Why Are So Many Nerds Libertarians?

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?"

source?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Why do so many nerds seem to lean toward the Libertarian end of the spectrum?

Can you cite your source for this data? Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?

Re:source?

[Yoozer]

"Remember kids, "data" is not the plural form of "anecdote".

Re:source?

[Anonymous Coward]

"

Sorry, my OCD kicked in.

Re:source?

[peacefinder]

Remember kids, "data" is not the plural form of "anecdote".

I've read that in a bunch of places, but I have yet to see a supporting study.

Re:source?

[bscott]

> Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?

Agreed - I know more than my share of libertarians but none of them are techies by any stretch of the term (most of them aren't even especially sane). I've met a number of apolitical techies, but otherwise, in my limited experience, they fall into one of the two usual categories.

Then again, it's fair to say that Microsoft can be seen as something of a political entity in the tech world, and there are those who happily live within its warm embrace and others who reject everything associated with the Beast of Redmond, with vigor and dedication. Offhand I don't find it hard to see parallels between the mindsets of the "get Microsoft off our backs" camp (well-represented amongst Slashdot readership) and the political movement that rejects bloated, intrusive, overbearing government...

So yeah, if you're sick of Microsoft then maybe you're a techno-Lib?

Re:source?

[sien]

The recent slashdot poll [slashdot.org] is one source, albeit dubious.

Are People Really Libetarians?

[SerpentMage]

When I hear people like Bill Maher profess that they are libertarians I shutter. I even doubt that most slashdot readers understand the term.

Check out www.politicalcompass.org and do the quiz and see what your leanings really are.

Remember a libertarian would not harp on Microsoft, would not have guns laws restricting the use of bazookas, and would not restrict people from following creationism. Libertarian means to live and let live, and most importantly it means for people to be idiots!

So I think I doubt that most people are libertarians....

Re:Are People Really Libetarians?

[singularity]

Remember a libertarian would not harp on Microsoft, would not have guns laws restricting the use of bazookas, and would not restrict people from following creationism. Libertarian means to live and let live, and most importantly it means for people to be idiots!

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:Are People Really Libetarians?

[dal20402]

Let adults do whatever they want, provided it doesn't hurt someone who is unwilling or not a minor member of their family.

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?

[sg3000]

> If you have a factory up-stream of me and you're making the water toxic, I get people from further downstream together and we first ask you to stop.
> 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:

[ResidntGeek]

Result: pirated drugs are everywhere. Nobody can tell the difference. Thousands of people have died. Lead paint in baby toys.

Secondary result: Police investigate deaths. Mass murderers arrested, given death penalty.

Result: child pornography becomes legalised.

Secondary result: Child abuse still illegal. Freely-traded child porn used as evidence to find and prosecute child abusers and rapists. Police no longer spend hours grabbing lists of child porn viewers so they can have "200 arrests" on their balance s

Re:

[LGagnon]

It's worth noting that 41% are on the left (liberals, socialists, communists, and anarchists) according to that poll. Libertarians, like in real life, are still just a small crowd without enough backing to hold significant power.

Re:source?

[melonman]

Can you cite your source for this data?

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:

[PixelSlut]

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?

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 tha

Re:

[melonman]

When individual rights are lost, you can't really word that as a gain for society. It's a loss for society.

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.

Re:source?

[ahfoo]

Right, and he seems to be suggesting that Libertarians are leftists. This another enormous assumption. I tend to think that libertarianism is the greatest thing that ever happened to the Republicans because it makes a lot of people who have liberal social values like not caring what drugs people take on the weekends or how others have sex feel that somehow their views are better expressed by the Republicans than the Democrats. I agree the twin parties both suck at this point and that the Democrats hardly seem like an alternative, but I know people who clearly have liberal social values and take drugs and have kinky sex lives who, due to their faith in libertarianism, actually vote Republican because they think it is closer to this libertarian ideal that they have in their minds.

        From my observations, I have an answer to the question of why there are so many Libertarians in tech. My observation may be an oversimplification, but oversimplification is the crux of the issue as I see it. From the Libertarians that I have spoken with there seems to be a common thread of wanting to break things down into fundamental principles and having faith that there really are fundamental phenomena such as market forces that can control society for the best if they are allowed to operate unfettered. To me, this is just an absurd and ignorant proposition, but it's not surprising that you see people in tech get so hung up on this because it mirrors the rules that govern technology and especially computers and most particularly computer hardware.

        When you get right down to it, there's no question that what makes machine computing possible is the simplification of the input: that is the conversion from decimal to binary. Without the concept of binary numeracy, computing is simply too complicated. If you are willing to accept the premise that you can build everything else up from a binary number system including the letters of the alphabet and even arrays representing graphics and wave forms to represent sounds and scale it all up into extremely high definition representations of the analog world then you can easily delude yourself into the thought process that everything must be based upon similar fundamental principles and that the only way to govern behavior and society is to identify and rely upon those principles.

        As seductive as this is to people, it's really closed minded and ignorant of how we got to where we are today in terms of technology and society in general. The eighteenth century French mathematicians who laid the mathematical foundations for what would become digital signal processing such as Fourier were the models upon which the concept of communists were founded. Marx was totally in awe of these intellectuals who demonstrated the intellectual courage to overturn the simplistic ideas of paternalist monarchy which is really where the libertarians are closer to in their worship of imaginary gods like the invisible hand.

Re:source?

[sg3000]

> Can you cite your source for this data? Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?

Agreed. And I'm sure if anyone else disagrees with the author's assumption, we'll get to find out the question about how many moderators are libertarians.

I think it's a combination of a number of factors:

1. There is a relatively larger sampling of people willing to talk about being Libertarians, whereas other people aren't necessarily as vocal about their political party membership or whether or not they've adopted a term to conceptualize their political philosophy. Apparent over-representation isn't uncommon where you have a small group of vocal fanatical people.

2. People heavily involved in technology are probably less knowledgeable (nor even interested) in public policy and politics. For those people, Libertarianism provides a certain simplicity without nuance which can be appealing. In this way, Libertarianism is like Communism: fine in theory, but not attractive in practice.

3. People heavily involved in technology are younger with less experience: exactly the type of people who would find appeal in an economic/political movement characterized by simple messages (but with untested policy). In other words, bumper stickers that reinforce ideology are more interesting than policy analysis.

As for point #3, here's an old example. A couple of years ago on Slashdot, there was a discussion about 911 services [slashdot.org]. A presumed libertarian said that we ought to privatize 911 services and not provide it to everyone who can't pay (and let charity help the rest). I was getting my MBA at the time, and we had just covered heavy fixed cost models that illustrate textbook-perfect examples of situations where regulation is more economic beneficial to all parties than a voluntary purchase model. So I wrote a response [slashdot.org]. The result was very similar to the other times I've had a discussion with a Libertarian.

In that thread, I used a simplified example with hard numbers to show economically that the regulation case actually benefitted everyone (even if you excluded any altruism). What was interesting is that over the course of the thread, the Libertarians who responded did not do any quantitative analysis at all; they responded with simplistic slogans instead. They threw out a couple of half-baked ideas: tiered services model or vouchers for poor people (both easy to say, but with no hard details). For good measure, They sprinkled a few slogans: "There's absolutely no reason that the government needs to supply a monopoly service" and "An argument based on cost is 'bee reasoning'" and similar sentiments.

Re:source?

[demachina]

"People heavily involved in technology are younger with less experience: exactly the type of people who would find appeal in an economic/political movement characterized by simple messages"

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:

[Crash Culligan]

Write-up: Why do so many nerds seem to lean toward the Libertarian end of the spectrum?

j00r0m4nc3r: Can you cite your source for this data? Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?

Yes, please. I would love to see the source(s) for this data as well, but for different reasons. I'm primarily interested in seeing the procedures, metrics, and previous test results for the scientific test for nerdulence.

Nerditude...

Nerdacity?

Re:source?

[StrawberryFrog]

The vast majority of geeks that I know profess to be registered libertarians (including myself).

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:source?

[NekoXP]

I am guessing the reason for more libertarians amongst the geek is due to a higher then average IQ

Or it could be that most geeks are incredibly self-centered, self-aggrandising jerks?

Re:source?

[dubl-u]

I am guessing the reason for more libertarians amongst the geek is due to a higher then average IQ

Or it could be that most geeks are incredibly self-centered, self-aggrandising jerks?

Hey now. He didn't say Republicans. ;-)

Re:source?

[Dun Malg]

Yes, I do. The quesiton is do you? The only none corrupt politician is the one that was not a politician.

In particular, we no longer have the Washingtons, Lincolns, and JFKs who desired to do what is right For and By America.

Washington, I'll grant you. He was (ahem) a simple man who only accepted the job because it needed to be filled by someone people could stand behind nearly unanimously. He was a true Cincinnatus of his day. He was definitely not much of a politician.

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?

Carter and Poppa Bush were the last 2 that did what Amerca needed, and were voted out of office.

I'm not sure what you mean by Bush41--- his tax raising maybe?--- but you're completely off your nut with Carter. Carter was a bumbling fool. He did a lot of stupid "deckchair rearranging" with his micromanaging of government buildings' thermostats and decrees that christmas lights should be turned off at the white house, but he never acted like a dang leader. He called the country depressed with his infamous "malaise" speech! He banned breeder reactors as an empty gesture towards non-proliferation, knowing full well as a nuclear engineer that fuel reprocessing breeder reactors do not make weapons grade plutonium. He handed off the Panama canal to a dictatorial government with no requirement for them to hold free elections--- he just "urged" dictator Torrijos to move the country towards republicanism (he didn't). It wasn't until '89, when Bush41 booted Noriega, that Panama had a real popularly selected government. Carter was a wishy-washy ass of a president. A good man, sure, with an honest wish to do right; but totally out of his depth as president.

Rigidly defined areas of Doubt and Uncertainity

[infonography]

Vroomfondle: We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

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:Rigidly defined areas of Doubt and Uncertainity

[Paulrothrock]

As to the Left, the hippy stuff just bugs me that all. I don't like drum circles nuff said.

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:

[Brickwall]

Social Conservatives make me think of guys like Foley, Craig, and Limbaugh. Two faced jerks with a agenda of sleaze.

What?! One of these guys doesn't have a face?

Geeks are social liberals, but economically....

[Valdrax]

There are two reasons that geeks tend to be social liberals. First, they've generally experienced the short end of the stick with respect to the sort of social conformity that conservatives and populists like. Telling other people who to live their personal lives and what kinds of entertainment they should enjoy doesn't go over well with geeks. They also tend not to buy into the "pep rally" form of patriotism that social conservatives favor.

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?"

1. An inefficient government running roughshod over you (taxation, interference in property rights, tyranny of the majority, etc).
   
2. 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:

[Knuckles]

Yeah, just look at New Orleans outside of the French Quarter and tell me how well this works.

The same reason so many are socialists

[heinousjay]

Nerds are unrealistic when it comes to how human beings actually work. They seem to have some vision of people that is way closer to ideal than actually exists. What's more, most nerds I talk to recognize this even in themselves, yet persist in the delusion.

Re:The same reason so many are socialists

[realdodgeman]

Socialism does actually work. It is just the Americans who think that all socialism is communism who are wrong. In Norway we have a socialistic government, and we are currently rated as the best country in the world to live in. Also, socialistic health care has been proven many times to be the best.

In fact, most political ideas work, if they are not put to their extremes. USA is going towards a capitalistic extreme, witch can become just as bad as the communism they hate so much.

Re:The same reason so many are socialists

[Colin Smith]

There's a difference between socialism and social democrats. Your typical socialists would have everything nationalised, under the control of politicians. Typical social democrats will see that it makes sense to nationalise a few things here or there but leave the rest pretty much alone.

There are no socialist governments left in Europe.

 

Re:The same reason so many are socialists

[BlueParrot]

BULLSHIT!. I've lived in Oslo for the last 10 years or so, and let me give a bit more accurate explanation of the situation:

a)Norway's economy is mostly based on Oil revenue, a lot of which has been mismanaged so that billions have been lost.
b)Until recently there was a liberal right-wing coalition in charge and things worked fairly well.
c)After the last election, where the social-democrats, borderline communist left-wingers, and greens came to power, a number of problems have arisen. To mention a few examples:

Because the government introduced a max-price on private daycare centres in an effort to stop richer families from getting better service many private daycare centres have closed down or gone bankrupt resulting in a shortage of places all across Oslo. Economists predicted this years ago, but the government found their ideology more important than economic theory.

The government has been taken to the European court of human rights after they banned schools independent from the government from opening unless they had religious connections. Meanwhile educational results continue to plummet.

All over the country hospitals are heavily understaffed, resulting in Nurses and doctors being overworked and eventually being forced to register as sick as a result. 60-100 hours per week of working shifts is not uncommon. This is obviously a problem which amplifies itself.

Unemployment is high, and many find it difficult to get a job.

You know, Norway is in many ways VERY similar to the US. There are lots of problems, but "Norway is the best country in the world" is a truthiness which the people swallow with hook,line and sinker because the state sponsored media tells them so. Problems are the fault of "capitalists" despite the fact that even the right-wing parties in Norway want a welfare state, and while you are not a "terrorist" unless you support Israel, try saying it isn't all Israel's fault and sit back and wait until you're branded "capitalist" , "zionist", "racist" , "republican" or similar.

My impression of how things work over here is that you put on your Nike T-shirt, go get your lunch at Burger King, and then you harp on about how Americans are fat hamburger consuming morons and how all US politic sucks while Norway is the best country in the world. Then you go out and vote for a government which finds it acceptable to prohibit alternative education systems.

Yea, I'm no fan of the US, but Norway isn't exactly a heaven on earth either.

Re:The same reason so many are socialists

[terjeber]

Socialism does actually work. It is just the Americans who think that all socialism is communism who are wrong. In Norway we have a socialistic government

Hahahahahahaha... that gave me a good laugh. I didn't think there were people in Norway reading Slashdot that actually believes that chit. Oh well, I guess all nerds are not smart.

Now, before we get going on this, I was born in Norway, I lived in Norway for the first 30 years of my life, and I finally ran away. Couldn't take it any more. There is no country in the world where people are more full of them selves for absolutely no reason whatsoever (not talking about the Bergen population only, or at all in fact). I now live in the US, where people are not close to that full of them selves, not even in Texas, but there are other shortcomings. Some of which Americans share with Norwegians. More below.

Now, let's work on a myth. "Norway is the best country in the world to live in". It isn't. Never was. Not even close. The main reason Norway is awarded this title is that it has a very nice social system that encompasses everyone. This social system is financed by virtue of a lottery jackpot Norway hit in the late 1960s, oil in the North Sea. Since Norway won the lottery, more than half of the population has worked for the central or local government. Standards of living are generally high-ish in all of the country. People do not suffer. Other than that, there isn't all that much good about Norway. It is a beautiful place to visit though. If you can afford it, I'd recommend it. My family is there and my soccer team is there, but I am glad I am not. If you measure on more than social welfare, Norway doesn't come close to being "one of the really good places in the world to live" even.

Nobody in Norway excels. The only area where excellence is allowed is in sports. The Norwegian "constitution" is a law called The Jante Law [wikipedia.org]. In the rest of Scandinavia, this is what you call sarcasm, in Norway this law is more important than the real constitution. Anyone who tries to excel outside of sports is shot down immediately and ridiculed in all kinds of ways. Serious business men are made into fools by the media, while a mentally ret@rded "princess" [yahoo.com] is given all kinds of support.

Norway isn't the best country in the world to live in by any standards other than social welfare. This isn't, and will never be, the only measure of "best" in any way. It is just quantifiable, and it is therefore measured. The sad thing is that when a population that hardly travels beyond the borders of Mallorca (Spain for the uninitiated) are told they live in "the best country in the world", they actually believe it. In the western world, I think the only population that travels less outside of their own heads is the American population. In fact, Americans and Norwegians are limited in their views of the world in a way that is so similar it is scary. Sadly most Norwegians think that they are better than Americans in this regard too, they are not. A Norwegian is "well traveled" if he goes to southern Spain, Greece or Italy once every three years. This is about as "traveled" as a Texan who takes a vacation in Florida or California.

Now, the socialism that is so important to the Norwegian population actually works. Believe it or not. It is probably a good thing for a mediocracy (as opposed to a meritocracy). It also only works because Norway, as I said, won the lottery in the late 1960s. Struck oil as we say, but literally. For years Norway didn't do anything with this oil, British and US companies extracted it, and they were taxed heavily. This taxation made it possible to build a social system that protects the mediocre and cradles it. It has been protected and nourished to the level where it is now the ultimate goal. Meidiocracy (tm). Socialism rewards mediocrity. Norway is a so

Re:

[jbengt]

"Norway isn't the best country in the world to live in by any standards other than social welfare."
well, . . ok . . .

Re:The same reason so many are socialists

[smchris]

No, socialism _is_ communism. Ronald Reagan said so and every American under 40 was taught that from infancy and is incapable of believing anything else. A solution has not been put in place to deal with the degenerates who would try to weaken zie Homeland by trying to make people believe otherwise.

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:The same reason so many are socialists

[terjeber]

USA is going towards a capitalistic extreme, witch can become just as bad as the communism they hate so much.

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:The same reason so many are socialists

[Knuckles]

Bringing up the US is not "out of nowhere",but implied by the story submission. Nowhere else is the term "libertarian" even known, and your run-of-the-mill US libertarian would be classified as a nut-case (sometimes right-wing, sometimes left-wing) in Europe.

Re:

[Eunuchswear]

This is the problem with much of US war planning.

IKEA is a Swedish company.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your generalizations. Geek libertarians are the ones who fight against expanded anti-terrorism powers because they recognize humans aren't perfect and the system can be heavily abused. They also fight against privacy issues with handing your identity to a salesperson, government official, etc. Why? Because they recognize the world is NOT an ideal place and therefore the potential for abuse/misuse of personal information is an unwanted risk. They build safeguards and redundancies into visions

Re:

[Jesrad]

Nerds are unrealistic when it comes to how human beings actually work.

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:

[Scrameustache]

Please, beyond your faux-witty rhetorical device, how capitalism is in any way an idealistic philosophy.

You skipped over the verb for the action you request of me in your haste to post faux-intellectual put downs.

But I'll explain/demonstrate/illustrate/etc. anyway, 'cause I'm nice: The idielistic philosophy of capitalism is 'The market will fix EVERYTHING!'

Pollution? The market will fix that, don't bother looking at the entire history of the market to see that it systematically doesn't, just believe! Healthcare? The market! Racism? The market! It's like god, but it lets you buy your way into heaven [wikipedia.org].

Democracy is a wonderful thing...

[sane?]

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?

Since when are libertarians left wing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Europe they would be considered right wing nut jobs, certainly not left wing.

As to why they are so popular among geeks? Are they? Or are they simply a very vocal minority, owing to the fact that they have prescribed to a simple ideology that gives them the illusion to have easy answers even to complex problems?

LIberalism/Libertarianism *isn't* simple

[Colin Smith]

The fundamental concept of it is simple, and easily understood, but the the effects of it are complex, profound and clearly difficult to understand.

Lets take a flock of birds as an example. The flock itself is a complex, dynamic and extremely confusing system but the rules which govern that behaviour are very simple.

http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/ [red3d.com]

It's a similar principle with libertarianism, the result is emergent behaviour. The difference between socialists, conservatives and libertarians is that socialist

Re:

[N-icMa]

I can attest that libertarians (or ultra-liberals as we tend to call them where I live) are considered only a few pennies short of insane, but I can easily understand why they are prevalent in the American (USA) society.

First of all there is a historic precedent of ridiculing the left wing. During the Cold War so much anti-socialistic propaganda was spewed out in America, that the word has clear negative association. Calling national healthcare "socialized-medicine" is a good example of how anything non-pri

Re:Since when are libertarians left wing?

[Colin Smith]

I can attest that libertarians (or ultra-liberals as we tend to call them where I live) are considered only a few pennies short of insane, but I can easily understand why they are prevalent in the American (USA) society.

Actually. Libertarianism is very similar to classical liberalism. Most of those who call themselves liberal today are in fact social democrats, not liberal at all.

"To put it succinctly, the libertarian believes in the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives as they see fit, as long as they cause no harm to others, with minimal governmental interference."

Quoted from :http://nvnv.essortment.com/libertarianwhat_rcrx.h tm
 

that's quite a leading question.

[User 956]

As a leftist, I know there are many people who share my ideological views ... Is the community's political bent directly tied to our higher than average economic success?

First off, I don't agree that Libertarianism is "leftist" per-se. Secondly, I don't think income has anything to do with it. Constitutionalism/Libertarianism is simply a very logical conclusion, if one is of the opinion that the United States constitution is a very good document for the foundation of government. Given that "nerds" (as you call them) have an affinity for logic, I don't see why the two are such an unusual fit.

Re:that's quite a leading question.

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Bingo. Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian... not right or left. Libertarians can see that everything big government touches turns to shit. That's why they're libertarians.

Re:that's quite a leading question.

[evilviper]

Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian...

Not at all. Libertarianism leaves a power vacuum, into which large corporations would be only too happy to become the authorities.

Re:that's quite a leading question.

[heinousjay]

There wasn't even an implication that libertarianism is leftist, to me. As I read it, the submitter is a leftist who is confused about the perceived popularity of libertarianism, not a libertarian.

Re:

[vrmlguy]

I think that you need to re-read the question. The OP seemed to be saying that he is, himself, a leftist who has noticed that his leftist friends are rarely nerds and his nerd friends are usually libertarians. As for myself, I'm old enough to have watched Armstrong step onto the moon on live television [youtube.com]. I'm pretty sure that I was a libertarian well before I achieved any economic success, which I attribute to an early exposure to the works of Robert A. Heinlein [heinleinsociety.org].

Re:that's quite a leading question.

[happyemoticon]

I think you're misunderstanding the original post (which is easy; it's not very clearly written). Rephrasing:

Most tech nerds I know are libertarians. Most of my fellow socialists/communists whom I know are hipsters and artists and hippies and drama dorks, and have no technical background. Why is this the case?

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.

Truly libertarian though?

[Televiper2000]

But, are they really libertarian or do they just use the word?

More than just "left" and "right"

[goldspider]

If you see political ideologies as a one-dimensional spectrum, you aren't paying enough attention. Educate yourself. [theadvocates.org]

Re:

[MobyDisk]

And take the test at The Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] as well.

Pampered weenies!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

All about freedom

[E++99]

Nerds are particularly sensitive to individual liberty, because they tend to want to think and act in ways that deviate from the norm -- that is, break new ground and innovate, whether scientifically, technologically, or philosophically. So they are very aware that if society is to dictate some small number of acceptable ways of thinking or acting, then their ways, being unique, will not be among the acceptable ones. Therefore a libertarian society is the only type in which they are free to innovate.

Correlation, not causation

[Jesrad]

It's not that being a nerd makes one a libertarian, or that being a libertarian magically transforms one into a nerd (though I hear it can do wonders to your, err, self-confidence).

There is a common cause to this politicial leaning and that way of life called "the nerd way". One hint is that the overwhelming majority (75% approximately) of all the libertarians I know are categorised in the "*NT*" part of the MBTI [wikipedia.org], meaning they are all Thinking rather than Feeling, and iNtuitive rather than Sensing. For example INTJ is the archetype of nerd.

That makes them more inclined to think about theory and complex problems, than what their colleague thinks of their look or how a given principle will make them feel about themselves. When you apply this to politics, that means they'll be looking at society, economics, justice, right and law with a mind that is non-pragmatic but dedicated to finding the actual truth. They will often develop complete theoretical structures for explaining their choices, because they are easily swayed by a convincing, rational argument, however obscure ; and not by a popular soundbite or appeals to emotion.

Libertarianism is one such political interpretation: it leaves little to no place to emotional reaction, does not call upon popularity, and instead builds on the strictest rational analysis (it's not a secret that Ayn Rand was obsessed with acting as rationnally as possible, to the point of obsession) and "heavy" theoretical considerations about "what actually is justice", "how economy actually works", etc.

Re:

[Jesrad]

"Is not finding the actual truth pragmatic? When one has the actual truth, one can then proceed to the pragmatic solution, no?"

Oh, the solutions they come up with are often very pragmatic and direct, with very concrete proposals like "getting rid of farm subsidies", "striking down laws forbidding the creation of competing currencies", "selling all the public schools". Some of them even have gradual solutions that involve pragmatic changes in current institutions.

It's just that they don't come to it pragmati

Re:

[Dan Hayes]

Well, going by history, a libertarian society would almost certainly turn back into some kind of social democracy soon enough.

1. correlation != causation, 2.Correlation !proved

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

1. First you have not proved or shown any data to the claims that nerdier people are more economically successful or for the claim that they tend to be libertarians.

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.

Geeks and Politics

[AnarchoAl]

I know geeks with many different politics. The one thing we have in common is that we all approach the political question from a logical, systems-analysis angle. That's why so many geeks want radical changes in society - we're interested in root causes and want our beliefs to be founded on a set of basic principles, because if those principles are logical then everything we derive from them will be logical too. A mock-scientific approach.

A large section of American geekdom is right-libertarian. This is because (a) certain things about US culture and the US economic setup mean that right-libertarianism looks the most viable option to many people and (b) a strong sense of and desire for liberty and a knowledge of historical tyrannies encourage them to look for a libertarian option - and they come upon the axiom of free individuals forming contracts with each other freely - essentially classical liberalism.

So, why are so many geeks right-libertarian?

• Geeks tend to like systematic explanations with logical axioms
• Many geeks are American
• American culture encourages viewing freedom to trade as an essential freedom
• Right-libertarianism is an internally-consistent, logically structured social theory

Of course, there are plenty of geeks who are Republicans or Democrats or Greens or Communists or Anarchists in the US too. In Europe we have many social democrats ("liberals"), greens and far-left types.

I'm a geek and a libertarian myself, but I'm a left-libertarian. An "Anarchist Socialist". I think the flaw in right-libertarianism is that contracts are rarely freely entered into. If I have $1m and you have $100, I can easily get you to enter into a $200/week contract - I can bully you in the market through greater control of resources. I think its important to differentiate between personal property and productive capital. My computer should be mine; only I use it. My workplace should be equally mine with my co-workers; we all use that productive capital. My community should be held in common with my neighbours. I see landlords and the bourgeoisie* as parasites, living off our labour.

Of course I'm the same as the rest of the geeks, looking for a consistent system and solid axioms before deciding my political beliefs. In my case, it's a fanatical belief in democracy that has led me to my position - if we wouldn't tolerate a dictatorship, why do we tolerate not being able to elect our bosses? If electing politicians isn't democratic (and it's not), couldn't we place the base of power in mass meetings in workplaces and communities, and federate them?

* As in Marx's class system, which is class division based on power, not wealth (except in that wealth is power)
Proletariat: the class that has to sell its labour to survive
Bourgeoisie: the class that purchases the labour of the proletariat, and does not have to work

What about us libertines?

[G3ckoG33k]

What about us libertines? Don't we have a place in this scheme too?

What is "Libertarianism"

[flajann]

My definition of "libertarianism" stands from a firm principle of "live and let live". That is, everyone is free to do what they want as long as they are not doing any direct harm to others against their will.

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.

They don't

[DynaSoar]

"Why do so many nerds seem to lean toward the Libertarian end of the spectrum?"

Very few of anyone, nerds or not, lean towards the Libertarian end of the spectrum. This may be due to most people catching onto the inherent contradiction in thinking that (a) many people think like they do and (b) many people ought to think like they do. A CATO article about the 2004 and 2006 elections makes lots of noise about numbers like 10% and 20% for all kinds of reasons they seem to enjoy, before finally admitting a Rassmusen poll showed the real numbers to be about 2%. If the numbers varied as widely as CATO claimed for the various reasons given, the error bar would be so large as to make it all meaningless. I think this is the case.

The CATO article even tried to claim Jon Stewart for their own: "In a revealing exchange, Jon Stewart recently hosted neoconservative Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard on the Daily Show, often considered the de facto television news program for younger viewers. Kristol called Stewart an "Upper West Side liberal." To which Stewart quickly responded, "No, I'm a downtown libertarian."

I am reminded of Jon Stewart's commercial of a few years back, talking about people getting their news from The Daily Show. He ended the commercial by yelling "DON'T DO THAT. WE MAKE IT UP." He's a comedian. His show is on Comedy Central. File this as an example under the "they think people think like they do" part of the problem, along with CATO's over-confidence in badly done statistics.

I suspect another error in thinking, that of "if you criticize, you must disagree" has kicked in by now. Nothing I've said indicates my own political position. I've found many Libertarians to be particularly susceptible to this problem despite their claim to individualism in thinking. It makes Libertarianism look for all the world like a dogma of open mindedness. Still, that's way more fun than the dogma of narrow mindedness most others seem to fall into.

Not many, just loud...

[evilviper]

It's not that there are a lot of libertarian nerds, it's just that the libertarians shout the loudest and, well, most dense, as they ignore all rational arguments that might discredit their views.

You're probably right about the affluence argument though, a disproportionate number seem to be the "I got mine" crowd, who know that they will be on the top of the pyramid, benefiting rather than suffering from the vast inequality that libertarianism will cause.

The truth...

[topham]

The truth is; and this goes for a wide-spectrum of political beliefs although I think it has a bias to the left...

Everybody thinks everybody else is just like themselves. They think that because they wouldn't choose to interfere with other peoples lives that people won't choose to interfere with theirs.

Then you get the far-right; the people who know that people will try to screw with their lives. They know this, because thats what they do. Of course, they also believe everyone else is just like them too. They tend to get paranoid when people aren't screwing with them.

They're both oblivious

[bytesex]

Because so many nerds are oblivious to society, and libertarianism is a very oblivious political philosophy. It starts off with assuming anarchy, and then replaces any occurence of 'violence' with 'money'. Never mind that a libertarian society would inherit an old system in which people already have, or don't have a lot of money. Never mind that people would like to be able to _trust_ certain institutions a tad beyond 'I've paid them'. Never mind that people expect all sorts of emotional things from leaders that money won't ever be able to buy.

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:Why ask why?

[smallfries]

Why does he ask? Let me tidy up his submission a litte:

Dear Slashdot,
We haven't had a really good flamefest for ages. As all flames end up in political arguments, and all political arguments end up being about Libertarians. Can we just cut out the middle man and get to the good stuff?

Yours expectantly,
A troll who got a story through firehose

Re:

[Knuckles]

that creativity is not a group project. It is about the individual.

Yeah, that's why everyone uses something called "teams". An many musicians work in "bands".

Re:

[2.7182]

And that's why "teams" are so inefficient. And bands are science. They primeval sexual rituals.

Look, you want to understand quantum field theory, then no child left behind ain't gonna work for you. It's not about making sure everyone feels like a winner.

Re:Because we all know

[Brickwall]

How do you think people study at Oxford? Reading books, and then discussing them one-on-one with their dons (and perhaps, even often, informally, with their fellow students).

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:

[Scrameustache]

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.

Everything you said made perfect sense, but the second hand smoke issue... let's say you disagree with the cancer risk, fine, but it still hurts. It physically hurts the eyes, the throat, the lungs. Smoking has been banned indoors in public around here for a bit over a year, and I've never been out so much (and the crod is huge where I go out). The smokers still smoke, outside, they are as free as they've ever been, but the non-smokers now have the freedom to go out without being forced to smoke.

So, I'm no

If they don't like my airhorn, they can leave?

[Scrameustache]

If you don't like someone smoking in the bar or restaurant, which is a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS, that you wish to go to, too bad if they are. You don't have to go there if you don't like it, why should other people be forced to act a certain way just because you don't like what they do.

If I'm sitting in a restaurant and someone comes in and lights cigarette, your argument just tuned to smoke.
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:If they don't like my airhorn, they can leave?

[Wordsmith]

You went out into a publicly accessible private place that has no stated policy against smoking. You knew it could happen, and you went there anyway.

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.

On the illusion of free choice

[Scrameustache]

If you hate smoking, as I do, patronize businesses that have no-smoking policies

You assume that option exists.

Re:

[hedwards]

Why are so many nerds libertarian? Because you can't code by rote. You can't create or develop a new application following someone else's rules. It requires individual thought, individual judgement, and individual spirit - exactly the same qualities that caused you to be either bored to tears, or jeered at, or socially ostracized at school. So when you finally come to political awareness, and realize that the GOP and the Dems are two sides of the same coin - both of them take your money, lie to you, and shove crap down your throat, while they live high on the hog on your dime (I'm not going to say which side is worse; to me, they're both squalid), you're eager to find a personal philosophy that avoids their traps. Libertarians are basically socially progressive and financially conservative. It seems like a logical philosophy, and we're basically logical people.

I think this gets to the nub of it. I wondered for many years why it was that people would vote for republicans. It was more or less a total mystery, then I realized that as incompetent as the GOP candidates are in my area, that the democrats are probably equally incompetent in GOP controlled areas.

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 le

Re:Because we all know

[Bluesman]

The Republican party as it exists right now has completely abandoned all conservative principles.

I would vote Republican every time if people like Tom Coburn or Ron Paul typified a Republican. Unfortunately, they do not.

In fact, I think those two would be quite at home in the Libertarian party, except that they'd never get elected.

Re:Because we all know

[defile]

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.

This is a perfectly reasonable philosophy but Libertarians apply it very narrowly. Two, three hundred years ago an individual sitting on his property minding his own business had virtually no ability to impact the people around him. He could swear at passerbys, throw rocks, or maybe even shoot at them. In some extreme cases he might live uphill from a settlement and cut down trees all day and all night until he had a huge pile of logs that he could unleash on the unsuspecting town below. Someone this hell-bent on causing destruction is rather rare and the destruction is rather limited, so the society could afford to extend so much autonomy to the individual. The risks were really low.

The world is a lot different now. Technology has vastly amplified the power any individual can exert over their larger society. Lets assume the extreme case now: plenty of individuals have the resources to build a nuclear reactor on their property. Can society afford to butt out and ignore the risk that his reactor could explode and poison the environment for hundreds of miles in every direction? Good God, no. We restrict their autonomy in mob-like fashion (maybe unreasonably so, I like nuclear power) because the risks are so high.

Libertarians might say society will do fine as long as everyone minds their own balance sheet.

But in today's society the free market is essentially broken. The true costs of every transaction are not being accurately reflected.. The environmental damage caused by burning a gallon of gas is not paid by anyone that is a party to the transaction. Additionally, a future that forever will have one less gallon of gas is a cost that isn't paid at transaction time either. Right now we discount the future so highly that destroying a finite resource somehow has a non-infinite price. It is only lately that each transaction carries such hidden costs because it is only lately we have such awesome technology and so much individual power.

In the aggregate our wealth is diminishing, and because these losses aren't appearing on any individual's balance sheet is exactly why the Libertarian argument has to be rejected.

Re:Because we all know

[roman_mir]

So by your logic the society must act as one, it has to have a well defined path to non-destruction and respect of the future and so on and such. What if many many many people do not want to follow your logic, do not agree with it, don't care about it, hate it actually? Well then, as many socialist radicals have shown, in your mind your logic works for the betterment of society (whatever you assume it is, depends on your environment.) At some point you will become frustrated that so many many many people are not with you on your set of issues. Will you then decide that they are lesser of human for not thinking the way you do? Will you decide that they should be shown 'the light'? What if they reject your light? Will you decide to take them their even against their will? What if they resist? Will you decide that means justify the ends? Will you decide that it is OK to sacrifice some now, to build a better, new society later on? Will you stop once you killed 1 person for your cause? 10 people? 1000 people? 1000000000 people? How many does it take? So called Communist regimes of our recent past and our current future have not hesitated, what makes you different?

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:Because we all know

[version5]

So by your logic the society must act as one, it has to have a well defined path to non-destruction and respect of the future and so on and such. What if many many many people do not want to follow your logic, do not agree with it, don't care about it, hate it actually?

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:Because we all know

[rsmah]

Brickwall wrote: "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 grateful)."

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:

[vcalzone]

I absolutely agree with the liberty part of libertarian, particularly when it comes to personal freedoms. The problem I have with it is the logic that you (not you specifically) don't owe society anything because your life reached its only natural conclusion, and that in any other circumstance, you would have still pulled through. Hogwash. Did you use anything created by society? Doctors? Public schools? Roads? If so, you have an obligation to provide for that society when you succeed. Capitalism is not an

Quick Point

[Bastardchyld]

Mod down. Not only is he just spouting the same cliche talking points that have existed forever, but they are also completely baseless claims. Not to mention that not a single person here is an actual libertarian, because most don't seem to truly understand what it means to be a libertarian. It's not just "socially progressive and financially conservative." It's a lot more complicated, and frankly insidious, than that.

Disagreement is not a category for Modding. If you would like to debate one or more of his points then please do... Don't just say you said this and this is wrong. Come up with actual points of your own...

So Mod Parent Down, Mod Grand Parent Up.

I don't agree with everything that the Grandparent said, however he was well spoken and backed up his statements with evidence (however anecdotal).

Re:Because we all know

[PietjeJantje]

Grandparent had quite an elaborate opinion (thank you for sharing). Do you care to address these baseless claims, misunderstanding and complications? Because otherwise, why would I care for your announcement which shortly states you disagree, but not why you disagree? Grandparent allows for an interesting discussion, parent doesn't.

Re:

[Planesdragon]

Every four years, my wife tells me I'm just throwing away my vote; I respectfully disagree.

You're right. You're not only throwing away your vote, you're ceeding responsibility to select the next elected official, and encouraging said official to simply ignore you.

Especially if you only vote every four years.

Americans who belong to third parties are exercising their Constitutional right of free association. Americans who vote for a third party's luck-to-get-one-percent candidates, though, are just being fo

Re:Because we all know

[canadian_right]

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:

[Anonymous Coward]

I was definitely not ever told to slow down or anything of that sort. If I wanted to jump ahead in class that was discouraged because it would hurt others by leaving the majority of the class behind.

I think you just made his point for him!

Re:Because we all know

[Wordsmith]

Inherent to any political philosophy that's based on ideals, not pragmatism, is the acceptance that sometimes society will be worse off in certain ways if the philosophy is followed. I'm a libertarian, but I don't believe a true free market would magically protect everyone - I recognize there's a risk of increased poverty and stratification (although I'm not convinced that's actually the inevitable result). I just think the government intervention needed to prevent it is MORE unjust than allowance of the natural processes that cause it. I don't see the government's role as to try and cure social ills; it's there to prevent people from violating one another's rights, and to prevent foreign invasion. Anything beyond that requires it to create some injustices in the name of addressing others.

Re:

[demachina]

There are a lot better ways to educate gifted and self motivated students than shoving them in regimented classrooms, especially now that we have these new fangled computers and networks. You could almost certainly build a better system for gifted kids if you took something like the MIT on line courseware and developed it. For example add elementary and secondary school level equivalents. Back those courses with on line tutors like the tutors in India a lot of kids are using today to help them through par

Re:

[demachina]

That works as long as you are always right. The one advantage to team work is individuals aren't infallible and don't have infinite knowledge. The one big advantage to a good team is someone else might know a better way to do something, or see the flaws in your approach and help you correct them before you do something stupid.

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

Re:Lennon/McCartney

[MightyMartian]

Good example (though they rarely composed together after about 1964). It really boggles my mind the level of self-assured ignorance that so many "geeks" have. They think a mastery of software and/or hardware somehow gives them insight into every area of human endeavor. They share that horrible disease with engineers, who also tend to pontificate on things quite beyond their experience.

Because we're surrounded by facsists

[Simonetta]

We're libertarians because we're surrounded by fascists. Ask any 20 yr old who has been systematically denied federal student loans because they were arrested for possession of cigarette rolling papers or a plexiglass tube. Ask any 30 year old who can't get health care for their two year old infant because their company demands $500 a month for 'coverage of dependents' on a $11 hr salary. Ask any forty year old who was thrown out of the military or good job that they did well because they were a sexual mi

Stupid Book

[thegnu]

Yeah, I started to read it once, and I couldn't get past the first section, which goes something like this:

Who is Milton Farbley? In the days of his youth his tongue would dry out and the dryness would make him hate the world. But was it the world he hated, or himself? Was it that he was poor, and therefore stupid? Now, old, his ass chapped from all the walking around, he started to question if other people weren't as unbearably lame as he himself.

And so I skipped ahead about 50 pages:

and it was all like, the betrayal perpetrated by Susan was pleasing to her uterus. It made it squinch tight like a ball of rubber bands when she twisted the...

Then another 50...

John couldn't bear to look at himself. Weathered features not even barely covering up an expression of rank stupidity that peirced his stupid soul with it's stupid stupidity. God how John hates himself.

Then another 50...

...but why? the steamy night was fucking unpleasant, and she could only bear to breathe shallowly while thinking of how stupid and goddamn filthy other people were. God--if there is in fact a God--how she hates those fucking people.

And so on. I'm pretty sure I got a good idea of the point of the book without having to subject myself to more than 40 random paragraphs or so. Everyone I've ever met that says they idolize Ayn Rand turns out to be a self-involved, spoiled whore.

God I hate her. But truly, do I hate her more than I hate myself? It was a muggy, shitty Sunday in St Petersburg, FL, and he began to question whether he was just posting to slashdot in a vain attempt to eke a teensy bit of self-recognition out of the Internet once again, or did he really believe that posting some inane bullshit about Ayn Rand was truly noteworthy?

He got up from his mother's computer;smelled the stale milk from the bottom of his empty coffee cup. God, he had to take a shit. And he bets it's going to be smelly, because God is spiteful like that....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Because we all know

[bigpat]

Right, and all her characters, even the good guys, are unbelievable flat. There is scarcely any character development, the souls of these people have no depth, they have no hidden desires, no demons that haunt them, etc. In short,they are not at all like real people, which makes it just bad writing and a bad idea to hinge a theory of the real world on it. It's enjoyable though, like Star Trek.

I thought the character of Hank Rearden was well developed. A lot of inner conflict, sexual tension with the protagonist, a lot of social tension with those whom were living off of his work. Really i thought the four main characters were pretty well developed, except for John Galt being somewhat engimatic and aloof.

No, it is not a book to run the world on. It did become somewhat farcical in the end when society falls apart. But we have seen societies fall apart like that in very similar ways during real revolutions. All in all I think she did a good job of showing how political corruption can eventually cause social chaos and upheaval and the personal toll that it causes people when their dignity is taken away.

I have just spent way too much time googling for a comic that someone once linked in a /. comment. It was possibly titled "Atlas Shrugged, the sequel", or "Atlas Shrugged, Part II", or similar. It tells the story, in approx. one page, of how the story continued after all the Atlas heroes had settled down in their mountain seclusion: after some bragging of how they finally had gotten rid of all the useless people, they discover that they actually have no clue how to do all the mundane every-day tasks these people had done for them, like actually producing metals, cooking, or cleaning up. They all end up having to work the fields, muttering about how much it sucks.
It was hilarious, and an extremely to-the-point comment on the shortcomings of Rand's "philosophy".

Well, I partially agree that there were short comings in her philosophy as it relates to the real world. Especially, today we live in a very differentiated society where no one person knows how to do every job. I think those of us in any work situation were we rely on others and then change jobs or companies know how startling it is when we suddenly have to do something that seemed easy when other people were doing it.

But I think that is partially portrayed in the book when Dagny Taggart is thrown into that new society and there are no railroads to run, so the first thing she can do in order to make her way is to clean dishes and be John Galt's maid. And it wasn't as if all the 'haves' are portrayed as being superior to the 'have nots'. In fact, the real villains of the book are the ones that do not attain their wealth through being smarter and more hard working than everyone else, but through advancement through interpersonal relations and political capital. If anything it is the corrupting influence of favor without merit that is the villain of Atlas Shrugged. Actual working people are very much portrayed as the unwitting victims in the book, which is an unfavorable treatment in some cases, but it is those that expect others to take care of them and tell them what to do which are treated most harshly. But there is a lot in that book for everyone, even its critics, to find.

Oh and having a near limitless and clean source of power certainly helps when trying to set up your own little enclave in the mountains.

Re:Because we all know

[Anonymous Coward]

> *** 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 /. comment. It was possibly titled "Atlas Shrugged, the sequel", or "Atlas Shrugged, Part II", or similar. It tells the story, in approx. one page, of how the story continued after all the Atlas heroes had settled down in their mountain seclusion: after some bragging of how they finally had gotten rid of all the useless people, they discover that they actually have no clue how to do all the mundane every-day tasks these people had done for them, like actually producing metals, cooking, or cleaning up. They all end up having to work the fields, muttering about how much it sucks. It was hilarious, and an extremely to-the-point comment on the shortcomings of Rand's "philosophy".
>
>It was hilarious, and an extremely to-the-point comment on the shortcomings of Rand's "philosophy".

You're after Bob the Angry Flower [angryflower.com].

BTAF is one of the funniest web comics I've ever read, but Stephen Notley mustn't have read the book too closely. The cartoon's still funny, but you have to ignore the fact that he got it precisely wrong.

*** spoiler warning ***

One of the key plot points in Atlas Shrugged is how John Galt (and other characters) managed to hide themselves when recruiting followers from the rest of society. They did so by working precisely the sorts of menial jobs that the BTAF cartoon implies they couldn't. They gave society what it wanted: their labor. They withheld from society what it needed: their mind.

Atlas Shrugged is about what happens when genius goes on strike. You can pass laws that force a man to work, but you can't pass laws that force him to invent. Suppose you're a nuclear researcher. If you're a capitalist (in the Randroid, "never take a dime from the government, and never owe it a dime in taxes" sense), a nuclear power plant provides you a much better return on investment. A nuclear bomb, by contrast, is only useful to a non-profit operation. To a capitalist, nuking a city is a terrible waste of potential (or actual!) customers, employees, and factories. To a government, it's just a policy decision to be made for the greater good.

Would WW2 have been lost (apart from a few million more casualties in the invasion of Japan) had the nuclear scientists of the day simply gone on strike, working at burger joints, riveting aircraft together, or casting bullets and turning shell casings on lathes, and passing on the really interesting jobs until after the war was over?

(Where Rand fails is that although she's half-right -- you can't compel genius to invent -- she's just as half-wrong, in that one of the hallmarks of genius is that not even the genius can compel himself not to invent. People like Teller had to invent the H-Bomb, even though WW2 was over, and the Cold War had barely begun. Open source developers had to invent Linux, GCC, and so on, and would have invented something much like it even in the absence of non-Free UNIXes and Microsoft.)

As for the literary criticism, it's valid -- but only up to the point. Stop assuming it's a novel, and start assuming it's a philosophical system masquerading as a novel, and the cardboard characters become much more forgivable. Much like the animals in Animal Farm, they're not there to entertain you, they're there to make a point. The scariest thing is that the talking heads on the TV sound more and more like her villains (and Orwell's) every day.

Re: RNC and DNC

[NReitzel]

I don't think it's germane to talk about either the RNC or DNC has having anything whatsoever to do with ideology. Both groups are about power, and ideology is just one of the tools that they use to extort votes from their adherents.

In my not-so-humble opinion, both groups are fully corrept and the United States could benefit greatly if we gave them swords (or suicide vests) and let them kill each other off. They are the modern-day national equivalent of the Bloods and Crips, and have nothing whatever to

Re:Capitalism :D

[flajann]

The definitions of certain words have changed over the years.

What we call "liberal" today is really *socialist*, what what used to be called "liberal" is now called "libertarian".

As far as capitalism goes, we don't have pure capitalism, either. And as far as capitalism "working" really depends on where you sit. I am sure the pan handlers I see everyday on the streets of Boston would say capitalism has failed. :-)

The real issue is power, and how power has distributed itself. In today's capitalist-driven world, politics is a joke, really. People are given the illusion of "democracy", as if their votes actually mattered. They are thrown bones daily to keep them from rioting whilst the powercrats rule and control to levels that would make any tyrant in our past green with envy!

A deeper issue of all this comes from understanding the entire system in terms of memetics, evolution, complex dynamical adaptive systems, and the like. I am currently working on a unifying mathematical system to tie all of this together, And so far the picture I am getting is truly frightening.

After my work with hypercells -- what I am calling this new mathematical system -- is complete, I will then attempt to devise an alternative power system -- one, I hope, which will deliver the maximum amount of power back to the hands of individuals and out of the hands of powercrats. Power that is self-distributed according to *need*, not greed.

But I have spoken too soon on this and for fear of looking like an utter crank will hold off revealing more until my work is much more fully congealed.

Re:

[jollyreaper]

Also, I converted to Objectivism when I was 12 years old, before I had money.

Or a rational mind. It's a shame when such a thing happens so young.