How were you first introduced to Austrian Economics?

I was introduced to Austrain Economics during  Ron Paul 's campaign for the Presidency.

I inadvertently, stumbled upon Austrian economics through Ron Paul's as well...best thing that has happened to me in a long time

My older brother was an Austrian before me. He introduced me to the school of thought and mises.org. At first there was a great deal I disagreed with but the fact that there is such a wealth of knowledge here and--more importantly--that it is all free, kept me coming back. I'm a sucker for free stuff.

We were both home (self) schooled through high school and therefore had the time and freedom to pursue schools of thought outside of the mainstream. It is amazing how much time is in a 24-hour day when you don't spend it imprisoned in a government school.

I was first introdused after i heared about von Hayek. First "austrian" book was "The road to serfdrom". The next was: "Denationalization of money". Then Menger (Principles), Mises (Human Action) and about 20 books of Rothbard, Kirzner, Mises, Hayek, De Soto, Hoppe.

There are few austrians in Belarus, austro-libertarians even fewer than austrians. Anarcho-capitalist's in the austrian tradition - perhaps only i am.

Indirectly, through Pat Buchanan. I used to be quite the Buchananite (and I still frequent his blog) and he was the one who introduced me to the Ron Paul campaign, and from there I went into Austrian economics.

I guess here would be the best place for my first posting.... I was introduced to Austrian economics through Ayn Rand's praise of Mises as well, which in effect led me to reading Human Action and afterwards many of Rothbard's books and articles (scholarly or not). I still consider myself an objectivist but by no means a dogmatic one and I could see libertarians only as allies for the common cause of liberty. I believe all differences between objectivists and libertarians (minarchists or anarchists) could be easily resolved through a friendly debate. And last but not least I guess I am to mention which Austrian econosmist has inspired me the most - Murray N. Rothbard (you wouldn't expect to hear this from an objectivist, would you? ;) ).

I still consider myself an objectivist but by no means a dogmatic one

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? :-P

haha :) Seriously, though, no I don't think it is :) Rand's novels and philosophy are great, by all means, however, I would acknowledge: 1). Yes, there probably was a cult, as Rothbard describes it and he explains the anatomy of it very well. 2). Yes, there are some things that you could hear from Peikoff or Rand herself that do not sound like dictates of rational morality but more like their say-so's (e.g. do not read anything about Rand written by non-Objectivists - or heavens forbid - by Rothbard). Why not? I mean even if one is a hardcore Objectivist, one wants to know how the intellectual rivals perceive Objectivism and Objectivists? Moreover, if one really thinks that Rand was great, why should an outsider's account so terribly threaten and disturb this image? 3). Even though I'm an atheist (and just for the record my partner in life as well), I don't think I would have gotten along well with Rand and the "Collective" if I knew them (just as Rothbard did not not) 4) I do think that expelling a brilliant economist like Reisman just because of some bureaucratic argument among them was very rational and it did so much harm to the Objectivist movement and its ability to come up with a comprehensive Objectivist economic theory. Let us face it, the few economists in the ARI whose daily task is to glorify the oil industry as such in their blogs cannot be compared with Reisman, an author of a huge comprehensive treatise on Capitalism. 5). I think Objectivists can learn a lot from people like Mises and Rothbard, even if they disagree with their political views. This is what I mean by "not being dogmatic" (probably not the best choice of words on my part).Each of these five would make ARI Objectivists renounce me as a fake Objectivist. However, I do not think what I admit here is, in any manner, inconsistent with objective reality. So, in a way, you might say that I'm a self-defined Objectivist (as though one needs the official sanction of the ARI to accept Rand's philosophy...). Here I have to add that I don't think the majority of the Objectivist followers are any different than a gullible religious crowd. In a way, they use Peikoff as their priest. I mean, seriously, they write to Peikoff to ask him whether it is moral to masturbate secretively in public places or whether one should save somebody's drowning when one is dressed up with his best suit (I'm not making this up, check out the podcasts!!). Do you really call a person who needs another person's guidance for such things "rational"? I think if you do have the brains to really grasp the implications of Atlas Shrugged and of Objectivist philosophy, you should be a bit more sensible than that and able to answer such questions yourself. And if I am the "fake" one, while they are the "true" ones, so be it!

You certainly have a very rational approach to Objectivism. I stand corrected.

"Revolution: A Manifesto" :)

For me, it was Ron Paul, but i really got into it after Mr.Murphys online class at Mises.