Your Conversion to Anti-Statism

Economics Political Theory
1

I’m curious to hear what everybody’s de-conversion stories are from Statism. I guess more to the point, how did you get from falling victim to the status quo and then being exposed to the liberty movement?

For me personally, it wasn’t that interesting of a journey. I grew up in a right-wing household that wasn’t keen on pushing belief, but attempted to make sure I was set straight. After struggling a bit with conservatism, I became a faux-Libertarian who went by that title but was still pretty conservative in other areas. Then came the Ron Paul campaign that, after a few debates, reminded me that it was okay not to support foreign aggression (being a teenager during the Bush years kind of molded me into a neocon!).

After being introduced to the ideas of Ron Paul, I think I became a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian, but I was pretty Cato Institutey . I was searching for some philosophy-oriented videos and I ran into some an-cap people on Youtube and was hooked afterwards. I begrudgingly accepted being an anarcho-capitalist because of my basic mistrust of the State, but was turned on to the Mises Institute in the process. Reading the LvMI, I became a huge fan of Rothbard, Block, et al.

Basically what I guess I’m interested in mostly is where you were aligned ideologically before you became a libertarian and the effect or non-effect of what the 2008 Ron Paul / Constitutionalist movement had on you in easing a potential transition into anarcho-capitalism.

2

Never had one. Hated the state since about…first grade. Still hate it. I actually thought I was completely alone in my thinking until I was referred to Human Action by a good friend. Still not a libertarian, but this is not a fault of the ideology so much as my lack of faith in people to not give in to swindlers. The presidents we’ve had have become progressively worse (no pun intended) since I was born, and never really did anything worth mention as far as I’m concerned. Don’t know much about Ron Paul, but a man who would see the Federal Reserve brought down is okay in my book.

I hope that satiates some of your curiosity. This isn’t my kind of exercise.

3

Well you do have that correct about the latest line of presidents. I think libertarianism is going to get overwhelmed by socialism the way things are going and we’re going to go through an economic dark age for at least a little bit

But, thanks for answering!

4

I never liked being forced to obey authority. I learned libertarian views in books, blog posts, columns, and speeches, but I always had the fear there was an argument I did not know. Worst case scenario: a possible fatal ideological flaw. Eventually, a friend told me to read Viception. I did. I have been an uncompromising free market anarcho-capitalist since reading it. Every criticism, doubt, and question I had about liberty was sufficiently answered when I read it. Here is my review of it.

5

I suppose it was a gradual process really. My first anti-statist impulses I suppose could be traced back to when I first read “1984” in middle school which more or less turned me into an anti-communist Republican. After that, I got more involved with the GOP as well as the Catholic church. I was a big Bush supporter back in 2004 and even attended his inauguration.

During the election, I picked up a sample ballot and decided to do some research on the alternative parties, after all how informed could I be if I didn’t know who these other guys on the ballot were. I looked at Nader(socialist) Greens(socialist) Libertarians(crazy at the time, after all who could be for legalizing drugs!!!) then the Constitution party. It was at the latter that really started my shift to where I am now.

After doing some reading on their website, I was drawn to Pat Buchanan. His Where the Right went wrong turned me against interventionism, though also turned me against free trade. The latter point was actually a regression, as I superficially believed in it back in my regular GOP years, which looking back seemed a bit odd as I was convinced of its goodness at the time by Rush Limbaugh.

So, I did the Paleocon thing at the time, and even considered myself a constitutional monarchist at some point or the other. I started reading the “American Conservative” magazine, and more or less mt opinion conformed to the editorial etc. At this time in high school, I was also a member of the JROTC(junior reserve training corps) so I had a pretty nationalist bent. However, my non-interventionism was growing stronger, then in my junior year I was introduced to Ayn Rand.

Being a Science fiction fan, I was always on the lookout for new books in the school library and one book in particular caught my eye. It was The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, I picked it up and read it and my mind was blown. I still remember going to a JROTC staff meeting and one of the members decrying the selfishness of some members and immeadiatly launched into a John Galt like speech.(heh I wasn’t the best Randian at this point). I then read Atlas Shrugged and did my High School term paper on Ayn Rand.(interesting story, I had to convince my teacher she could be counted as an American author, as the teacher had not heard of her.)

After this, I considered myself a libertarian conservative who was a political independent. Then came Ron Paul’s campaign, which I got involved in on a local level and it drew me even more to libertarianism. Then flash foward to college and I read David Boaz’s Libertarianism a Primer and Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State Utopia and I became a confirmed minarchist.

After this, I realized I had negleted economics which was kind of embarrasing for one who prides themselves on the value of free markets. So, I took a macro class and in my American government class we had to choose a book to read for the final and write a report on it. I chose Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom though I was in just passing familiarity with the Austrian school. Friedman’s position on the Fed in that book did not sit well with me, so I decided to read some of the Austrians to see why I felt Friedman was mistaken, or more aptly put why they thought he was mistaken.

So, I read Economics in One Lesson, listened to Israel Kirzner’s lecture on Competition and Entrepreneurship and read What has Government done to our money? After these, this past year I have read Human Action and The Ethics of Liberty, TEoL really converted me from statism as well as HA to a great extent, though I am still not really satisfied with natrual rights, it is one of my next areas of study in libertarianism.

So, in a nutshell that is really it, a really strange journey now that I think about it and I am sure I left alot out. Hope you enjoyed this rather rambling post.

6

I grew up around poor people. Most of them (at least the ones I grew up around) don’t deserve the help they get. Everyone that I’ve ever known that has worked hard and kept true to themselves has done well for themselves.

It took me about 1 year to realize that education would be better if government got out of the way.

A few months to realize that would seem to hold true for all levels of education.

A month to realize how labor laws and embargoes effect trends in unemployment, and that government really screws things up here.

About a month to realize that government really screws with healthcare.

Shortly after, I stumbled upon Shiff and Paul. After reading mises dailies and forum discussions for about 6 months, I went anarchist. (Though I’m only 90% sure on that. Still need to read up a little on law and defense issues. I guess I could be considered a minarchist, if I had to get a label.)

7

I was fairly apolitical and dispassionate about politics/economics. But I did have my political and economic tendencies.

In high school, I was a centrist, with left leaning tendencies. I really didn’t see a big difference between Democrats and Republicans.

During college, I moved to the left/liberal, practically socialist/communist side of things. After all, how could one not after being indoctrinated with Marx from day one of my college career. I thought the Democrats and Greens were on the right track.

Stayed with the left/liberals after college, but always challenged myself to see if my beliefs were logical and consistent.

Enter the last presidential election. I was planning on voting for either a Democrat or a Green again, but decided to check out what the Republicans had to say during the debates. There was an anomaly in the Republican camp, and you can probably guess who he is… Ron Paul. Where the eff did this guy come from? He was the only one that made sense out of both the Republicans, Democrats, Greens. I became a bonafide Constitionalist/libertarian/minarchist.

I then followed some of the resources that Ron Paul suggested, namely the Mises Institute. Read articles/books and listened to podcast from the site. Became convinced of AnCap prior to attending Mises U 2008.

Granted, depending on the audience, I use minarchist arguments when defending libertarianism, as for many folks, AnCap just seems to far fetch. With minarchist, I then use AnCap arguments:).

8

No one should ever be judge in their own case. Its a dumb idea and no one has ever agreed to it.

9

always saw any “unquestionable” authority as illegitimate. It just didn’t make sense. Why I should obey “bigger” people? (it’s from childhood). Same in my teenage years etc. Though, I wasn’t aware of my own anarchism since I was introduced into this philosophy.

10

Probably like many people, when I first read 1984 in my middle school years, I was struck by its portrayal of authority. However, these feelings were too powerful for me at the time, and so I suppressed them.

It was my good fortune several years later that I had stumbled across the Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. Embarrassing when I think back to it, I tried to simply dismiss it as “Oh my god! Doesn’t this LOON know that free markets caused our economy to EXPLODE?!”.

Flash forward a few months later, and I’ve been following the 2008 presidential campaign(Typical “baw-awk oh-baum-ah”-ian at the time) and came across Ron Paul. “What a nut, doesn’t he know the gold standard didn’t work?!”.

…Luckily, I’ve always been highly curious about “Foreign” material, and finally got around to reading the PIG. After I finished reading it, it took only a couple weeks to completely shatter my previously-held views. I transitioned fairly quickly over a period of several months from Neocon, to Paleocon(I even have a few books of Glenn Beck, amusingly enough), and finally to “Minarchist Libertarian”.

In my continued research and analysis on this website and similar ones such as Lewrockwell.com, I finally shattered any remaining fibers of statism beyond transitional anarchy.

11

Keep them coming guys, I like the stories

It seems like Ron Paul did have an impact. I respect Ron Paul greatly and disagree with him on a number of issues, but regardless, he has done so much for the liberty movement. I have my suspicions though that Paul wouldn’t even mind a completely voluntary society, that he runs as a minarchist so he still maintains national relevance and can be a national educator with that platform.

12

Paul has said that Anarcho Capitalism is a great idea, it just isn’t feasible at this very moment.

13

I guess one other point that should be made is that I don’t think I could have become a voluntaryist without the natural progression. When I was a conservative, I don’t think anybody could convince me to be an an-cap because it would seem too radical. Going from neocon - paleocon - minarchist - an-cap is a gradual process, so I think the role that Ron Paul fills works on conservatives and liberals alike. Conservatives are interested in him because he supports markets and liberals are interested in him because he doesn’t toe the Republican establishment line and he doesn’t support intervention in foreign or social affairs.

Put simply, his appeal stretches across party lines and introduces them to looking into opposing viewpoints. I think it’s funny that when somebody such as Rachel Maddow books Ron Paul as a guest, she uses him to express frustration with areas of the Republican platform she doesn’t like. But Paul oftentimes brings up the freedom issue. I like it, it’s kind of like guerilla warfare against Statists

14

Started reading Friedman and Hayek after entering university. Then I ended up with Mises and Rothbard, and very quickly became convinced that anarchocapitalism is both far superior and the only moral option. The latter included heavy engagement with argumentation ethics. This happened in less then a year.

15

I was born into a Republican family-and they are still Republican-and held all the patriotic, “we’re the good guys” attitude that went with it. Through my life though, I felt something wasn’t right, and about 18 months ago I started searching for answers and defining my philosophy. I discovered Glenn Beck-I know, don’t hold it against me, I also own a few of his books He got me interested in the founding fathers and the constitution so I started reading and reading and changed my view from a neo-conservitism to a paleo-conservitism. While I was reading “The Conservitive Mind” by Russel Kirk I was intrigue by a man Kirk gave praise to, Albert Jay Nock. I ordered his book “Our Enemy,the State” and my eyes opened. I was hooked and began reading in the radical/libertarian field as much as I could.

I read Ron Paul’s book, “The Revolution A Manifesto” and was even more hooked. I couldn’t believe the way I used to think of things. At this time i was minarchist. I discovered Ludwig von Mises and the Mises institute and then was intrigued by Anarcho-Cap. At first I thought it was an impossible philosophy. How could a society function without at least minimal government-my great public education, status quo mind coming to my aid here lol Then I began to read more and more, hitting Rothbard’s books on the subject as well as many others. It didn’t take long for me to see how ‘right’ it was and I have considered myself an Anarcho-Cap for all of about 5 months now

16

Pro tip: Enlightenment / acceptance are better words to use than conversion.

17

The budget deficit/national debt. Period.

That is the only issue that opened me to be receptive to somone like Ron Paul. I’m a big believer in a person living within their means and think the gov’t ought to also. If either the Republicans or the Democrats actually promoted a balanced budget, well, I’d probably still be supporting them. It started back with Ross Perot as a kid. I loved him and his charts. Wasn’t old enough to vote but wanted him to win. After he loss, I then gravitated back to the Republicans and the balanced budget amendment ideal of the 1990s. Of course, GWB made sure that support did not last. His administration led me right into the arms of Ron Paul and Austrian economic theory. And Obama has cemented my belief fully that both parties, in a word, suck (fiscally speaking.)

And neither will ever truely change. Neither want to change. (Sure, Republicans will be fairweather fiscal conservatives while a Democrat is in office, but only while the Democrat is in office.) Instead, both parties seem to expect somehow for the laws of economics to change.

18

I had a particularly nasty case of Engineer’s Syndrome: Calling a free society productive was like calling a pile of bricks a house. The cause of all society’s ills was the incredible inefficiency brought about by catering to the frivolous wants of consumers rather than building toward a brighter future for humanity. Instead of building iPods and Corvettes we should put that money into research for FTL and building cities on Mars. My big plan for this was to eliminate the desires of individuals by replacing their biological brains with synthetic ones, and turning all of humanity into drones incapable of doing anything other than physical labor. The actual thinking and computation to direct the drones would all be done by a big supercomputer. The frivolous desires that dragged humanity down were caused by emotions: My synthetic brains would take care of that. A world ruled only by the purity of cold, hard logic.

Under this worldview absolutely nothing made any sense whatsoever. I went through several phases on what I blamed for my Utopia not yet arising: Insufficient advances in technology, a bourgeois conspiracy to maintain the status quo, and flat-out irrationalism. Ultimately all of them fell against serious analysis.

Then StumbleUpon of all things introduced me to Mises.org. At first I thought the place was rather silly. Then I read Theory and History.

The old, inunderstandable universe died, and a new one was born in a blazing fire of my perception. Suddenly everything made sense.

Though I wouldn’t have used this type of language before, before I read that book I saw one value as absolute: Reproduction. This was the “logical” end to ultimately pursue, all others either must be subsidary to it or be cast away as emotional baggage. I attempted to justify it using evolutionary biology, but it’s pointless to repeat my old arguments here. I came to understand even the sacred end of Reproduction was arbitrary. It could not and cannot be justified by any scientific reasoning, just as no other end can.

Rather than being the thing that dampens humanity’s progress, the so-called “emotional/irrational ends” are the cause. Civilization exists today because we wanted iPods and Corvettes, and it continues to march on because now we want something more. The obvious course for the future is not more “logic” as I had thought, but is instead a refinement and enhancement of tastes in completely arbitrary pleasures.

With this understanding Star Trek starts to look very silly indeed!

After that I developed my economic understanding more and more. Quickly it became very apparent that the State is the enemy of happiness. I’m more of a Misean consequentialist than a Rothbardian deontologist, but to be completely honest I don’t really give the ethics portion that much thought. Call me unprincipled but the loss of enjoyment placed upon me by taxes is more than enough reason to hate the state for me.

Well that turned out way longer than I expected <.<

19

“Started reading Friedman and Hayek after entering university. Then I ended up with Mises and Rothbard, and very quickly became convinced that anarchocapitalism is both far superior and the only moral option. The latter included heavy engagement with argumentation ethics. This happened in less then a year.”

  1. It’s nice to see you make a valuable post for once

  2. I am under the impression that you have since dropped anarchism, if this is correct could you outline your transition out of the ideology?

My transition from statism took place in about a year

I started off a “democrat” in high school back before I really understood what the left/right spectrum really even meant. I was just used to the idea republicans= retards. It didn’t even matter what the democrats were, they weren’t republicans, republicans were retarded. Anyone familiar with the high school setting will agree that this kind of thought process is not uncommon.

I began talking with my father about this stuff and I was easily transferred to his ideology which was basically old time conservatism.

From there I got into Rand and basically drifted more and more into more radicle degrees of libertarianism until I finally encountered the Austrians and I became an anarchist. It was actually Molyneux who caused me to convert with his ethical arguments

Since then I’ve became less “anarcho-capitalist” and infinitely more “voluntaryist”. I went from Molyneux’s UPB to Rothbard’s natural rights before running into Nietzsche and seeing objective ethical systems for the bullshit they really are.

Now I’m in the midst of another general transition based upon a multitude of different influences.

20

Andrew Ryan, for whatever it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Nietzsche too, and Camus along with all my other libertarian philosophers. I understand ethics to be entirely subjective and I think the concept of morality is too vague and muddy to correspond to anything in reality. I just accept the fact that values are rather arbitrary and that they overlap between individuals to a large extent. None of us, I don’t think, have to be convinced to care about other human beings, it’s just something that we do. No need to justify it. It’s like saying the need to eat food is subjective, which it is, because an individual subjectively desires their health and survival.

When people argue about an-cap vs. statism, I don’t really consider it a morality play as much as an economics play (which I think everything can be reduced to). It seems to me that more free markets objectively lead to prosperity as long as we define prosperity and give it certain perameters. If you don’t value human prosperity, then be a communist