I decided to label myself as a libertarian after I realized that my political views were entirely inconsistant and were completely ignorant of economic principles.
I had always been left-leaning and at one point was strongly pro-socialist/communist(... I know). I would say even as soon as 9 months ago I was leftist. Seeing the abuses of power perpetuated by governments with respect to war, both foreign(Iraq) and domestic(drugs) really started to shake my faith in governments in general but I still held the belief that as long as the right people were in power all would be peachy. But then listening to Ron Paul really started to change my perspective on things. I was willing to give capitalism a chance(which I used to consider mankind's greatest enemy. LOL How wrong I was!) and began reading individualist/libertarian philosophy and economics. It immediately became clear to me that my original views were heavily propagandized and that I worshipped the 'state'. Disgusted and disillusioned I came to embrace the libertarian ideology. My interest in the subject lead me to this fantastic website.
So I'm guessing I'm the only former neoliberal monarchist here then?
Inquisitor:So I'm guessing I'm the only former neoliberal monarchist here then?
Before answering the question of the Opening Post, I would like to make one comment: it seems like there are a handful of young (under 30 years old) libertarians here on this site and I am envious of you guys. I wished I had come to my senses earlier on too.
Anyway, my story is the typical neo-con transition to libertarian special thanks to the internet. I grew up listening to right-wing talk radio crap and loving it! I studied economics right after high school and completed a degree in Keynesionomics. After that, I went into a health care field for a career.
If there is one thing that might be unique in my development as an anarchist it might be that I was always fascinated with reading about true crime stories past and present. This may have inculcated a frame of reference whereby the intimate interactions between cops and robbers makes the superficialities of the state melt away. It was easy for me to identify the State as being criminal.
Twirlcan:I never listened to talk radio at all. Years ago I worked in radio and determined that the masters in that field only had to speak clearly and constantly while wearing sweat pants. Picturing what is really behind the microphone made me never listen to it again.
Thanks!
Here all parties (though here the parties are only one person...no caucuss, no convention) praise statist in differente ways. The leftists are very statist, and think the nice state will solve all our problem with only "redistributing wealth" while taxing the evil rich people. And the rigthists are the same but use another expressions, also because they are afraid of being called "neoliberal" (not the liberal american, the classic liberal meaning).
All the parties are mostly statist, nacional socialist (light), and very populist. But people hate the concepts of freedmon and free markets, something the politicians themself have created allong with the media during the years.
Our country used to be the "granary of the world" in the in the early 1900's, with an importante econony. Some people even said we could be the america of the south...but well here we are...
jackbsas: Thanks! Here all parties (though here the parties are only one person...no caucuss, no convention) praise statist in differente ways. The leftists are very statist, and think the nice state will solve all our problem with only "redistributing wealth" while taxing the evil rich people. And the rigthists are the same but use another expressions, also because they are afraid of being called "neoliberal" (not the liberal american, the classic liberal meaning). All the parties are mostly statist, nacional socialist (light), and very populist. But people hate the concepts of freedmon and free markets, something the politicians themself have created allong with the media during the years. Our country used to be the "granary of the world" in the in the early 1900's, with an importante econony. Some people even said we could be the america of the south...but well here we are...
Thanks for the update. It is awesome to here from people who value liberty in South America. It gives me hope for the region.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Charles Anthony: I still have some sort of irrational patriotic pride... for my local hockey team, that is.
I still have some sort of irrational patriotic pride... for my local hockey team, that is.
Same here, I'm a big fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Penguins. I know it's irrational, but it's fun. I believe I am entitled to a few indulgences.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Penguins?????????
I hate you!!!!!!!!
Charles Anthony: Penguins????????? I hate you!!!!!!!!
Nice signature. Does it mean for Christ and Liberty together?
Integre literally means "totally", but it can also mean union, or flawlessness. That's why I chose it - it has more than one meaning and they all fit.
Ego: I used to be a standard neocon; I loved Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity, supported Bush, and I even had the audacity to call myself "libertarian" because I didn't agree with the war on drugs.
I used to be a standard neocon; I loved Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity, supported Bush, and I even had the audacity to call myself "libertarian" because I didn't agree with the war on drugs.
I'm not really sure as to what labels you would use to describe me, but I was definitely a nationalist, and thought that using the military to force other countries to accept democracy was acceptable. My love of freedom hasn't changed, but becoming informed that the state can only limit freedom really woke me up. And while I still think force can be justified in some instances, the state can never be justified when it's forcing its subjects(notice I didn't say citizens) carry out its evils.
Probably the most influential factor in my becoming anti-interventionist was my desire to be consistant in my viewpoints. I believed that the state was horrible when it came to the economy, and thus I was non-interventionist economically. But when it came to foriegn affairs I somehow become a progressive.
I'm sad to say I was taught in public schools, but in some ways I'm glad because the abhorant quality of public schools made me look elsewhere for my education. I ignored the indoctrination of the state somewhat but I was still listening to talk radio. Becoming a libertarian has not changed the fact that I listen to talk radio, but I now listen to different commentators. I love free talk live, and I'm also listening to Gary Nolan, who is a local libertarian talk show host.
While I can't take back all the time I wasted in public schools, I think I'm now heading in the right direction, and I'm always trying to challange my own viewpoints as well as those of others.
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
I'm still a minarchist of sorts, but after reading Hoppe I'm moving ever closer towards anarchism. I also like what I see in agorism.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon, what's holding you back?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
I still need a bit more convincing on private defence agencies. Hoppe has me pretty well convinced on domestic defence, but I still have some inhibitions as regards national defence.
If you believe that coercion is immoral, pragmatism should come second.
In any event, you don't think that today's "chickenhawks" -- those who advocate war but abstain from enlisting -- would be more than willing to show their toughness by donating to defense agencies? I imagine they would be run like charities. Also, keep in mind that the United States wouldn't need a huge military if we weren't constantly in some foreign war.
Like most small children, I was a anarchist, then I got indoctrinated for 12 years in public schools, at the point of a gun, of course. When I was a teenager they almost, just almost, made me turn into one of the spineless, soulless machines that is the socialist man. It is only thanks to the libertarian tradition (especially the Americans) that I today can not only call myself moral, calm (as the opposite of the confused children of the state) and peaceful but also educated and critical.
From a literary standpoint, I'm not as well read or studied as many here, but my life has been a personal, anecdotal journey towards principled liberty and a quest for freedom.
I'm Canadian, so I am well aware of the nanny state. I've been an entrepreneur so I am familiar with over-regulation and hinderances to free markets. I'm a slave to the banks because they own the system, even though I have learned to avoid and carry no personal debt. Confronted racism, so I understand collectivist thought.
I am a minarchist who is starting to trend towards anarcho-capitalism. The brakes on my development being my desire to pursue something pragmatic, something that can be tangibly achieved in my lifetime. Advancing liberty, even a little, is my personal goal.
Liberty student, don't you think you can be an anarcho-capitalist while still fighting for tangible goals, one at a time?
Ego: Liberty student, don't you think you can be an anarcho-capitalist while still fighting for tangible goals, one at a time?
It could very well be possible. I'm on a journey to keep learning and growing, and likewise spread the influence of my ideas on liberty. I do truly believe that fighting for goals one at a time is worthwhile. That striving for liberty is an endless struggle against statist ideas and power.
It's my belief that the people who hold out for ideologically perfect events to change the system are just a little too intimidated to roll up their sleeves and get dirty.
I am an anarcho-capitalist, but (unlike several members of this forum) I have nothing against striving for short-term, realistic goals. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'd be happy with a smaller government (not that I'd stop there), an apparently sacrosanct position.
That doesn't mean continuing the same failed electoral strategy, of course, but it does mean that we have to come out of our shells and actually be willing to accept a slower process.
Ego: I am an anarcho-capitalist, but (unlike several members of this forum) I have nothing against striving for short-term, realistic goals. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'd be happy with a smaller government (not that I'd stop there), an apparently sacrosanct position. That doesn't mean continuing the same failed electoral strategy, of course, but it does mean that we have to come out of our shells and actually be willing to accept a slower process.
I would say I have to agree. It's kismet that you added me as a friend when I signed up, as we seem to share a similar perspective.
It was Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
For me, and I suspect it is the same for all, it may be more telling to describe process as "discovering" rather than "becoming". To the extent that anyone is compelled to identify their selves with a philosophy (which is what we are really doing) we use the experiences we have had thus far. I'm sure that the most important experiences probably happened in middle childhood, around 10 or eleven, when it began to occur to us that our world was increasingly demanding from us some indication of a moral sense. At this point many postures are formed. The most common, of course, is defyance... the "I never asked to be born" response. I wonder very deeply if this reaction, and the degree to which one can use it successfully, bears significantly on one's later tendancy to sympathize with socialism or individualism. Looking back on my childhood, it is clear that I was very unsuccessful in deploying this defence. When I threatened to run away, my parents would offer to help me pack.
In time their loving mockery forced me to acknowledge the logical falacy of my complaint, and confront the implication. With reason my only ally it was only a matter of time until I discovered a political philoshphy which acknowledges this very inter-personal value determining dynamic as the fumdamental locus of the political unit.
Also... Who do I listen to in talk radio. I haven't found any talk radio type format which is intellectually interesting. Most of it (Rush, etc.) is designed to appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect. I HIGHLY reccomend the podcasts put out by Russ Roberts called ECONTALK (econtalk.org).
I was an anarchist communist, but (prompted a bit by Milton Friedman, I think), realised that if workers were exploited because they weren't getting the products of their labour, then they must be entitled to own their products. That took me back to Proudhon, and from him to the American individualist anarchists. My pro-market individualist anarchism was bolstered by reading Nozick at university, and then by David Friedman and Murray Rothbard.
Strangely enough the turning point was reading "An Empire of Wealth" by John Steele Gordon. Gordon himself endorses the American traditions of state banking and military adventuring, a pure Hamiltonian. But the book also included a taste of political revisionism and a populist perspective of capitalism that matched my classical liberal instincts. It left me with an intellectual appetite that went unfulfilled until I found the Mises Institute.
Peace
I think I may be the only one here that used to be a radical leftitst. I was a Marxist for a while then I started reading Bakunin, Proudhon, and other anarchist writers which turned me into a collectivist anarchist. This was in high school. Then I went to college and took macroeconomics and my professor was an Austrian economist. I was cured and the rest is history.
Since sophmore year of high school, I hated the whole education system with a passion. Conversely, it was the same time I was studying philosophy and never really saw the value of collective, one-size-fits-all education. I was also a moral nihilist/anarcho-socialist at the time looking for some meaning. Reading Rothbard's For a New Liberty literally captivated me. Seeing his logic in support of natural law and subsequently natural rights and their further deductions; property rights and self-ownership, brought me out of realms of moral nihilism. The chapter on public schooling is what got me hooked on Rothbard, since I had never seen such well-thought out arguements and logic before.
How did you find Rothbard? By happenstance? From a teacher? The internet?
I can emphathize with the "collective, one-size-fits-all eduction" sentiment.
Ego: What drove you over the edge?
What drove you over the edge?
The arguments on this site.
I had heard about libertarianism, but I thought it was mostly idealistic and could never work in real life. One time I googled Free Market Economics (I was only interested in capitalism, but not libertarianism) and I discovered mises.org. I was facinated by the economic theory, but I disliked the anti-government ideology. Nevertheless, I continued logging on and reading up. I was amazed by how logical it was, its philosophy as well as its economics, and soon became convinced.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."