Why Are So Many Nerds Libertarians? 1565
BrendanMcGrail writes "Why do so many nerds seem to lean toward the Libertarian end of the spectrum? As a leftist, I know there are many people who share my ideological views, but have very little in common with me in terms of profession and non-work interests. Is the community's political bent directly tied to our higher than average economic success?"
Because we all know (Score:1, Insightful)
source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you cite your source for this data? Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?
Because they're smarter. (n/t) (Score:1, Insightful)
The same reason so many are socialists (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is a wonderful thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they see the average level of intelligence shown by those around them and don't want any of that lot deciding things for them?
Truly libertarian though? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they're antisocial American idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
Nerds are often psychologically isolated and have grown up without any sense of community or personal involvement. They already reject other people, rejecting any cohesive form of government is just the next step. They felt they were better than anyone else when they were young and (rightly) detested the very broken American public school system. However, because they are actually idiots, and incapable of seeing further than their own nose, they think smashing it all up is the key.
How anyone can think the private sector is a panacea is beyond me. Look at the fucked-up American medical system for a simple example. Look at how Canada and Sweden regularly top the standard-of-living charts despite having much smaller GDPs than America.
sure are (Score:2, Insightful)
big time.anyways
a better attitude is what we all need
government intervention in what i want to do with
my life.
Re:Why ask why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pampered weenies! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to generalize (but to generalize...), nerds tend to be from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. They're usually intellectual workers, been to college and university, and so... how much experience do they actually have with the brutality of the world as it is for most people?
For me, (economic) libertarians seem out of touch with the way the world really is. Nerds tend to have brains and tend to be well-educated and as such, tend to do well, economically. It's very easy to forget not everyone has that natural advantage (as least with intellect) and that not everyone might react the same way as you.
Libertarianism sounds great until you actually realize a few things: property isn't the centre of human life, human nature isn't built around the adorational worship of negative rights and that a lot of people are just plain exploitative of people less well off than them and less intelligent; and to say, "oh, too bad, it's your fault, we're realizing our potential and you have right to hold us down!" isn't just wrong, but cold-hearted ... and is that the libertarian paradise you want to live in, really?
Re:that's quite a leading question. (Score:4, Insightful)
All about freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:source? (Score:4, Insightful)
The way "Your rights online" is one of the busiest /. categories, the way half the stories have little or nothing to do with IT, and the way articles are almost always spun in terms of "What individual rights will be lost?" rather than "What might society as a whole gain?", for example?
Having said that, I haven't seen any survey data, and I suspect that the population of nerds is closer to the centre of the bell curve than those who make the most noise.
Re:The same reason so many are socialists (Score:1, Insightful)
Aside from that, I can point out a nice big failed socialist state if you'd like. We can go tit for tat on this til the end of time.
Also, being rated as the best country to live in is a fairly suspect determination. It relies on the opinion of the interpreter of the data more than the data.
Also also, why jump right into bashing the US? Are you that insecure?
Re:that's quite a leading question. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. correlation != causation, 2.Correlation !proved (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Even if there is a correlation, it does not prove causation. Nerdiness, wealth and libertarian beliefs... which is the cause and which is the effect?
3. You use the terminology left (and right by default). These labels are inadequate to describe the political beliefs of a person. Traditionally Left stands for lots of liberties in the social arena and mostly restrictions on economic activities. Not necessarily unreasonable restrictions, but restrictions nonetheless. And Right stands for lots of liberties for corporate and economic activities, but severe restrictions on social liberties, again not necessarily all unreasonable. A true libertarian will stand for freedoms and liberties in both the corporate/fiscal arena as well as social arena. And a true libertarian will also stand for rights as well as responsibilities on the exercise of the liberties. There are very few true libertarians. Sometimes libertarianism appears to be an ideal that will never be practical. Please don't say, if everyone becomes a true lib, because a practical working system should work even if all parts of the society does not believe or agree with the principle. A libertarian can not impose even libertarianism on an unwilling population. S it is tougher than you probably imagine.
Re:Because we all know (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more complex than that (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Because we all know (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, you want to understand quantum field theory, then no child left behind ain't gonna work for you. It's just you and the equations, baby. It's not about making sure everyone feels like a winner.
Re:Libertarianism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:that's quite a leading question. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're misunderstanding the original post (which is easy; it's not very clearly written). Rephrasing:
To respond to the original article, I don't think it's necessarily related to money either. Regardless of politics, all of the engineers I knew in college were pretty hard-nosed and independent. You're going to wash out if you're not. And if you're an independent, hard worker, you're more likely to think that others should be too.
Re:source? (Score:3, Insightful)
When individual rights are lost, you can't really word that as a gain for society. It's a loss for society. As the people lose rights, the government gains power over them. The rulers are the only ones who benefit from that.
Re:The same reason so many are socialists (Score:3, Insightful)
All the nerds I know that are also libertarians (that's a majority of them) do quite the opposite: if you can provide them with a fact that shows people really do not act liek they think they would, it shakes their belief immediately and they struggle to integrate that new fact in their understanding of people.
One could even say that "fact" is a holy word for them.
Re:The same reason so many are socialists (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. Emprisonment is about loss of individual rights, but most of us think that society is justified in emprisoning at least some people, and that society as a whole benefits from having some people out of circulation.
What is "Libertarianism" (Score:3, Insightful)
I put in the phrase "direct harm" because it is all to easy to declare anything you want as an "indirect harm" without any justification. When I say "direct harm", there has to be actual clearly identifiable victims of that harm, and also clear, identifiable harm. Alas, much of what in politics and the law today that is declared "harm" isn't really.
So, in essence, unless you see me actually doing something that is clearly harming someone else, you are to leave me alone. And I, of course, will do likewise.
I have lost count of how many times in my own life, for instance, someone has phoned the police on me simply because they *thought* I was dangerous, regardless of the fact that I had not done anything wrong nor had any intentions of doing so. And that has caused much damage -- much harm -- to me and my family, and yet no one learns from this. Police still encourages the public to phone everything in at the drop of a hat. Then they go out and harass innocent individuals, doing harm to them.
If I were libertarian-leaning before, such experiences have firmly pushed me into that camp.
Be Careful of Stereotypes (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I'm not a stereotypical fundamentalist in all areas. I believe global warming is a real problem that has to be dealt with. I think George Bush screwed up in a big way in Iraq and other areas of policy. I'm skeptical of the capitalism, as it depends on an economic model that is destructive to our planet and favors the rich over the poor. In other words, I'm not just blindly fitting myself into one category of political / economic alignment. One group usually doesn't have all the answers.
Sure, maybe more nerds have long pony-tails than short hair, and maybe more have body odor than not. However, I think you'll find there's greater variety and diversity within this people-group we call "nerds" than is implied by the original post.
- Mike
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Re:Since when are libertarians left wing? (Score:0, Insightful)
I am so fucking tired of seeing this "In Europe..." crap on Slashdot. Appears so often it may as well be a fucking meme like "In Soviet Russia..."
Seems like every American political party that is a smidgen to the right of the American Communist Party "would be considered right wing nut jobs" in Europe.
Those Americans consider to be leftists "would be considered right wing nut jobs" in Europe.
Those Americans consider to be centrists "would be considered right wing nut jobs" in Europe.
I suppose those Americans consider to be right wing would make the Nazis seem like far-left progressive socialists to Europeans?
Europe can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.
Re:Because we all know (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Programmers think through the impact of changes (Score:3, Insightful)
France? (Score:2, Insightful)
The last report showed our economy growing at a 4% clip. (It would have been 10% but our schools are socialized.) Go capitalism!
Re:source? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're a libertarian geek, and most people that you know are libertarian geeks. I don't think that says anything except that birds of a feather flock together.
For contrast, I know plenty of geeks, and none of them are professed libertarians, let alone registered ones. Of course, I'm in the UK not the US. A better question would be why the rest of the world has singularly failed to take libertarianism seriously. I have some ideas on that...
Re:that's quite a leading question. (Score:2, Insightful)
Rigidly defined areas of Doubt and Uncertainity (Score:5, Insightful)
Douglas Adams was right. This question is degenerating into the same sort of scenario as Vroomfondle and Majikthise had with Deep Thought.
Then here is your answer from Deep Thought him/her/it's self.
Choosing Libertarian is mostly a question of fusing both sides of the political wings into one. Keeping the general liberal social attitudes of the left with the self-defense and financial responsibilities from the Right. Conspicuously absent is such things as obvious save-the-gay-baby-whales-hippy-granola boondoggles from the left and the right's pandering to theocratic christers.
frankly I got tired of watching both parties try to morph into each other every election depending on the mood of the day.
Fiscal conservatives I can deal with Government should be accountable on as to the books and stay out of personal matters. Defense, Police, Disaster relief, public safety. These are the business of government.
on the other hand, I don't give a rats ass who sleeps with who in private, likewise I don't like someone else sticking their nose into bedrooms looking for stuff they have no right to. Social Conservatives make me think of guys like Foley, Craig, and Limbaugh. Two faced jerks with a agenda of sleaze.
As to the Left, the hippy stuff just bugs me that all. I don't like drum circles nuff said.
Government should stay the hell out of area of Doubt and Uncertainty. That is what most of politic is so there.
Re:source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or it could be that most geeks are incredibly self-centered, self-aggrandising jerks?
Re:Rigidly defined areas of Doubt and Uncertainity (Score:2, Insightful)
That kinda sums it up.
Re:Rigidly defined areas of Doubt and Uncertainity (Score:5, Insightful)
So the only reason you're not a lefty is because of some ridiculous notion that we're all a bunch of treehuggers who smell like peyote and have drum circles?
I think libertarians thought for themselves, not swallowed the right-wing noise machine's stereotypes.
Re:The same reason so many are socialists (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously (also) I think computer science students, college or tech school, didn't have a lot of time for liberal arts so they are sometimes uneducated trades persons. In truth, I don't have a lot of respect for libertarians. I call them "anti-hippies". The same unswerving naive belief -- in their case it's just blind belief in the free market and the invisible hand of capitalism instead of peace and love.
I was reading Introducing Machiavelli the other week and the point was made that every politician quotes the Prince, but how many quote the mature Discourses? The one that says the good of the state is primary -- think infrastructure, levees and high taxes. The one that says no groups of people should become so rich and powerful as to become a disruption to the state's good -- again think high _progressive_ taxes. Really, in every dominant doctrine and myth in Western society since the revolt of Lucifer community strength and welfare has been the primary goal, not isolated individualism. The fact the the U.S. is currently aberrant is a symptom of disease, not strength.
Re:Because we all know (Score:5, Insightful)
The classrooms we all endure at public school are more designed for the meta-effects than the effect on the individual. Schools were designed to train children to sit still, to take lunch at a bell, to take breaks at a bell, and to be discharged by a bell - perfect fodder for the primitive factories of the industrial revolution. This is why society can't figure out what's wrong with schools now; they're turning out people who can't think for themselves, and that's not what a post-industrial economy needs.
And, of course, one of the functions of the standard public school is the same one as military boot camp - to break the individual's spirit, to make him/her conform, to expressly have him/her (oh, let me use "he" from now on, but understand it includes women as well) not think for himself, but to have him follow orders blindly - again, just what was needed on the production floor. Someone above posted that "Atlas Shrugged" was poorly written, but there is a passage at the end where Galt is being tortured by electric shocks, and James Taggart is hanging over him, frothing at the mouth, shouting "He'll take orders! He'll take orders!!" (not an exact quotation, but the gist of it). That seems an accurate description of the goal of public schools.
I'm sure like many others here, I got very good marks at public school, but was also often in trouble and sent to the principal's office for mouthing off in class, etc. Why? Because while I would accept that the teachers were more learned (or in some cases, less ignorant), I never thought for a moment that they were more intelligent. They demanded respect from me, but never offered the same in return (there were precious few exceptions, and for their counsel, I will always be greatful).
So what messages did I receive in those public school classrooms? "You're no better than anyone else", "Take your place and shut up", "Slow down and learn at the same rate as everybody else; you're not special". All the while, within myself, I was thinking "But I can go faster than everyone else", "I can see a better way to do this", and "I am special". When the very core of your being is surpressed, you naturally look for a way to allow it to flourish.
And this is the core of libertarian thought: if I'm not hurting you, leave me the hell alone. Don't tell me what to do. Don't order me to attend your schools. Don't take my money for your causes. Let me trade freely (for example, let me buy sugar from Cuba). Let me read, or view, or say, what I want. I don't need you to tell me what to do; I'm quite capable of figuring it out for myself. Let me have sex with any adult I want, male or female (n.b. I'm quite straight, but I see no reason to surpress other adults' desires; I'm still protective of minors). Let me put into my body what I choose to put in it.
Now, the operative clause above is "if I'm not hurting you". There can be much debate between libertarians about that, as it applies to various issues. Second-hand smoke and drunk driving are two; I very much believe the dangers of the former are over-blown, while the dangers of the latter are relatively obvious. Global warming is another contentious issue, on which my own mind is not at all made up. Finally, abortion is the ultimate issue on which libs can disagree; some feel a woman controls her body, others feel that when the woman consents to sex, she implicitly consents to the creation of a life within her. (Please let's not get sidetracked on this issue - I'm just raising it to say that there are issues with which libs can (violently) disagree.) So I'm not saying being a libertarian means that you think you have the answers to everything, although it may often seem so.
Why are so many nerds libertarian? Because you can't code by rote. You can't create or develop a new application following s
Re:The same reason so many are socialists (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and this one. Yes. A lot of Norwegians think this is true. I think a lot of Europeans think this is true. Under some governments it is truer, under others it is not. Under the current government it is so far from the truth it makes me sick. The current president is closer to Joseph Stalin than he is to any capitalist thinker ever born.
What Norwegians forgets is something very important. A more capitalist society has made this world a very nice place indeed. The number of people starving to death relative to the world population dropped by more than 50%, closer to 75% from 1980 to 2000. This drop came as the result of a more open, more capitalistic world economy. Day by day the world is moving to a situation where starvation as a systemic problem is non-existing. The UN thinks starvation as a major world problem will be gone some time before 2030. Maybe long before. The main problem is Africa, and Africa is starving because of socialism, not in spite of it.
Re:that's quite a leading question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all. Libertarianism leaves a power vacuum, into which large corporations would be only too happy to become the authorities.
Re:Are People Really Libetarians? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, government rules don't get created unless someone's interests were hurt. I think everyone in the society believes this creed; the problem is that way more activities than you might think at first affect other people's interests.
Motorcycle helmets are the classic example.
A consistent libertarian says "Don't make me wear a helmet. If I crash, it's my responsibility, and it's OK for you to leave me dying in the street." The problem is that we as a body politic are simply unprepared to leave people dying in the street, for several reasons. 1) it's ugly and stinky, not to mention unsanitary; 2) our humanity just doesn't allow us to see that level of suffering and ignore it; 3) it scares people and causes them not to ride, depressing economic output. The result is that if the motorcycle rider is uninsured we treat him at public expense -- and, if he rides without a helmet and is honest about it, he won't be able to get insurance. Therefore his riding affects all of us by costing us money.
Pollution regulations are another good example (and the best current "tragedy of the commons" issue).
There is simply no incentive for any one individual not to pollute -- one person's pollution, no matter how bad, is usually not going to affect the rights of others. But in a country of 300 million individuals, of course widespread pollution will affect everyone's rights! There is no solution to this problem that does not involve society as a whole somehow coercing the individual -- in other words, regulation.
Also, I think you'll find that allowing parents to hurt their kids in any way they want leads to some pretty gruesome consequences...
Re:Are People Really Libetarians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and every Republican is anti-abortion. Every Democrat is pro-choice.
Well, not exactly.
Suppose you agree with every part of the Libertarian party platform [lp.org] except for one part? You are suggesting that person is not a libertarian? What, exactly, are they?
(for the purpose of this argument we are going to ignore the differences between "libertarianism" and "the Libertarian Party", since your argument does not really cover the differences)
One only needs glance at the differing platforms of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton to realize there are always differences of opinions in a political party.
I consider myself a libertarian. I have minor issues with the capital-L Libertarian Party, but not enough that I do not support them fully. I do believe in some gun-control, however. I believe it is best done (and correctly done) through a Constitutional amendment.
As far as Microsoft goes - I feel one of the responsibilities of the federal government is to prevent monopolies from abusing the market. The government should stay out of capitalism until there is a failure of capitalism (i.e. a monopoly). As a good libertarian, I feel that the government SHOULD investigate Microsoft, and take actions to prevent them from using their monopoly to unfairly control the market.
I also have never seen any Libertarian saying that people should be prevented from following Creationism, but that it should not be taught in schools as "science". A libertarian is going to see that the Constitution provides for a separation of Church and State, and therefore a government entity (public schools) should not be teaching faith in a specific Christian ideology. Followers of Creationism are free to continue to believe what they want, are free to gather outside of schools.
Oh, and the quiz you link to? Here is one of the questions:
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
This is a horribly worded question. Apple's stock dipped a bit due to Greenpeace's (poorly done) criticism of Apple's environmental policy. I would say that this is an economic factor that a corporation should pay attention to. The company also needs to pay attention to the fact that more consumers are buying based on environmentally friendlier products. This drives profits. But the question is worded such that this should be ignored.
As others have mentioned in response, the questions are sometimes poorly worded, and there is not a "Do not care" answer, which seems almost critical to a Libertarian at times. What do I care about nationalistic movements, for example?
Another question: The rich are too highly taxed.
This question gives no perspective or comparison. Too highly taxed compared to poor people? Compared to middle-income? Or just in general do I think that the rich should not be taxed at all?
Re:Because we all know (Score:2, Insightful)
*** Spoiler if you haven't finished Atlas Shrugged ***
I have just spent way too much time googling for a comic that someone once linked in a
It was hilarious, and an extremely to-the-point comment on the shortcomings of Rand's "philosophy".
I had no success, so if anyone knows what I am talking about, please post the link. It's possible that this was part of a bigger series of comic "sequels" to famous books.
They're both oblivious (Score:3, Insightful)
But it can work for you, if you're insular, unemotional, marketable and oblivious, but take any of these characteristics away from a person and libertarianism starts to fall apart for them. And that's the majority of society I'm talking about. It might not seem that way on slashdot, but it is.
Re:Because we all know (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I'm not looking for an argument with all the smokers who think their right to poison me trumps my right to be poison-free, but I just wanted to point out that there is more to tobacco smoke than cancer.
P.S. Not libertarian because I want a system that keeps food safety inspectors around to make sure no one is running a get-rich-quick scheme involving tainted food and an open ticket to Aruba for when the bodies start piling up.
Re:Because we all know (Score:3, Insightful)
You are spot on about dems and reps being basically equivalents. For the most part the way that our government functions is by trading off between the two parties who it is that is going to be screwing up the legislation. Why it is that around here I can't vote for a candidate that opposes the minimum wage and supports an income tax replacement for our sales tax and isn't a bigoted racist is beyond me. During last years elections one of the candidates was mainly running on a cut taxes and English is the national language platform. How useless is that? Especially when the the spending won't be cut to match the tax savings until there is serious trouble.
The key thing that the OP seems to have forgotten is that one doesn't become liberal or conservative by a change in intellect, the issue at the heart of it is a bit more personal, I would suspect that the more intellectually minded conservatives right now aren't republicans, mostly because of the assault by the republican party right now on anything intellectual.
Re:Because we all know (Score:2, Insightful)
For the record, I absolutely hate smoking (cigarettes only, I love me some good trees) but know that I have no place telling others what they can or can't do with their own body or on their own property.
Re:Because we all know (Score:4, Insightful)
Geeks are social liberals, but economically.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, there's a greater trend in the geek population away from the sort of religious belief. Few geeks have the religious motivation to be against abortion and gay marriage, the two social rallying flags of social conservatives today in America.
So, that pretty much only leaves the economic axis to worry about to differentiate the remaining geek populace into either liberals or libertarians. This is why this Slashdot poll [slashdot.org] did not surprise me in the least. While there was no populist/authoritarian option, conservative was the least picked choice of the mainstream political beliefs, and liberal and libertarian were the top two.
So, then the question fundamentally comes down to, "What do you fear the most?"
- An inefficient government running roughshod over you (taxation, interference in property rights, tyranny of the majority, etc).
- Powerful, unaccountable private entities running roughshod over you (monopolies, externalities, inequity of power, etc).
Of course, this is a bit of an oversimplification (as is the notion that most people fit into these little political boxes), but it mostly suffices. I find that most libertarian and most liberal points of view come down to concerns that their favorite bogeyman will ruin everything if left unchecked and powerless. More nuanced views come from realizing that they both are pretty bad and that you have to make a choice how to balance them (even if you tend to throw the balance almost entirely one way or the other). The crazy ideologues you see here on Slashdot and elsewhere are the people who seem to never acknowledge that the other side's feared enemy is a problem too.Re:source? (Score:4, Insightful)
In particular, we no longer have the Washingtons, Lincolns, and JFKs who desired to do what is right For and By America.
Lincoln? A great man in a tough time, sure; but his record on civil rights has been whitewashed by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. With his suspension of habeas corpus, and imprisonment of suspected Confederates without trial (Gitmo, anyone?), I daresay many here would be beating the impeachment drum had they been around then.
JFK? Please. The man's "virtue" was that he was young, good looking, and was assassinated before his bumbling ineptitude could come to light and hurt his reputation. Bay of Pigs? Cuban missile crisis? The freakin' Viet Nam war? Gimme a break. The guy was a typical politician. He just got martyred. All his "great speeches" are nothing but pile of platitudes. I recently watched From the Earth to the Moon, and every episode opened with a clip of the famous Kennedy speech:
"...we choose to go to the moon and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!"
After you hear it for the eighth time, you realize what a horrible load of badly written meaningless crap it was. Like all his speeches were. What great things did he do?
Re:Because we all know (Score:5, Insightful)
And why in God's name should your teacher give you any respect? Your self-righteous attitude is, in my opinion, one of the main problems with youth culture today. As a child, it is highly unlikely you have done anything worthwhile. There is simply no reason why any responsible adult should give you (as a child) any "respect" at all.
So you were smart. Big deal. Intelligence, by itself, is not that important -- it only provides potential. While it is a common amongst the youth to feel that their innate abilities and potential somehow deserve accolades and celebration, most learn quickly upon entering adulthood that accomplishment counts for far more. What saddens me is that, years after you have left physical childhood behind, you still think like a child.
Re:The best team to work on... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are however correct that one good individual is better than a bad team, if the rest of the team is clueless and just there to take up space and consume oxygen. They are bad when they are just there to form a consensus which, rather than being the best solution, is one of the poorer ones, it just happens to be the one everyone will agree to just to put an end to a pointless discussion and escape.
If you've every worked on a good team you will appreciate that they are priceless, unfortunately they are also somewhat rare, and being stuck on bad teams is a soul sucking nightmare.
Because we're surrounded by facsists (Score:3, Insightful)
Just talk to anybody and you'll soon know why we're libertarians. Because the libertarians are the only people who consistently, uncompromising, and publicly affirm that having all this kind of vicious bullshit written into the legal code is cruel, stupid, and wrong.
Really, the only question you should ask yourself is 'Why aren't I a libertarian?'
If they don't like my airhorn, they can leave? (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's not that I don't like what they do, it's that I don't like what they do to me.
Why should I be forced to act a certain way just because they decided to make me inhale poison?
Re:Because we all know (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that you may actually have good intentions now, but history shows that in every such case the good intentions became the road to Hell. I don't want your good intentions trumping my choices, my life. I want you to leave me out of them. I don't want to become your fodder either, I will fight you if you come with your good intentions to my doors. Today for me this means being mobile, avoiding any government intervention, avoiding taxes for example, avoiding your political causes. If necessary my resistance will become violent.
Re:Rigidly defined areas of Doubt and Uncertainity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because we all know (Score:3, Insightful)
The classroom system is an anachronism and really unnecessary in the computer and network age for a lot of kids.
The regimented classrooms might be a necessary evil for the not so gifted and the people who wont do anything productive unless someone is watching them every minute. Its a pretty dubious endeavor trying to teach history, social studies, geography and even math and science to these people.in the first place though. They would probably be a lot happier and better served by a vocational or technical school where they are learning survival skills, a trade and maybe apprenticeships where they can earn a little money and see what life will be like in the working world if they aren't willing to work for a rewarding and well paying career.
The recent "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle in particular, is probably a prescription for devastation of American competitiveness. You are expending massive effort and resources on making the least gifted students barely literate, and judging schools on the performance of their worst students and not their best ones. You are abandoning all the most gifted students. You would think the morons that instituted No Child Left Behind would have studied what makes India such an educational powerhouse. India excels because they seek out the gifted students and do everything possible to give them the best eduction possible(though its excessively regimented). American politicians by contrast, being the morons they are, opted for a system that is fixated on the worst students and abandons the gifted ones. I think the ulterior motive of the Republicans involved was to just destroy the public education system entirely with the illusion that private schools would fix everything. The problem there being private schools tend to best serve the wealthy and not necessarily the gifted.
If you want the best education system both for students and society, you want to ensure the most gifted students get the best education possible, regardless of their families wealth, and you want to ensure the poorest students get basic job skills so they can survive and even prosper. A wicked edge to this is that rich kids that are dumb and lazy, like oh I don't know...George W. Bush...don't get a prep school and ivy league education, and a free pass in life, just because their family is rich and powerful.
Re:If they don't like my airhorn, they can leave? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you hate smoking, as I do, patronize businesses that have no-smoking policies, or at least decently segregated no-smoking sections. You don't have any right to demand people conform to your expectations, nor do they have a right you conform to theirs. You can still chose, however, what environment you choose to place yourself in. And you can declare smoking off-limits in any property you control.
I could see a decent argument for making smoking illegal in publicly owned and operated facilities, however.
Re:Because we all know (Score:4, Insightful)
On the illusion of free choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because we all know (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of your post is just silly. I drank Republican, Democrat and Socialist kool-aid at various times when I was young and naive. It was only as I got older and have seen the practical consequences of both the political systems I'd lived in and the ones in other parts of the world that I've embraced a more Libertarian view on the world. Mind you I'm not talking about the over the top Libertarianism of its fanatics to which I could see your post applying.
My brand of Libertarianism arises from the simple fact politicians and their benefactors are self serving. The laws they pass are almost never for the common good. They are designed to pick winners and losers using money they tax out of my pocket, and the winners are always their friends, and the losers their enemies. When Democrats are in they tax the rich and hand out money to the poor, who happen to vote for them. Republicans are in they cut taxes...on the rich...give their business friends big subsidies and screw over working people every chance they get. Neither party does a good job for the middle class. Real socialism sounds nice on paper, but it fails when it hits the flaws in human nature. People who just want to work hard and get ahead are completely screwed under Socialism. It is a system for party members and bureaucrats on one hand and freeloaders on the other. Some good things happen under Socialism but in my book it is a huge net loss of a system.
At least in my case Libertarianism isn't due to inexperience, its due to experience and interaction with all the misguided things politicians have done over my lifetime. Its left me at a place I mostly want my government to be a tiny fraction of its current size and to tax me at a small fraction of its current rates. I would be a lot happier saving for my own retirement instead of government doing it for me, and if you don't save for it you suffer. That's life.
I am completely OK with paying modest taxes to pay for a defensive military, but the U.S. military is anything but that. It is a completely excessive offensive force which is constantly meddling outside the U.S. when it shouldn't. I'm fine with paying taxes for fire and police service. Police are useful when they stop people from hurting each other. They are completely out of bounds when they enforce laws regulating personal behavior that hurts no one else. Government serves a useful purpose when it builds roads, and I am glad to pay a use tax on gasoline or diesel for that. I am fine with things like antitrust, FDA and consumer safety agencies as long as they don't go overboard punishing business, or end up in the pockets of business like they are today. The fact is greedy people trying to make money are predators, they will hurt other people and it is an appropriate role for government to stop people from hurting each other. If I'm not hurting anyone else though....leave me alone.
Universal health care would be nice but you give people something for free and they abuse it, then it costs everyone a fortune, and it sucks the life out of an economy. It would be good to have universal catastrophic health insurance and a medical system that encourages people to get basic preventive care but that is hard to do in practice.
This leaves about 90% of the government we have today that I think is completely inappropriate and counterproductive. You could wipe most of it off the books and the world would just be a better place.
Re:Are People Really Libetarians? (Score:5, Insightful)
> If you refuse we take it to the media and hurt your profits.
Right. So in your perfect world, we can expect all major polluters to *own* the major media outlets, or will at least have financial arrangements to enable collusion? That way, when you go to one newspaper to claim someone is polluting, the other one can pipe up that nothing of the sort is happening and that the first one is biased.
It's particularly insidious since the press will be completely based on a free market the most believed newspaper will be the one that is most popular-- you know publishes the most gossipy information about celebrities or features the human interest stories that appeal to the widest audience without publishing boring news about the war or whatever.
Be wary of any political system that requires major changes in human nature in order for it to succeed.
Re:Because we all know (Score:4, Insightful)
I have always thought that the point of voting was NOT to get my guy to win, but to choose the candidate that most closely matches by beliefs. A vote cannot be wasted if this is your goal.
The correct place to work towards getting your candidate to win is in the campaign leading up to the vote, not the vote itself. At this point I must admit that the effort to get a fringe candidate a real shot at winning could be wasted. Still, you should keep in mind that the two current USA "mainstream" political parties have not always existed.
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because we all know (Score:3, Insightful)
That pretty much describes 2nd through 7th grade for me.
Re:Because we all know (Score:3, Insightful)
Get a grip.
Re:Because we all know (Score:3, Insightful)
On paper socialism isn't a bad system of government either, but in reality thy both have serious problems. Namely they both reduce everyone's progress to the slowest of the group. That's anti-Darwinism. There is only frustration and penalties for excelling and you cannot fail regardless of how little effort you put in. There is no reason to do well or try hard. Give up your uniqueness and become a greyman, like every other greyman around you. That is what both NCLB and socialism produce: greymen who do their rote tasks in an acceptably mediocre fashion. Maybe that works well for the least intellectually gifted and maybe it should continue to be the way that quarter of the population is taught, but the most intellectually gifted will learn to resent the repressing authority of that robs them of so much opportunity, progress and joy.
Re:Because we all know (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what democracy is for. People vote for what they want, and hopefully the constitution and the representative aspects of the system protect basic individual liberty. It's not a perfect system, obviously, but generally produces better outcomes than any alternative. There are plenty of places in the 3rd world where the central government is extremely weak and individual freedom is maximized. Those are not nice places to live.
Re:The same reason so many are socialists (Score:1, Insightful)
b) Things mostly fares well in Norway even if we do have a left- or a right-ving government because of the booming economy of our country. To be honest, the diffrences between the politics of our current and previous government is not even that big. As a socialist, I think the change of course is hardly noticeable, with the excepiton that we no longer have a minister of defence who is a neo-con.
c)
The daycare-centres are the responsibility of the diffrent counties, and in Oslo, as you mention the City counsil is led by a liberal and far-right coallision. If the daycare-centres in this region sucks it might be because the city-counsil does a poor job.
Your critsism of our school system is correct though, but this specific case thah you mention has been going on for 10 years, and can hardly be the fault of our current or previos government.
Your claims that Norway has a high unemploymentrate is false. As a matter of fact we import a lot of workers from former soviet nations. We do however have problems when it comes to getting jobs for people reciving social welfare, though this is a decelerating growth as of now.
And to your last trolling part at the bottom. Norwegians usually bring their own food for lunch, it's called "matpakke" and if you have lived in Norway for 10 years without noticing this phenomena, than you clearly are not very observant.
Im not saying that Norway is the best country in the world but your ranting is full of bullshit.
Re:source? (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, authoritarians can't help but to shove their point of view down other people's throats.
I am very non-authoritarian/libertarian, and if you want to see how you "score" on the scale of left/right authoritarian/libertarian try taking the "political compass" test and see how you stack up.
If one is libertarian, they can have whatever leftist or right-wing views they want. They could be a flaming bible thumper, they could be a rabid gay hater, they could despise foreigners, whatever, but as a libertarian, even a despicable bigot has very few ways to force his views on others. Its about being hands off first and foremost.
Firearms ownership, something I see more with geek friends, is a cornerstone to expressing libertarian viewpoint. Why do I need it, do I hunt with it, is it for self defense? Reply: none of your business, I don't have to have a reason or justify my needed a firearm to you. If you don't get that or agree with that, its simple, you have serious issues with being an authoritarians and want to control what other people do, say and own as property.
Libertarians see the constitution as a unique opportunity to have a system where root laws are actually obeyed and not circumvented. In fact, its in the bill of rights that no laws be made to try and pervert and side-step the bill of rights. It should also be noted, and again, authoritarians have a BIG problem with this, is that both right wing and left wing idiots have this issue with "The People" meaning collective rights. Collective rights simply do not exist, and they mean nothing. Anyone who even talks of or utters the concept of a "collective right" is a complete and total stupid fool. End the conversation with this person immediately, if it isn't painfully obvious that collective rights have absolutely no meaning and things done in the name of the people, whether left or right wing in nature, are almost always evil, then nothing can be done to salvage that person's thinking.
I'm going ot go over how our jack booted authoritarian government fails us, advertises "good things" for those who subscribe to its evil, and why not being fundamentalist about the constitution is extremely dangerous.
If I get sick right now without my own health care, the Government would do nothing, if there is a natural disaster, the government does nothing. In fact, the supreme court ruled that the police don't have to do anything to protect you if they don't want, see:
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect
The government takes about 36% of my pay in income tax alone. Then they tax me at tolls on the road, then they tax me on sales tax for food, medicine, clothing, you name it, then they tax my property, they tax my gasoline, they tax my interest and capital gains, they tax me all the time. They can't even be honest and tax me from one vector, they need to try and hide the thievery any way they can. And they, the Fed, they print crap-loads of this money I save for my hard work and dilute its value by printing more (injecting liquidity.) Pull the rug out from under me! If I don't pay the taxes on the property, they can even take my property away from me. Change the rules. Change the rules of money. Change the rules of taxes. Add more taxes. Seize property.
I'm not a sociopath, but if you can tell me with a straight face that the "authorities" here aren't pushing me and anyone else who is clean and debt free and responsible and being parents and good workers and being honest, paying all the taxes and obeying all the laws, and I buy a semiautomatic gun with a pistol grip I should go to jail? You think people who are good don't start to feel like William 'D-Fens' Foster in "Falling Down?"
Re:Because we all know (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism is only possible through government enforcement of contract law, maintanence of infrastructure (roads, power, sewage, public transport, fire departments, etc) and the monopolisation of force. That last one might have you screeching, but if you would like to see the alternative, take a look at most of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa--the really poor ones. Small mercenary armies ride around in trucks, looking for someone to hire them, and then conduct minor wars in the streets. Because the governments of these countries aren't actually strong enough to prevent people from being robbed at gunpoint, there really isn't much point in earning more than you can spend today, so nobody works very hard and everyone is dirt poor. The countries are in a continual state of low grade civil war. As for infrastructure, the road to the president's house is the only one paved, and when he leaves town, they turn off the power--to the entire town!
Those who think that privatization of all government services are the way to go should begin by seeing Gangs of New York, which depicts in one scene the relationship between rival privately owned fire departments. The arrive at the scene of a fire, get into a fight about who gets to put it out, and start a full fledged street brawl, which turns into a riot, while the entire block burns to the ground. This is an accurate depiction of what frequently happened.
Re:Are People Really Libetarians? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people keep talking about Church in singular terms? Freedom of Religion is per person, not per state.
How did this become +5??? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's happening as we speak. Which is why Libertarianism can never happen: not many people follow your logic. You even have major dissent among the nerd crowd. Starting with me, of course.
You mean the way Libertarians consider their opposition "communists" or "statists" (translation: less than human).
On planet Libertaria, I can imagine that question being quite relevant when you Libertarians find yourselves confronted with a socialist counterculture. Yeehaw, get your thirty oughts we's goin for some target practice, yip yiiip!!
You mean, the ends justify the means?
I'd rather be sacrificed by a bullet to the head right quick, right now, than be one of the unlucky people in your paradise of greed and selfishness, one of the poor people who are sentenced to die slowly by starvation.
Oh and about all those weapons you keep talking about wanting the unrestricted right to having? I'm in favor of that, actually. Especially when the starving masses use them against you. Happens every time a "Libertaria" is founded. Oh wait, there has never been a Libertaria. It's nothing more than a myth.
Dead by a Communist's bullet, or dead by toxic waste, cancer, or simple starvation? Dead is still dead, whether it's by the malice of Communism or the utter negligence and apathy of Libertarianism.
Communism is the enemy of freedom; Libertarianism could lead to human extinction.
Rand believed in Justice (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't even think her issue is competence per se, so much as it is a matter of honesty and justice.
Even Ayn Rand would agree that human ability is a matter of degree, and, indeed, there are many characters in Atlas Shrugged who are portrayed sympathetically, while showing a wide range of capability. Any person who is working within his or her ability (and preferably up to full potential) to earn an honest living, is okay with Rand.
Rand's villains, on the other hand, are those who (dishonestly and unjustly) demand wealth that they have not earned, and authority that they are not capable of wielding (which is where your "competence" factor comes in). And the weapon that those villains use to gain (i.e. steal) their unearned wealth and power is the philosophy of Collectivism. In other words, they use guilt, based on the philosophical premise that the more capable _must_ help the less capable, to demand that the creators of the world give away the wealth and power that they have earned -- putting that wealth and power into the hands of the villains, in the name of society, because they _need_ it more. (Note that this is very different than voluntary charity, and a desire to help one's fellow man.)
The story of Atlas Shrugged is what happens when the most capable in society decide to stop giving away that power, and thus stop supporting the many thieves and mini-dictators in our society. Rand's goal is a society where the honest creators are fully paid for their creations, while the dishonest second-handers (those who would steal, suppress, and pervert those creations) are held powerless, as they deserve.
To use a real world example, most composers, musicians, and the many people in the music distribution business who still choose to compete fairly, would be the heroes in a Rand story. On the other hand, those who are using the RIAA, and government power, to try to suppress the new, more efficient methods of distributing music, would be the villains -- second-handers, who are using unearned power to gain unearned wealth, while causing harm to the rest of us.
Re:Because we all know (Score:1, Insightful)
And here it is, in a nutshell. The reason so many nerds are libertarians is that nerds, most of whom tend towards autism (which is not to say that most are actually autistic, just that on average they are closer to that end of the spectrum than the general populace), are to a larger than normal extent incapable of seeing shades of grey. Libertarianism is a beautiful, axiomatic, simple, black and white system. That you, by putting such a system in practice, tend to end up with wonderful utopias like Ethiopia or Somalia is something we conveniently ignore.
Anyone who thinks that taxing people for the purpose of, say, running hospitals, equals "widescale political terror" is someone who should not be taken seriously. And they aren't. Funny how that works.