I’ll give you a warning. This interview isn’t for the closed minded. It’s not for the political snobs. It’s definitely not for the followers.
Who is it for then?
For those who want to learn.
Brad Dillon is a great guy. I found myself, on several occasions in college, asking for his help on a specific economic topic.
His help ended up assisting me in winning several class debates, but that’s beside the point.
Brad Dillon knows his stuff. There’s no doubt about it.
He’s one of several anarcho-capitalists that I have gotten to know over the past few years, and I haven’t regretted a minute of it.
We’re all in this together.
Brad’s an anarcho-capitalist. That means he believes in a stateless society…
Other than that, he’s like you. He believes in private property, self-defense, individual rights, Free Markets, and the list goes on.
“But the whole ‘anti-state’ thing is a big deal,” you say.
Only if you make it a big deal.
You can react to individuals like Brad by focusing on what divides you. Or, you can focus on what brings you together.
It’s your choice.
But, before you make that choice, please read over what Brad has to say. Maybe, if you’re feeling really outgoing, you could get to know him.
Here’s Some Questions with Brad Dillon
Who are you? And what are you known for?
I’m a 32 year old software developer from Michigan, I’m known for having a variety of interests and being brutally honest about my opinions
How old were you when got into politics?
I would have to say I was in my late 20’s (I’m 32 now) before I really got into politics
What attracted you to politics?
I started simply paying more attention to where my taxes were going coupled with all that was going on around me.
Was there any person (family member, friend, mentor) who helped you get into politics?
The closest thing to this would be someone I don’t personally know… the first politician I took any real interest in what they had to say was, of course, Ron Paul
What was your process for becoming politically informed (did you read a lot of books, etc)?
At first I read a lot of history actually, which led economic subjects and then more politically themed ones. I mostly read books, but also engaged in lengthy discussions/debates on Google+ and Reddit.
Did any of your friends or family give you a hard time for taking an interest in politics?
Not at all, I actually expected a tiny bit of resistance but I knew they would never be any kind of significant obstacle, what really happened is they seem to be mostly interested in what I have to say now and quite often agree
Did you find it unusually difficult to educate yourself about political issues, principles, and the like?
No, I was really surprised how fast I got through so many books, as I’ve never been much of a reader. I was able to find good recommendations, cheap books, audio books, good resources for articles, and a rather impressive group of “regulars” in the realm of the internet that are very well informed.
What did you dislike the most about it all?
The most frustrating thing is being vigorously opposed by people who simply haven’t done the background work to form an actual opinion.
Imagine that you know your view is based on extensive reading of history and having discussions about such events and someone is practically screaming at you telling you that your opinion is wrong yet they are completely lacking of any basis for their own opinion not having read much of anything and going simply on… well… who knows what they are going on sometimes!
Too many times I thought, “if you’d only read all that I have you’d at least be more open to having a discussion about these things instead of clinging to your long held false history”
If you could’ve have done something different what would it have been?
I would probably have not wasted as much time trying to get involved with the Republican party and try to at least influence them. Even the small area I’m in, the local party leaders are as hardnosed as ever and convinced that they are correct, no matter what kind of evidence you show them… things are simply not up for discussion.
They also demand allegiance to the candidate the party chooses, doesn’t matter if you agree with the person or not, your allegiance is to the party. This is just not something I can be ok with.
I also wish I would have maybe gotten into the reading part sooner in life. Previous to the rapid progression I went through, I had, years earlier, read some Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, and Kant. That was the extent of my official ‘reading’ though.
My personal views, based, I can guess, only on my experiences and teaching from my parents were that of non-aggression, that violence was always the wrong way to solve a problem or accomplish anything outside of self-defense. Which, I received a bit of inquiry about throughout life because I’ve always been someone people knew as “able” to fight or “kick some ass”, as it would be put, if need be but I would avoid a physical fight at all costs.
I’ve also always been one to question authority and felt respect had to be earned, not simply granted “because” of some arbitrary custom.
It’s hard to say how things would be different had I taken an interest at an earlier age. In just a few short years I went from basically not caring much at all about politics specifically to reading more in a couple years than I had in the rest of my life combined, becoming a precinct delegate, voting for Ron Paul in the primary, then Gary Johnson for president… but then, still continuing to read, already losing faith in the whole political system and questioning the entire legitimacy of government itself.
They say that’s what happens when you take the non-aggression principle to its logical end, and I fully agree.
I couldn’t tell you what I would have labeled myself in the beginning, but I knew Republican was embarrassing due to the religious right and social conservatives, but today I’ll gladly say voluntaryist, anarcho-capitalist, crypto-anarchist, libertarian, anarchist, or market anarchist, it all works well enough, non-aggression is the important part.