I used to be a smalish state socially conservatiive nationalist- I beliieved in a small safety net for those who couldn't help themselves, a strong military who would, if necessary, teach the world how to run (I supported the Iraq war at this point) and prohibitions on drugs and prostitution and other cultural regulation. Then after reading Henry George became a single taxer but with a more libertaian bent. Then after reading more Austrian and Libertarian works became pretty much a minarchist. Then after listening to Hoppe's lecture on the Origin of the State, in the series Economics, Society and History, I became a free market anarchist, though, as Hoppe does, retained a strong cultural conservatism.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
I used to be a neo-conservative in that I supported most of what the Bush administration was doing. Although I was also a big fan of Michael Savage and rejected some of the things the neo-cons were touting such as their stance on the Iraq War because I didn't think they went far enough in their efforts. So maybe you could have classified me as a neo-fascist (although I never thought of myself as such) because I tended to support state intervention in the propping up of traditional values, additional state regulation & collusion with business in the economy, and a strong anti-immigrant/nativist stance on border security.
I still consiter myself culturally conservative in a lot of todays issues (abortion, family values, marriage, etc.) only I've come to realize that the state has done a horrible job at promoting traditional values. Such a horrible job I think that from a purely utilitarian viewpoint they should get out of that business alltogether. An example would be giving out welfare checks to single monthers which only encourages them to not stay with their childrens father because if they don't assciociate with them they get "free money" in the mail every month. Which undermines the traditional Western family structure (nuclear family). So much in fact that the majority of this generations Black population are born out of wedlock.
I am now a registered Republican (so I could vote for Ron Paul), an anarcho-capitalist in theory, a constitutionalist / states right advocate in practice, and a non-interventionist. As good of a system I think anarcho-capitalism would be I don't think a sizable enough percentage of the general population will ever agree with it's ideals that it could ever come to fruition. So I'll usually side with people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan when it comes to foreign policy, liberals when it comes to the War on Drugs, and run-of-the-mill conservatives when it comes to the economy. By use of the term "run of the mill" I'm talking about your average Joe Republican and not the Republican Party. Most Republicans I know actually believe in a free market for the most part although the GOP politicians they elect usually don't.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
I most definitely approached libertarianism from the standpoint of what would be considered the "left" or at least "left of center" in contemporary terminology. I always had an anti-war streak and a strong distrust of the police power. I never liked prohibitions on things like drugs and prostitution. I generally supported what would be considered "civil liberties" or "personal liberty", although I was of course not exactly consistant about it, as no contemporary left-liberal is. I've always held what would generally be considered "culturally left" views (secularism, atheism, anti-racism, I could care less about traditionalism and I don't like family-worshop, etc.). I had pretty much no clue about economics at the time. I certainly wasn't an outright state-socialist, but since I didn't know any better I basically endorsed the contemporary welfare state and mixed economy.
But then I started being exposed to more libertarian and free market ideas and it drew me in. I read a lot on economics (the Mises Institute being my primary source) and got interested in political philosophy in general. I moderately slid into a more libertarian mindset and joined the libertarian party. I quickly became disillused by the party and moved on to being a "small l" libertarian. I held a minarchist view for a considerably long period of time, but in retrospect I was fairly radical and in a state of cognitive dissonance, as I was essentially making anarchistic arguments about the nature of the state as an institution (things such as the invalidity of the social contract, the extortive nature of taxation, the fact that the state produces nothing, etc.) and then backpeddling when people would accuse me of being an anarchist. Even then, most of the libertarians around me I percieved as being far too moderate. I still percieve the libertarian movement at large as being too moderate (as well as too tied to the hip with the conservative movement in America).
As I read up more and started getting more involved in inner-libertarian discussion and debate, it eventually became clear to me that I could no longer hold to a minarchist position, that not only is the state not necessary but unethical at its root. Rothbard's arguements in "The Ethics of Liberty", Stefan Molyneux's podcasts and discussion on between libertarians on youtube influenced me. A debate about "subsribed government" also influenced me, for I kept argueing that their "subscribed government" was the same thing as a private security organization and the debate was merely a semantic one over the definition of government. I held a "voluntary government" to be a contradiction in terms. That lead to cognitive dissonance, for if I support voluntaryism then I cannot support "government", at least in the way I defined it. So I moved on to market anarchism, primarily out of ethical considerations. At about the same time I got interested in rational egoism and agorism, and this only boosted by conviction. I've also developed something of a respect for mutualism and early individualist anarchism, as I consider market anarchism to have evolved out of those traditions. So here I am.
I grew up in a very strongly Republican family. My first strong memories were of the Carter presidency and of the many problems of that era. I was a solid Reagan Republican throughout the Reagan presidency and didn't really start to slip away until the first Bush presidency. Even though I was a strong Republican, I have always had an inate distrust of government, and that is what started to push me away from the Republican party, especially with the rise of the neo-conservatives during Bush I. It was really during the mid 90's when I was exposed to the Cato Institute, and shortly thereafter the Libertarian Party and I felt right at home. I was introduced to the Austrian School, via the Mises Institute about five years ago and with reading the various authors and studying the works on this site, I have developed my current views, particularly in economics, very much grounded in Rothbardism.
The first solid political beliefs I held were moderate libertarian. From there, my disgust with the left's arrogance (both in their policies and in their description of themselves as "progressive" and "open minded") and their tendency to try to rewrite history pushed me away from them and towards the right, where I became somewhat neoconservative (though still libertarian leaning, similar I suppose to Neal Boortz). The more I witnessed others verbalize my beliefs, however, the more I realized that I was a tangled knot of conflicting views. In addition, at this time, I began to blur the line between "political" views and "other" views. I no longer saw any value (or reason) in separating those two worlds. When I sat down and thought about it, the only system that does not involve one human being systematically controlling another was anarcho-capitalism.
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 was raised conservative. My parents are republicans, and so was I until a couple of years ago. When I first became politically aware (probably about the age of 14) I understood that we were conservatives because "conservative" meant "as little government as possible". However, I thought that "necessary" government included not only law and defense services, but also things like making sure everybody said the pledge of allegience and cheered incessantly when American planes dropped bombs on "the bad guys". I guess you could say I spent the first half of my politically-aware life as what passes for conservative today.
My first faltering step toward libertarianism happened when I was in 12th grade. I had a mandatory debate in my English class, and I ended up debating in favor of marijuana legalization. For the sake of my grade, I really got into the role. I studied everything from the history of the drug war to scientific studies, and found that the case for prohibition was actually completely vacant. That really shook my socially conservative foundation, but I found it refreshing. After all, it was more consistent with my belief in the government that governs least.
I might have called myself a libertarian at that point if it weren't for 9/11. I'd completely abandoned social conservatism. You might say I WAS a Libertarian (note the capital L) in fact - I had matured from ignorant capitalist to principled laissez-faireist, I didn't believe in legislating morality, I was furious over my taxes and I have always felt more comfortable in the company of armed civilians than armed state agents.But I let myself be carried away in the post-9/11 hysteria and became a staunch security-statist. Everything else took a back seat to "the war on terror". That's when I got really into talk radio, and started becoming a partisan fanboy of the Republicans. I must have languished in that reeking fog for three years.
Then I discovered Protest Warrior, and thanks to the influences of the libertarians and paleoconservatives on that site (a minority, but a loud one) I rediscovered my libertarian zeal. I didn't really abandon my security-statism at that time, but stuffed it away in a corner and ignored the nagging voice that told me I was being inconsistent.
During that time I was introduced to the Non-Aggression Principle, though I didn't really understand its logical implications at first. I started to refine my beliefs, became economically astute, and very importantly - I met some Christian libertarians who quickly disabused me of the erroneous doctrine of Biblically-endorsed statism. All it took was a flash of rational thought and a quick exegisis. I became a full-fledged minarchist in 2006. I had been reading Heinlein and Rand, and was quickly beginning to accept the belief that liberty is prerequisite for prosperity and security, and not the other way around. Within six months I believed that the state should consist of no more than a court system.
In late 2006 a friend of mine sent me a link to George Reisman's lecture, "The Future of Liberty". I loved it. That's when I discovered mises.org and Austrian economics. I suppose I was a Friedmanite before that time, but I gladly accepted Mises as my new mentor. It was about this time last year that I became an anarcho-capitalist. It was that nagging voice again, demanding that I be consistent. I believed in the Non-Aggression Principle not only as a rational ethic, but also as consistent with Christian doctrine. So starting from that premise, I formulated my own arguments against the state, and came up with a very Rothbardian system of property ethics.
That was about a month before I listened to For A New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty at work. That was the end of any scraps of statism for me.
Since that time I've migrated from "plain" anarcho-capitalism to agorism, as I reject political strategies as viable instruments toward liberty, and believe that a revolutionary strategy is necessary.
So there's my life story.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist, council communist, or whatever other term you want to give it.
I pretty much was Noam Chomsky.
Political Atheists Blog
I thought Noam Chomsky was a commiediction. BA DUM BUM.I will never do that again, sorry.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
From small government conservative to market liberal to "true libertarian".
"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
I was raises in a solidly leftist familly. My mother is a hardcore Democrat, and my father is pretty socialistic, even if he refused to admitt it. My first memory of politics was the 2000 election, durring which I adopted most of my parents beliefs. I was always a voracious reader, and in seventh and eighth grade I discovered the Discworld and Illuminatus series, both of which have a pretty strong libertarian libertarian slant. In 2004, Kerry's ambivilance towards the Iraq war made me lose my faith in the Democratic party; that year, I started reading the works of Neal Stephenson, which gave a mostly positive description of an Anarcho-Capitalist future, causing me to re-evaluate my belief in democracy. For the next few years, I was a closet libertarian; it wasn't untill I read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that I decided to come out.
You can't take the sky from me.
...Proving again J. Neil Schulman's saying that science fiction is the best available "hook" to get people interested in libertarian philosophy. Heinlein's work is probably second to Ayn Rand's in making libertarians out of the statists that are mass-produced by the public school system.
(My 11th grade English teacher HATED Heinlein.)
MacFall:...I've migrated from "plain" anarcho-capitalism to agorism, as I reject political strategies as viable instruments toward liberty, and believe that a revolutionary strategy is necessary.
I should say something more about this - I believe that economic secession is the best compromise between quick and effective action, and non-violence. Not that I'm opposed to another revolution in principle - I just believe it is imprudent. And even justified violence, I think, is best reserved as a last resort.
I started out as a strong right-leaning republican. I used to consider drug regulations, prostitution-bans, all that other stuff good things. I voted Bush in the 2004 elections, though more because I didn't want John Kerry in office than any liking for Bush. I was big on police authority and guns for self defense only. At the same time, I was already very pro-capitalist, anti-government control/regulation. I guess you could say, that even though I was a strong Republican, the basic thought patterns for Libertarianism were always there...many of them instilled by my dad who has a lot of Libertarian leanings, and - believe it or not - reading the bible and attending a Christian school for middle school and high school.
I started moving to libertarianism after taking Intro to Microeconomics at George Mason University about a year and a half or so ago now. My professor was one Rustici (can't remember his first name off the top of my head for the life of me), and he was a big-time libertarian. The course books were Carl Menger's Principles of Economics, Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, Ludwig VonMises Economic Policy, and (of course) the standard Microecon textbook. The recommended reading for the course was the novel Atlas Shrugged, which I still need to finish reading (I just haven't been able to stick with it). Regrettably, at the time, I didn't really start getting into it until the last three or four lectures in the class. Then he started talking about all sorts of political economics, including tarriffs, minimum wage laws, environmentalism, big government, et cetera. The one that really started to hook me was the third to last lecture where he talked about rent controls. He showed footage from rent-controlled areas of New York and other major cities, mixed in with footage from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hamburg, Dresden, and a few other cities that had been nuked, carpet bombed, or fire bombed during World War 2. He asked the class to tell the difference between places that were destroyed to cash in on insurance and avoid rent controls and places that were bombed in WW2. Not one person in the class could tell the difference consistently. That really got the gears turning in my head that maybe government isn't exactly the best of things. At the end of the course, I was almost hooked, and then that Spring I started hanging out with a gaming group on campus that included a couple of anarchists, several libertarians, and a few libertarian-leaning republicans. From then on, I've pretty much been hooked. As I've done more and more research, I've moved deeper into the libertarian view, and now straddle the fence between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
Used to be very liberal up until about a month ago. Voted Gravel in the primaries. I always thought liberals were better on the social issues like drug decrim, letting gays marry, etc. But I also thought that government could solve economic problems with a wave of its wand. Then I started reading up here on Austrian economics, Hoppe in particular was very influential for me. Then I found Molyneux and have been devouring most of his youtube vids. And that's about where I am today, full fledged anarcho-capitalist.
ViennaSausage:Going off what BWF89 said in another tread, that a lot of libertarians he knows were former liberals, how did you come to libertarianism? From the liberal, conservative, socialist, or fascist, point of view?
I was politically apathetic until I discovered libertarianism and became politically active. My family was not strongly political, and I wasn't either. I just wasn't interested. Discovered libertarianism in my early 20s (AFTER college). Earliest influences were Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, although I've been firmly anarcho-capitalist for almost ten years now.
I'm not sure if there was a definition for what I was. I was an ultranationalist with a social darwinist / eugenic twist. But I was also an individual anarchist, as odd as it sounds. Basically I was really angry and wanted the world to work the way I thought would be best.
After that I went through an odd spritual phase, which, again, is difficult to define. Basically is was barebone Buddhism without the Buddha and all the extras. I came from that with a rather strong live and let live approach to life and that naturally lead to libertarianism (if that label still means anything...).
I'd say that I've been a libertarian for most of my political life. Having parents that voted for Browne twice, I grew up in a suitable environment for libertarianism to develop. However, I consider the degrees of libertarianism to have changed, mainly over the last year. From supporting Ron Paul's campaign, I found Tom Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to US History, through which I found Lewrockwell.com, which had many archives which led me to perfect my libertarian positions.
When I first began paying attention to politics and economics, I was pretty much a neo-conservative. I felt that a strong military was neccesary to protect our country from terrorism. I fell into supporting the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004, mainly for his tax cuts and my utter disgust with the democrat party. However, sometime around 7th grade and the launch of the invasion of Iraq, I began to question what the Republican Party stood for. It was probably my freshman year of highschool when I realized the Iraq war was a terrible mistake fabricated by the rightists in power. I began to search for people who believed in ending the war, and all nation building activities conducted by our government, but still believe in private property rights and limited government. I eventually was introduced to Mises.org where I began to read the Daily articles every day. The articles on Mises.com got me to begin thinking about more about property rights and anti-interventionism. From Mises.com I began reading books the site advertised like the politically incorrect guide to capitalsim, the politically incorrect guide to history, various walter block essays and listening to many of the mises.com media files. That combined with taking my first college level Economics class (I know it teaches keynesian princibles) and learning the basics of capitalism, I found myself here, a libertarian.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
About four years ago, I was what I would call a conservative Democrat. However, I had never actually voted. Politically speaking, I was against the war on drugs, thought prostitution should be legalized, thought gay marriage should be legal, and I was against the Iraqi war/occupation. I also thought regulations were a good thing. Then I found my350z.com, which was full of libertarians. I started talking in their politics section, and I was eventually converted to libertarianism, something I had never heard of until about four years ago.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Coming from the Conservativism of Oakeshott, Burke, Scruton etc. still not abandoned it: I'm trying to unify Libertarian economic/political theory to Conservative cultural/political theory. I'm relying on Voegelin, who was a Conservative but a student of LvM and will perhaps research the ideas of Ludwig Lachmann (not sure about that yet).
I was raised in a family that was staunchly democrat. For whatever reason I entertained quite hawkish views on foreign policy and became Repub part way through the Reagan era. Then I joined a Protestant denomination that expects the USA ultimately under popular pressure to forsake its principles of religious liberty. Many of these people are apoliticial, but some are staunch Republicans. At that time I removed all affiliation and became non-partisan. However, I would regularly vote for hawks and low taxes candidates. Each election cycle saw me looking, without success, for a political home. About five years ago I read David Boaz' book on Libertarianism and that was a help (ran into him at NRO?). Took the short quiz and landed on the line between libertarian and conservative. I began voting regularly for Libertarians and fiscal conservative Repubs. Joined the LP. Not completely satisfied, I continued searching.
Enter Ron Paul. I don't recall how. It was not long before the first debate. Along the way I discovered LewR.com, Mises, listened to Rothbard's A New Liberty. Became a Repub and voted for RP in the primary. Have ordered books perhaps four times from Mises now. Presently reading Man, Economy, and State, and LewR.com every night. I score perfect libertarian now on the short quiz.
I have found home.
MacFall:Then I discovered Protest Warrior
It's kind of amazing anyone got anything out of that forum... Oddly enough my ideas solidified there as well.
After 9/11 I was a "bushist" in that I supported everything Bush did. After a couple of years I was a limited government conservative that questioned much of what bush did. Then I thought victemless crimes should be legal. Then I was curious about enconomics and read Capitalism by Rand, and then I was exposed to Rothbard. Now I am an anarcho-capitalist.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
I love your avatar, ChaseCola!
Not that it's particulary relevant to anyone but me, but I discovered basically the exact time at which I became an anarchist. It was recorded in a Facebook conversation (God bless internet) at three minutes 'till midnight, on May 11th of last year. I guess that means the timeline I described earlier is a bit off. Oh well.
So my first day as an anarchist - not counting the three minutes immediately following my "enlightenment" - was May 12th, 2007, a date of greater sentimental importance to me than my birthday.
And for easy personal reference, five days before my mother's birthday, of second-greatest sentimental importance to me by only the narrowest of margins.
MacFall: Not that it's particulary relevant to anyone but me, but I discovered basically the exact time at which I became an anarchist. It was recorded in a Facebook conversation (God bless internet) at three minutes 'till midnight, on May 11th of last year. I guess that means the timeline I described earlier is a bit off. Oh well. So my first day as an anarchist - not counting the three minutes immediately following my "enlightenment" - was May 12th, 2007, a date of greater sentimental importance to me than my birthday. And for easy personal reference, five days before my mother's birthday, of second-greatest sentimental importance to me by only the narrowest of margins.
Haha, Nice story. I wish my "enlightenment" could have been that memorable. Mine was more of a transition, not an immediate change.
Whatever day the first televised debate of the Republican Convention was my "moment" or turning point. Ron Paul was the only one that sounded sane in the mix of neocons, he totally stood out. I guess I can look up that date. However, similar to mr_anon, it was a transition period until I discovered Mises sometime in the mid summer/early fall last year.
Pretty much a free market conservative.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
MacFall: ...Proving again J. Neil Schulman's saying that science fiction is the best available "hook" to get people interested in libertarian philosophy. Heinlein's work is probably second to Ayn Rand's in making libertarians out of the statists that are mass-produced by the public school system. (My 11th grade English teacher HATED Heinlein.)
I tried reading Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress myself. I got to the hundredth page and then I stopped myself, I just don't like the way Heinlein presents things.
Other than that, as for myself:
Socialist -> Took an econ class -> Keynesian -> Saw Free to Choose -> Neo-Classical -> Read Road to Serfdom -> Minarchism/abandoned utilitarianism -> found out about David Friedman -> Anarcho-Capitlism/Minarchism, iffy about ethical system -> Read Rothbard -> Took up ethical system derived therin, Anarcho-Capitalist
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
What do you mean by the way Heinlein "presents things"? Do you mean the way he narrates? Because if that's the case I'd like to know what your objections are, as a science fiction writer myself. A matter of professional curiosity.