Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?(geolib.com)
geolib.com
Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
9 comments
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but is your comment intended to imply that libertarianism is associated with being unconcerned with the "problems facing communities and the under-privileged"? Might libertarians merely believe that there are better, fairer, more efficient ways to solve these problems than the application of government?
You're right, I should not have worded my comment in such a way because I did not want to start an argument around that particular topic.
To better phrase it: I feel that the problems being solved with software on this community, while valuable, are typically addressed at other geeks, upper-middle class consumers, entrepreneurs, and the startup community.
I think we can agree that nearly no discussions on this site center around using our technical expertise at solving the problems facing those who are impoverished, ill, unemployed, discriminated-against, and/or facing extreme difficulty accessing the sort of quality of life many of us enjoy. Much of the solutions here have either low relevance or high barriers of entry (be it cost, technology, or educational background) for that population.
I'm seeking a community, be it a hackerspace, online community, conference, or similar that focuses on solutions that are driven more by social impact than profit.
While I disagree with libertarians on many issues, I did not mean to say that they do not consider these problems. I apologize
To better phrase it: I feel that the problems being solved with software on this community, while valuable, are typically addressed at other geeks, upper-middle class consumers, entrepreneurs, and the startup community.
I think we can agree that nearly no discussions on this site center around using our technical expertise at solving the problems facing those who are impoverished, ill, unemployed, discriminated-against, and/or facing extreme difficulty accessing the sort of quality of life many of us enjoy. Much of the solutions here have either low relevance or high barriers of entry (be it cost, technology, or educational background) for that population.
I'm seeking a community, be it a hackerspace, online community, conference, or similar that focuses on solutions that are driven more by social impact than profit.
While I disagree with libertarians on many issues, I did not mean to say that they do not consider these problems. I apologize
I see your concern over the impoverished and unfortunate people. I assume you consider that their problems are, at least partly, a consequence of poor wealth distribution and poor governance of the powers that be.
Libertarians, as much as most other political thinkers (of non-Machiavelli type) care about roughly the same thing: well-being of people. It just so happens that the libertarian discourse is usually concentrated around rather deep root causes: unjust property laws, the seizure of power and wealth by the elite, obstacles built by elites that prevent people from producing their own subsistence.
This is a bit different from, let's call it, philanthropic discourse that usually concentrates on more immediate problems, e.g. providing hunger relief or better education in affected regions. These problems can be very serious and long-term (like elimination of diseases that may take decades) but usually are not about principal changes in the structure of the society.
There are, of course, other schools of thought that offer deep social changes to help people live better. But a significant number of geeks is attracted by libertarian ideas because they are so minimalist (as compared to e.g. socialism, as seen in much of Europe) and so pro-freedom (as compared to e.g. corporate etatism as seen e.g. in Singapore or Russia).
On topic: unfortunately, I don't know about a philanthropic geek community hub. My philanthropic activity is limited to monetary donations. But you could ask IT people from philanthropic projects, e.g. watsi.com; probably they know where like-minded people congregate.
Libertarians, as much as most other political thinkers (of non-Machiavelli type) care about roughly the same thing: well-being of people. It just so happens that the libertarian discourse is usually concentrated around rather deep root causes: unjust property laws, the seizure of power and wealth by the elite, obstacles built by elites that prevent people from producing their own subsistence.
This is a bit different from, let's call it, philanthropic discourse that usually concentrates on more immediate problems, e.g. providing hunger relief or better education in affected regions. These problems can be very serious and long-term (like elimination of diseases that may take decades) but usually are not about principal changes in the structure of the society.
There are, of course, other schools of thought that offer deep social changes to help people live better. But a significant number of geeks is attracted by libertarian ideas because they are so minimalist (as compared to e.g. socialism, as seen in much of Europe) and so pro-freedom (as compared to e.g. corporate etatism as seen e.g. in Singapore or Russia).
On topic: unfortunately, I don't know about a philanthropic geek community hub. My philanthropic activity is limited to monetary donations. But you could ask IT people from philanthropic projects, e.g. watsi.com; probably they know where like-minded people congregate.
You say Libertarians are focused on "unjust property laws", but sadly most Libertarians these days seem to be royal libertarians, supporting land as private property where the owner is 100% sovereign and are opposed to such things as inheritance tax on land. If you agree with the arguments of this article (I do), this is fundamentally unjust property law. People who don't own land are at the mercy of land owners and so are not free. The Mathew Effect ensures that land ownership becomes more and more concentrated, contributing greatly (if not mostly) to the extremely poor distribution of wealth that we see today.
What are your opinions of the article's arguments?
What are your opinions of the article's arguments?
May I suggest two other narratives that don't involve politics behind "the problems being solved ... are typically addressed at other geeks, upper-middle class consumers, entrepreneurs, and the startup community."?
Why geeks, upper-middle-class, etc? That's where the perception of easy money is, and you see a lot of it here because this is one of the target audiences.
Why startup community or fellow geeks? There is a mantra to solve a problem you have, which means there are a lot of geek- or startup-related apps.
I would also ask you to believe that there are many people who are working on products outside of the "consumer app" space that doesn't advertise, per se, on this site.
Why geeks, upper-middle-class, etc? That's where the perception of easy money is, and you see a lot of it here because this is one of the target audiences.
Why startup community or fellow geeks? There is a mantra to solve a problem you have, which means there are a lot of geek- or startup-related apps.
I would also ask you to believe that there are many people who are working on products outside of the "consumer app" space that doesn't advertise, per se, on this site.
No one is disputing that people believe that. People dispute that its in any way true in many cases.
Which did better for "communities and the under-privileged", Socialist North Korea or Capitalist South Korea?
What about comparing under-privileged from 1917 to 1988 in USA vs. Russia?
Do you have any counter-examples?
What about comparing under-privileged from 1917 to 1988 in USA vs. Russia?
Do you have any counter-examples?
Libertarianism hardly maintains the monopoly on Capitalism. Socialism itself was never in practice in North Korea especially (which could barely even be considered Communist), nor anywhere else in the world, really.
Remember that Marx's "Socialism" was the utopian part that came after "Communism" where people would simply contribute what they could willingly, and take only what they needed gratefully.
Like other utopian fantasies this has never been accomplished on any large scale in any society anywhere.
While I certainly agree with you that free-market capitalism is much better macroeconomics, it's important to remember that just as the military is not the end-all/be-all of "winning wars" (just look at Iraq or Vietnam for proof), neither is capitalism the sole societal device needed for "the general welfare".
If nothing else, government has a big role to play in ensuring that vigorous competition actually is present in a free market (witness the disaster of having a few large banks "too big to fail" due to previous deregulation). They also ensure that "externalities" in operating a given business are not charged to the public at large. Government has also typically proven much better at helping to provide things the public needs that don't have short-term profit potential, yet eventually prove necessary for a stronger economy. Free public education, extensive infrastructure, etc. in the Western democracies is a very large reason why the entrepreneurs can rely on there even being available a workforce with the needed knowledge, skills and abilities (to use an HR term).
Just like anything else it's possible to have too much government, but that's essentially axiomatic.
Remember that Marx's "Socialism" was the utopian part that came after "Communism" where people would simply contribute what they could willingly, and take only what they needed gratefully.
Like other utopian fantasies this has never been accomplished on any large scale in any society anywhere.
While I certainly agree with you that free-market capitalism is much better macroeconomics, it's important to remember that just as the military is not the end-all/be-all of "winning wars" (just look at Iraq or Vietnam for proof), neither is capitalism the sole societal device needed for "the general welfare".
If nothing else, government has a big role to play in ensuring that vigorous competition actually is present in a free market (witness the disaster of having a few large banks "too big to fail" due to previous deregulation). They also ensure that "externalities" in operating a given business are not charged to the public at large. Government has also typically proven much better at helping to provide things the public needs that don't have short-term profit potential, yet eventually prove necessary for a stronger economy. Free public education, extensive infrastructure, etc. in the Western democracies is a very large reason why the entrepreneurs can rely on there even being available a workforce with the needed knowledge, skills and abilities (to use an HR term).
Just like anything else it's possible to have too much government, but that's essentially axiomatic.
I don’t think you quite understand what this argument is about. People who are not libertarians and opposed to their views are frequently not opposed to free markets, for example.
For example, I’m about as socialist as it gets, but I think free markets are an enormously powerful and efficient tools and that, in the grand scheme of things, they have been a huge net-win for the world. I just don’t think they are perfect and can solve every problem (better than alternative solutions could). That’s all.
Similar arguments apply to other things that are near and dear to libertarians’ hearts.
To me libertarianism is lazy extrapolating.
For example, I’m about as socialist as it gets, but I think free markets are an enormously powerful and efficient tools and that, in the grand scheme of things, they have been a huge net-win for the world. I just don’t think they are perfect and can solve every problem (better than alternative solutions could). That’s all.
Similar arguments apply to other things that are near and dear to libertarians’ hearts.
To me libertarianism is lazy extrapolating.
In both examples, the lives of the under-privileged were bettered by government intervention in the "capitalist" countries.
Edit: And until the collapse of European communism, the answer to your first example is North Korea.
Edit: And until the collapse of European communism, the answer to your first example is North Korea.
The New Deal.
Sweden vs United states?
First, North Korea is a pathetic straw man. You'll have to do better than that. Second, you assume that people who challenge Libertarians want central control and are opposed to the free market. Why does everyone have to think so black and white?
Here's the thing, if Libertarians actually stayed true to the underlying principle of Libertarianism (the sovereignty of the individual over his own person, body and labor), and also stayed honest about what it means to have a free market (which follows from individual sovereignty over their person and labor), then I would become an ardent supporter. Unfortunately, as this article points out, most libertarians completely betray these principles when they argue for 100% sovereign rights over land and any other of the finite resources of this planet. If you understand the free-market, and you looked at it honestly, then you would realize that land ownership (defined as ownership in perpetuity) is completely antithetical to the free market, because you can essentially buy an infinite amount of something (perpetual ownership) for a finite cost.
In my opinion, a true Libertarian would realize that some things are part of The Commons, and by necessity we need to figure out a communal way for managing The Commons. If we want the free market to manage the commons, then we have to first treat it like the commons (e.g. we are all owners, and are all owed a share of the ground rent).
Here's the thing, if Libertarians actually stayed true to the underlying principle of Libertarianism (the sovereignty of the individual over his own person, body and labor), and also stayed honest about what it means to have a free market (which follows from individual sovereignty over their person and labor), then I would become an ardent supporter. Unfortunately, as this article points out, most libertarians completely betray these principles when they argue for 100% sovereign rights over land and any other of the finite resources of this planet. If you understand the free-market, and you looked at it honestly, then you would realize that land ownership (defined as ownership in perpetuity) is completely antithetical to the free market, because you can essentially buy an infinite amount of something (perpetual ownership) for a finite cost.
In my opinion, a true Libertarian would realize that some things are part of The Commons, and by necessity we need to figure out a communal way for managing The Commons. If we want the free market to manage the commons, then we have to first treat it like the commons (e.g. we are all owners, and are all owed a share of the ground rent).
[deleted]
In my experience, the free software movement is much more populated with socialists and other left-leaning individuals than the general technology community.
FOSS is an appropriation of excessive intellectual property laws to create a productive form of Libertarianism-lite (which strangely appears to somehow be 'socialist' to most because somehow many people have been tricked into thinking socialism has to do with things being 'free' rather than things being regulated and rationed by the state or something).
GPL-style FOSS is not libertarian (which speaks to individual liberty) almost at all.
In fact it goes the opposite direction, and says in essence that individual people are too damn stupid to do what's in their common interest. So instead of letting you (the new recipient of GPL source) do whatever you want with that source like a BSD-style license would, restricts your ability to certain things with that source, all in the name of the greater good.
Even FSF recognizes that such a license is not the single useful tool in their overall goal of advancing Free Software, which is why there are other GNU licenses.
But GPL at least is socialist in the actual Marxist sense; people can take if they need it, but have to contribute back as well (even if that "contribution" is limited to not taking it proprietary capitalists), and can certainly contribute changes back to the commons in accordance with their ability.
In fact it goes the opposite direction, and says in essence that individual people are too damn stupid to do what's in their common interest. So instead of letting you (the new recipient of GPL source) do whatever you want with that source like a BSD-style license would, restricts your ability to certain things with that source, all in the name of the greater good.
Even FSF recognizes that such a license is not the single useful tool in their overall goal of advancing Free Software, which is why there are other GNU licenses.
But GPL at least is socialist in the actual Marxist sense; people can take if they need it, but have to contribute back as well (even if that "contribution" is limited to not taking it proprietary capitalists), and can certainly contribute changes back to the commons in accordance with their ability.
I see it rather the other way around. Copyleft licenses primarily defend individual liberty by guaranteeing the right of downstream users to modify software and distribute the modified versions, which is the natural state of things (absent state intervention, individuals can modify any software in their possession, and distribute it if they wish). The MIT/BSD licenses are freer in one sense: downstream users may sue other downstream users who use their modifications without a license. I can take a piece of MIT-licensed software, make changes to it, and then if someone uses my changes without a license from me, I can sue them for copyright infringement. The GPL takes away that freedom to restrict downstream users. Considering that the right the MIT/BSD license let you retain amounts to using the machinery of the state to restrict other people's freedom to use and modify software, I don't see how this is freer in the libertarian sense. At least, not unless you believe "intellectual property" is literally natural property, rather than a fiction created by the state.
Now, the anti-IP libertarian position would be in favor of neither the MIT/BSD nor the GPL approach, but simply in favor of abolishing copyright entirely. Then you would inherently have the right to modify and distribute any software in your possession, and wouldn't need a copyleft license to ensure you retain that right. However, so long as copyright exists, the GPL seems like a pragmatic approach to mitigate its damage.
Now, the anti-IP libertarian position would be in favor of neither the MIT/BSD nor the GPL approach, but simply in favor of abolishing copyright entirely. Then you would inherently have the right to modify and distribute any software in your possession, and wouldn't need a copyleft license to ensure you retain that right. However, so long as copyright exists, the GPL seems like a pragmatic approach to mitigate its damage.
Copyright is a property right though, and I was under the real impression that if there was any right libertarians did protect, it was property. Which would again make MIT/BSD-style licenses as a libertarian license.
But either way, keep in mind that the lawsuit you posit can only happen if the changes you speak of are not themselves licensed under a FOSS license. With GPL this is effectively impossible; you can't link GPL code with proprietary code except with certain limited restrictions (or maybe it was can't distribute, but either way no downstream should be affected by your proprietary changes). In this case GPL restricts your individual freedom even to write proprietary modifications and use them for the good of the whole commons.
Because of the "individual freedom" nature of MIT/BSD licenses, you can legally link BSD and proprietary code. If that ends up being a problem for someone else, well, so be it.
But either way, keep in mind that the lawsuit you posit can only happen if the changes you speak of are not themselves licensed under a FOSS license. With GPL this is effectively impossible; you can't link GPL code with proprietary code except with certain limited restrictions (or maybe it was can't distribute, but either way no downstream should be affected by your proprietary changes). In this case GPL restricts your individual freedom even to write proprietary modifications and use them for the good of the whole commons.
Because of the "individual freedom" nature of MIT/BSD licenses, you can legally link BSD and proprietary code. If that ends up being a problem for someone else, well, so be it.
Many libertarians do not believe copyright is a form of property. Rather, they believe copyrights and patents are a form of state-granted temporary monopoly. The state grants people temporary monopolies as a sort of social engineering, in order to incentivize certain kinds of intellectual activity that the state considers worth incentivizing ("to promote the progress of science and useful arts", as the U.S. Constitution says). Hence libertarians with such a view would oppose copyright and patents, like they oppose any other state-granted monopolies.
One essay on the subject: http://www.freenation.org/a/f31l1.html
One essay on the subject: http://www.freenation.org/a/f31l1.html
Do the libertarians that believe copyrights and patents are a form of state-granted temporary monopoly also believe that private ownership of land in perpetuity is also a state-granted monopoly, in this case non-temporary? Are these anti-copyright and patent libertarians real or royal libertarians?
> Hence libertarians with such a view would oppose copyright and patents, like they oppose any other state-granted monopolies.
These libertarians would still see GPL as a non-libertarian license then. GPL, like other "copyleft" licenses, depends upon strong copyright law to work at all. GPL without copyright is just public domain, and not GPL at all.
BSD/MIT-style licenses, on the other hand, barely use copyright at all. Most of the verbiage is to disclaim warranty and ensure the license itself remains with the source, the only thing mentioned about copyright itself is a simple grant that modifications may be made.
These libertarians would still see GPL as a non-libertarian license then. GPL, like other "copyleft" licenses, depends upon strong copyright law to work at all. GPL without copyright is just public domain, and not GPL at all.
BSD/MIT-style licenses, on the other hand, barely use copyright at all. Most of the verbiage is to disclaim warranty and ensure the license itself remains with the source, the only thing mentioned about copyright itself is a simple grant that modifications may be made.
Yes, but the main thing the GPL does with copyright is to attempt to defang the exercise of the copyright monopoly itself, by preventing you from yourself using copyright law to remove downstream users' reuse/modification/distribution rights. It's not an ideal solution, but it's a pragmatic attempt to turn copyright law against itself. The BSD/MIT licenses, by contrast, do nothing to hamper those who would exercise such a a monopoly (i.e. the authors of proprietary software), and in fact seem often explicitly chosen in order to enable them.
Right. I'm sorry, I had missed that paragraph in one of your earlier comments as GPL being a way to make copyright not suck.
I would still argue that GPL's intended effect (that source remain open and available for inspection) is achievable only with copyright, while never achievable with BSD/MIT (which can always be taken proprietary again, even without copyright law).
So in that guise GPL (w/ copyright) is more concerned with society overall (i.e. having access to source), even to the exclusion of some individual freedoms. Additionally these restrictions cannot be enforced without some version of an IP regime which makes it even more non-libertarian.
I would still argue that GPL's intended effect (that source remain open and available for inspection) is achievable only with copyright, while never achievable with BSD/MIT (which can always be taken proprietary again, even without copyright law).
So in that guise GPL (w/ copyright) is more concerned with society overall (i.e. having access to source), even to the exclusion of some individual freedoms. Additionally these restrictions cannot be enforced without some version of an IP regime which makes it even more non-libertarian.
It is an individual freedom to be able to use, modify and share new version of a program. The right to do so and be left alone is not an anti-libertarian view.
If the program comes obfuscated through a binary only release, such act would simply be a technical means to create a restriction. The restriction still infringe on peoples right to be left alone.
This is nothing new. Debt bondage tried to create a technical mean to recreate slavery, and it also infringed on peoples right to be left alone (freedom from slavery).
A key aspect of GPL is that you automatically find yourself at compliance with the license if you leave people alone who want to use, modify and share the program. Problems only arrive when one start to select which parts of the program to withhold, or when one start to use legal or hardware restrictions to interfere with peoples rights. Compliance is thus easy, and the only hard part is to avoid the urge to exploit people rights for profit.
If the program comes obfuscated through a binary only release, such act would simply be a technical means to create a restriction. The restriction still infringe on peoples right to be left alone.
This is nothing new. Debt bondage tried to create a technical mean to recreate slavery, and it also infringed on peoples right to be left alone (freedom from slavery).
A key aspect of GPL is that you automatically find yourself at compliance with the license if you leave people alone who want to use, modify and share the program. Problems only arrive when one start to select which parts of the program to withhold, or when one start to use legal or hardware restrictions to interfere with peoples rights. Compliance is thus easy, and the only hard part is to avoid the urge to exploit people rights for profit.
Oh, good point. I tend to forget that aspect of the GPL. My comments had in mind only the "viral copyleft" aspect. That is, a license that grants you permission to modify & distribute modified copies, and also specifies that you have to retain that same permission in all derivative works, but doesn't require anything else.
You're right that the GPL has the additional affirmative requirement to actually release source code, which is using copyright law to compel a specific action. And yeah, that does seem to come from a certain collective-good concern: GNU want people to not only legally be able to modify software, but to be able to do so in practice too, so have written some things to try to make sure that's the case (the LGPL "users must be able to swap out the library" requirement is another example).
I wonder if there are any licenses that have the "viral" licensing terms but impose no other requirements. CC-BY-SA comes to mind, but isn't widely applied to software.
You're right that the GPL has the additional affirmative requirement to actually release source code, which is using copyright law to compel a specific action. And yeah, that does seem to come from a certain collective-good concern: GNU want people to not only legally be able to modify software, but to be able to do so in practice too, so have written some things to try to make sure that's the case (the LGPL "users must be able to swap out the library" requirement is another example).
I wonder if there are any licenses that have the "viral" licensing terms but impose no other requirements. CC-BY-SA comes to mind, but isn't widely applied to software.
Complete nonsense.
Negative and positive rights (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights) are a critical part of Libertarianism.
Negative and positive rights (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights) are a critical part of Libertarianism.
Negative rights are permissions not to do things,
or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction
is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right
as an entitlement to "non-interference" such as a
right against being assaulted.
Rights considered negative rights may include civil and
political rights such as freedom of speech, private property,
freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus,
a fair trial, and freedom from slavery.
i'm often confused by the FOSS and VC mix here. I agree generally FOSS are left leaning, and would suspect VC are more right?
I wish it were possible to have a tech community that politics didn't eventually dominate.
I think any web forum that grows significantly (not just tech) will tend toward politics, because to talk politics, all you need is an opinion, and everyone's got one of those.
To talk about technical topics, you need some experience and expertise, and those are a lot harder to come by. So the percentage of those folks declines as the overall audience grows.
To talk about technical topics, you need some experience and expertise, and those are a lot harder to come by. So the percentage of those folks declines as the overall audience grows.
I wish it were possible to have a <s>tech</s> community that politics didn't eventually dominate.
Depends on what you mean by "these libertarian types". There are more philosophies on Earth, Horatio, than are things in your dreams... er... can't be fooled again.
The article is by a geoist, or Georgist. Those people are no more true libertarians than they are true Scotsmen. Or at least that's how it is according to the libertarians that do not agree with their principles.
If you're looking for social justice and community-based governance, you would be better served by hanging out with an-soc (or socialist anarchist) proponents, and then the an-caps (capitalist anarchists) will mock you for your beliefs.
If libertarianism seems like a narrow perspective to you, you might want to examine it from a different angle. Freed from the bonds of actually having to agree with anyone to accomplish something, libertarians can and will believe in almost anything that sounds even remotely plausible, then defend that well past the Godwinning of the thread. The end of a libertarian thread is actually when Somalia comes up, not Hitler.
In any case, the ability to argue endlessly over an irrelevant topic and always be correct, regardless of any findings of fact is strangely attractive to people with an engineering temperament. You see, the more government looks like a problem, the more tempting it is to try to solve it. And with more solutions proposed, the more tempting it is to argue over them.
And how many times have you heard a naive younger developer say, "Wouldn't it be easier to scrap the enormous messy kludge we have and start over from scratch?"
So I don't think you will easily find such a community unless you go out of your way to create one yourself, and police it rigorously with a NO POLITICS rule.
The article is by a geoist, or Georgist. Those people are no more true libertarians than they are true Scotsmen. Or at least that's how it is according to the libertarians that do not agree with their principles.
If you're looking for social justice and community-based governance, you would be better served by hanging out with an-soc (or socialist anarchist) proponents, and then the an-caps (capitalist anarchists) will mock you for your beliefs.
If libertarianism seems like a narrow perspective to you, you might want to examine it from a different angle. Freed from the bonds of actually having to agree with anyone to accomplish something, libertarians can and will believe in almost anything that sounds even remotely plausible, then defend that well past the Godwinning of the thread. The end of a libertarian thread is actually when Somalia comes up, not Hitler.
In any case, the ability to argue endlessly over an irrelevant topic and always be correct, regardless of any findings of fact is strangely attractive to people with an engineering temperament. You see, the more government looks like a problem, the more tempting it is to try to solve it. And with more solutions proposed, the more tempting it is to argue over them.
And how many times have you heard a naive younger developer say, "Wouldn't it be easier to scrap the enormous messy kludge we have and start over from scratch?"
So I don't think you will easily find such a community unless you go out of your way to create one yourself, and police it rigorously with a NO POLITICS rule.
We have a "something privilege" article here probably every day. Women in tech every other.
There was an actual "programmer privilege" submission. Twice.
There was an actual "programmer privilege" submission. Twice.
For a combination of the two, I recommend the Bleeding Heart Libertarians website[1]. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's not a tech-focused site like HN, but does address the topics you mention - a focus on solving problems facing communities and the under- priviledged.
1. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com
The problem I see is that most people don't really look beyond the current political parties in their immediate vicinity (IE: those campaigning near them presently). This leads to people really only seeing the American Libertarian movement as an individualist group.
If you're interested in technology for technology's sake, then that will probably crowd out any interest in either communities or the plight of the less fortunate. Both technology and libertarianism tend to draw from the high side of the autistic spectrum.
> Both technology and libertarianism tend to draw from the high side of the autistic spectrum
Do you have a source for this claim? It seems quite extraordinary. Anecdotally, everybody I've ever met in technology who has claimed to be on "the high side of the autistic spectrum" has in reality merely been an average-intellect asshole who: a) thinks he's much smarter than he is, and assumes his inability to "get along" is because others are jealous of his abilities or just don't understand what it's like to be "on the spectrum"; b) is looking for excuses for his own boorish behavior.
Do you have a source for this claim? It seems quite extraordinary. Anecdotally, everybody I've ever met in technology who has claimed to be on "the high side of the autistic spectrum" has in reality merely been an average-intellect asshole who: a) thinks he's much smarter than he is, and assumes his inability to "get along" is because others are jealous of his abilities or just don't understand what it's like to be "on the spectrum"; b) is looking for excuses for his own boorish behavior.
It's a personal observation after many years of being acquainted with libertarians and technologists. My personal theory is that a low (relative to most) ability to see status/class relationships between people leads one to care less about relative social positioning - which leads to a rule based theory of politics.
As a father of a child with autism myself, I'd hesitate to leave the prevalence of libertarian and anti-authoritarian tendencies in tech to such a simple explanation... but I'll admit there are parallels.
The "theory of mind" is a known challenge (not an impossibility) with those with autism [1]. This is basically the degree of awareness a person has on the fact that other persons have their own thoughts, prejudices, levels of knowledge, etc. Essentially the idea, can you put yourself in the mind or worldview of someone else?
With the types of libertarianism followed in the U.S. there is simply no need to care what other people think: The idea is that the rules are simple and easy to follow, and as long as they're rigidly applied anything that happens must be fair.
When you combine the difficulty of understanding why other people feel the way they do, with the very real awareness of how intelligent and knowledgeable our prototypical tech libertarian is, it starts to make sense why they believe that the outcome of these rules are fair. They are able to motivate to work, they are able to produce good work (at least, in their opinion), they follow the rules that respect others' things; why can't you?
When you scale that up to the idea that a society of people all trying their best to do good work and live by the rules must obtain the ideal outcome, the appeal is more understandable, if not actually obvious. Why should the government tell a person how to live or what to do, when that person obviously knows best what's good for them, especially when government in general has long historical examples of failure. Even if you point out successes of regulation, the rejoinder is simply that such successes could be replicated with the simple set of rules, if people would only follow them. And either way, how difficult could it be to make rules that are good at an individual level also be good at a national level?
The problem with the failure to understand the theory of mind is probably most pronounced with that last question... a difference in scale has always been a difference in kind, but how can you perceive that what's best for society is not always what's best for one person, when you can hardly understand that other individual people are not mirror images of oneself, let alone understanding societies at a macro level?
All the same, this is all just a bunch of supposition. I am sure there are better explanations (though I should hope that it's not considered surprising that one's ability for empathy, sympathy and theory of mind may play a role in one's natural political tendencies).
[1] http://www.autism.com/index.php/understanding_theoryofmind
The "theory of mind" is a known challenge (not an impossibility) with those with autism [1]. This is basically the degree of awareness a person has on the fact that other persons have their own thoughts, prejudices, levels of knowledge, etc. Essentially the idea, can you put yourself in the mind or worldview of someone else?
With the types of libertarianism followed in the U.S. there is simply no need to care what other people think: The idea is that the rules are simple and easy to follow, and as long as they're rigidly applied anything that happens must be fair.
When you combine the difficulty of understanding why other people feel the way they do, with the very real awareness of how intelligent and knowledgeable our prototypical tech libertarian is, it starts to make sense why they believe that the outcome of these rules are fair. They are able to motivate to work, they are able to produce good work (at least, in their opinion), they follow the rules that respect others' things; why can't you?
When you scale that up to the idea that a society of people all trying their best to do good work and live by the rules must obtain the ideal outcome, the appeal is more understandable, if not actually obvious. Why should the government tell a person how to live or what to do, when that person obviously knows best what's good for them, especially when government in general has long historical examples of failure. Even if you point out successes of regulation, the rejoinder is simply that such successes could be replicated with the simple set of rules, if people would only follow them. And either way, how difficult could it be to make rules that are good at an individual level also be good at a national level?
The problem with the failure to understand the theory of mind is probably most pronounced with that last question... a difference in scale has always been a difference in kind, but how can you perceive that what's best for society is not always what's best for one person, when you can hardly understand that other individual people are not mirror images of oneself, let alone understanding societies at a macro level?
All the same, this is all just a bunch of supposition. I am sure there are better explanations (though I should hope that it's not considered surprising that one's ability for empathy, sympathy and theory of mind may play a role in one's natural political tendencies).
[1] http://www.autism.com/index.php/understanding_theoryofmind
It's definitely the spectrum, not autism itself that I was refering to - I apologize for not being more specific.
And I would recommend Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind"(if I gave offence, I apologize) for how differing political mindsets define fairness - it was quite illuminating to me when I read it.
And I would recommend Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind"(if I gave offence, I apologize) for how differing political mindsets define fairness - it was quite illuminating to me when I read it.
I've been reading books like crazy recently but I might check that one out, thanks.
Not seeing your Statist views reflected in the comments section?
No worries, try CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR.
No worries, try CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR.
[deleted]
You think large for-profit corporate news organizations demonstrate "statist" views? Ha!
(NPR is one of the more accurate news organizations in the US for a reason, though.)
(NPR is one of the more accurate news organizations in the US for a reason, though.)
Brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland and a generous donation from the Rockefeller foundation.
[deleted]
NPR is a joke. You're totally naive.
Where do you get your news?
infowars.com
I upvoted your comment under the assumption that it was someone else being sarcastic.
You're serious. Wow.
You're serious. Wow.
Yeah i'm serious. Your faux amazement is lame.
NPR is opinion. Twitter and Youtube are news.
Depending on what you're looking for as an alternative, some hackerspaces (and the physical + online communities around them) are quite left-wing. That's especially the case in Europe, where many hackerspaces are physically located in "nonprofit social center" buildings that provide housing for mostly DIY/left-wing/anti-authoritarian groups. For example, there's Malmö's Forskningsavdelningen (http://forskningsavd.se/about/), which was formerly hosted in Udkanten, and is now hosted in Kontrapunkt.
This view seems very much oriented at solving the problems of communities and the under-privileged: it explicitly identifies how you are bound to pay rent to the community when you use common resources.
The problem I think you may be having here is the conflation of "I don't want to be part of any community fuck-you-got-mine" with "I want to have control over how I give back to my community and what community I identify with".
The problem I think you may be having here is the conflation of "I don't want to be part of any community fuck-you-got-mine" with "I want to have control over how I give back to my community and what community I identify with".
Are you kidding? This place is 90% socialists.
"When the state granted land titles to a fraction of the population, it gave that fraction devices with which to levy, and pocket, tolls on the fruits of the labor of others."
In a master stroke, when the Kings of Scots granted feudal titles to existing lords who controlled lands, who were inevitably potential rivals, they granted them feudal rights over different lands to those they actually occupied - ensuring long struggles between the lords that meant they wouldn't pose a threat to the kings.
In a master stroke, when the Kings of Scots granted feudal titles to existing lords who controlled lands, who were inevitably potential rivals, they granted them feudal rights over different lands to those they actually occupied - ensuring long struggles between the lords that meant they wouldn't pose a threat to the kings.
Focus less on what you call yourself, and more on what you think. Political labels are so dumb; what use are they? Do you proudly self-identify with a political label at dinner parties? On dates? While chatting with somebody on the bus? To your boss, or in an interview?
I sure as hell don't. I talk politics plenty, but I haven't said "I am a ..." since probably highschool.
If you are already talking politics, then just tell people what you think about relevant issues. It makes for a better conversation anyway.
I sure as hell don't. I talk politics plenty, but I haven't said "I am a ..." since probably highschool.
If you are already talking politics, then just tell people what you think about relevant issues. It makes for a better conversation anyway.
Isn't that exactly what the article does? I mean, sure, he starts out with a political label in the title, but then he makes an argument about something with substance: specifically, whether or not that land, too, is a good that should be protected by property rights.
They're useful for the forming political parties, for example. I mean that in a general sense. A group of people identifying with political goals and trying to achieve them somehow, maybe by getting elected.
But I agree with your main point. Unless you have a good reason to accept a label, don't. It generally leads to poorer thinking.
But I agree with your main point. Unless you have a good reason to accept a label, don't. It generally leads to poorer thinking.
libertarians (little "l") in general are pretty good about this due to their inherent dislike of being labeled, caricatured, and stereotyped. Having many libertarian subtypes helps too.
The downside is that, as others have pointed out, focusing on individual identity and personal beliefs hampers meaningful political organization since it requires a certain ideological smoothing and compromise.
The downside is that, as others have pointed out, focusing on individual identity and personal beliefs hampers meaningful political organization since it requires a certain ideological smoothing and compromise.
I've met Dan. Cool dude. He wrote that article a while back though. He's a geoliberatian (geo is for george, as in Georgist)
the geo clarification makes a huge difference in the article. An article about land ownership and "geo"libertarianism requires a definition! I was totally lost without that...
"One is replacing all taxes on productivity, that is, on land use, with taxes on the value of land itself. The other is the Lockean pre-monetary system. It would have to rely on a judicial mechanism, whereby you assert your claim to land by demonstrating that you are using the land. While the latter method does not provide any community funds (a mixed blessing, perhaps), it does subject your landhold to the discretion of that judicial mechanism."
Why should it be any business to the government what you are doing with your land (as long as it is not illegal)? I am not even sure the government should have the right to judge the value of any land.
I can understand Paine's argument. And for that I think it is not unreasonable that a light tax be assessed to land ownership. But today's property taxes are far too high.
Why should it be any business to the government what you are doing with your land (as long as it is not illegal)? I am not even sure the government should have the right to judge the value of any land.
I can understand Paine's argument. And for that I think it is not unreasonable that a light tax be assessed to land ownership. But today's property taxes are far too high.
[deleted]
This is directed at that seemingly large portion of HN users that lean libertarian.
how do you define "land"? is it, "the limited resources of the Earth"? or what? because if the "resources of the earth" are common property, that might say a lot about say, what people put into the air, in the water, in the ground, etc.
There are libertarians who are very concerned with exactly these issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism
I like a lot of the technical topics here, but I find the socio-political views I encounter largely limited to only one narrow perspective (with which I almost always disagree).