Are Engineers Natural Libertarians Or Technocrats? 727
uctpjac writes "This openDemocracy article uses Scott Adams' presidential bid to argue that however much engineers — especially Silicon Valley types — like to think that they're libertarians, they are in fact much more likely to be control-freak technocrats. Quoting: 'Sensibly if uncharismatically, Adams has pledged if elected to delegate most of his decisions to people who know more than him, and flip-flop on any issue where new evidence causes him to modify his position. His worldview has its limitations – he underestimates the value of ways of thinking other than the engineer's, and it's naïve of him to claim his approach to policy is purely pragmatic and non-ideological.' Is this a fair account? Has the author wrongly read Dilbert, or wrongly interpreted the relationship between the engineering mindset and Adams' representation of it in the cartoon strip?"
historically yes, but varies (Score:5, Interesting)
China's government is probably the most engineer-dominated government in the world [slashdot.org], in contrast to the lawyer-dominated Western governments, and it has definite technocratic tendencies. I'd say a lot of western engineers who otherwise dislike the government (e.g. its position on free speech) do admire some of its technocratic infrastructure achievements, like its rapid deployment of high-speed rail.
More generally it's kind of the natural outcome of a certain engineering mindset which looks for optimized supply chains, economies of scale, evidence/data-based decision making, etc. There's an alternate, more messy/decentralized engineering mindset though, perhaps better labeled "hacker mindset" than "engineering mindset", which is more about DIY, free-form experimentation, etc., and less technocratic in its orientation (though not necessarily libertarian in the American sense either; plenty are more lefty-anarchist leaning).
A good software engineer can create either (Score:5, Interesting)
Once you understand the basics of politics, learning a new ideology is trivial really.
Re:Libertarians? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some may consider that a small nitpick, but I personally find it to be an important one. When I engage people in discussions about free market principles, I make sure to let people know that I am just as disgusted with our corporately-owned government as the next guy.
Re:Libertarians? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think there's some confusion between conservative, dogmatic, libertarian, and objectivist. And others...
Because conservatism (of the hysterical kind) is so dominant, anything non-conservative is deemed libertarian, even when it is something else.
Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Its all in the perspective:
1) La de da, I'm building a bridge. My favorite welder on his days off likes to stick tab A into slot B of a member of the same sex. I understand the meaning of an independent variable and file this as such; don't much care. I guess that makes me an engineer-libertarian.
2) La de da, I'm a building a bridge. I sweat over a keyboard for 850 hours of computer simulation to prove that bolt #374904 must be a size 10-24 NC because if some idiot installs a 8-32 NC or smaller the bridge will collapse when loaded with precisely 17 pickup trucks plus one housefly. Cheap businessman wants to install a smaller 8-32 bolt because live and let live, man, my right to tell him what to do ends at the tip of his screwdriver, or some psuedo-libertarian stuff like that. No, F you businessman, I'm going full on technocrat control freak on you and 10-24 NC bolts are getting installed there or its off to the camps with you.
Want to run a country instead of building a bridge? Sounds to me like it don't much matter if tab A gets inserted into slot B no matter what sex A or B is, or what hole they're using, as long as they're both consenting adults blah blah. That's the libertarian answer. The control freak comes out when you say no, you are not F-ing setting up a concentration camp for brown people, because unlike two dudes in a closet, that does destroy a country.
Re:Libertarians? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why does everything have to fit a nice label? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My career does not define me and my views (Score:5, Interesting)
Over the years of arguments, people have tried to pigeon hole and label me a Conservative, a Liberal, an NDP supporter, a Libertarian, a Socialist, a Communist, and pretty much every other label you can think of.
Anyone who tries to simplify my stance with a buzzword is trying to appease their own desire to label me so they can dismiss my arguments out of hand as "he's just a XXX". Labeling stances and assuming that support of a party means blind support of their theoretical ideologies is an insult to any citizen who actually THINKS about social issues and politics.
The idea of taking that a step further and assuming that my career choice pre-labels me as having some particular viewpoint is so far out to lunch it's unreal.
What the hell was the article writer smoking? I want some!
there's a lot more to it than engineering (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand I know a lot of engineers who grew up under Soviet communism and are super right-wing. They had a very bad experience with government persecution and they tend to view all government activity through the lens of restricting their rights.
Re:We'll be whatever you want... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting. If your code fails this test, no amount of commenting will improve the situation. Bad code is bad code, no matter how well-commented it is. (True, some code is truly difficult to comprehend and therefore requires comments, usually because what the code is doing is supremely complicated and difficult to comprehend itself. I'm not talking about that kind of code).
Now describing the design overall, that's another matter. But most of the designs I'm called in to fix are so bad that they are undocumentable.
Not sure I'd want an engineer/politician (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm assuming that the implication is that engineers can solve our problems with process. Lots of social problems might seem like the solutions can be obviously derived with logic, but we're human beings and we do a lot of things that aren't driven by logic. Having children isn't logical; it's expensive, a time drain, and ultimately a financial loss. Practically any form of entertainment we engage in isn't logical (besides intercourse), since we're probably wasting time and resources best spent elsewhere. Hell, even our diets aren't logical. We should all be eating nutrition bars carefully concocted to provide us with the optimal calories and nutrients to keep us functioning (regardless of taste).
I had the enlightening experience of dating a social worker who explained how often the layman's "logical" and simplistic solutions to all kinds of domestic issues were either ineffective or could be downright detrimental. When you understand that, you can start to envision how the "obvious" solution to social ailment X would fail in practice (otherwise it would have been tried already).
Engineers tend to be technocrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Engineers often like to think of themselves as libertarians.
But I've met enough that when you even begin to scratch the surface, they tend to be very technocratic... believing there must be a better way to organize something if only *they* could be trusted to run something.
This is more and more true in places with a higher emphasis on academia.
Academics suffer from what I like to call systems thinking. Having spent enough time there, they almost always try and solve every problem by modelling and then playing with it numerically.
This results in the idea that we should trust in such models above and beyond people's choices. To use an engineers mentality, they tend to like centralized big computers instead of distributed systems :P Kinda odd isn't it.
There is nothing 'scientific' about it. Science can't tell you what values or policies you should follow, but they tend to like to frame it that way.
I personally credit this kind of systems thinking for the recent financial collapse. At no point in history has there been so much sophistication and modelling in the financial system. Yet of course people are still in the system for their own self-interest, their own biases, still gaming it, models were incorrect or imperfect. And of course who gets to be in charge and make decisions based on the models...
When Greenspan made his point about the 'market failing' it was a classic systems thinking mistake.
The banks have a vested interest to enhance share holder value, so they would be in the best position to regulate themselves... as their institution's purpose is to enhance share holder value... which means keeping the bank in good shape.
It's like saying car drivers have a natural interest to prevent accidents. Therefore, they should be allowed to regular themselves.
I won't get into saying whether we need more/better/less regulation. But I will say this. We as a society have decided we like to have stable banking. The government backs and insures banks. It then has a duty to regulate them. Just like your car insurance company regulates you by charging you more for more risk, denying you coverage if you're too risky...
I see the same thing all the time on so many policies.
When it comes to education policy or health policy, many think we can generate expert panels on all of these to deliver excellent healthcare and education.
Meanwhile, the centralization of power that comes with unions and medical associations and payment and politics and facing parents with different beliefs and facing people who are facing death or illness... basically anything human is something they choose to ignore.
Which is very common for technocrats... and hence engineers. Just like the Euro. These big systems designed by technocrats and engineers and scientists will eventually fail because they're ignorant for anything related to humanity.
It's like they try and solve a complex equation... but they ignore the biggest variable... humanity.
Re:Libertarians? (Score:5, Interesting)
So in a truly free market, the one makes the rules who is able to hire the most and the evilst thugs?
Re:Libertarians? (Score:5, Interesting)
Philosophy is of little importance when the policies libertarians support would have the opposite effect. Libertarians are always pushing for smaller government and fewer regulations, which would have the effect of making large, wealthy businesses even more powerful.
Re:Libertarians? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a Technocract (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I'd not say I lean libertarian at all. Corporations are currently the largest source of corruption and the largest threat to personal rights in the western world. Right now, there are a number of corporations with far more power over you than the government. So I am dismayed at the common libertarian diatribes that everything will be alright, if we just get rid of government. What fills the hole left by government?
I would say I lean much more towards European socialism. I don't believe in survival or the fittest or deep class structures. If inheritance and embezzlement are the two biggest sources of wealth in the country, then the country is in the wrong and needs to be repaired. Further, there are many times when something just does not belong in private hands. Corporations naturally are greedy and corrupting influences, and are nowhere near as efficient as the libertarian types like to think; government can be corrupted, but is not inherently anything negative.
My primary concern is that given my definition of Technocracy above, it has the potential to become all sorts of bad things. Which is why I think anyone who actually goes out to claim they are a Technocrat needs to ultimately follow a few rules:
1. The goal of society is to provide the greatest average good for its members.
2. Communication should always be free. Censorship is always wrong.
3. Nothing should be restricted on emotional or religious basis.
If even half of politicians followed those three rules, we'd be living in a far better world today. It is time we start forcing them to do so.
Re:Libertarians? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you are subsidizing Big Pharma's profits. Their systems are quite functional, even the research aspects.