Not that temporal longevity has anything to do with being libertarian, but I would conjecture there was a surge of growth from the past year, myself included.
Although much of my actions and thoughts were libertarian, I have really only been one for the past year.
Same here. I really began researching libertarianism in the library last year during study hall. I had to do a Persuasive paper on the Patriot Act for my english class and I talked to my dad about it, and he showed me mises.org. So, after he introduced me to it, I began reading the Daily Articles and viewing the media section. Therefore, I have only been a knowledgeable libertarian for about 1 year too.
A year and a half now.
The loosely defined the Cato/Reason type, for awhile. But that perspective is stagnent.
It was only after discovering Rothbard(and the Rothbardians), a little over a year ago, that libertarianism became consistent and meaningful.
By nature, always. But I didn’t take an interest in the intellectual body of work until about 10 years ago. Before that I was more concerned with introspection and pushing the limits of my mind and body (okay, and girls [;)]), and not really interested in politics. When I did take an interest, I came across and gravitated towards Jude Wanniski and his Supply-Side University. Through them, the Austrians. I studied Austrian and neo-classical models during my years at Columbia (“know thy enemy” and all that), then went to Mises U. in 2005 to solidify my Austrian basics and meet everybody. BTW, if you’re a student, you should try to attend… you can probably get a scholarship so everything but airfare would be paid for. It was a lot of fun and I learned a lot!
I started reading Austrians more than 30 years ago. The Public Choice school headed by Gordon Tullock was another influence.
On the other hand, I’ve probably been a hater of mankind since I was even younger.
A little over a year I do believe.
I’ve been a “vulgar libertarian” since 2005, having become utterly disillusioned with republicanism after the 2004 election. Since then I’ve grown steadily more radical until May 12th, 2007 when I became a market anarchist.
Huh, seems like their was a lot of libertarian conversions about a year ago. Pretty neat.
While I still maintain that a Ron Paul Presidency would be a bad thing in the long run, it is quite clear that he has influenced many thousands of people toward the Austrian economics. A serendipitous result of his candidacy is that there are now more market anarchists than ever before. That, I think, is the only purpose of a political wing to a libertarian movement - getting the word out. Not to sieze the reins of the state.
I agree. He has really helped in getting the austrian beliefs out.
The crucial moment, for me, came late '06 & 07, when I eventually discovered RP after swearing off voting for democrats & being in political limbo. Seeing him in the debates sealed the deal, more or less.
I definitley agree that the only real useful political means that libertarians could serve in mainstream politics is education & spreading the word, as, without them (and the communities & political thought they showed the door to), I might not be where I am today, and probably would be an Obama-bot right now.
I went from being a soft-paternalist, then civil libertarian, after that, a vulgar libertarian (minarchist, for the past 2), & currently: an apolitical libertarian, w/ market-anarchist, objectivist (very mild; only just starting the virtue of selfishness), & technorealist (douglas rushkoff, howard bloom. e,tc.) influences.
Yeah, it’s been an interesting 1 1/2 almost 2 years.
Can someone be an anarcho-capitalist and not an Austrian?
Doesn’t the Austrian school imply utilitarianism?
From my knowledge, I don’t think it implies utilitarianism per se, although I remember reading recently on the forums that Mises had a utilitarian streak to him, but Rothbard wasn’t utilitarian by any means, and employed the austrian school, methinks.
As for being anarcho-capitalist but not utilizing the austrian school, I wouldn’t think you’d be able to be neo-classical & anarcho-capitalist at the same time. I’m not too well informed of other competitng schools aside from keyes, neo-classical & classical, and austrian, though.
No, utilitarianism implies that the end justifies the means, which conflicts with the non-coercive philosophy of the Austrian school.
Yes, but Austrians seem to be non-coercive because it’s what works best.
Utilitarianism also violates the principle of methodological individualism since by definition it’s concerned with maximizing the happiness of all (justifying offences against individuals on the grounds that “society” is allegedly better off).
You’re right, I phrased that poorly; I guess I was trying to say that Austrians don’t seem concerned with natural rights.
Keep in mind that I’m too lazy to read about anything, so I’m probably wrong! I didn’t even know that anarcho-capitalism had a name until found it by accident on Wikipedia. It was reassuring to find that I wasn’t the only one… I thought everyone was in favor of taxes!
I know I have written that I am a minarchist flirting with anarcho-capitalism, but to be honest this forum has given me a lot of new perspectives in the last week or so.
I think ultimately, I might settle in as a Radical Marxist Capitalist Objectivist, or a New Right Libertarian Quasi-Fundamentalist.
Or maybe I’m just kidding myself and I am a Rothbardian Misesian Hayekian Sapien.