Welcome to Republibot!

Sorry, I did mean John. I think faster than I type - or is it the other way round?

So, to continue my list:

Frederick Hayek (I don't agree with him 100%, but that's what makes horseraces!)

David Ricardo (one of the giants on whose shoulders Adam Smith stood)

And most of the writers at these blog sites:

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

The One Best Way (No Really!)

The Bawdy House Provisions

and, of course:

The Volokh Conspiracy (and individual sites of its contributors)

The best writer I would introduce people to as the first place to read what I consider to be rational libertarianism is Mary Ruwart, whom I mentioned above, and whose works can be found online here:

Dr Mary J. Ruwart

The biggest problem is putting together a standard definition of the political categories - even limiting them to US politics.

I consider myself a libertarian - I was even a candidate for state representative on the LP ticket.

But let's look at a notable "think tank" that is nearly always labeled as "libertarian": The Cato Institute.

Interestingly enough, someone from Cato is on a public radio program called "Tell Me More" nearly every day, providing an alternative POV to the "Big Government Will Save Us All" mentality of most of the guests one would expect on an NPR program. Some of the Cato commentators are what one would typically expect of "libertarians" - they never talk to the point, just spend the whole segment spouting dogma about how government is the source of all evil. Some, however, are actual rational libertarians - a small, subsegment of the libertarian population, I will admit. The fellow who was on "Tell Me More" earlier this week actually showed the numbers and economic concepts behind why the bailouts of two or three US auto manufacturers we neither good for the economy, nor in line with even mainstream American values. The main reason is that the bailouts went to particular companies at the expense of everyone else, and because we already make way to many cars in the US.

Anyway. I mentioned much earlier in the thread that I consider L. Neil Smith to be a parody of libertarianism, even though many libertarians consider him to be the most liberterain SF author. As I said above, Smith focuses a lot on the worship of personal firearms and even protrayed Penn Jillete as the Ambassador from Disney-fornia in his online comic "Roswell, Texas." Smith's books just seem like too much satire to me to be considered serious discussion of libertarian values.

Rand was not a libertarian, nor a conservative, though many libs and cons want to paint her that way, and there is a very interesting book that I've cited before about the early history of the LP called "It usually begins with Ayn Rand."

If you want to learn about libertarianism as what I consider it to be, these are the folks who I consider to provide the best of libertarian ideals, but that does NOT mean they would or do necessarily call themselves "libertarian,":

Thomas Locke
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Mary Ruart
Murray Rothbard
Milton Freidman (but NOT his son David - he's an anarco-capitalist)
Ludwig von Mises (most of his economics, but not so much in terms of personal liberty)

more later.

>>>I'll chime in later on other things.<<<

Cool! I look forward to it.

"Pornographers, pot smokers, the sexually extremely-non-standard, pagans, my stripper ex-girlfriend, radicals like Russel Means (Who I hung out with for a couple days when he was running for President on the Libertarian ticket in '88) - Libertarians tend to attract these."

Yeah, I can say they do. The public figures, anyway. But many of us actual mature and sensible ones tend to avoid people like Ron Paul based on the very type of people he attracts, like the "Truthers" (he's also an idiot on foreign policy).

LOL, no. My bad. I guess I made it sound that way. I meant Niven. Pournelle and Niven.

>>>I meant the contemporary group that happen to still be alive. Post Asimov, Clarke, Anderson, Heinlein and such. For that matter, Heinlein and Anderson are particularly libertarian, if not conservative (though Heinlein was a Hawk) and then you have David Weber, John Ringo. Clarke seems to lean to the right, as well. Seems to...don't know for sure.<<<

What Heinlein was depended on the phase of the moon and who he happened to be talking to at the time. He ran for office in California as a communist in the 30s, he identified himself as a libertarian for a while, then said he'd never been one, he had a fascination with Rand for a bit, was vehemently hateful of religion in his private life and occasionally in print, was a creepy old swinger, and had a fascination for incest. Oh, and he was very internationalist. He wasn't conservative about anything other than military might, and even there he had a lot of eccentricities of the sort you might expect from a Navy guy who never saw combat telling Marines how to fight.

Clarke was a British homosexual socialist atheist. Not conservative by any stretch, though in his case, not being American, I generally avoid such judgements. "Conservative" and "Liberal" are relative positions and what's liberal here might be conservative in England and what's conservative here might be liberal in China.

>>>And...center right libertarian is close enough, I reckon. I believe Andrew Breitbart (who said he's 80% conservative and 20% libertarian) fits in pretty much the same way. His co-author of many books, Jerry Pournelle is VERY conservative.<<<

Pournelle co-wrote stuff with Breitbart? [Checking] I can't find anything. Are you sure? In any event, yes, it would be very hard to get more to the right of Dr. Pournelle by his own admission. In fact, not commonly known, he *invented* the SDI concept, and was at the White House several times in the '80s.

>>>If I remember correctly, Niven IS a Republican.<<<

Nope. On our very own site he said: "NIVEN:
Yes, I’m sort of right-of-center Libertarian. I want a government for things like roads and bridges. Beyond that, the govt has been growing like kudzu, once an ornamental garden plant"
(Link: http://www.republibot.com/content/interview-larry-niven )

>>However, he is very conservative in regards to national security and foreign policy, which may be why I thought he was a conservative.<<<

National Defense really is more of a common sense thing than a Conservative thing. It frequently has no bearing on one's political leanings. Fact is, traditionally, the US has had a fairly small military, we've only had a big one since WWII, and of course Ike (Republican) warned about the Military-Industrial complex several times.

>>>Many of the liberals you list are the "old guard" of sci fi, exception of Ellison. And Orwell WAS a lefty, but his warnings were against the totalitarian left, despite what many may believe. So we can be comfortable with 1984 and Animal Farm.<<<

Mostly because those were the ones closest to me on the bookshelf when I typed that. I can do a list of more recent authors if you'd like

>>I guess the difference is that I consider libertarians and conservatives both to be of the right, and I can throw in J Neil Schulman, L Neil Smith, and John C Wright as well.<<

Again, it depends on how all-encompasing your definition of Conservatism is. In the 90s it became popular to define it as an economic stance, which, though technically correct is, I feel, somewhat disingenuous. If it were strictly economic, then why the "Family Values" stance? Why did so many Christians emphatically support Reagan and both Bushes (Despite the fact that both Bushes were moderate on pretty much everything)? Why do Conservatives tend to oppose the UN, and tend towards non-avant garde art and music? If we're honest with ourselves, Conservatism is a package deal comprising a moral, cultural, and economic position.

Conversely, Libertarian is conservative economically, but very liberal socially. Pornographers, pot smokers, the sexually extremely-non-standard, pagans, my stripper ex-girlfriend, radicals like Russel Means (Who I hung out with for a couple days when he was running for President on the Libertarian ticket in '88) - Libertarians tend to attract these. And, of course, science fiction authors Libertarianism *is* an economic stance, and its social contingent can best be summed up as, "Whatever gets you off, dude."

>>>As for TV and film...Stargate does seem to have pro-military themes, but then goes on some peacenik directions (Nox).<<<

Pro-Peace and Pro-Military aren't mutually exclusive. And the Nox and Ancients are consistently shown to be preachy, self-righteous, and annoyingly condescending.

>>And I don't think I've ever seen anything on Star Trek that didn't either strike me as new agey or peacenik, despite the military organization.<<<

Oh, hell yeah, it's left as hell, but it's kind of aggressively "Kalifornia Uber Alles," culturally imperialistic, evangelical, and a utopian view of the future that is strangely Maoist. And despite all its talk about diversity and universalism, the vision of the future is overwhelmingly American and WASPy. And I know lots of conservatives who don't consider the show liberal at all, or at least very much (Our own Sheldon seems occasionally shocked that I think it is). I'd posit that Trek comprises a unique subset of conservatism which wraps its 19th century "We're better than everyone/Manifest Destiny" outlook inside a lot of preachy hippie prattle.

>>And Lost, I believe, DID have much to do about Faith (I know, not quite my type of thing, but I'm more of a libertarian myself) and had the good grace to name one of it's heroes JOHN LOCKE; so that may count.<<<

I'm not entirely sure myself.

>>>Also, there's Terry Goodkind. I know he's fantasy, but some people count them together (speculative fiction), and then you can count C.S. Lewis.<<<

CS Lewis has always been an odd mix in that he's (Eventually) a Christian who was having a long-term affair, drank, smoked, cursed, and I suspect (But do not know) that he wasn't exactly right wing. Again, though, he's English, and their political values are different, so I tend to avoid judgement. Not a bad man, but still an odd choice for the Christian Right to rally around, though.

I don't lump SF and Fantasy together, though that's just my bias, and you can make strong arguments against it.

>>Firefly. I think Joss Whedon may be a liberal, but Tim Minear is damn sure a libertarian.<<

Could be. I never looked into it. This is cool! Thank you for posting more!

>>>In no way is the film version of Starship Troopers right wing. The book is very much so. And, in an odd way, Stranger in a Strange Land seems hippy-right. Free love and capitalism, yall.<<

The Troopers movie was basically intended as a slam on Militarism, War, the American Right, and so on. It was intended as a parody, whereas the book was more like "Heinlein's Republic"

>>>Kerjillion? I like that.<<<

Yeah, I'm a wordsmith.

>>>Ben Bova appears to be, through having read Privateer.<<<

Might be. I think he tends to Libertarian though, based on one or two comments here and there in his books, though, and a generally adversarial stance on the government, regardless of who's in power. The Sam Gunn books entirely revolve around the protagonist sidestepping the government continually in order to be a success in business. A disproportionately large number of SF writers of his generation are libertarian. Doesn't mean he is, but I suspect.

I meant the contemporary group that happen to still be alive. Post Asimov, Clarke, Anderson, Heinlein and such. For that matter, Heinlein and Anderson are particularly libertarian, if not conservative (though Heinlein was a Hawk) and then you have David Weber, John Ringo. Clarke seems to lean to the right, as well. Seems to...don't know for sure.

And...center right libertarian is close enough, I reckon. I believe Andrew Breitbart (who said he's 80% conservative and 20% libertarian) fits in pretty much the same way. His co-author of many books, Jerry Pournelle is VERY conservative. If I remember correctly, Niven IS a Republican. As for the book, Ringworld, I really meant more the author himself.

Through further research and reading his thoughts on things Card appears to be more of moderate democrat than a conservative anything...he liked lieberman for '08, though went for McCain in the general, i think. And he does seem critical of capitalism, so I stand corrected there. However, he is very conservative in regards to national security and foreign policy, which may be why I thought he was a conservative. He was a Bush supporter (I actually voted Brown and Badnarik myself, though went McCain for '08, since I grew out of thinking the libertarians could do anything and am leaning heavily toward Cain for '12, though Pawlenty's gotten ballsy and I like that). Thinking back, knowing how non-conservative Bush was on economics...he was probably the perfect candidate for a man like Card.

Many of the liberals you list are the "old guard" of sci fi, exception of Ellison. And Orwell WAS a lefty, but his warnings were against the totalitarian left, despite what many may believe. So we can be comfortable with 1984 and Animal Farm.

I guess the difference is that I consider libertarians and conservatives both to be of the right, and I can throw in J Neil Schulman, L Neil Smith, and John C Wright as well.

As for TV and film...Stargate does seem to have pro-military themes, but then goes on some peacenik directions (Nox). And I don't think I've ever seen anything on Star Trek that didn't either strike me as new agey or peacenik, despite the military organization. And Lost, I believe, DID have much to do about Faith (I know, not quite my type of thing, but I'm more of a libertarian myself) and had the good grace to name one of it's heroes JOHN LOCKE; so that may count.

Also, there's Terry Goodkind. I know he's fantasy, but some people count them together (speculative fiction), and then you can count C.S. Lewis.

And I have to point out another right-libertarian one, Firefly. I think Joss Whedon may be a liberal, but Tim Minear is damn sure a libertarian.

In no way is the film version of Starship Troopers right wing. The book is very much so. And, in an odd way, Stranger in a Strange Land seems hippy-right. Free love and capitalism, yall.

Kerjillion? I like that.

Ben Bova appears to be, through having read Privateer.

I'd say there's quite a bit of it out there, though maybe not in film or television. It seems much of recent scifi is overrun with right wingers...especially the more cerebral books, like Ringworld or The Mote in God's Eye or Ender's Game.

>>>I'm a disabled Army veteran who is proud to have served his country.<<<

Thank you very much for what you've done for us. Thank you for serving, and thank you for your sacrifice. God bless you, and happy Veterans Day.

>>> I have very conservative views on some topics and am more moderate in others. My views a few topics might be considered a bit liberal by some of my fellow Republicans. I think the majority of Republicans are like that.<<<

Yeah. I agree. There are lots of core issues that I'm very conservative about, and then there are a lot of issues that some Republicans insist are of vital importance that I just don't care about at all. And there are one or two issues where the common stance is wrong, and I take exception to 'em. But I've always argued - and I think most of us believe - that conservatism is basically making your own mind up about stuff, and if there's not enough information to do that, going with the most cautious option.

>>Science fiction often explores issues and themes of its day in a nonthreatening way by disguising them as fictitious ones.<<

Totally agree. It provides a bit of distance from reality that lets people think a bit more clearly. Shatner could kiss Nichols on Star Trek, but Link would never have been allowed to kiss Julie on The Mod Squad.

>>Personally, I'd rather enjoy science fiction rather than analyze it. I'm a great fan of the classic sci-fi films like "When Worlds Collide", "War of the Worlds", and "Forbidden Planet". I also enjoy nearly every one of the Godzilla movies. It would take pages to list all of my science fiction favorites. I prefer those that make me think, but not those that try to preach to me.<<<

I'm of two minds. There's the shoot-shoot bang-bang stuff, which is fun, and then there's the rest, which, to a greater or lesser extent is trying to be thought provoking. If they get into a big ramble about whether or not God wants people to go to Mars in "Conquest of Space," then that's more interesting than an alien robot that turns into a car, and I sorta' have to address it, and make sure people know this cool thing exists. But sometimes I just wanna' sit back and watch the pretty pretty explosions.

Ideally, I guess, I wanna' do both.

>>>I am especially put off by those that try to preach a message that promotes practices or values that I cannot endorse.<<<

Amen to that. I think the thing that I prefer about SF to, say, westerns or nurse romances or whatever, is that in the *good* SF, the moral dilemma is either interestingly phrased ("War of the Worlds" as a criticism of England's 19th century colonialism), or that the issue isn't black and white. If it's good, it tends to reject the easy answers in favor of the more meaningful ones.

And if it's bad, well: Alien robots and cars and Megan Fox. Not that there's anything wrong with that. (Though I think Megan was prettier before she got plastic surgery on her eyes)

I'm new to this site and I'm really glad I found it. I'm a disabled Army veteran who is proud to have served his country. I have very conservative views on some topics and am more moderate in others. My views a few topics might be considered a bit liberal by some of my fellow Republicans. I think the majority of Republicans are like that. It is just easier for certain elements (usually the most vocal) of the media and certain hard-line liberals to depict us as ultra-conservatives who are either ignorant or stupid.
Most science fiction cannot be easily sorted into a strictly conservative or liberal classification, with several very notable exceptions. Some are more conservative than they are liberal and others are more liberal than they are conservative, but they usually contain elements of both philosophies. Many works that are considered liberal in one age are considered more moderate or even conservative later. Science fiction often explores issues and themes of its day in a nonthreatening way by disguising them as fictitious ones.
Personally, I'd rather enjoy science fiction rather than analyze it. I'm a great fan of the classic sci-fi films like "When Worlds Collide", "War of the Worlds", and "Forbidden Planet". I also enjoy nearly every one of the Godzilla movies. It would take pages to list all of my science fiction favorites. I prefer those that make me think, but not those that try to preach to me. I am especially put off by those that try to preach a message that promotes practices or values that I cannot endorse. I took an oath to protect the constitution, so I do not believe that such science fiction has no right to exist, I just don't happen to enjoy it.

Poser to Poe is actually a good formation, since it means the same thing.

It started as a formulation of "Poe's Law" that someone pretending to be a creationist in a web forum is indistinguishable from a real creationist, then it evolved to include parodies of fundies being indistinguishable from actual fundies.

Since many anti-libertarians think that Libertarian fundies are exactly like the ones portrayed in Smith's work, at least what I have read of him - a novel about a kid on an asteroid with an Ayn Rand character and a Shirley McLain character, and the wonderful online comic "Rozwell, Texas" - and since I know differently, I figured Smith must be parodying what anti-libertarians believe about libertarians. (Seriously, what the heck does Ayn Rand have to do with libertarianism? Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" without ever reading Rand novels.)

I'm sorry. I'm new. I'm used to playing in the same 2-3 sandboxes where everyone already shares the same context. Henceforth I shall endeavor to provide more background.

He's a Poe, bigtime.

What I think he does more than anything is parody what anti-libertarians believe libertarianism is all about.

In that regard, he is pretending to be the libertarian your right- and left-wing friends warned you about.

The original Trek was considered liberal in it's day, but actually seems pretty conservative nowadays, what with the inference of an economy, a degree of respect for religion, and a grudging defence of the Vietnam War. TNG, by comparison, was rigidly leftist, with their essentially communist society (Remember, the Ferengi were intended to be the bad guys for the series, and they're capitalists), fairly rigid atheism, sloppy allegories in favor of Abortion and Gay Rights, etc. Once Rodenberry passed on, DS9 started veering back towards the right a bit, with the re-introduction of Money and Religion in to the Trekiverse.

Likewise, a lot of people consider Larry Niven's known space stories to be fairly conservative, but I never got that from them. Everyone's a swinger in Known Space, the world government is intimately involved in whether or not people can have babies, and the decisions are made eugenicaly. Most people on Earth in the Known Space stories seem contented with this situation, and it's never treated as a dystopia, there's no agenda working in those stories.

Babylon 5 was intended to be quite liberal, but I think it ended up being far more conservative than anyone connected to the show really intended. I don't think Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (T2.5 for short) can really be considered a 'conservative' show, but it is interesting that they made a point of portraying a Christian with traditional beliefs in a positive fashion, and never made him out to be a fool or fundamentally misguided, so some people take that to be a republicanesque show.

So I think to a large degree, whether you consider SF to be liberal or conservative depends on the perspective of the viewer/reader going in to it. If you want to look for something that reflects your own views, you'll find it, and if you're looking for something to be offended by, you'll eventually find that too.

Of course there *is* some definite agenda-driven SF out there. Heinlein's thoroughly awful didactic novel "For us the living," and L. Neil Smith's whole "North American Confederacy" series, for instance, which is flag wavingly libertarian.

It would appear it does. Shiny! Good Job, Republibot 2.0!