the Mises media youtube channel. That sealed the deal that I was a minarchist.
I must say now, looking back, political parties are massive brain washing tools.
I was introduced to fairly standard economics in my final year of high school. I was not terribly impressed with all of the content that I learned (pretty socialist stuff in NZ high school economics curriculum). I also studied some economics in my first year at university. I knew there were some serious problems with the economics that I was learning, but I didn't know exactly what was wrong..
In the first year of university, I was researching for an essay. I stumbled across a book of Rand's in the local library (I think it was called 'capitalism: the unknown virtue'). I then read Atlas Shrugged and ended up interested in the NZ libertarian party. Since then I've read a few books about economics (econ in one lesson, econ for real people, economic principles (bellve faustino), bastiat economics sophisms, menger's principles, the amazing bread machine). These books have... refined... and improved what I thought after reading Atlas Shrugged (atlas shrugged very clearly left a lot to be desired, with her whole rabid atheism, selfishness thing, whereas I am simply against the initiation of the use of physical force against person or property).
tldr: a little rand (incl. atlas), some economics and a bit of thinking.
I was 14. I read Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson. I never turned back.
You can see that the rest of the older lot here went through a different process. They considered various spectrum of ideas, and also went through one idea or experience, got disillusioned by it, kept thinking or trying to find answers, and finally found the answer in Austrian economics.
My introduction to economics WAS in Austrian economics itself, so I was a first-stage convert, who did not have to go through the same disillusionment or lifelong experiences to come to an idea.
Free market ideals managed to reach me the moment I started to be introduced to matters of the spectrum in economic thought. I must admit that since they got me while I was young, I was already immune to socialistic or collectivistic ideas, so I don't think I'd be able to play devil's advocate and understand exactly the perspective of a person who comes to believe in those ideas. The rest of you, who had to go through seeing different ideas, would know what makes a man come to that perspective. You had to be converted, I was already brought in.
There are few people as purely logical and precise as Hazlitt. With such clarity, he wrote the book, and made me understand economics so well. However, he wrote something in his book, which more or less said something along the lines of, "We must see how the greater whole benefits, and not just how one man might end up losing. But we must always keep one eye on that one man, no matter how small or alone, because his problems are just as genuine as any." While I was already a converted freemarketer, it still stuck in my head, how we'd solve the problem of that One Man. That's when I started learning about political ideas of liberty and natural law, and understood that in a free society, you have the right to pursue opportunities of happiness, but not the privilege of having to be given those opportunities by everyone else. So I realized, how does it matter if the One Man loses a little? That One Man is still a free man, and as a free man, can take one small loss that comes in a free society, but still has the chance to seek everything else and gain even more. And with that, I continued reading books on economics, now and then, afterwards, although it kinda slowed down through the years in school.
When I started reading Thomas Sowell (a Friedmanite, not an Austrian) years later, as a much older person, it only confirmed these things that I already understood, but in more specific light with respect to actual statistics and empirical evidence and examples. For years, I had the logical principles with me. Now, thanks to Sowell, I had the specific arguments to back them up. All the same, Sowell, being closer to Milton Friedman's ideas, gave some reasons for having government, despite his support for free market. I still remain a little convinced by ideas of having government, which means that I lean a bit more towards Right Wing than Libertarian. But I never believed in federal government, only in simple local town governments, with voluntary participation of citizens.