Libertarian Science Fiction Message Board

Is a curious newbie who likes Vinge eligible to join?

Can I trust you?

I protest the lack of touchstones. So, in brief, here's the list with them:

1. Atlas Shrugged
2. Harvest of Stars
3. Alongside Night
4. Black Wind
5. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
6. A Fire Upon the Deep
7. Henry Martyn
8. The Cassini Division
9. The Stars My Destination
10. Moon of Ice

As a novice, I can primarily say - thank you for starting with a list! I enjoyed A Fire Upon the Deep a great deal, and have been tempted to buy Black Wind and even Harvest of Stars, based on your reviews; but I'm afraid the description of Henry Martyn captivated me. A libertarian Rafael Sabatini? In space?! - When I get a moment's breather, that will be the one.

I look forward to hearing everyone else's suggestions and discussion as the group fills up.

Tim - thank you. But I protest - I was the first to protest! ;)

Message 4: Ken Macleod's politics are socialist: see his blog at
http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/

It might be a case of if you have to ask then ... but what is libertarian science fiction anyway? This is probably clearer to folks living in the US but does this mean "libertarian" in its narrower political sense and therefore includes right wingers like Rand as well as left wing anarchists? But then hard to see how Macleod fits in here. Or is it defined more broadly -- something akin to "utopian"? How about the wave of feminist writers: Ursula Le Guinn, Octavia Butler, Marge Piercy, McKee Charnas, Suzette Elgin. Just asking.

Vinge's libertarianism comes out most clearly in Marooned in Realtime, I think. Which is an under-read but really excellent Vinge.

Maybe a question for this thread is why science fiction is so commonly libertarian, and fantasy almost never is (am I wrong?).

Hypothesis 1: Founder effects. Heinlein and other golden age sci-fi writers (query? How many? Most?) are libertarian; Tolkein and Lewis are not.

Hypothesis 2: Quasi-historical settings of most fantasies. Princess this, King that. Hard to have these fantasy staples in a libertarian society.

Hypothesis 3: Problem solved. If government really is the solution to collective action problems, maybe it just is very plausible that with sufficient technological advances, other solutions than government become efficient ways to solve this problem. This, incidentally, appears to be what Vinge believes.

Hypothesis 4: The market, possibly a founder-effect echo.

Hypothesis 5: Science fiction is an "alternative" genre, eager to be the "other" intellectually-engaged literary form (in a way Romance or Mystery do not). Mainstream literary writing is, on the whole, left-liberal, so science fiction swings the other way.

There's nothing intrinsically apolitical about fantasy, but the genre is a hybrid descendant of the 19th Century neo-Medieval romance (Ivanhoe) and Grimm's Fairy Tales; and thus often has a feudal backdrop.

Hey, I just thought of a good example of libertarian + fantasy: Dave Sim's Cerebus!

I'm sure there's plenty of libertarian SF out there, but the last Heinlein I read (Starship Troopers) isn't it, and I don't see Bester's The Demolished Man or The Stars My Destination fitting that description either. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'libertarian'?

Libertarianism is Belief in the principle that one should be free to do what ever one likes with one's person or property as long as one does not use physical force against the person or property of another.

And if any one quibbles with the (definitions) I have offered, they will be instantly shot.

So: coercion, threats, and duress are ok - if you don't follow through? ;)

Actually, I'm not entirely joking; one can effect considerable damage with non-physical methods. Though I suspect the problems with that are largely outside the realm of science fiction. Or are they? And how, in a book, do you manage against hostile elements without them - and mother-wit?

Between WMDs in the hands of all, and no use of force against others, there's clearly a huge gap in approaches to violence. When, in a libertarian sense, is violence justified? And how do writers stay compatible with libertarianism, or show such a sensibility, short of total pacifism?

Little as I can add - and going now in fear of my life - I did want to say I've been enjoying 'listening' very much.

Libertarianism is Belief in the principle that one should be free to do what ever one likes with one's person or property as long as one does not use physical force against the person or property of another.

And if any one quibbles with the (definitions) I have offered, they will be instantly shot.

So: coercion, threats, and duress are ok - if you don't follow through? ;)

Actually, I'm not entirely joking; one can effect considerable damage with non-physical methods. Though I suspect the problems with that are largely outside the realm of science fiction. Or are they? And how, in a book, do you manage against hostile elements without them - and mother-wit?

Between WMDs in the hands of all, and no use of force against others, there's clearly a huge gap in approaches to violence. When, in a libertarian sense, is violence justified? And how do writers stay compatible with libertarianism, or show such a sensibility, short of total pacifism?

Little as I can add - and going now in fear of my life - I did want to say I've been enjoying 'listening' very much.

Sorry about the double posting. I'm still not sure how that happens.

Fraud is, alas, not encouraged by libertarianism, although I have a soft spot for it.

I tend to agree with grunin above that fantasy is not inherently apolitical. I do think that it often tends towards the politically simplistic: kings, queens, charismatic leaders of all types. Why might this be?

People in this group probably know Arthur C. Clarke's quip that a sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. It's a good line, but it doesn't really go far enough. Magic, if it were real, would *be* science. Actions a, b, & c (dare I say v, m, s?) would lead to a person turning into a toad: it would be a system of law-like regularities. It would be used analogously to the way we now use electrical engineering, or medicine, or what have you.

Fantasy novels almost never go down this road. Magicians are almost always (Harry Potter excepted) rare, and the use of magic is relatively unintegrated into society. People can't do minor alchemy in their basement, and while there may be magic swords in some plenty, magic shovels, enchanted saucepots, and ensorcelled lanterns are thin on the ground. Magic -- or at least the magic of fantasy novels -- almost always is of a piece with a kind of romanticism about power. Romantic, in that the power and uniqueness of the individual is emphasized. Technology creates objects everyone can use, and which radically equalize power, canonically, the firearm. If you've got a gun, you can kill the bad guy. Magic could be like this, but it almost never is. Wizards are almost always hard to kill.

This aspect of fantasy seems like an bulwark of political simplicity -- if you have radical human inequality, heirarchical systems make more sense. Now, the same romanticism also can be acheived with scientific description. So here's a question: is science fiction which is more "romantic" in tone typically less libertarian, or more. The first that comes to mind for me is Dune, which fits the romantic mode nicely (and has Dukes, Emperors, and all that jazz). Are there others?

That was brilliant.

LET'S READ SOME LIBERTARIAN SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS, PEOPLE.

Tell me what, tell me when. :)

(Or let's discuss it, at least.)

The latest is all quite clear, and I thank you for the pun (and personal snipe) about 'all tea drinkers' being 'liquidated.' Wouldn't (and here I am as much groping with meanings as revising your work ;) ) a construction such as 'personal use of force' fairly accurately meet the case?

Whether I disagree or not is a little fuzzy at this hour, but apparently (aside from a scurrilous fondness for reading about fraud and trickery - like Ben, perhaps, but worse at is very DEFINITELY prohibited by Christianity) I agree.

Oakes: I'll get back to you on most of this - hoping meanwhile that my consent to take your definition re: force, and my assurance that I'm all for Liberty!, will suffice.

AsYouKnow_Bob, reverends, bcquinnsmom: thanks for taking me up on the invitations. :) It will be good to have you.

I wish I was alert enough to agree and disagree with some of Oakes' points on what was intended, and what would be desirable, in enforcing even the Ten Commandments - and that without taking us too far off-topic! My personal feeling is, no, of course we don't want most of the commandments punished by vigilantes of any stripe. Yes, some infractions seem far more severe than others; and simply are more threatening.

All I actually had in mind about fraud and trickery was that it was worse for me (as a Christian) to enjoy reading about it, than for Ben-as-libertarian (presuming he is one :) ). Though what I enjoy is most often clever use of deception to more or less good ends - escape, defence of innocents, saving of planets, unmasking of villains. :) - And that though I rarely think ends justify means.

It might not be prohibited by libertarianism, but I agree that even at the minimum, there's a degree to which fraud (personal or corporate) ought to be punished for the safety of society - particularly where mere wariness is not enough protection. Oakes has heard me on this before, but I think medical fraud is a good instance. Medical treatment can be a necessity (thus reasonably ought to be protected) and while it is distinctly an imperfect science, we expect practitioners and pharmaceutical developers to gain a level of knowledge it is difficult (sometimes impossible) for us to gainsay. Wit and a little knowledge may not take you far enough, and many people (forgive me for saying so) may lack either.

Though my trip will make me a little tardy beginning, I'm looking forward to reading stories in the anthology you'd mentioned. Seeing ways a libertarian society MIGHT function fascinates me; doing so in kaleidescope of many small, overlapping, differing images, rather than the single possibility of a novel, seems ideal. And good for conversation. :)

With apologies to Tim for quoting...

In msg. 22, Ben said: Magicians are almost always (Harry Potter excepted) rare, and the use of magic is relatively unintegrated into society. ... Magic -- or at least the magic of fantasy novels -- almost always is of a piece with a kind of romanticism about power. Romantic, in that the power and uniqueness of the individual is emphasized. Technology creates objects everyone can use, and which radically equalize power, canonically, the firearm. If you've got a gun, you can kill the bad guy. Magic could be like this, but it almost never is. Wizards are almost always hard to kill.

Oakes replied:...you lost me on your definition of romanticism--"romanticism about power. Romantic, in that the power and uniqueness of the individual is emphasized." Which is it?

I assumed Ben meant that magical (supernatural, inexplicable) power tends to go hand in hand with the mythologizing or aggrandizing of the individual who possesses it. Which seems a logical statement. :) A 'great man' or Overman cast of mind (depending on the mind!) seems at work in that, with power based in or working through the individual, v. power consisting in accessible, acquirable technology, as focus. In that case, I'd not only agree - there's a romanticizing of power in the magician which goes far beyond what I've seen accorded to an engineer :) - but also think you can have it both ways.

Unfortunately, I've not read enough science fiction to answer Ben's question; but I look forward to seeing it discussed...

Greetings Eurydice and Oakes,

After reading all the posts today, I find it amusing and mildly ironic that the invitations to join the group came from the two of you. :) I have joined, gladly, with the hope that I will be able to contribute some reading ideas. It's going to require a bit of contemplation as I have not really thought of myself as a Libertarian and, as such, have not really gone out of my way to identify authors with Libertarian themes (plus the one author I knew for sure as a Libertarian, L. Neil Smith, has already been mentioned).

Just off the top of my head and without digging the books out of a box, I seem to recall some Libertarian ideas running through the ecologic works of L.E. Modesitt, Jr. The first of the books is The Ecologic Envoy, although it's not the first in the story arc.

Finally, I'm trying out touchstones for the first time here, so I apologize if there are any really strange punctuation errors (as opposed to my normal ones).

Oakes: Thank you. Interesting points on fraud - and not ones I'll argue with. (Anyway, I'm packing.) But on point two: that's important, but it isn't what I was getting at. My point is not (merely) that people will pass themselves off as knowing more than they do, but that the average individual, even being careful, cannot always know enough to protect themselves from innacuracy, misuse, 'experiments,' outright lies, or the many mistakes made: and not, of course, in medicine only. (It's just one of the more extreme and obvious examples.) Hence the very strong feeling we do need recourse, though it sounds from your argument as if it could be achieved in a non-governmental way. Very good.

On fantasy, magic, and so forth: as you know, I don't know enough to look at any claim about the genre in its totality. Only enough to recognize what Ben was describing and find it credible; but while I agree wholeheartedly that it is the fidelity of the author's coherence of imagination and description which makes any take on it work or not work, is there perhaps a strong - we may even say 'romanticizing' ;)drift toward the relatively rare and powerful, inexplicable wizard-type? I'm simply curious: I do not know much about the genre, but this seems familiar; and as you are well aware, not knowing does not keep me from talking about something. :) More's the pity, probably! However, I enjoy learning about all and sundry, even through my own failed arguments (etc.).

I hadn't initially jumped to join this group because I don't consider myself a fan of libertarian science fiction per se, although I do like a lot of Poul Anderson's stuff. But I was looking at the "your books" view on the talk page, and saw that The Demolished Man and The Stars My Destination both popped up. I can see The Stars My Destination or The Deceivers, I guess, but The Demolished Man?

Ah, I see grunin had the same question. But what was it initially in reference to?

Oakes, thanks for the invite and sharing your top 10 list. My 'to read' list grows and grows...

oakesspalding, I didn't mean to whip that dead horse, and I actually get where your're coming from on Stars, but I'm still not seeing how The Demolished Man in particular, which has a totally different tone and, I think, ideology than Stars, got into this conversation. I don't have any axe to grind here -- just curious.

Actually, I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with the the Bester-Libertarian connection -- see the exchange between me and Tim on the Whedonverse forum, #s 12, 13, 14:

http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=736

Hey, it wasn't me. Grunin asked about it along with Stars My Destination in Message 16. :)

I would definitely agree that The Deceivers is not as good as Stars or The Demolished Man, but I enjoyed it a lot. It's more of a comedy compared to the relatively tragic Demolished man and Stars, and it shares some of the same bizarre sensibility as The Computer Connection.

Dhalgren by Samual Delaney covers a society floundering with no structure. I don't know if I would call it Libertarian, but it does give a lot of examples of how different people react to a void in structure.

I always saw Beyond This Horizon by Heinlein as one of Heinlein's most libertarian books (even if it's not one of his best). It also got me thinking about a society where everyone was willing to carry a gun and use it. What would that do to our souls?

The Fifth Sacred Thing by Starhawk deals with revolution and maybe isn't libertarian since there is some leadership structure. There's definitely respect for personal freedom and the concept of governing oneselves as a collective. In my mind it's a more satisfying societal structure than the potential chaos of most libertarian visions.

I think Dhalgren may be more about anarchy than libertarianism. And it's okay for libertarians to be led, I think, just not coerced. :)

Has anyone asked about Iain Banks yet? The "Culture" is substantially libertarian, I think -- at least, there are the maximum in personal freedoms for all citizens (whether human or artificial or other), with etiquette replacing law for most purposes in most situations.

I would say that Dhalgren shows the early beginnings of replacing a sudden vacuum of structure with various forms of structure, most of them very much allowing for personal freedoms, some allowing for violence, as well, unfortunately.

I think the book is working through all of these levels at the micro level. With the absense of any kind of outside structure or control, some of the groups that are formed will be either more or less libertarian. Even at a level of micro society where personal choice is at the highest, what do people choose? What makes a person willing to stay inside of a group that does not allow personal freedom when there are readily available other groups to join with? Can a single micro society be libertarian for some of the group, but not for others?

I think at the most personal level, most libertarian societies can not be completely coercion free, since there are usually interpersonal relationships that will be very coercive. Do most libertarian societies really allow for women (for instance) to have the maximum of personal freedoms? What about children?

I think at the personal level, most societies get very messy in what kinds of freedoms people truly have.

Today on Marginal Revolution, Why do libertarians love science fiction?

I have to admit, I was wondering the same thing myself when Oakes invited me to this here group.

Reading the posts about Dhalgren and the question about Iain Banks, in particular, have interested me sufficeintly to ask whether anyone might be interested in doing a group read? While Oakes mentioned it earlier, I've no idea whether even he is currently interested. But I'd be curious, in my more skeptical way, to see others' opinions on a libertarian scenario I'd also become familiar with. My novitiate qualities serve me ill here. The concept of how a culture-based structure like etiquette would help provide needed boundaries is especially interesting. (To me.)

While I entirely agree with Bilbette that at the personal level, most societies get very messy in what kinds of freedoms people truly have, my reaction is ambivalent. This is deplorably true; yet it's much easier for me to see potential abuses of liberty than effective safeguards. Partly a result of inadequate libertarian science fiction reading, I'm sure. :)

Turbosaab: what do you think of the answers advanced on that question? Why do you think there's a correlation?

The Probability Broach sounds good to me, and is available quite cheaply, used. If we do decide on that, I might need as much as a week to get it - but you could begin without me.

Aside from that.... I love Oakes' reasons for the libertarianism-sci-fi confluence. Particularly his conspiracy theory. ;)

Though I am probably being flattered by being called a 'geek,' I am only too happy to have the definition widened. I do think, though, that culture and education are really a huge part of what's perceived as 'upper class'. - As much or more than income. Income fluctuates a lot - or can - but the perception of class is more complicated than mere money (or how would we recognize nouveau riche?), and - certainly in a casual or faceless world - tied to markers that change less. 'As I speak,' the words I use matter far more than what I'm wearing, or what I have in the bank. (Clearly not an economist's view!)

Eurydice> I thought it was an interesting connection, and the speculation was amusing. The geek factor seems to play a part, as does Oakes point #3, but I wouldn't read too much into it.

No, turbosaab, I won't take it too seriously. :) Even my comments on the very loose and various ways 'upper class' could be meant - in relation to geeks - are none too serious. But I do find the connection interesting, and do (in fact) find the third point less amusing than a conspiracy, but a great deal more convincing.

Before I go off and order it, is anyone else interested in reading The Probability Broach - or something else - together? Or, in discussing it as a group, if you've already read it?

At the very least, let me say that I think this is group well fitted for the discussion of anything that came its way; it would be a pleasure to read your posts on something we'd selected together.

I'm game for the group read idea and will go with the suggestion of The Probability Broach... shall we order it or wait for more participants?

I might be interested, although I try to buy my books in person, and I don't recall seeing The Probability Broach anywhere around here. I'll have to take a closer look.

Sounds like three to four, so far. Enough, perhaps?

Sure. Let's do it!

Great! I ordered mine last night. Give it a week, and I should be able to join in.

Only too glad to do so. :) I'm looking forward to it. So long as you never transfer it to my sense of humor, I'll thank you for the Randian comparison.

Hope you enjoy the trip, as I, home-bound, earth-bound, await in growing suspense my first contact with L. Neil Smith.

my copy of The Probability Broach has arrived!

Wonderful! I expect mine any day. (Today, even, if the mailman is kind.)

I'm sorry to inform you guys, but Ayn Rand's philosophy is not libertarianism. She started her own philosophy, objectivism. In fact objectivism can be said to be the antithesis of enhancing the individual's sphere of liberty depending on the situation. Moreover, with respect to government objectivism is completely antithetical to libertarian conceptions. Nozick is libertarianism.

Not to skip over bigal, but it's a point to which I can't speak. Will be finished with at least half of The Probability Broach by tomorrow night; the mailman was kind. I'm looking forward to our discussion.

You have no idea what I'm talking about? Uuuh, Rand was an objectivist philosopher, she started objectivistm before libertarianism was ever in style. You could almost say she was Nozick's mother; if it wasn't for Rand, Nozick would have never had a career. As for Rand rejecting things of the 'slightest intellectual threat' that's funny because her observations with respect to metaphysics was unparallelled by contemporary philosophy. I didn't see Nozick coming up with any existential imports or axioms about the base of knowledge. In fact he wound up pulling the punches on most of his arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. By the way I'm not a Randian I just don't like to see objectivist philosophers posted on libertarian threads. :D!!!

Sorry, I have to post this to. 1984 was not a libertarian novel, liberty was involved, however it was not completely about liberty. In fact George Orwell was a socialist from a political standpoint that's completely antithetical to libertarian conceptions of government.

I've finished The Probability Broach, and am looking forward to discussing it whenever you're all ready to begin. It's been an interesting read, with plenty to enjoy, mull over, and argue. Henry Martyn, given its description and Oakes' greater enjoyment, is moving up on my list of wished-for books.

My attempts to watch South by Southwest were, sadly, futile...

Rand did know about libertarianism, she despised it....
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies."
This hasn't stopped libertarians from bringing her into the fold. 'Reason' had a centennial anniversary on her, in which was claimed that she was one of the founding fathers (sic) of the philosophy.

One can certainly be an intellectual precursor to a development one despises. I don't need to know much about Rand or libertarianism, as such, to know that. Hostile as she may have been, there's nothing inappropriate in citing her - unless you whitewash her objections completely.

I agree with that. I was just responding to the Rand debate above, i.e., how valid is it to use Rand in regard to libertarianism? My entry was to prove it was valid to use her, but it should be remembered that she herself was not happy with the link.

I understand. Sounds eminently reasonable... to the best of my imperfect knowledge, of course. :)

Just adding anotehr title.

Moving Mars by Greg Bear is about a Mars colony with a sort of syndicalist government that is being pressured to join the earth's governmental body.

I am about halfway through The Probability Broach and up for discussion anytime

oakesspalding wrote:
>the Ten Commandments >are as good a foundation >for morality as any-->correction, actually they >are the BEST foundation.

So those who make graven images, or fail to observe the proper day in whichever religion, are immoral?

I'm puzzled that you "love" Ayn Rand. She didn't have any patience with such assertions. She said that reason is not only the best but the ONLY foundation for morality.

On the topic of Libertarian SF, how about Eric Frank Russell? His story "And Then There Were None" is a classic.

I suppose 'loving' and completely agreeing with people are - in politics and reading, as in life - two different things.

More comments (on the Ten Commandments) later, perhaps.

Living by a set of commandments from an organised religious body is neither individualist or non-conformist at all, is it, in that sense?

On the fantasy note above, Dave Wolverton as David Farland takes the allegiance to royalty factor to extremes, in both directions, in his Runelords series - The Sum of All Men. He did have SF published before fantasy, not sure whether that has anything to do with it.

On the technology as equaliser front, you have books with elements like those found inCharlie Stross' Singularity Sky, where a population is suddenly all given personal replicators, no need to therefore have anything to do with the entrenched power structures for food, shelter, weapons, etc.

Then there is Cory Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom where everything has been abundant on a long term basis, so only your reputation and what you do matters. This is one way of looking at or handling the fraud issue in general, perhaps, but again they are still humans, so it still exists.

Hi Oakes,

No offense taken. But it is early a.m., and I don't have time or energy to reply now.

Later,

myshelves

P.S. Been a long time, but I think that the story I mentioned is part of The Great Explosion. Try to find it!

Also, came across this the other day

Online version of a graphic novel of The Probability Broach

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

WOW! A sci fi group!!!! And, lots of books recommended that I haven't read, oh boy.

Has anyone read the Firestar Saga by Michael Flynn? It is set in the near future with private enterprise winning the space race with the first extra-atmospheric jets. Everything from test pilots to what it would take to really build a space station logistically and the hazards of space.

I also love David Weber, but then, as a small woman I do believe in the great equalizer--fire power!

Dan Simons', Hyperion series is a tour de force; however, I was underawed by his other offerings.

Again thanks for all the recommendations, I am ordering even as I type!

Does anyone still read this group? If so, why has no Hogan made the list (e.g Voyage from Yesteryear).

I was talking to another member - nostalgically - about this group just the other day. :) Nice to see a new message. (And welcome, ServusLibri!) Is anyone up for doing another group read?

Well, this is an interesting message board. Stimulating posts for about the first two years, then no posts for about a year and a half.

Clicked through the names of those who have posted here. Some of you seem to be unchanged in your views during the past two years. Some of you have changed from hard shell Objectivists to post modernists who want to "abolish philosophy." Say what??

In any case, anyone run across any libertarian sci fi that has not yet been mentioned? If nothing contemporary, how about the "Golden Age" titles?

I think Dhalgren may be more about anarchy than libertarianism. And it's okay for libertarians to be led, I think, just not coerced. :)

===============================

Actually, I think that you have the labels backwards.

Libertarians think that it is O.K. for people to make uncoerced choices, whether those choices are based on slavish adherence to the proclamations of some pseudo-prophet e.g. Ayn Rand or whether they are based on critical reason.

Some forms of anarchists think that choices based on "authority," as well as those based on coercion, are wrong. Most of those anarchists, however, aren't very clear about how one properly makes choices or if authority or cultural history or personal psychological history has anything to do with it.

I'll send a review copy to anyone who requests Mars Shall Thunder by Wolf DeVoon if you promise to read and review it on LibraryThing.

>86 wolfdevoon:

Have you considered:

#1.) Becoming a LT author?
http://www.librarything.com/librarything_author
#2.) Posting copies of Mars Shall Thunder as a Member Giveaway -
http://www.librarything.com/er/giveaway/list
- you can request that people post reviews in exchange for the book.

If you do, leave me a comment. I assume that since you are posting in the Libertarian Science Fiction group that you consider this to be "Libertarian Science Fiction"?

I met L. Neil Smith waaaayyyyyy back in the early 1970's, when The Probability Broach was still gestating. He attended several meetings of our short lived SF fan club in Fort Collins, CO, and we became friends.

I credit him with rescuing me from the Democrat Party (though too late to stop me from voting for Carter...). Over the years we've had countless discussions (and disagreements) on numerous topics ranging from firearms, anarchy, classic liberalism (which is, along with the writings of Ayn Rand at the core of Libertarianism), Austrian economics, govt. incompetence, atheism vs belief (he's an atheist while I'm a christian), writing, other authors, etc.

He introduced me to the works of F. Paul Wilson and J Neil Schulman. I particularly enjoyed Wilsons Lanague Chronicles, his most unabashedly libertarian novel. Also note, that in Wilsons first Repairman Jack novel The Tomb, Wilson tips his hat to Neil at the end of Chap1, part 15.

Who does Neil consider to be Libertarian?
"Zero Aggression Principle":

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.
— L. Neil Smith

This from his website http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

Now, I've rambled enough for a first post, so I'll put this one to bed (or at least, the comfy chair...).

I wish I had as positive a reaction to and interaction with Smith as you do. My experience is that he is not a libertarian, which I believe is associated, among other things, with criical rationalism, but is a dogmatist with a devout creed centering mainly around guns and, ironically, anti-authorianism. He flys off the handle easily if any of the tenants of his creed or any of his buddies, like Vin, are criticized.

A sometimes amusing novelist, a dangerous and irratic political ally.

>89 lawecon:

Neil does not suffer fools gladly, though he has admitted to me on several occasions that much of his "public persona" is in the mode of devils advocate. By promoting an extreme view of anarcho-capitalism, he believed he could bring people a bit closer to his actual beliefs.

Whether or not that approach ever worked is debatable.

He did leave the LP when the National Committee took the position of taking greater control of local chapters.

Perhaps a bit late to show up and discuss, but Joss Whedon's "Firefly" universe is very Libertarian. At least, almost everyone I know is either a Browncoat or a Reaver, and that's about as Libertarian as I want to know about.

I reviewed Finding Serenity on my thread...post #92. For Browncoats, a must-read...for civilians, a giant waste of time.

~90

Not a word I said has to do with Smith's substantive ideological positions or his "actual position," whatever that may be. It has a lot to do with his dogmatic in-group out-group personality and his obsession with guns. Apparently if you give a socialist a gun he becomes a libertarian. Apparently if you point out that Vin has a spotted backgroud and is often just plain crazy you are a "wart on the ass of humanity."
Not someone you want to associate with in public.

BOOK TITLE UNKOWN!
NEW PLANET SETTLERS FROM EARTH. GIRL (AND OTHER CHILDREN) RAISED BY ROBOTS ENROUTE.
ANARCHIST SYSTEM.
SECOND WAVE OF SETTLERS BRING GOVERNMENT.
I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR THIS BOOK FOR TWENTY YEARS (THE FRIEND WE LENT IT TO DOESN'T REMEMBER THE BOOK). WAS A GREAT READ.
PLEASE HELP.
THANKS.
MIK