Post your "political past"?

“I am an anarchist. Let me clear away the stereotypes. I am not an angry teenager, I have a career, I have children. I do not want chaos, I want my children and grandchildren to live in the best of all realistically possible worlds. I am not emotionally maladjusted, I have a normal relationship with my parents, I don’t have a problem with authority, having only been fired once (for love!) and my most serious run-ins with the state have been speeding tickets (none in the last five years). I am not an atheist.”

Except for the being fired part, this is me as well. I’m pretty normal.

I am not trying to win any friends and if someone makes conclusions about me without examining the actual content of my position then they are someone who cannot think for themselves. Let them rot, I say. Political economy requires critical thought.

+1

I was a socialist when I was a teenager. I was just trying to think through what works, because from what I saw capitalism didn’t. (I know, I stand corrected.) I still kept that with me when I went off to college, and even attended meetings of the socialist party when I was at NYU. I know, about as far left as you can get! (Although I still was kind of on a superficial level on the whole theory and everything. …I remember even asking someone at a protest, “How are goods distributed in a socialistic/communistic society?” And no one had any idea! Tells you how deep the general theoretical knowledge is over there.)

Anyway, the financial “crisis” came in 2008 and I wanted to understand. I listened to some This American Life episodes about the crisis, then watched the movies “Money Masters” and “Money as Debt” and that, and hundreds of hours of reading at a boring temp job, sent me off to where I am today.

A few years ago, I was a typical Republican. Then i discovered Ron Paul and became a Constitutionalist. After that, I joined the libertarian club at my school and discovered anarcho-capitalism and decided that it is the only system that makes sense to me.

I’m 22

I was originally a conservative (fiscal conservative/social liberal) influenced by my parents.

Encountered Milton Friendman and became a minarchist libertarian then encountered Rothard and became anarcho-capitalist.

Figured this was worth an add:

The road to Austrian school

Nationalist leftist (I didn’t know anything about economics and were very young)

Nationalist semi-free marketeer (I lost a debate to some libertarians and started to support free trade but still supported many public services)

Nationalist minarchist (I realized that public services suck)

Minarchist (I found austrian school and bought Economics in One Lesson)

Anarcho-capitalist (I read some D. Friedman, Rothbard and Hoppe)

Still, I always hated communism.

Nationalist(Something I am quite ashamed of now) → Nationalist supportive of free markets-> constitutionalist → objectvist(Very brief period) → anarchist.

I am often considered by others to be a follower of Ayn Rand, even though I have not read any of her works and have no idea what she stands for. Simply supporting free enterprise in an argument leads my opponents to associate me with Ayn Rand. From what my opponents tell me about Ayn Rand, she supported some sort of aristocratic society, a minarchist state in which a handful of individuals would dominate the masses and consume the greater part of the wealth. Not at all what comes to mind when I think of capitalism. She sounds more like a communist than a supporter of free markets.

magnetic-

Ayn Rand did not support anything like that. Leftists, and pretty much everyone else, misrepresent her positions.

I consider myself to be a strong supporter of free trade and the free market, as I think everything should be privatized or open to homesteading, including roads, law, the oceans, identity documents, and so on. But just a cursory glance at Objectivism gives me chills.

For instance (from http://www.atlassociety.org/what_is_objectivism):

Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand dramatized her ideal man, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy. Rand laid out the details of her world-view in nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

The positing of an “ideal man” is a utopian and socialist fantasy. What is usually necessary to bring about this “ideal man” is an “ideal society.”.

Run-of-the-mill conservative in high school and first two years of college

Read Ron Paul’s book Revolution: A Manifesto last November where I was directed here

Grew progressively more libertarian while resisting giving up on the state entirely

Anarcho-Capitalist as of about a month ago

This is nearly universally reported by people from mainstream political persuasions (myself included). I am fascinated by this. Why are we so emotionally vested in the State, as if the Universe gives a shit whether there’s a State or not? One important component of this for me was the desire to not disappoint my family. My family pretty much treats me like a religious family treats an atheist family member… somewhere between condescending, patronizing, disappointed and bewildered. I suspect this may play a role in the psychological resistance that others experience in just “going all the way.”

Clayton -

One important component of this for me was the desire to not disappoint my family.

I’m dealing with this right now. I sort of decided that my family relationships were more important than having the “perfect” political philosophy. As a result, I have been reading less Austrian literature lately. Not sure if this is a good thing…

Where to start? Swear I have multiple personality disorder. Right-wing, “libertarian”, hard-communist, back to right-wing, to dabbling in anarchism to my now content philosophy "as long as peole are not hurting each other and everything is voluntary, then we, as a civilisation can, achieve great things and the greatest ones are yet to come. But at he moment Objectivism and nihilism are competing for my attention.

First election I was old enough to vote in was 2004, I voted for Bush because he calls himself a Christian and talks about the free market. Later, I read a book called Freedomnomics by John R. Lott, basically a response to Freakanomics; its repeated call for freedom was intriguing to me. I watched a lot of the classic Milton Friedman clips on youtube (eg, "where are we going to find the angels to organize society?"), which led me to his Free to Choose television series, which led me to read his book Free to Choose. Soon after, I read Robert Murphy’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, which was extremely influential, not so much in the ideas within, which to me sounded a little extreme, though thought provoking; the real value was all the cited works throughout the book that I searched for. It was there I heard of Mises and Hayek and Hazlitt, as well as others. I got a hold of Economics in One Lesson, and from there I was hooked. It was around that time (2007ish) I found mises.org and there was no turning back.

As for my beliefs, I’d say: apathetic in HS>extremely ignorant Conservative>“Republitarian”, which is basically a libertarian who believes the US has the duty to be Team America World Police, but should be extremely laissez-faire domestically; talk about untenable> then, Free Marketer, which was my phase of holding out against finally calling myself an anarchist, which sounded too scary; the night watchman state appealed to my sensibilities> now I call myself an Anarcho-capitalist, though due to its violent, chaotic connotations, I tend to avoid the use of the word anarchy in polite conversation. I tend to hammer home the concepts of non-aggression, voluntarism, private property. If somebody calls me out I admit that yes I am opposed to top-down, violent control, and if that makes me an anarchist so be it.

For what it’s worth i too consider myself to be a well-adjusted individual, though who doesn’t? :slight_smile:

no opinion > Rush Limbaugh conservative > centrist > Glenn Beckian/talk show conservative > flirtation with Objectivism > libertarian/an-cap/voluntaryist

Although while in my uneducated opinion I “vote” for an-cap, I wouldn’t mind living in a minarchist state. It would be much more preferable than the way things are now.

Also, what else is neat is that my opinion on political issues is very simple: “ditch the state and let the market decide”. I think it frustrates some people because they are looking for a complex solution, which almost always means a planned solution.

I’ve always favored liberty, but never knew how to articulate it: what my views were, my philosophy etc. One day my dad told me that the best book he had ever read was an essay by John Stuart Mill called “On Liberty.” So, he bought it for me and I read it. That essay hooked me into politics and liberty: the essay was such an influence that when I was in high school, I would title my essays “On (Insert Subject)” All of them sounded like some educated thesis based pamphlet handed out in the streets in the nineteenth century. To me, they all sounded pretty BA.

The one thing that I couldn’t get was how people divided themselves. Liberals, to me, seemed to seek liberty for social matters but heavy regulators on the economy; Conservatives, to me, seemed to seek a liberated market and a regulated social sphere. This made NO sense to me at all. I thought “One can’t come without the other.” So I decided then that I must be all regulation or all freedom. I chose the latter.

I heard argument all day every day, but had no base. Inspired by Mill, I decided that I had to get brushed up on the classics before I could even hope to focus on what happens today, much less understand it. So, here goes:

Politically, my family was pretty conservative. Our favorite was Dubya. I got really mixed up however when he started his spending and the media was relentless on him. My Dad used to listen to a guy named Mark Levin in his car and I thought he knew what he was talking about (after all, he is a Constitutional Lawyer..). I really liked how he’d tear into people who had no idea what they were saying, plus he was pretty good on economics for the most part. So, I started listening to him. After a while, I bought his book “Liberty and Tyranny” and read it. I thought it was so good, I started copying it in a notebook (the original was a library rental and, in retrospect, screw IP). I read the Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, Leviathan, Two Treatises on Civil Government, Common Sense, Democracy in America and got my base in politics: ultimately, freedom makes for shiny, happy people. Something didn’t sit right though. I didn’t like his views on foreign policy, and grew out of his rants over time. Over some time, I found a congressman named Ron Paul who seemed to know a thing or two about a thing or two. He explained his constitutional voting record, his laissez-faire economic views, and liberty for the individual. So, Paul was the first politician that I was actually enthusiastic about. He’s old and a weak speaker but he seemed very bright and in line with my views; IMO he’s gotten to be a better speaker and his age doesn’t bother me at all. Mark Levin hates him. I thought “How could a Constitution praiser like Mark hate Ron Paul so much?” I stopped listening to Levin and kept listening to Paul. However, I still maintain that Levin’s good once in a while. I don’t listen to Levin as religiously as I used to (rarely ever), but if there’s nothing better on and I’m in the car, I’ll turn it to Levin for a bit at least just to see what’s on his mind. So, with my political philosophy set, I’m comfortable labeling my views as libertarian.

When the downturn started, I got interested in economics. Something was wrong and I wanted to know why. I looked up all I could on economics on Youtube. This one guy kept coming up named Milton Friedman. he made so much sense philosophically: naturally looking towards freedom, stressing the importance of the individual, standing up to question from college students, plus many pro-govt trolls in the comments section picked at him so I naturally thought he was a good guy. I found out that he had a tv series called “Free to Choose” which I promptly sought and watched it entirely. I saw that there was a book written by him, same title, and that’s where I’d say it really got rolling. I would come home from school and start watching/reading. How do ya like that: Kids my age on Fridays were getting smashed, partying or worse and there I was studying Economics, watching Milton debate the principles behind helmet laws and reading his examples of the futility of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Something that really didn’t sit right was Friedman’s views on how the Depression should have been handled. When I read that the Federal Reserve should have stepped in to create more money, I got a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. It felt like Friedman was admitting defeat. After all this appraisal of the free market, and the individual, it turns out that the government needed to step in to save the day. Then I learned that Friedman was a Monetarist and what that meant- Keynes’ cousin. I felt pretty bad for a while. For a while I kept watching videos and found a commenter who really seemed to know his stuff. I friended him, and saw that his “School(s)” was filled out as “Austrian (for those who get that)”. I didn’t- not that I cared at the time. But I kept in contact with this guy and asked him for a reading list. He recommended “That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen” by some cat named Bastiat, and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Those ae still some of the best writings that I’ve ever read. I read those books and looked them up on Youtube and saw some speakers from something called the Mises Institute (anyone else heard of it?). One of them was such a good speaker and seemed really bright, and funny. He was the first to piece together the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. After watching a few times, I started reading articles from this site. Tom was such a good speaker, I bought the book he was advertising throughout the speech- Meltdown (interestingly, from a dude with a ponytail who was not shy to share that he was libertarian! He told me that Meltdown was an excellent book). I consumed the book in a couple of weeks, mostly because I didn’t understand how great it was when I bought it (had I known, I wouldn’t have put it off and would have read it in a night)- That was when I knew I was Austrian.

Since then I’ve read Murphy, Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Sowell, Bastiat, Friedman, Woods, Read, Tucker, Rothbard, Smith, Ricardo, Cantillon, Menger, Bohm-Bawerk and I hope to add many, many more.

Politically: Not much opinion–> “Bush Republican”–> Mark Levin conservative → libertarian

Economically: Not much opinion–> “Surely, there’s gotta be some regulation”–> Milton Friedman laissez-faire–> Austrian

I don’t know if it makes sense to put myself in two categories or just call my self a Classical Liberal, but, it is what it is.

I started as a neocon in my teens, went quasi-fascist, then socialist (is there really a difference? LOL), and finally settled on market anarchism in my late twenties to present (31 this year).

I considered myself a classical liberal in the Jeffersonian tradition. I believed that constitutional republic, egalitarianism and free markets were fundamental tenets. Once I became knowledgeable about economics I realized that the latter was impossible with the two formers present and that the full expression of the latter nullified the formers.

In the end, to answer Rothbard’s challenge, yes, I do hate the state.