Slashdot Mirror
Cyberselfish: Technolibertarianism
This month I garnered a copy of Cyberselfish, and I'm still appalled with the title (which comes from an eponymous essay for Mother Jones she wrote in July 1996, when such cyberlanguage wasn't so cybertrite). Cyberselfish is a book-length essay, in fact a somewhat thinly edited series of linked essays. There's a rush of immediacy and wit; for a random example, "Polyamory is the preferred term of art; it's gender-neutral, where polygamy and polyandry are not, and allows for all persuasions of partner choice (gay/straight/bi/it depends)." With the freshness and informality comes flaws. There is too much repeated material in the book. It's clear that essays written at different times have been cobbled together. Reading the book straight through is like reading some multi-volume series straight through, in which the characters and history are rehashed at the beginning of each book.
Cyberselfish looks at a few specific examples of technolibertarianism in depth: Bionomics, cypherpunks, Wired magazine, and Silicon Valley's impressive lack of philanthropy. Each time Borsook exposes the compassionless, fearful, posturing, politically myopic core, without dismissing the good aspects of the high-tech culture and individuals. For example, she thinks fighting for privacy rights is good, but obsessing about it and descending into rabid, paranoid ranting on alt.cypherpunks is scary. She moves smoothly from the historical to the academic to the personal, deliberately exposing her own frailities and biases while she examines those of others.
To give a deeper example of the content of Cyberselfish, Bionomics is the use of biological (and particularly Darwinian) metaphors to describe economic processes, as popularized by Michael Rothschild (Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem) and then the The Bionomics Institute (TBI). Borsook convincingly points out through both empirical observation and reasoned analysis that Bionomics boils down to economic libertarianism, where government involvement is wrong and the most cut-throat, efficient and entrepeneurial businesses are the best. Ecological metaphors are used in Bionomics only when they're useful and sexy: The ecosystem of Hawaii was used as a metaphor for the fragility of protected industries. Under Bionomics logic, Hawaii's beautiful, lush, peaceful ecosystem is to be derided. Bionomics uses metaphors to draw syllogistic conclusions. Doing that can be powerfully convincing but amounts to hand-waving and emotional appeals. Borsook cuts through the smoke and mirrors.
After a few years, the Bionomics Institute conferences were (literally) taken over by the Cato Institute, the premier libertarian think tank in the nation. The annual Bionomics conterences began in 1993. The 1997 conference was the Cato/Bionomics Conference; 1998, the "Annual Cato Institute/Forbes ASAP Conference on Technology and Society." TBI morphed into software-startup Maxager, which intends to offer Bionomical tools to companies. Borsook wonders what meaning can be ascribed to the success or the failure of the company. If Maxager fails, is it because it wasn't Bionomically good enough, or just because of the many uncontrollable factors that cause the vast majority of startups to fail? If it succeeds, does it validate Bionomics, or just the good connections the founder has with Silicon Valley venture capitalists?
The other chapters are just as interesting. Cyberselfish sharply describes all the archetypes of the technolibertarians, from the neo-hippie polyandric Burning Man attendee to the Lexus-driving, 100-hour-a-week, plugged-in entrepeneur with a sprawling bungalow in Santa Clara county.
One of the most crystalline passages in the book describes Eric Raymond's leaking of the Halloween Document, written by Microsoft program manager Vinod Valloppillil. The two clearly have vast ideological differences, the open-source cowboy and the Evil Empire functionary, but they're both hard-core libertarians, an entirely unreported fact. In Borsook's words, "It was rather like discovering that both a liberal and a conservative senator had both acquired their law degrees from Yale: no news here."
As I said before, the book is somewhat haphazardly put together, and nearly every sentence is to some degree contentious; even someone who agrees with her basic position will find reason to quibble. Cyberselfish doesn't come near to answering all the questions it raises. Borsook doesn't really tackle the paradox that "libertarians celebrate the cult of the individual" but Open Source celebrates the collective. What does it mean to be an Open Source libertarian?
I personally think it's somewhat unfair to attack those flaws, as they're inexorably part of Cyberselfish's loose, immediate, opinionated, and conversational style. It's kind of like how Slashdot's open forums allow for a review like this and the inevitable "hot grits" responses.
Purchase this book at fatbrain.
I think a major reason why libertarianism can be very appealing for certain people is that it provides an easy justification for the things they find convenient and desireble to believe in.
To be fair, this is the reason 99.9% of the people in the world believe in whatever philosophy or religion they adhere to. Very few people live what might be deemed a 'self-examined' life.
It is quite ironic that people who are (among other things) against government funding of social programs on moral grounds are usually young and affluent and would probably never need these services in the first place.
Perhaps, but then there are people like me who have spent the majority of their lives scrambling to pay the bills and who refused to accept government aid on principle. Not everyone who adheres to libertarian principles is doing so out of convenience, habit, or some misguided aesthetic sense. While it may be convenient to claim so, because it lets you dismiss it, it is not true.
Elevation of (not all that enlightened) self-interest (amusingly the French expression for it is amour propre, i.e. love of oneself) to a moral highground and sometimes even a law of nature seems to very clearly indicate just how limited an intellegent human being can be and how modern culture promotes this kind of short-sightedness.
Pretty rhetoric. Justify it.
Not suprisingly these meek excuses crumble to dust in even the mildest confronation with reason.
I have spend upwards of a decade arguing my philosophy (which is, essentially, Objectivism) with people, in order to test its validity. I have yet to hear a serious challenge to it. Most people who attack it to do with the same sort of lame ad hominem arguments and dismissals as you offer, which hardly strikes me as particularly intelligent.
How much easier it is to close your eyes and to defend your untenable views by getting angry and irate with the questions that threaten and disturb you.
How much easier to dismiss views that you don't agree with on the basis of lame character attacks and unsupported assertions.
Eric Christian Berg
This book sums up everything that's wrong with the Wired crowd: Cyber-everything, political ideas that can be summed up in four words (centrist good, extremist bad) but winds up taking multiple pages, nothing exists outside Silicon Valley, and let's start making up our own words so we can look more 133t than everyone else. And if anyone asks what you're about, just give them the stare that says "if you don't know, we won't tell you".
Only if you consider being the custodian who takes care of the equipment a position of power
Let's face it, the janitor can sneak in before or after a political rally and stand at the same lectern that a powerful politician stands at. However, nobody cares.
And sysadmins are, frankly, the janitors in the IT business.
No. The "promote the general welfare" section of the preamble to the constitution, and indeed, the whole preamble, are ideas whose concrete manifestations are spelled out in the rest of the document. The constitution "promotes the general welfare" by providing courts, a method of establishing common tarrifs and taxation, trade, etc.
Any interpretation of this "welfare" intimating any connection with the modern connotation of the word (free government handouts) is just plain wrong.
Why voting would make more difference than actually implementing the change? We are minority, and politicians won't listen to us until they are faced with something they can't ignore. Technology however is much harder to ignore than even a large bunch of people, as technology in large part determines how society operates. Guttenberg didn't vote, yet his technology produced more social change than whoever was in power at that time, and same applies to us -- the current situation around IP rights was created without a single vote, and without a single geek's speech in Congress, yet it has a chance to change society in a manner comparable to what printing did.
Do we care about our particular faces appearing in every newspaper and our time being filled with fundraising for re-election, when we can write code that no matter what politicians want to do with it, will end up implementing our ideas? Society will adapt, politicians will adapt, but it's the development of technology that causes the change, not the other way around.
And, BTW, I am not libertatian at all -- libertarians are just one (and IMHO misguided) fraction of people who participate in this.IMHO it's a good thing that people are trying to understand what are the social and political implications of technology, and how basic ideas intuitively known to geeks translate into more strict and universally understandable forms.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Draw the line where the medical community draws the line for the end of life. Brain waves. If brainwaves are present, it's a person.
This is completely un-scientific -- when a person dies brain waves reflect the state of something that is a person, and definitely was for long enough time to be recognized as one. However when brain is being formed, it starts from something not even remotely resembling conscious human being, so whatever definition of "brainwaves" you have, it can't be applied.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Having the power is the opposite of having freedom -- people who influence society have to go into either direction at the expense of the other. Cherokee Indians didn't have the option of using the power because they lacked one. Geeks are in the position where they have "power" (not as much as individuals but as the category of people who have means and desire to advance some set of ideas in the technology that is being widely used in society), yet current political system is not democratic enough to allow the advancement of the same ideas by applying the "freedom" beyond the most basic forms such as disseminating information (voting either way doesn't help because politicians that are on any ballot are all too stupid to understand them, and are too influenced by those ideas' enemies).
This doesn't mean that voting is useless, but at this moment in history it's purpose is purely defensive, as it allows at some extent to prevent massive abuse of government's power against existing freedoms, but beyond that it's insignificant compared to actual effect that technology has on society.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
For the anal retentives among us...
If the quoted text is correct, the book author needs a dictionary. Polygamy is gender-neutral. Polygyny refers specifically to a man having multiple wives, while polyandry is defined as a wife having multiple husbands. Polyamory also refers to love as opposed to marriage, and thus is really rather orthogonal to the other terms.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
It is, at its core, paternalistic like manditory seatbelt laws (you can't hurt anyone *else* because you don't wear *your* seatbelt).
Actually, wearing your seat belt helps keep you in control of your car during an accident. Since actions taken after the initial contact may reduce the severity of an accident -- including to other parties -- there is justification for seat belt laws on those grounds.
The same cannot be said for motorcycle helmet laws, and we could use the organ donors anyway...
My short argument for drug legalization goes as follows: Suppose drug enforcement was 100% effective. Do you think people would become temperate, or just drink alcohol instead? Given the number of deaths from drunk drivers and other accidents, the health effects of alcohol, and the relationship between alcohol and crime, I can't see this an improvement.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
And if you want to learn what wonderful "rights" and "freedoms" the "natural state" gives you, go to the bad part of any major metropolitan area
Actually, go anywhere. We *have* absolute freedom, which includes the freedom to set up governments, establish police forces, ignore poorer communities and leave them in lawlessness, etc.
In the end, the only "obstacles" to freedom are the ones we impose on ourselves.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The difference between "government" and all other groups, is that the government is directly responsible to the people, whereas all other groups are responsible only to themselves, a subset of the people.
If I don't like the way the government is acting, I have recourse, via my vote. If I don't like the way Microsoft is acting, I can go pound sand. My President/Prime Minister/Congrassman/whatever answers to me, but Gates et al answer to no-one.
There are, of course, some sticky bits here: I don't like how the government is handling issue foo. I form a group, the "Association For Better Foo Handling". By virtue of being a member of that group, I am subject to higher regulation. How do we prevent the government (in power) from unjustly interfering with a group that is legitimately trying to affect/reduce the government's power?
So yes, even the government must be regulated - as it largely is now anyway. The regulation of groups must clearly spell out governmental limits, and even groups must have certain uninfringeable rights. But I maintain that a group has much less in the way of rights than an individual does.
Western countries actually do a pretty good job of limiting and decentralizing governmental power - especially the ultra-paranoid American system. Where they fall down is giving too much in the way of rights and freedoms to groups (and especially corporations) at the expense of individual freedoms.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Gaaa... I'm going to wind up responding to most of the responses to my own post. How gauche. :)
In all your examples, there was indeed an individual acting as the driver. But in none of them did the "individual" act alone and unaided.
All of them had help.
It's not Adolf you have to worry about, it's Adolf + the Brownshirts. It's not Genghis, it's Genghis + the Mongol Hordes. And so on.
Groups may do better when led by a powerful leader, but it's still the _group_ getting the job done - so legislate the group, and leave the individual alone.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I don't know what is scarier - the fact that the Yanks have the right to carry weapons manufactured to kill other people in their Constitution, or the fact that some nutballs think they may actually use these arms against their own government.
Here's a trivia fact for you: If you take all the wars that Americans have ever fought in, and add up all the casulties, it turns out there is one war that has more Americans killed and wounded than all the others COMBINED.
Guess which one?
The American Civil War.
Yup. The all-time greatest killer of Americans is... Americans.
There's your "right to bear arms"
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Perhaps someone will find this interesting, and comment on it.
Although I often find myself with strong libertarian leanings, especially towards issues like abortion, legal drug use, and seatbelt laws (even though I personally never plan on using drugs, and I always wear my seatbelt) I still think there's a real need for strong government.
The crux, at least as I see it, is that while individual freedoms should be held as uninfringed as possible, groups should be closely regulated, and the larger the group, the more closely it should be regulated.
The idea here is that the destructive power of a lone individual acting is fairly limited - not only in terms of raw ability, but in terms of the tendancy of functioning as part of a group to dissociate an individual from the group's actions. For example, your average German circa 1941 was as decent a human being as any other, but grouped together as "Nazi Germany" they did a lot of horrible things.
It's not ESR that worries me; it's the NRA. It's not Lars (from Metallica); it's the RIAA. It's not the employees; it's Disney/Sony/Union Carbide/etc.
It seems a simple concept: The larger the group, the more the regulation, the smaller the group, the smaller the regulation. Free the individual, restrain the collective.
I think a large share of the blame falls on Western law that treats a "corporation" as a "legal person", so that a corporation is treated the same way before the law as a private citizen. That's crazy! Microsoft Corporation (for example) is capable of far, far more damage to society than any individual. That Microsoft and myself should be considered equal before the law is outrageous.
Equally outrageous is that most individuals are, for all intents and purposes, enslaved by corporations. They own us! Isn't that supposed to be the other way around?
I'm not sure what label to hang on this political philosophy, but whatever it is, I'm for it.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
You oppose speed limits? Do you also oppose laws against drunk driving?
Speeding and drunk driving both immensely increase the risk that an accident will occur. The problem is, this accident often includes other drivers who weren't speeding or driving drunk. Bad idea to get rid of speed limits.
Anyway, most libertarians are against government protection of the environment, and are against the military to a large extent too. It's hard to argue with libertarians, because every one of you has slightly or largely different beliefs.
I think most libertarians are either selfish or deluded.
The selfish ones are libertarians because they don't care about other people and don't want to pay taxes.
The deluded ones actually believe that we don't need the government, that people are corporations will, out of their own self interest, protect the environment and the needy, and prevent monopolies and other corporate abuses from occuring.
By getting the hell out the way, and in so doing not stealing so bloody much from your paycheck, the Libertarian government allows you to take care of yourself, invest for your retirement, contribute to private charity for people's welfare, and basically do all those things people get uptight about, without anyone telling them how they HAVE to do it.
The point though, is that they won't. Most people are too stupid and short-sighted to plan for their retirement, and too selfish to contribute to a charity.
So Libertarians say: let them be poor and homeless at 70, it's their fault. Well OK, but lets get that out in the open, because that is going to happen. If all government support is removed, people who aren't as smart or lucky as the rest of us are going to suffer and die. Some people can accept that, some can't. But it's dishonest to pretend that free-market capitalism and people's own generous hearts will protect all the unfortunate people in the country.
I doubt that Libertarians are in favor of outlawing drunk driving, in any case. Many Libertarians favor a restitution-based legal system...
That's absurd. Many innocent people are *killed* when hit by a drunk driver. When someone is endangering the lives of others, why should we wait until someone actually gets hurt to stop him?
To determine whether your run-of-the-mill libertarian will be for, or against, something, you need only ask yourself a couple of simple questions. Can it be used to uphold and defend rights? Does it increase, or decrease, personal freedom? This are the basic litmus tests that I use to determine my feelings on any issue. They are easily adapted to most any situation.
OK, let me try one:
Should citizens be allowed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?
Well, these weapons could be used as a threat against a tyrannical government, or to kill or hurt a criminal trying to harm you(e.g. put on a gas mask and mustard gas a robber in your house).
Also, clearly this increases personal freedom, because without the ability to develop these weapons, people would have less liberty.
I love this logic.
Not necessarily. Not all libertarians are economic libertarians - some care more about other liberties more than economic ones.
.sig, I am very big on freedom with regards to social issues. The term some use is "civil-libertarian". I think the drug war should end, I am against censorship of just about any kind of media(put V-chips in TVs and then show whatever you want, if parents don't want kids watching it, the kids won't be able to), I think laws against prostitution, homosexuality, gambling, etc. should be thrown out. Burning the American flag should be completely legal too.
Yeah, personally I don't give half a shit for economic liberty. If free-market capitalism leads to people having a generally better quality of life than other systems, I'm for it. If it doesn't, I'm against it. I don't think it's right or wrong, it's just the means to an end.
OTOH, as you might guess from seeing my
The one case in which I differ from some other civil-libertarians is campaign finance reform. I'm all for it. Corporations and wealthy individuals have no "right", first amendment or otherwise, to buy our government.
Anyway, I can't in good conscience support the Libertarians, and I don't call myself one. I think they go off the deep-end in terms of economic liberty. I have no problem taxing the fuck out of someone like Bill Gates. He can afford it.
My brain has thankfully blocked my memory of much of Atlas, but I remember two parts that in my mind, by themselves, just destroy Objectivism as any kind of realistic way to live your life.
The first was when they were in Galt's Gulch, and one of the guys(I don't remember which, maybe Galt) payed another one like $.25 to borrow his car for a drive. I mean, you've got two people who are filthy rich, and they're friends. It was like in Objectivism even something you do for a friend must have some economic return, or it's not worth doing.
The second was how Hank kept giving Dagney these digustingly expensive gifts, when people all around them were starving and dying. To me that epitimized the heartlessness of Objectivism: a small amount of personal pleasure is worth more than all the other lives on Earth. How completely sickening.
Ahh, the old "I don't want to answer this so I'll pretend it's irrelevant" argument.
You set out a logical way to determine a libertarian's stance on an issue. I used it and showed how idiotic it was, so now you pretend that it wasn't what you meant.
The fact is, not everything is so black and white as you believe it to be. Can guns in the hands of victims be good? Yes. Can they also be dangerous in the hands of the foolish or criminal? Yup.
Where do you draw the line? Should people be able to buy assault rifles? Bazookas? Tanks? If we are talking about protecting ourselves from the government, those kinds of weapons are a must.
You find a position you agree with, and then try to find a logical argument for it. I am telling you that logic is crap, and can be used to defend almost any insanely dangerous behavior, as long as the behavior doesn't result in the death of innocent people *every single time*
But no realistic society would put the bar to prohibition so high, because doing so would result in chaos.
Yes, there is a very big effort on many fronts. Whenever I'm watching a political show and the host asks a Republican or Democrat whether Nader should be allowed in....they say yes!
There hardly seems to be anyone who seriously believes Nader should be kept out of the debates, other than those bastards at the CPD.
Anyway, turn on CNN tonight at 7:30(EST), Nader will be on Crossfire, and I bet he'll talk about the debates.
Also, if you haven't already done so, sign this petition:
http://green.votenader.org/cgi -bin/petition-sigs.cgi
it's such a minor thing, I think if there's a legitimate saftey concern to other, innocent people, there's no problem telling people to wear it.
again, motorcycle helmets is a different situation. however, I would say that even if you allow people to ride without helmets, you better make it clear that if they get brain-damaged in an accident, the gov't isn't going to be paying to rehabilitate them(e.g. special ed)
> There really are no compelling arguments against libertarianism that I've seen.
OK, a convincing (and traditional) argument against libertarianism:
The Tragedy of the Commons.
Seriously, if we call libertarianism the belief in freedom from external control, then self-interested libertarians will exploit common property (air, water, etc.), free from controlling interests of others.
The libertarian answer to this problem is to create property rights for these commons. Basically, to remove the problem by definition. This is reasonable in theory, but the systems that I have heard as solutions are either extremely unwieldy or limit the liberties of the individual in favor of the state (not libertarian at all).
All of this is not to say that the libertarian philosophy does not have its place - Its just that applying it across the board, as a complete ethos, just creates a libertarian self-conflict.
(side note : Intellectual property in terms of patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, etc. is easily viewed as an attempt to assign ownership to common goods, although in doing so there are no benefits to be gained in terms of exploitation, since the marginal cost of information is zero. I find it interesting that many self proclaimed libertarians support Intellectual property so strongly. I actually see IP ownership as an infrinigement upon my basic liberties, as it legally prevents me from using _my_ knowledge.)
Pax -- Ob
If the question of when to legislate is a matter of degree rather than form, and intelligent people are allowed to differ on the degree of encroachment of freedom, how does libertarianism offer anything philosophicly other than a relative bias against legislation?
Don't get me wrong, I tend libertarian myself, but I am by no means closed to the idea of legislation that favors the ending of such social problems as wealth distrobution inequity. Of course, suddenly I'm a liberal instead of a libertarian.
:) I'm with you on a lot of this, but I reject the notion that this one ethos solves all problems. I see it as internally inconsistant on certain issues.
Thanks
Pax -- Ob
> What systems have you examined?
:)
:)
Its funny that you bring up _Reason_, since that is where I had read some of the kookier ideas of property assignment of commons.
My favorite was the sidewalk tax.
But in general, the concept usually offered is to auction usage rights, lets say parks for example. Parks get auctioned to a private holder (revenues going towards some heart warming cause) at which time the private owner rents park usage. They mitigate easy/free riding by putting up fences, and they limit liability through contract fiat (you sign to use). Even with a park, an object that seems a perfect fit for privatization, you start incurring social costs of ownership not directly paid for by the rights auction such as social exclusion costs, social loss of dealing with the walls, etc. This stuff seems trivial, but the point is that in the best case scenerio, externalities are created.
I'm not even going to TOUCH the real problems such as international pollution, wildlife stocks, and intellectual property.
caveat: There are many interesting ideas, but all of them have flaws. At what point do those flaws begin to outweight the advantage of simply leaving the public good public? I don't know, and _Reason_ doesn't either.
Pax -- Ob
Then there is driving while eating. And driving with/without appropriate sunglasses. And changing the tape while driving. Or driving in the rain. Or in the rain at night. Or driving while yelling at the kids. Or driving while thinking about something else.
Its clear to me that letting other people drive at all is irresponsible.
-Tupper
The depression was directly caused by governments meddling in the economy to keep interest rates artificially low to promote growth by guaranteeing otherwise unsecured loans. Too much cheap money, in essence. The system would have been self-regulating otherwise, for example as capital reserves were depleted, interest rates would have risen until the reserves were replenished.
So you see, the great depression, and inflation in modern times are a direct result of government borrowing, which is "secured" on future taxation. It dilutes the money supply because there are no underlying assets.
Excuse me, but who the hell are YOU talking to?
Libertarianism just means less nanny-state we-know-what's-good-for-you creeps like you can get well-meaning but repressive laws passed. (See DRUG WAR)
You know precisely NOTHING about the individuals you're ranting about. You're reacting to vapors, anecdotes and flames. Get a grip man!
Libertarians are more like fiscally responsible personal-responsibility-touting Republicans without the Baptist social mores.
I AM grown-up, asshole. Seems you're the one who needs to chill out.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
For starters, it is decidedly un-libertarian to initiate force against others, but the concept of resisting force, especially in regard to upholding rights, is a very libertarian idea. From our perspective, an armed person poses no threat to anyone, provided they harbor no hostile intention.
The ability to assert your rights, either against a tyrannical government, or the petty thief, is what is important, and there is simply no better tool for the job than a firearm.
Libertarians do not see a firearm as a menace to society, or to safety. They recognize that any tool, if used for the wrong purpose, can produce harmful results. By the same token, a tool, properly used, has a positive benfit.
A popular example would be to ask if a gun was good or bad in the hands of a rapist? What about if it were in the hands of the intended rape victim? This does a pretty good job of illustrating that the gun itself, an inanimate object, is neither good nor bad. It is only the manner in which it is employed that can be judged in such simple terms.
If libertarians were to use your "potential for harm" as a criteria for policy, how long do you think automobiles would remain legal? Far more people are injured and killed in automobile accidents each year than by firearms. For that matter, more people drown than are killed by firearms.
To determine whether your run-of-the-mill libertarian will be for, or against, something, you need only ask yourself a couple of simple questions. Can it be used to uphold and defend rights? Does it increase, or decrease, personal freedom? This are the basic litmus tests that I use to determine my feelings on any issue. They are easily adapted to most any situation.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
This is one of those tired standard rebuttals to libertarian or self-defense advocates' ideas.
If your point had any merit whatsoever, you would not need to frame it in such ridiculous terms. Further, if my point had no merit, you wouldn't have to go to such lengths to discredit it.
Come up with something original, and plausible, rather than stealing from nntp://talk.politics.libertarian.bash.bash.bash.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Not too mention, I am a gun nut.
The thing that is bothering me is this, I look at countries that have made sincere attempts at keeping corporate structures from infiltrating government, and it seems like the result is a much higher level of corporate malfeasance in governmental affairs. Germany I think is the best example of this, seems like no matter what they do, corporations have much more power than they do in the states...I look at Siemens, Bosch or DaimlerChrysler. The same thing for France, for Sweden, definitely for Japan (which is slightly different, but anyway.)
There are two essential problems here, first, by regulating industries, the tendency is that you create regulations which inhibit small companies emerging to compete with the larger companies. Germans may hate big companies, but it is absolutely impossible for an entrepreneur to create their own little company in the German regulatory environment. The fact that there are no little companies is just plain disturbing to me.
The second reason, strongly associated with the first, is that when regulations come into play, only big companies have the resources to deal with those regulations, and influence the regulations. It seems impossible to avoid this, even if you were to ban any type of campaign financing. Fact is, leaders of big companies get attention no matter what.
My sincere question is, can you show me a country whose regulatory environment has successfully keeped companies small and outside of the political process as much as possible? As I said, the performance of the attempts don't seem very good.
I basically posted this elsewhere, but thought it was appropriate here too.
The thing that is bothering me is this, I look at countries that have made sincere attempts at keeping corporate structures from infiltrating government, and it seems like the result is a much higher level of corporate malfeasance in governmental affairs. Germany I think is the best example of this, seems like no matter what they do, corporations have much more power than they do in the states...I look at Siemens, Bosch or DaimlerChrysler. The same thing for France, for Sweden, definitely for Japan (which is slightly different, but anyway.)
There are two essential problems here, first, by regulating industries, the tendency is that you create regulations which inhibit small companies emerging to compete with the larger companies. Germans may hate big companies, but it is absolutely impossible for an entrepreneur to create their own little company in the German regulatory environment. The fact that there are no little companies is just plain disturbing to me.
The second reason, strongly associated with the first, is that when regulations come into play, only big companies have the resources to deal with those regulations, and influence the regulations. It seems impossible to avoid this, even if you were to ban any type of campaign financing. Fact is, leaders of big companies get attention no matter what.
My sincere question is, can you show me a country whose regulatory environment has successfully keeped companies small and outside of the political process as much as possible? As I said, the performance of the attempts don't seem very good.
I have a friend who's a self-described anarchist, who bases his political ideals on the idea that no one should have power over him.
I am a "self-described" (why do people always use that word? just because there's no anarchist party to join?) anarchist, who was in Philadelphia protesting. What you're using as an argument against anarchists is something that was probably handed down to you by your YCL leaders.
The point of anarchism is two-fold: I don't want anybody to have power over me, and I don't want to have power over anyone else. People who just care about the first part aren't anarchists, they're assholes.
Face it, man. Communism is dead. There's no possibility of a Communist revolution anymore. Anarchism, however, is gaining steam. The best thing you could do for yourself right now is to educate yourself about anarchism, and not blindly accept the propaganda of your "leaders."
Oh, and by the way, Anarchism is not opposed to organization, in fact anarchism and organization go hand in hand. It's *how* we organize that's the important part. "An" (without) "Archos" (rulers).
Here, read the Anarchism FAQ
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
I know little to nothing about anarchists as a group-I know some about the black bloc (morons, in a word), and I listen to what my friend says, that's it.
If that's the extent of your knowledge, why the hell aren't you educating yourself? I've read Marx and Engels, and countless other authoritarian socialists' work. I wouldn't criticize a viewpoint without at least being familiar with their arguments and point of view.
It's really not hard to read the FAQ
Then why has the YCL tripled in size in the last year? Come to Algeria next August for the Youth Festival, and tell the 5000 expected attendees that communism is dead.
Why is it that almost every new activist I come into contact with identifies with anarchism?
Pots and kettles, pal. And I'm not the one dressed all in black.
No, you're wearing red uniforms, provided to you by your organization. As witnessed in Philly, wearing black wasn't necessary to be an anarchist (only about 500 anarchists wore black). Or did you miss the Revolutionary Anarchist Clown Bloc?
Man, at least read something about anarchism before you start denouncing it.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
I am a proud libertarian, but if you think that implies that I worship the market, and that I'm going to vote (how do you eliminate government by encouraging it?) for the Libertarian Party, you're sorely mistaken.
Years ago, there were anarchists. They were a lot like socialists, except for one major difference: They didn't see the point (some even accurately predicted the brutality of Marxism) of taking over government to achieve socialism. Government, they felt, was the enemy of common people, and it was instituted by the powerful in order to protect their interests. In other words, government acts as a buffer between capitalism and people in order to prevent or squash revolution.
Then, at some point in Europe, it became illegal to call yourself an anarchist. So, people started calling themselves libertarians. Same concept, different name.
How did "libertarian" in the US end up being a fiscal conservative/social liberal mix? I don't know. But I wish it meant the revolutionary definition it was meant to. I wish I could call myself a libertarian without people automatically assuming that I'm in favor of privatizing the police and military.
I'm a libertarian (aka, anarchist), because I want to get rid of government, not transfer it's powers over to corporations.
Within Slashdot I see a lot of strange juxtopositions. We're rabidly anti-government, which is good. We're also rabidly opposed to certain corporations, which is also good. But a lot of us are still fixated on this ridiculous notion of "the market", as though human happiness could be measured by stock values.
I don't worship the market. I hate the market. I despise the idea that human worth is measured, packaged, and profited from. I don't want to accept a world where currency is backed up by military force, and where the only means of survival is working for the profit of others.
In short, I hate capitalism, and almost everything that it implies. Now, don't get me wrong, I hate Communism more. The way it looks, Communism has a lifespan of about 80 years, tops. Capitalism has a much longer lifespan, that is kept alive only by constant technological advancements that keep it going. But I have a feeling that it's at the end of it's rope. Maybe it's time to check out alternatives?
So, yes, I am a libertarian, but not in the legacy of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, or others who worshipped capitalism as the means and the goal. I am a libertarian in the legacy of P.J. Proudhon, Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, and Petr Kropotkin, who believed in revolution as the means, and freedom as the goal.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
No, 256/32 = 8. 32 is the number of pages on the large sheets of paper that are cut up to produce books.
Objectivists have a rigid moral system, based around self-interest (or "selfishness"),
... just kidding, sort of).
This is what made me think of this question in reading the book review was the "selfishness" aspect. I think that most objectivists would refer to this as "enlightened selfishness", but as far as I've ever seen, it's just regular selfishness.
Furthermore, Objectivism has a strict system of epistemology (reason), metaphysics (objective reality), and aesthetics (strongly resembling the works of Ayn Rand
Yep - that's why I was making the distinction between a political philosophy and a more general philosophy. What I don't understand is why in my experience (and I was also fishing to find out if anyone else had the same experience) they seem to go hand in hand.
In short: Libertarians believe that people should be free because intelligent people can differ. Objectivists believe that people should be free -- but that there is still only one "true way."
Ah but there's an important distinction to be made - objectivists would probably say that there is only one true way when reason is being used, while libertarians say that intelligent people can differ, but they're not necessarily using reason. For example, libertarians support drug legalization (or at least decriminilization) just like most of us, but I don't think that they'd say that an individual's decision to use drugs is based out of pure reason per se. Libertarians would support freedom of religion staunchly, where religion has little to do with reason, etc.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
An excellent point, but it brings up a lot of other extremely stick questions. I tend to agree with you on this one, but if humans tend to revert to this "natural state", then aren't we really fooling ourselves trying to defeat our own "programming" and imposing artificial order on things? What are the implications on liberty if we've established that:
What we've got is a situation where we cannot allow humanity to have what they want. Your choices are to bite the bullet and be free with a lousy economy, or to discourage natural "instinct" in the name of possibly artificial (and ultimately doomed) order?
Just playing a little devil's advocate...
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
The Ayn Rand folks tend to flock to Libertarian Party gatherings, because the major parties will not give them time of day, and the LP needs numbers at the polls if they are ever going to get major party status.
Makes sense to me - but is this backwards? I'm not claiming I'm right, but originally I thought that it was the libertarians who were becoming objectivists rather than the other way around.
Funny, because the objectivist philosophy seems quite similar to some of the economic policies of the GOP (friend of big business, hands off the economy, "self-regulation" is your friend)
on an unrelated note...
Their current national candidate is a former White House press-relations staffer who keeps making frequent overtures to the neo-nazis and then acts surprised when people get angry at him.
Yeah, just goes to show that even though you might have founded the party, it doesn't mean that you get the final say in the candidate of that party. Just ask Mr. Perot, who I understand is quite pissed about Buchanan.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
OK all of you libertarians - come on out of the works now.
Are most/some of libertarians also objectivists? (As in the philosophy put forward by Ayn Rand?) It seems that all of the libertarians that I know are also objectivists. While I myself tend to lean left (and way left) I'm interested in why these two things seem to be connected. They have some obvious parallels, but it's not necessarily intuitive that somebody who buys a certain political philosophy would also buy a certain more general philosophy.
So what's up with "you people"? (That last phrase added to stir a few people to respond, because I'm honestly interested)
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Actually, in my case, you're right. I did want some relatively small restraints put on them, but I think a breakup was a bad idea. I had a letter in Infoworld a while back that can be searched on that had my whole solution - I won't repost it here.
If a society agrees on rules to conduct business by, I have no problem with those rules being used and enforced. Since we haven't risen up to overturn the Sherman Act, then it's the law of the land until such time as it is overturned - Microsoft broke it, and should be made to play by the rules. Carving them up isn't right.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Because, despite there being a tremendous number of silly people associated with the stated goals of the Libertarian Party, I happen to agree with the overall goals anyway.
To oversimplify the decision-making process for me:
The Republicans want to let my company do whatever it wants, and tell me what to do in the privacy of my own home. They assume that I'm Christian, and generally don't support not being one. And they want to take a lot of my money and waste it on dumb stuff like shooting down missiles.
The Democrats want to tell my company what to do, and let me do whatever I want, but only if I'm a minority or gay. They want to take even more of my money, and instead of wasting it on shooting down missiles, they want to waste it on a big bureaucracy of people who will, in turn, give a little bit of that money to poor people.
The Libertarians want government to stay the heck out of people's lives, let them make their own business and moral choices, and use as little money as possible doing so. Other parties have made big splashes - the radical left has turned to the Green Party, and the Reform Party sprung into being on the whims and bankroll of one man (let's see how they do with Perot off the ballot before we call them a real third party). Neither of them appeal to me. Were he running for President under any banner, Jesse Ventura is ironically the politician whose views agree most closely with mine on most issues.
That's why I'm a Libertarian. It's the closest party to my views. Perhaps I'm an idealist, but the Republicrats do nothing for me, Nader is pathetic, Perot is nuts, and Buchanan is possibly the most frightening man in mainstream politics.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
And Cyberselfish is proof.
Yes, libertarian thought puts the individual first. But generally, that comes from a belief that the individual is capable of making their own informed decisions about what's best for them - not from a "me first" attitude.
Where that coincides with Objectivism is the raising up of the individual. But Objectivism leans more to the "me first" than does libertarianism. However, despite the reasons, since the two do converge on the individual, a lot of libertarians are Objectivists, and virtually all Objectivists are libertarian.
However, that leaves a lot of us who wouldn't touch Objectivism with a ten-foot pole, but are libertarian in belief and practice, and Libertarian (with a capital letter this time) in political affiliation.
The difference to me is that libertarianism is fundamentally optimistic about human nature. We assume that people may be mildly selfish, but are willing to make some sacrifice on behalf of the common good if they are not coerced to do so. I may not be as wealthy as a dot-com millionaire (or Rob and Jeff), but I give money to charitable causes on a regular basis, donate pretty nice stuff to the Salvation Army, Goodwill, and the like, bring canned food to my town's homeless shelter, and my used newspapers and other stuff to the pet shelter, and also vociferously support the Libertarian Party, of which I am a member. No, I'm not a saint, but there's no conflict involved there, folks. And I'm not the only one who behaves this way.
The people who don't Get It generally confuse libertarianism with Objectivism. Don't paint us all with that brush - it's far too wide and the Objectivist paint is far too thick. A reasonable amount of altruism is not incompatible with being a Libertarian.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
The key word is chose . Microsoft has not chosen to open source their property, and that's OK. Some of us may chose to buy Windows, some of us may chose Linux, some of us may chose a little of both. Decide as a free individual what you want to do with your life and the results of your labor.
As for "cyberselfishness": philanthropy is an old man's game, for when entrepreneurs are done creating wealth. To complain that the Silicon Valley geeks won't stop creating wealth and start giving it away is absurd. Bill Gates is transitioning to philanthropy, after creating $billions. If you're too impatient to wait, may I humbly suggest you create your own wealth to do with as you see fit?
Another thing - given our unfair tax system, a decent chunk of their output is going to the masses already (albeit with half or so being spent on keeping big government running, lining pockets, etc).
If people didn't work 3-4 months every year as a slave to their government, perhaps they would feel more up to donating.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
---
hate furrinurs, private religeous schools paid for tax dollars.....oops I mean vouchers, fuck you. C'mon admit it.
---
You're obviously confused.
Read this and this. Then, you'll see that your impression of libertarianism is quite misguided.
In short (in case you'd rather not follow those links), Libertarians are for open borders and privatizing the educational system. The former is pretty much self explanatory, and the latter would ensure that my money won't go to churches if I don't want it to (and I don't).
Perhaps you were thinking of these guys instead?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
But what about gun control laws then?
Why are libertarians often so pro-gun?
Libertarians believe they are responsible for their own safety. A firearm is by far the most effective means of self defense (other than good judgement and situational awareness, of course.)
There used to be a difference. But today Libertarianisn has co-opted one for the other. There is no longer a difference. Once upon a time it was not polite to say "I want my shit and fuck you too". But now we have Libertarianism which more or less says the same thing except in a clouded crypto-euphemistic acceptable way. It's not just about the Gummint either. It's also about not giving a shit about what your neighbors think. Not giving a shit about them at all. If they're different from you. It's about tribalism. Once upon a time there was a movement toward hyphenation; the ethnic hyphenation of Americans. But that really didn't work because it didn't give people much opportunity to feel superior to everyone else because it encoded the same old stereotypes. Today though we have 'ideology' based divisions, whatever they are. So you can mix in whomever you want & feel that you're part of a really important mob.
You can carp about how Libertarianism is all about personal freedom, small Gummint, blah blah but in the end it's about: hate taxes, hate Clinton, gimme my guns, hate furrinurs, private religeous schools paid for tax dollars.....oops I mean vouchers, fuck you. C'mon admit it.
Parties are meant to be a link between people and government but do they really do this anymore? They just seem to be a way for a lot of people with different views to compromise everything so they can hold power (which means nothing when you've compromised away everything you wanted to do). I don't know if we can do better, though.
Random points: Its "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", you got a superfluous "the" in there. Its surprisingly readable for academic political philosophy. Its also (IMNAAHO) not so much mistaken as inadequate to the task it sets out to acheive. Nozick has since changed his mind about quite a lot (though not all) of it, and has spent many recent years trying to devise a just system of inheritance taxation. I disagree strongly (regardless of its inadequacy) with his basic premise that a potential explanation is almost as good as a real one.
Nozick is not only a classmate of Rawls, but a friend and an admirer. "Anarchy, State and Utopia" was intended as a counterpoint to Rawls' infinitely duller "A Theory of Justice" (though I suspect Rawls' is a by far the better reasoned theory). Rawls is emphatically not an apologist for the welfare state (based on entitlement) but an advocate of a kind of modernised liberalism (in the classic sense) based on the idea that a system is just if someone would agree to participate in it even if they had no idea what their position in the society would be.
First I should point out that I am a libertarian, with a small l, in that my primary interest in politics is to ensure maximum freedom for everyone, but I have a rather broader idea of that than the LP program does, and thus could never support them, even if I were an American. I'm just posting to spew a little random political philosophy. Your argument that we should first assume that new laws are unecessary until proven otherwise rests on totally libertarian assumptions, and this sounds totally reasonable. However, there are other logical (and possibly moral) political positions to take. Its possible to argue that society comes before the individual, both historically and morally, and this argument is sound insofar as there never was a "state of nature" with individuals fending for themselves. Rather, humans have always lived in groups and those groups have always been hierarchical. The state it merely the latest in a long line of forms of social organisation which are hierarchical in that some individuals are acknowledged as leading the rest (within some constraints). Thus the states use of force, in this view, is not the anwarranted and unjustifiable coercion it is in the libertarian view, but rather a necessary (but regrettable) part of the social structure. Not that I agree with this. It simply needs to be pointed out that enlightenment liberal ideas are a recent innovation, and while they may *seem* obvious they are not.
There really are no compelling arguments against libertarianism that I''ve seen.
Sigh. Well this article is so old, noone will ever read this, but I cannot let you get away with saying this without challenge.
There are a great many arguments against libertarianism that hold some water, but if you reason entirely from libertarian principles its possible to condemn just about all of them as authoritarian. I recommened Mike Hubens excellent Site of critiques of libertarianism including his Non-libertarian FAQ for many different views.
The problem is that libertarianism reasoning is a hermetically closed loop of logic, which is in itself free of inconsistencies, but in itself that proves nothing. Nothin about consistency gaurantees good governance, and nothing about the way the principle of libertarianism are derived does either. This is why, to be completely blunt, libertarians are so dogmatic (the statement "there are no good arguments ..." is dogmatic, and arrogant. If you disagree, check a dictionary), and those who try to argue with them get so frustrated.
The logic goes like this: The highest value is freeedom. We must maximise everyone's freedom. This is meant in the negative sense of freedom: a man is free if noone prevents him doing as he pleases with himself and his property if he interferes with noone else. Thus the sole role of the state is the prevention of coercion and fraud.
The first thing to note is that this is a very unusal use of the word "freedom". In general usage people are happy to talk about their freedom at work, or in their families, or to change suppliers for some good. Libertarians, however, assert that if you sign a contract obliging you to do something you have acted freely, and thus if I complain about my lack of freedom to, say, take bathroom breaks at work, this is mere whinging and my freedom has not been affected. After all, I can quite, can't I ? and I signed the contract with my employer in the first place.
To see this, if its not sufficiently clear, consider an employer who sets up separate "whites only" and "blacks only" drinking fountains at work, and fires employess who disregard the separation. Most of us would consider such behaviour abhorent, and most people would not object to a law against it. Libertarians, however, assert that the employer is quite within his rights. I admit I'm pressing emotional buttons to make a point here. I don't imply that libertarianism implies racism, or that libertarians would condone such employment politicies. I do, however, assert that the libertarian idea of freedom is not very close to the common use of the word. IMHO this problem derives from treating property as an extension of the person and essentially absolute. It is better - in my view - to see property as a social phenomenon, a compromise, whose use must be regulated.
Secondly, and along similar lines, libertarianism is not an adequate moral system, as should be clear from the above. At best all it offers is a minimal framework for law. Nothing in fundamental libertarian philosophy prevents one from selling oneself into slavery, for instance.
The only possible justification for libertarianism other than that it is moral is that it is efficient - that it provides the greatest degree of social or economic good of any social system. The arguments here are economic, but they are at the very least inconclusive. You have to believe in the perfection of the unregulated free market to accept them.
I just finished this book myself. It's well worth reading. It's well written and extremely funny in places.
However, you shouldn't read it for the author's critical view of the culture in Silicon Valley. She either doesn't understand most of what she's talking about, or (more likely) is too concerned about keeping her writing lively to spend much time on nuances. She spends most of the book setting up a series of straw men, each based on a wild caricature, and burning each in effigy. She doesn't often meet the opposition head-on. She tends to sideswipe, then move on before the reader notices that she hasn't really inflicted much real damage.
So why should you read this book? Because it's a fascinating, although unintended, glimpse into the way the Progressive subculture views, and pretty much completely misunderstands, the Valley subculture. If you ever tune in to Pacifica Radio, and wonder where their strange and schizophrenic ideas about high tech come from, this is a good place to start. If you've ever been on a blind date with an Arts student who seemed half afraid of you, you will know why after reading this book. (It has to do with geeks' well-known fascination with S&M---if you don't believe me, just read the book.) If you wonder why ex-hippy waitresses in Santa Cruz coffee shops react so strangely to your Cisco teeshirt, the explanation for that is probably here too.
As I replied on LT in re the quoted passage, it is
amazingly humorous that PB would dare to ask
whether one would found rather found a biz in a
nation/state now suffering the historical whiplash
of near 100 years of communism vs. a still
prosperous nation where entrepreneurism has been
celebrated for more than 200 years, then claim
that the obvious answer has something to do with
the "goodness" of state authority.
As for derision of libertarianism's spontaneous
order I point out that the supposed "paradox"
between libertarianism and "open source" is no
paradox at all; "open source" is a living,
breathing example of that spontaneous order in
action.
We earn our money in a specific context - the money is printed by a government, in a society that has by decree and habit accepted money as "legal tender for all debts private and public," kept in banks producted by the FDIC, in the context of a society that has created a sophisticated and extensive infrastructure in which we operate - an infrastructure that enables us to transport goods and travel with relative safety (freeways, air traffic control), that limits epidemics with public health works, that educates us to a literacy rate in the 90%s (compare that with previous centuries), and in this context we work and get income, some of which is then given back in the form of taxes. The context itself provides for the possibility of owning anything at all: it is the legal and social ground rules of commerce and property that make the very idea of 'stealing' possible. Virtually no one earns money without being aware of the fact that they are going to be taxed on it - to call it stealing is naive and absurd.
Isn't it absolutely obvious that you *can* hurt someone else with a gun?
Of course you can hurt someone with a gun, they wouldn't be as much use if you couldn't. But gun ownership, and the safe use thereof, does *not* hurt anyone else. The criminal misuse of a firearm can and therefore should be illegal and carry stiff penalties. But simply telling good people that they cannot do something because of the actions of others, is simply wrong.
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Not, granted, with BSD, you have even more rights, but the point is, the GPL gives you rights, not removes them.
You'd have even more rights with Public Domain code. But, again, you have to license it as public domain code. All the licenses I just mentioned add rights to your normal copyright rights, not remove them.
Yes, there are licenses that try to take away default rights that owners of copyright materials possess, like the right of first sale and the right to make backups. GPL and BSD are not them. That is why you never have to click 'I Agree'. With the GPL and BSD, you have, again, more rights then default.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The idea that any improvement you make belongs to the community is a sure way to prevent you from capitalizing on your own work.
How so? If you're improving someone else's work using code distributed under the GPL (or your non-BSD Open Source license of choice) why should you get to capitalize on their work?
If you don't like Open-Source licenses, don't use or modify any code offered by them. For now, it seems that closed-source products are still financially viable.
People who are complaining about "having to reinvent the wheel" because they can't use GPL code in closed products are the true selfish bastards in this case.
It's basically saying that because you got seeds from the community they own the fruit you raised in the fields.
<RANT type="intellectual-property-is-not-property">
Your straw man doesn't hold up. If I make a copy of your code, you still have that code. If I take fruit from you, you don't. The two are not the same at all.
<RANT>
Jay (=
Libertarianism champions the "free enterprise" model which mostly panders to the greed, ignorance and fear of the general public.
Could you please elaborate? I'm really curious why you consider free markets to pander to ignorance and fear. Indeed, I think the precise opposite is true: governments tend to justify further interventions using fear and ignorance. Markets and prices are extremely efficient at producing and transmitting information from producers and consumers, while government tend to operate by obfuscating costs and benefits.
The libertarian wants to be unhindered in his activity to participate in market forces. This seems antithetical and inconsistant with theOpen Source method to me.
Again, not true at all. The hallmarks of free enterprise are competition and ruthless meritocracy. The good gets promoted, and the medocre and bad are weeded out. This seems to me an apt description of Open Source, which tends to rapidly adopt and propogate those code changes that work best.
Free markets are also characterized by a radical decentralization of economic decisions, just as Open Source is a radical decentralization of coding decisions.
Why is it considered selfish to believe that I know best how to lead MY life?
Good question. Probably because those in power (and in this purile chick's case, power takes on the form of old media cultural gestapo defining what is "in", what is "out", what is "good", and what is not) feel slighted when we deny them that power.
Control freaks are drawn to power like moths to fire, and I've yet to meet an old media reporter who wasn't, in some way, addicted to the power their words have over others. Our rejection of this paradigm, and of the kind of power mongering this sad woman personifies, is in a way selfish. After all, we should be giving of our own freedom freely, to feed the cravings of the poor, desperate, power-hungary political and cultural elite.
Shame on us.
Ob: incompetent moderation: There is nothing, anywhere in the preceeding post, to justify moderating it down as a troll, or for that matter, moderating it down at all.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Interesting example, considering that, in Minnesota, people over the age of 12 are not required to wear a seatbelt unless they're riding in the front seat. So the example you provided of how not wearing a seatbelt could hurt someone else happens to be a case where a seatbelt isn't required anyhow under MN law... (Or at least that was the original MN seatbelt law. It may have changed since then.)
I suppose Thomas Jefferson was an "adolescent and peevish libertarian"? Some of us are deeply concerned about our freedoms and liberties, which are too often sacrificed on the altar of convenience and expedience. I believe in the principles that underlie the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Freedom has a price, which many Americans are unwilling to pay, preferring the security and conformity of the nanny state.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Borsook wrote:
It is clear from this passage that Ms. Borsook considers these benefits of the state as rationalizing its existence and power. Presumably, (Borsook never spells it out) the argument goes as follows: the state paid (or pays) for X (a Good thing); "without the government, there would be no" X; thus, there must be state rule if you value X. Hence, to oppose the state is to oppose X. And if X is truly Good, then every opponent of the state is, at best, not Good.
Or worse: for a person who has *benefitted* from X to oppose the state is either disgusting I-got-mine hypocrisy (if X is a past benefit received, like the internet, an education, or an interstate highway), or worse, idiotically self-destructive (if X is an ongoing benefit from the state, like labels on linens and environmental regulation). This is the origin of the two negative characterizations that frame the piece: the teenager and the know-nothing.
This chain of reasoning is flawed. The state is NOT the only means of providing X for almost *every* X. Every one of the goods and services Borsook mentions -- the internet, microprocessors, research universities and their graduates, limited access superhighways, clean water, labels on linens, environmental quality -- could plausibly be provided mostly via private means. (That "mostly" is a caveat meant to acknowledge the role of the state in providing law enforcement, needed for the market to function.) Indeed, many similar goods and services *are* created outside of the state.
Of course, the market has a logic quite different from the state sector; without state interference these goods and services almost certainly would not have come about in the way they did. For instance, it seems very plausible that, absent state subsidy, the net would not have come about as quickly, nor in the particular form we now find it. We might be ten or twenty years "behind" where we are now. However, I find this scenario perfectly acceptable for two reasons: first, I don't buy the myth of progress. The net is "progress" -- but the benefits accrue mostly to those who can afford to access it. Second, the money paying for this subsidy, "the greatest government subsidy of technology and expansion in technical education the planet has ever seen", did not just magically appear. It was taken, in taxes (or alternatively, in reduced services), from those who need it more than "we" do. In other words, like so many other state programs, this subsidy was *regressive*. I wonder if, given the choice, Ms. Borsook would have supported this policy? Does the actual outcome, which evidently rankles, shake her faith at all in the planned economy?
Ms. Borsook can certainly take issue with the logic of the market and try to convince people that it would not do X in a way they would like. And libertarians can say, "would too", and she, "would not", repeatedly.
That sort of political argument is interesting, but it moves away from my point. Libertarians have much the same political goal as everyone else: to live peacefully in a prosperous, happy society of liberty and justice. This obviously requires certain goods (and services) to be provided -- somehow. Unlike the mainstream, libertarians believe that most goods and services can (and should) be provided via private means. We may be wrong in this belief, but to *assume* the opposite is true in order to demonstrate that our ideology is internally inconsistent (and that the technologists among us are thus ungrateful idiots) is logically unsound. You must refute our beliefs, not assume they are wrong.
The GPL _forces_ you to release your source code. That is not libertarian.
My Journal
I have no problem with Switzerland. I was short circuiting the arguement that firearms in provatehands lead to murder. There is no better example of the fact that they do not than Switzerland.
Hitler didn't overlook Switzerland by accident.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
All laws are based in morlity on some level.
And wouldn't you also disagree with the de-facto ban on abortion imposed by extremist?
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
For the record, you have to really look hard to find "pro abortion" people. There is a substantial difference between that and pro-choice.
Pro "choice" is a misnomer. So called "pro choice" activists are constantly fighting against any measure to increase women's knowledge of choices other than abortion. In Florida the ACLU has filed a lawsuit to prevent the state from issuing "Choose Life" license plates. Why? Because it goes against the pro abortion politics of a certain group of people.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why is it considered selfish to believe that I know best how to lead MY life?
Why is it selfish for me to think that each individual person knows more about how his/her life should be than some would be regulator?
The fact that some people out there are too stupid to productively lead their own lives shouldn't mean that the rest of us should submit to arbitrary regulation of our every day lives.
For the record, I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a Republican. I own several guns, I'm going to vote for George W Bush, I own a gas guzzling Sports car and a big honking SUV. Why? Because I feel like it. That's the only reason any of us should need to give. I believe that Welfare should be a second chance or a leg up, not a way of life. I'm in favor of executing murderers.
I believe all of these things because human history has demonstrated that the biggest threat to individual freedom and liberty is consistantly a government gone awry. Democide (being killed by one's own government) has been the biggest non medical cause of death this century. 56 MILLION people have been killed by their own governments this century alone. As much as I happen to like my form of government, I still see the need to limit it's power. Who knows who will be in charge in 50 years, do you want someone like Jesse Helms with the investigative power to command the intelligence community to start snooping on people? I know that I don't.
People don't care about the erosion of their constitutional rights, but they flip their wigs at the thought of higher ATM fees, or the fact that the FBI might have an easier time reading the dirty email that they just sent to that girl that they met on effnet.
While the average person is being reduced to a semi-literate consumeroid, a profit battery for some giant corporate machine, there must be SOMEONE who cares about the future of the world. Why not us? If there is no other group of people who cares enough to think further ahead that what's for dinner tonight, why then shouldn't it be us who cares about the generations to come?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
ALthough I feel that your choice of who you vote for an be based upon any thing you wish. It very well could have even been "I'm voting for the first guy to wear a grey tie".
I've got to take issue with a few things that you said. What did Clinton know about foreign policy when he got elected? He was governor of Arkansas. Arkansas! At least Texas is the second biggest state. While you may take issue with Bush's grammatical prowess, at least he's not trying to take credit for things that he had nothing to do with (Love Canal, Love Story, The Internet). Lastly, I don't know if GWB is an asshole or not, but what makes you think that he;s "cold hearted"?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I am a woman, and I will tell you quite clearly that I have not met a woman YET who is pro-choice.
Judging by the rest of your post, I'll assume that you meant to say pro-life. How's this Norma McCorvey, the woman who was Jane Roe in Roe v Wade, is pro LIFE. She has come over from the other side. She now sees how she was used.
Woman have to live with the fear that, if abortion is outlawed, they may one day have to take care of a child, a PERSON, for their entire life.
Bullshit. There are five year waiting lists for people who want to adopt.
Don't you think that having a child changes everything? Maybe not everyone wants to change?
And murdering a defenseless human being doesn't change anything? Once you're pregnant, it's too late. Things have changed. Murdering your child can't undo what was done.
Men don't have to deal with that.
Bullshit. Although I have always taken the necessary precautions to prevent becoming a father, I have several friends who have not. Paternity tests and child support are merely the financial end of all of the changes that occur for these men.
They can make a "mistake" tonight, and walk away tomorrow.
Bullshit. There is a legal system that can, and often does force men to be responsible for their actions.
It's easy for a man to be pro-life, because none of his choices affect him.
Bullshit. Liberal mistake #3 Gender Warfare. Do you think that the physical effects of pregnancy are the only factors involved?
In many ways, abortion is the only way to create equality for men and women.
Not even close. If you want true equality, men should have the ability to legally abort their paternity. If a woman chooses to have a baby and the man does not want to be a part of it, he should be able to legally sever all of his parental rights and responsibilities. That would be equality, not infanticide.
I am sorry that you feel the way you do about so-called "birth-control abortions", but you have a right to think that. Just don't take away the right to abortion for when it is truly needed.
Define "needed". If you're talking about, rape, incest or when an abortion is needed to save your life, then fine. We can be in agreement about those cases. If you define need as "I really NEED to have an abortion before my family finds out that I'm pregnant!" then, you and I are going to be in disagreement. I will do everything in my power, and within the law, to change that. Even if it means voting for someone whom I don't agree 100% with.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This subject definitely intrigues me, but I think such broad generalizations about cultures are dangerous and miss some of the interesting details.
:)
What I personally find ironic of all the talk of libertarianism attached to the technology boom is that I have not found large amounts of libertarians in the young, high-tech groups that I have frequented, but then again I have found that most of such groups in which I have been involved have been made up of more of the "geeks" (excuse the generalization, but I am trying to expedite the writing of this comment) than the people more interested in making money.
Although I am certainly not averse to the concept of making loads of money as an engineer (both to be comfortable financially and be able to contribute to good causes), I have been more interested in the technology and am very much a liberal rather than a libertarian. I do not want the government to interfere with privacy or free speech on the Internet, but I was a true supporter of the anti-trust case against Microsoft, which was government intervention at its best.
The people that strike me as having a libertarian bent (i.e., not necessarily libertarians but sharing the government-back-out-of-business standpoint) are the self-proclaimed "visionaries." These people are seemingly the semi-techies that read Wired as their source of tech news instead of more in-depth sources (I'm sorry, but that magazine is more about colorful pictures than real technology reporting). They also seem to simply be business students/recent grads that are looking to make a quick buck and masquerade themselves as understanding the technology (even to the point of having the hubris, at least after their IPOs, to call themselves "visionaries").
It's just a thought. I think it would be interesting, though, if someone would do a study on the success vs. failure of start-ups compared to who actually started them, the "visionaries" or actual scientists (man I hate the word technologist used in a non-sci-fi context
SB
He shouldn't have put the word 'grits' in the title.
Slowly catch a clue, eh? You sure it's not 'slowly want to impose their own moral values on those they disagree with'?
Anyone that tells me my children have to have a mythology-based set of rules posted in their public school should be ashamed of themselves.
No it doesn't.
First of all, you can write and release open source software without going anywhere near the GPL, so the specifics of the GPL are pretty much irrelevant to your assertion than open source is not libertarianism. If you don't like GPL, then don't use GPL. Release your code under BSD license if you want to.
And secondly, the GPL doesn't force anything even when you modify someone else's work that was released under GPL. It simply offers you an additional right that you otherwise wouldn't have (redistribution of someone else's copyrighted work) in exchange for an obligation (redistributing the source). If you don't want to make that bargain, that's fine. You can reject the offer and still modify someone else's GPLed software all that you want, and never release your source. Just don't break copyright law by redistributing the derivative work. (And copyright law is not contrary to libertarianism.)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Given the number of people who drive drunk versus the number of fatalities they cause, I don't see why libertarians would outlaw drunk driving before they'd outlaw gun ownership.
If you're interested in detailed, comprehensive, and well-thought-out arguments against libertarianism, I recommend this Web site.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
It's my fault; I submitted the review originally for Adam, and then posted it when Jon Katz wrote his article. I feel guilty now because I knew the review hadn't been rejected, but I wanted to put it up in response to Katz. So this review has appeared twice on Slashdot, but as another person said, now everyone who turns off Jon Katz can read it. Or is it Jon Katz who turns everyone off?
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
Borsook isn't saying that everyone's a Randian, polyamorist, or free software / open source zealot; she is saying that the tech-culture (by which she is particularly referring to computer culture rather than the scientific community, biology etc.) is dominated by what she refers to as "technolibertarianism". It's "little l libertarianism" instead of "capital L Libertariansim", more an emotional/gestalt attitude than necessarily a political philosophical position. I'd say that most coders/admins (and admins in particular) have a certain deep belief in self-entitlement--they really believed that they worked hard to get where they are, and continue to work hard, and noone really helped them or encouraged them, and that they're underappreciated--and that belief extends to their understanding (or lack thereof) of history and their place in it, their feelings about societal responsibility, their feelings about government (the US government, and the institution in general), etc.
Tied into that is a degree of arrested development, a glorification of adolescent ideals (guns, cool toys, etc.), a level of social gaucheness, that can both be good--it's certainly not bad to be a bit childlike, and be more honest and excitable about beauty than some postmodern jaded bohemian, but it is bad to be childish.
Today's culture in general pushes people to become uneducated cynics, rebels without a cause. It's easy to get trapped in a teenager-like mold, where you've realized that nothing is perfect but you don't know what to do about it. It's pretty hard to find faith in this world. This is more true for techies, perhaps, than anyone else, to whom the promise of technology is so clear but the imperfection, even ugliness, of society is also so apparent.
Pretty much all Borsook is saying is that techies fall into the trap of trying to ignore, denigrate, or escape society. But they can't--especially when they're becoming ever more responsible for it. All of the topics in her book focus on just that, the intersection of techies and social change, through the Bionomics conferences, and Wired magazine, and the cypherpunks, and charity--and those intersections all are definably libertarian.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
I personally think it's pretty accurate. Obviously, reasonable people can disagree, but there is evidence that supports Borsook's position, both anecdotal and empirical, though one can mount arguments/attacks against either form.
Anecdotal evidence is a lot easier to refute, but the empirical evidence includes the low rate of charitable giving in Silicon Valley, statistical analysis of Usenet discussions, statistical analysis of tech-oriented convention topics (like hacker cons, bionomics conference, etc.), statistical analysis of Wired articles, etc.
Of course, one can say that Usenet, tech-cons, Wired, etc. aren't truly representative of tech culture, but then, what are? Maybe it's just the loudmouths of technoculture/hackerdom that are libertarian (small l!) but it's pretty difficult to gather empirical evidence on unrecorded views.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
You're thinking of the Reason review, Cybersilly.
I can't make myself add yet another link to it, as there's been about 30 already, but I'll link to my metalist.
I'm asking Paulina for a response on this; she's usually pretty responsive to reasonable emails.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
Even Joshua ben Joseph gave notice that there's more than one way to do things.... Remember the Good Samaritan? Samaritans, lest you forget, were good, old-fashioned, bull-sacrificing, Baal-worshipping PAGANS... y'all are smart, go figure. Love your neighbors. Love your enemies, and drive'em nuts!
Oh, and one more thing. Objectivists have morals, sure. Rules somebody wrote down in some book somewhere, to be followed slavishly and at the expense of everything else. Gimme a fscking break. Libertarians have ethics: Guidelines(*) to be used within a situation to effect a desired set of consequences. In this case the consequences are to maximize freedom, in general by preventing others from imposing force or fraud on the individual in question.
One more thing I want to question here, and that is the giving to charity. Now, I don't give to too many folks. But I have enough enlightened self-interest to see that there are a number of charities that I, myself, do or might benefit from. EFF. GNU. Various medical research organizations. etc. etc. ad infinitum nauseumque. What goes around comes around... what those Silicon Valley hotshots haven't figured out is that you get out of life what you put into it, same as a computer. Those dudes down there may die with the most toys, but they're still dead. Game over, man! I say live a little, give a little, and be much happier for it.
Free-lovin', drug-legalizin', non-judgemental hippie heatherns, you betcha.... and a lot happier for it than anybody who says There Ain't But One Way To Do It. (cf. Larry Wall, eh?)
(*)Guidelines: remember them, Usenetters? rules made to be bent or even broken with just cause.
--
"I tried. I tried to warn them. But it all happened, just the way I remembered it." -- Jeffrey David Sinclair, "War Without End II" (B5)
Sorry if the shouting offends, but too may people don't get that concept. No, healthcare is not a federal right. Basic education should be, but only because we've let the universal sufferage cat out of the bag... too late to make sure that only those smart enough to understand got to vote, so we have to do it the other way 'round now. *shrug* gives us a few more people maybe brave enough to speak up when the emperor goes nekkid....
What really bugs me is these sheeple enslaved to the congressman they think will vote them the most largesse from the federal treasury.... but I digress. By getting the hell out the way, and in so doing not stealing so bloody much from your paycheck, the Libertarian government allows you to take care of yourself, invest for your retirement, contribute to private charity for people's welfare, and basically do all those things people get uptight about, without anyone telling them how they HAVE to do it. Yes, I suppose your basic county health department is a good thing; it keeps otherwise-sick folk from spreading things... but this is run at a very local level; it's not a federal mandate. Other than that, IMHO things are far better run by someone not drawing a government paycheck.
As for Cliff's Silicon Snake Oil: There is a difference in using the computer as a mechanism for escaping the real world, and using it as a tool to build communities that would not otherwise exist (and eventually getting parts of them to meet in realspace). Poor Cliff got burned by the former. I quickly learned to do the latter. My first trip to California, several love affairs, my first meeting with the lady who is now my wife, and this job, 3000 miles from home, are all consequences of encounters on various networks. Sure, the box doesn't love you. But it doesn't make those little riffs from sweetie@myhome.com any less special... or the fact that it says "pick up some milk on the way home" any less useful. It's a tool, like a machete. You can hack your way thru all these trees, and find yourself lost in the forest.... or you can cut sugar cane, and make RUM! :) (Or Krispy Kreme donuts, for those of us less inclined to imbibe :)
Your choice. That's what it's all about.
--
I am Homer of Borg. You will be assim... Oooh! Donuts!
libertarianism == anarchy
-slams
-slams
Libertarians like myself would LOVE to give to charities of our choice. The only problem is that the government chooses for us which charities we should give to by re-distributing our wealth (or capital) in ways we disagree with, through taxes and entitlements.
Libertarians believe in charity, so strongly in fact, that they (we) want to supplant welfare with it. For 150 years, the US depended on charity to act as the safety net of our nation and was quite often highly successful. But with the New Deal that went away, and a new corrupt and unbalanced system was forced into place.
Charity today takes a back seat to entitlement programs and this is wrong. We are left with little else choice but to give only a fraction of what we want to give to charity because we are taxed so heavily (and I'm not just talking income tax and SS either).
Libertarians are not selfish. They are quite generous because they know that a successful society should have charity to defend itself against the cancerous spread of apathy and poverty.
My answer is that I don't like people telling me what to do. I don't like the government taking my money and telling me how I'm going to spend it. I don't like policeman that give you a ticket for speeding, and then raise or lower the ticket depending on how polite you are to them. I don't like pornography, but I don't like the government telling me what I can read even more. This is why I am a libertarian.
I also wouldn't like someone telling me I had to write software for free. But I do it because I want to. The free software movement is about the good parts of collectivism but not the bad. People can spontaneously work together for a common good, and no-one has to be forced to do anything. There really isn't a conflict with being an Open Source Libertarian. People are free to leave or join any project they want; you can't give much more power to the individual than that.
The basic assumption here seems simple enough : everyone is free to do as the choose so long as they don't hamper or endanger the freedom of others.
However, just because one is free does not mean that one will make the decisions that will enable one to live the best life one possibly can, in some sense.
For instance, the Libertarian.org site discusses one application of the Libertarian philosophy : science and technology. They state that they feel that science and technology can do better without the "aid" (quotes theirs) of government.
This is a very curious position. The basic science and technology research which is pursued in our nation and others would be entirely impossible without large-scale funding from government agencies, which are ultimately supported by taxation. If directly asked whether they would support most science endeavors through personal donations, most citizens would flatly refuse -- they simply don't enough about the research fields involved. Even _scientists_ have difficulty deciding which projects should be funded -- hence the need for peer-reviewed funding agencies like NSF, NIST, NASA, etc. Yet, one cannot deny the huge impact which such research has had on our lives -- basical medical advances, fundamental knowledge of the universe, semiconductor technologies -- all would be impossible without the basic and applied research pursued by government.
The biggest payoff of one such gamble was the DARPA project funded in the late 1960s that would eventually flourish into the internet we know today. Under the Liberterian ideals espoused, the internet would not exist today.
In a nutshell, every individual simply does _not_ know what is best for themselves. The massive amounts of knowledge and technical know-how are distributed throughout the members of our society, and it is sheer hubris to think that any individual can make basic research decisions (in effect, by donations) better than the collective of all scientists and technologists in the nation. It is true that one sacrifices some amount of freedom by willingly supporting their decisions through taxation, but in exchange one receives all of the knowledge, and technical and medical advances which our society has received by supporting basic and applied research on large scales.
Libertertian.org is here today because of definitively non-Liberterian principles.
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
Libertarians don't believe in unrestricted liberty. They believe in unrestricted private activity. Anything that infringes upon another would not be considered private activity.
Maybury sums up Libertarian thought with his "Two Fundamental Laws":
1) Do not infringe on anyone else's person or property (the basis of Tort Law)
2) Do all that you have said you will do (the basis of Cntract Law)
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
It's true that Libertarianism is poorly understood in the United States; elsewhere in the world it is known as Liberalism, or "classical liberalism". Here in the States, "liberals" are equivalent to what Europe calls "social democrats".
:
Unfortunately, you've fallen into the same trap that Stateside media has -- this meaningless Left/Right distinction.
For more information, see http://www.libertarian.org/history.html#classical
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Mmmm, such discriminating logic, coupled with biting wit.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
No kidding, there. A Browne-Nader debate would be the indicator I've been wishing for -- that politics in the United States still has a pulse.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
This is reasonable in theory, but the systems that I have heard as solutions are either extremely unwieldy or limit the liberties of the individual in favor of the state (not libertarian at all).
What systems have you examined? It seems to me that there is a *lot* of interesting work being done in this area, particularly that which involves, or responds to, the Coase Theorem.
Reason Magazine has published a lot of editorial material regarding the Commons, and it has served me well as an introduction to the Classical Liberal discussion of the Tragedy.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis added)
It's plain disingenuous to quote out of context to support your argument.
MJPDon't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
I've heard it said that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same party: the party of Power. They simply disagree on the details of how to impose their values upon your life.
I've even heard it argued (compellingly so) that the Republican/Democrat split is a well-instrumented system for exploiting the US government by providing two popular -- and supposedly alternative -- paths to the same goal: centralization.
In my view, the Republicans and Democrats are akin to the Karma Mafia scam perpetrated here on Slashdot.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
You think corporations need the government to fuck us? What had M$ been doing for over a decade? What were you paying for gas last month? What is the average American's standard of living today, in comparison to the 1950s? In a word, it's all fucked.
This is just plain uninformed drivel. You think oil prices are high because of some kind of corporate conspiracy? Check the facts. Specifically, check the political situation in the Middle East. The United States government is largely to blame for the bolluxed state of affairs.
We're getting pricejacked left and right, but no one gets paid more. In today's money, the average laborer made $50,000 per year in the 50s, and had a good pension to retire on. Today, laborers are lucky to make $35,000, even though cost of living has jumped, and pensions are practically unheard of.
These are outright lies. I hope you're the victim of bad information, and not trying to pawn off these lies on your own.
MJPDon't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
There's another review at Mises.org: http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=472&m onth=22&title=+Cyberjealous+&id=23
It's not as good as the Reason review, but it's still worth reading for additional insight.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
If you go by the proverbial "books" for Libertarian political and social stance they do come out sounding pretty selfish and obsessed with making money.
Which books? I have a huge library of Libertarian and Austrian Economics books, and I've never encountered the "obsessed with making money" viewpoint. The list of Libertarian authors is dominated by professors, scholars, and authors.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
The M-W definition is only correct if, by its own definitions of "liberty", it is very selective:
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
To say that Libertarianism means "unrestricted liberty" is true only if definition '1c' is used. Definitions '1a' and '1b' are definitely not compatible, if the point of the exercise is to say that Libertarians believe in "unrestricted liberty".
As you say, just a clarification.
MJPDon't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Heh :-)
The power to do as one pleases is anarchy. It may please me to molest my neighbor, but to do so is unlawful and unLibertarian. It means infringing on the rights on another individual, which is utterly contrary to Libertarianism. I might as well be my own private despot, molesting others at will on the basis of Might Makes Right.
Freedom from restraint similarly implies that there is no magistrate or judicial body to condemn my actions (and censor them). This does not imply the necessity of government in Libertarian thinking, it merely implies that some sort of restraint is absolutely necessary.
In Libertarian thinking, we call this restraint "Rule of Law". Once Rule of Law is established, those who abide by the Law are protected by it. By contrast, those who reject the Law are "outlaws". They are not protected by it, and any man may hunt, enslave, kill, and/or eat them with impunity because they no longer carry the protection of the law. This is the origin of the word "outlaw", meaning "one who is outside the law".
This is the double-edged sword of Libertarianism: that those who wish to be free must uphold the Law at every juncture, every moment, in order to ensure its protection for themselves, for their loved ones, and for their neighbors. To break the Law and fail to pay restitution is to deny the Law and its protection, thereby annulling its benefits.
Every man, it is assumed, will see in the Law greater benefits than detriments. In other words, it will serve me better to uphold the Law than to break it. Those who break it will be punished according to the Law, and those who flout it will be rendered "lawless", and treated as any man sees fit.
Keep in mind, that Law is a distinct concept: the bureaucratic code imposed by the federal government may or may not be right. The principal deciding factor is the Rule, the highest Law of the Land, and in the United States that is the Constitution. All actions must be judged according to that Body, and nothing can be allowed to transgress it -- including the Congress.
When you hear "gun nuts" ranting about the Second Amendment, what you are actually hearing are law-abiders insisting on their rights under Law. When you hear gun control advocates ranting about protecting our children, what you are actually hearing are outlaws and hypocrites, people who who would transgress the Law, yet insist on their rights under that same Law. By rights, this is anathema, which explains the justifiable outrage amongst the "gun nuts".
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Nader's campaign managers are probably buying into the same ideology as the major parties: winning the election is all-important. Hence, they want to be taken seriously as a "major candidate".
I think that 3rd-party candidates need to accept the fact that they are setting the stage for a revolution in American politics. There is little-to-no chance that the political establishment will allow a 3rd-party win, at this point.
As Wanniski says of those who cherish the status quo, they will attack your character, they will attack your record. When that fails, they will attack you with real bullets. It's that important to them, and besides, they've done it many times before.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
*Now* I understand Libertarianism. Thanks.
Cool. It is an exquisite pleasure to be understood.
My favorite part: any man may hunt, enslave, kill, and/or eat them with impunity -- I prefer a side salad to impunity, but to each their own ...
Hehe :-) I didn't make that up, I got it from Richard Maybury, who wrote all those "Uncle Eric" books about the Founding Fathers, basic economics, and the history of Libertarianism. They're written for kids, but I read them at age 22 and they changed my whole outlook. Nowadays I read meatier Lib stuff, but sometimes the simplest stuff is the most persuasive.
btw: Fat chicks. Party Hats ....!???
Kind of a private joke. Check out Fat Chicks In Party Hats for a good laugh.
MJPDon't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
You can advocate a change in the laws, certainly, but to advocate unConstitutional changes is to oppose the Rule of Law. One classic example of this is the use of the Commerce Clause to expand the powers of the federal government into the domain of state governments. Recent Supreme Court decisions have begun to reverse this trend, but the fact that federal rape-crime legislation has even been enacted is highly disturbing and grossly contradictory to the Rule of Law. Those who passed the legislation were "outlaws", yes, despite the fact that our system no longer holds such Congressional outlaws accountable for their abuses.
As for the gun control issue, it would be one thing to argue passionately that the Second Amendment should be repealed. I would find that argument offensive and destructive, but it would be lawful, nevertheless. Any other gun control legislation is unlawful because as long as the Second Amendment exists, by definition, the "Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
You ask about "being an advocate for changing the law". My answer is that advocacy is no crime. We don't police thought in this country (not officially, anyway), and I find it offensive to suggest that one's advocacy could be the basis for criminal charges. Still, being an advocate of criminal action (enacting legislation which transgresses the 2nd Amendment) puts you in treasonous company. Your reputation might suffer a setback (not that that is always a bad thing).
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
It treats money as if it were simply good wishes, which individuals should be free to share with others. But Libertarianism as it stands today does not acknowledge that, for instance, poor people may want to organize a government because their financial power, even en masse, may not be enough to limit the power of wealthier entities, entities which in turn will erode everyone's freedom in their favor.
In other words, short term Libertarianism will always devolve into long term economic tyranny.
This action of creating rules of society that even the richest have an obligation to follow is a completely legitmate one, and most Libertarians don't want to acknowledge that.
Money *is* a form of political power, and there is no such thing as "voting with your dollars". That's an oxymoron. A vote, by any meaningful standard, means that we both exercise an equal share of political power. If you get to exercise one billion votes, and I get to exercise my one vote, it isn't a fair election.
This isn't to say *everyone* has a perfectly equal share of political power. This isn't true in America or anywhere. It will always be easier for some people to vote than others, if merely by virtue of the fact that they live next door to the polling place. What we do demand is an acceptable *range* of difficulty between the easiest and hardest votes. This means, whether you live right next door to the polling place, or a few miles away; whether you have the day off and can stroll in, or whether you have to catch a bus across town after work, it's still an achievable act for nearly everyone.
Voting is one act of political power. Selling is another. To create a politcal economy where freedom is sustained, we have to work for an acceptable range of power between the richest and poorest entities. And the market cannot be the mechanism to decide this, because we've already noted that it's unfair to begin with.
Government is not the enemy. BIG government is.
To wrap up, the rich have advantages (economies of scale, for example) that poor people don't, and they are able to exploit them to achieve even greater advantage. If I own all the food, and you're starving, Libertarianism tells you that your best choice is to sell yourself into indentured servitude for a carrot. Libertarianism tries to tell you it's immoral to do anything less.
I don't believe the solution is to steal all the carrots in a mob, either. The solution is to let small governments set ground rules, and let the sellers who want their business learn to abide by them.
How do we keep governments small? Well, I've thought about that in a post called "The Future Of Government", which is archived here:
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/25/0230223.s
You'll have to cut and paste because I don't have time to go back and HTMLize this post. But I appreciate your reading this rant. Other thoughts are welcome.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
I have not read the book. What irritates me most about this is the blatant name-calling in the title. I disagree strongly with (modern) liberal beliefs, but I don't call everyone who supports them stupid.
David CorbinVisit Liberty Rally at www.libertyrally.org - a Slash site
David Corbin Promote Freedom - American Liberty Foundation
I've have not yet read the book, but I gather it's about (in part) the rise of libertarianism in the cyber-community. One reason for the rise in general, I think is the that our freedoms are being taken away at a faster rate than ever before (no proof, just oppinion). It's certainly amazing how much this is happening, and it was a large motivating factor me to start Liberty Rally. It's a slash site that focuses on disappearing freedoms, government excesses, etc. We attempt to track down relevent stories, so that people will be aware of how much is happening that they never new of. (We're young, at only a month old, so bear with us as we grow).
David CorbinVisit Liberty Rally at www.libertyrally.org - a Slash site
David Corbin Promote Freedom - American Liberty Foundation
"There's a rush of immediacy and wit; for a random example, "Polyamory is the preferred term of art; it's gender-neutral, where polygamy and polyandry are not, and allows for all persuasions of partner choice (gay/straight/bi/it depends)."
Oooo-hohohohoho *pausing to wipe tears from eyes*. That's GOLD!
Seriously, if this is what passes for wit in "Cyberselfish", I think I'll pass. By the way, the idea that libertarianism is selfish is so hopelessly flawed that it's clear we would completely talk past each other in a discussion. L isn't about "doing what you want" it's about "being responsible for what you do".
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
It's OK for Slashdot to run a second review by a non-JK author. That way, those of us who have killfiled Mr. Katz's writings still get to read at least one review of every cyberbook to hit the cybershelves.
You're right: it is a stupid observation. It's a poorly thought-out troll, in fact.
Even accepting your postulate that geeks=men, it's not at all "like having a guy write a review on different brands of tampons." It's an observer with a particular perspective commenting on an aspect of society.
while i agree with the spirit of what you're saying, the example was a particualrly poor one. the whole point of ted turner's gift was that at the time (and maybe still) the US government owed the UN a couple of billion dollars in membership dues (yet it still got to veto anything it wanted). by giving the UN the money he was trying to shame the US government into honouring it's commitments and do the same. last i heard they hadn't.
Since your UID is smaller than mine, I can only conclude that you're trolling. -s20451 (410424)
No, I want to discuss the issue and resolve it according to agreed-upon procedural rules (election of representatives, etc.), and subject to a few substantive ground rules (no outright taking of property without compensation, etc.). If my view prevails, I want you to comply peacefully; if yours does, I'll do the same. That's called democratic self-governance, you preadolescent moron.
Who knows better what to do with a particular plot of land . . .a family that's farmed it for 20 years or the EPA?
No contest, the EPA. If it were up to the farmers, we'd all have enough DDT in our fatty tissues to grow tumors on a rock.
It may come as a shock to the libertarians, but people do engage in acts affecting others that cannot be conveniently regulated or remedied after the fact. Air and water pollution are convenient examples, and there are many others. That doesn't mean that all regulation is presumptively good. It simply means that democratic self-governance is a hard, sometimes complex, sometimes messy problem. Anyone who doesn't accept this plain fact is, at least politically, not an adult.
That's why there are a few substantive safeguards in the Constitution, the Thirteenth Amendment among them. The equation of ordinary regulation with totalitarian disaster without supplying any suggestion of what the intermediate steps might be ("They're making us use low flow toilets? It's like Auschwitz!") is the sine qua non of libertarian thinking.
I hate to break it to you, but when people's acts do harm others, there are a multitude of ways to remedy that before needing to call in government. But when it is necessary, government can be useful. Libertarians do not deny this.
Of course you do. If you don't, then your political philosophy reduces to "no unnecessary governmental action," which is meaningless (is anyone really for unnecessary governmental action)?
Plenty; I grew up in farm country. By and large, they are short-term thinkers who do not give a good goddamn about what effect their practices have on the environment. (This does not make them unusual; it makes them human.) I agree that a farmer would probably not use chemicals so aggressively as to make his/her land unfarmable, but there is considerable room for damage before that point is reached.
This is not true. There are other difficulties with welfare -- largely having to do with due process limitations on the government's ability to condition welfare on certain behaviors, limitations which charities do not face -- but the knock on welfare cannot be that there's more overhead than charities.
(I believe this is a political urban legend which originated with a poll of the general public which asked whether government or charity had more overhead; the majority chose charity, even though that is demonstrably untrue. This poll result has been repeated ad infinitum until it has assumed the status of a "fact." Michael Kinsley discussed the issue in a column reprinted in his collection Curse of the Giant Muffins.)
As I, being something of a Libertarian, understand it: there are a few *big* differences between Objectivists and Libertarians. Although the two groups agree on laissez-faire capitalism as the best economic/political system, Objectivists (among whom I do not include myself) have some strong additional beliefs.
... just kidding, sort of). Libertarians make no judgement on these things, and Objectivists typically use this fact to portray them as a bunch of free-lovin', drug-legalizin', non-judgemental hippie anarchists.
Objectivists have a rigid moral system, based around self-interest (or "selfishness"), which states that an individual's highest moral interest is improving his own life (without harming others, of course). While Libertarians believe that a person has a right to such a life, they do not attach any moral weight to it. So Libertarians would oppose government welfare, but allow people to give voluntarily to charities. Objectivists, however, denounce charitable giving as immoral.
Furthermore, Objectivism has a strict system of epistemology (reason), metaphysics (objective reality), and aesthetics (strongly resembling the works of Ayn Rand
In short: Libertarians believe that people should be free because intelligent people can differ. Objectivists believe that people should be free -- but that there is still only one "true way."
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
http://www.reason.com/0008/bk.bd.cybersilly.html
Actually, it is my opinion that the Next Big Thing in libertarian thought will be the demonstration that there is no fundamental difference between a government and a corporation. But have members and owners who attempt to do one thing or another. Generally corporations have competitors, but when they are monopolies they enforce their monopolies as well as governments (with their borders and immigration laws) do. The old argument against kings and aristocrats was that they stripped us of our rights. The current argument against democracies is that they strip minorities of their rights. The argument against corporations is that they strip customers and employees of their rights.
I mean, I think the most taxed income bracket is around 35-40%, (including federal and local taxes), so everyone is able to keep "most of" their money.
It is remarkable the amount of conditioning we have, in that one can write that with no sense of irony. What gives the government the right to confiscate 40% of one's income? We fought the Revolutionary War over a tax rate of 1/2-6%; that was worth killing and dying for, yet the current ridiculous rate is accepted. Money is power--it buys things, it controls things, it influences the disposition of resources &c. The governments of this country (federal, state & local) confiscate yearly more than half the resources produced in this nation, then redistribute them (this counts all taxes, not just income--Tax Independence Day 1999 was 5 July). This is an incredible amount of power. Can we seriously argue that it is all to the good?
If my view prevails, I want you to comply peacefully; if yours does, I'll do the same.
And when the majority decide to enslave a class of people, will you peacefully comply? There's an animal whose entire existence is peaceful compliance: the sheep. Libertarians speak out for, of all things, liberty.
I hate to break it to you, but when people's acts do harm others, there are a multitude of ways to remedy that before needing to call in government. But when it is necessary, government can be useful. Libertarians do not deny this. But we do demand that government justify its every move. Any time you deprive someone of his rights and liberty, you had better have a damned good explanation.
I try to follow the historic pattern of English, in which the masculine is used for the plural and the unknown. Some languages use the feminine, I am told. I understand that Arabic has no genders; it is truly neutral, yet we see how egalitarian a society that has been. I do not let the currents of grim uneducated linguistic revisionism alter my course.
But, since I'm a libertarian, if you wish to abuse the language I promise not to stop you:-)
Innocents will die, but I believe that we do a pretty good job keeping that number down. I have to ask myself, though, which is kinder: to hold an innocent for 20-60 years, or to kill him. I know that I would rather die. Jail is a horrible place. Death, OTOH, is a nice escape into a better world (or, even to an atheist, an escape from this world's miseries).
Who said it's an unfortunate necessity?
I do, for one. It is necessary to appropriately punish crime. Certain crimes demand the death penalty for nearly all who commit them. I don't like it. I wish that the criminals could be let go and receive their reward in the next life. But that's now how it works.
Or maybe aren't you aware of the flaws of the application of death penalty?
IMHO the only flaw in the application of the death penalty is that it is so rare. Nearly every murderer shoudl be executed, as should rapists and many kidnappers and spies.
The second biggest problem is that capital punishment is widely unfair: it is the poor and the Black that are executed. This is related to the fact that so many violent criminals are poor and black. Actually, race has nothing to do with it; so many violent criminals are poor (coincidentally, many poor people are black, and many blacks poor, but I believe that is changing, and it is irrelevant anyway). But the solution is not to execute fewer of the criminal poor, but more of the criminal rich.
lus US, is one of the very few countries in the World to execute minors.
What's wrong with executing a 16 yr. old? They're adults in almost every way. Stupid, yes, but so are most adults. I cannot get excited about some vicious animal of a man being executed, whatever his age. It's saddening and unfortunate, but I wouldn't stop it.
Because death penalty is specially used as a more severe sentence than life sentence.
Again, I do not see it that way. I see execution as the kindest of all alternatives, for the guilty and the innocent. It is the appropriate and reasonable punishment for certain crimes. It is punishment, but it isn't the horror of the jail cell. Give me liberty or give me death:-)
Note the number of people who risk death to escape prison. Note the number who kill themselves, evne when they are not in for life. Imagine what it must be like to never have another free moment, to only see the sun & feel the wind for an hour a day, to never walk in a park again. Where's that revolver;-P
The point is that we disagree on what `necessary governmental action' is. Some people seem to think that it is necessary to teach schoolchildren Baptist prayers (I'm a devout Christian, but I don't want my children being taught someone else's method of prayer). Others think it necessary `for people's own good' to make them wear seatbelts in cars and helmets on motorcycles. Others like to disarm people in order to cut down violent crime (doesn't work, but they think it will).
The libertarian point of view is that if one is not harming another, one should be free to act as one will. Demonstrate harm, and then we can talk. Pollution is harming others. Murder is harming others. Bearing a weapon or riding a bike with naught but a baseball cap harm no-one.
The government is mandated by the people.
What gave a majority of the mob (the demos) the right to confiscate 40% of my income? I'm willing to pay taxes. I'm unwilling to pay unjust taxes at unjust rates.
Most people don't vote for lower taxes because they want to line their own pockets. Big business and sports teams want their tax breaks (which must be made up from other sources); the aged want their Social Security & Medicare; government employees want to keep their jobs; public school teachers want to stay employes. Bread and circuses. This demonstrates my point about government power. When an entity or small affiliated group of entities control over one half of the resources of a nation they have an incredible amount of power to influence the economy. This is turn works out to an amazing influence on events.
The revolutionary war was fought because Americans wanted autonomy...
Nonsense. We had autonomy. We were allowed self-rule to an unprecedented extent. But we balked at paying for the war which saved us from the French & Indian menace. We were acting like selfish children. Not that the Brits helped much. It amazes me how a people so brilliant can be so incredibly incompetent at times.
The taxes were the reason and the basis for everything else. Our civil rights were violated due to civil unrest caused by taxation to pay for the recent war. `No taxation without representation!' was our cry (nevermind that we were represented). In large part it was due to the selfish New Englanders of that day who--like their Puritan ancestors and carpetbagger descendants--couldn't stand the thought of losing any of their precious money.
Why trample on someone if he has done naught wrong? The fellow going at 120 mph is innocent of any natural crime. Only after he kills the family is he guilty of a crime. Thus I say we prosecute him to the fullest extent. Execute him; he made a decision and screwed up, thereby murdering others. C'est la vie.
Actually, I don't care about the deterrent effect of punishment. If that were the important thing, we could condemn innocent men whom the populace were convinced were gulty. What I care about is justice. It is just an right to murder a murderer; that is why we have execution. It is just and right to imprison a thief and force him to return the stolen goods. It is just and right to make someone pay for breaking a window. It is neither just nor right to make a man pay a day or two's wages for going 80 on an empty highway.
Good question. The answer is, not much. But it is not so much a bias against legislation as a bias for freedom. That's the key point.
Good point. Indeed, libertarianism could be said to be the only philosophy which does not expect a utopia, and does nto expect members of a libertarian society to be perfect. Man is a nasty critter; he generally does as much harm as he can get away with in order to improve his own lot. A libertarian realises this and tries to ensure no man, not an individual, a majority or a ruling elite, can do very much harm to others. It's a difficult task. But it has a greater chance of succeeding than one which allows the mob to give itself more of whatever it wants.
The argument against Germany is a libertarian argument, not an authoritarian one. The democrat would allow Hitler his way; the majority supported him (actually, they did not, but that's another subject). The libertarian points out the evil bastard's nasty way of depriving people of such liberties as life and limb.
My secular obligation to my fellow man is to keep him free, to preserve his free well. It is not to buckle his seatbelt and tuck him in at night. As a Christian, my religious duty is to help him out if he asks for assistance and to give him such advice as will be effective (i.e. not advice which will turn him away from the right path). At no point do I force him to do what I believe is right.
And I have been discriminated against and lost opportunities because of my sex and colour. My anger regarding those is due to the fact that they were publicly funded. Private organisations can be as benightedly stupid as they wish to be; public institutions should be scrupulously fair.
Libertarians support charities and charity in general. It's one of the things which supports their point that people need not be forced to be kind. Libertarianism is not `P*ss off and die'; rather, it is `Don't steal from me; ask nicely.'
There really are no compelling arguments against libertarianism that I''ve seen. Every argument against it boils down to paternalism and authoritarianism. It's damned difficult to say that sort of thing with a straight face--what right do I have to determine how other people live? I may disagree vehemently with them, but I am no greater than they. That's the humility of libertarianism which the authoritarians--right and left--will never have. They want to control; the libertarian wants to live.
I would say that a man who apparently abused his position of power to engage in sex with his involuntary servants was peevish and adolescent.
I would also say that a man who stated that all people should be free and still owned slaves was peevish and adolescent.
I would say that a man as obviously bright and inspired as Thomas Jefferson who died bankrupt and in debt was peevish and adolescent.
I'm sorry, but the GPL in and of itself is not Libertarian. IMHO, no license can be considered libertarian, because it is in its very nature restrictive. The GPL maybe restrictive for a very good reason, but it is restrictive none the less. I hate to break it to you, but one of the cornerstones of libertarianism is contracts. Libertarianism is against restrictions posed by government agencies and others who threaten violence to force compliance. Any sort of consentual agreement, on the other hand, is quite decidely libertarian. To comment on the rest of the thread, Open Source is not particularly libertarian. There are quite a few really socialist open source advocates. Nor is commercial software un-libertarian. How one could even claim this, given the libertarian bias towards economic competition and elevation of property rights above all over considerations, is absolutely beyond me. Eric Christian Berg
And its not like the Liberals aren't hypocritcal either. I consider the first amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, etc) and the second (right to bear arms) to be the exact same issue. While liberals will (rightly so) viscously protect the first amendment, they are completely against the second. It is the same issue--power of the government to control your life and actions. It is interesting that the ACLU will back you if any of your right granted in the Bill of Rights except the second ammendment.
There is, I'm sure you will agree, a certain level of disagreement over what the Founder's original intentions were in regards to the Second Amendment. Compared to the other items in the Bill of Rights, this Amendment is maddingly open for varying interpretations, depending upon where you choose to put your focus. When compared against the unambiguous prohibitions listed in the First Amendment, the Second leaves something to be desired insofar as clarity is concerned.
My point is only this: Different groups hold different views on how best to interpret this Amendment. This does not necessarily mean they are being hypocritical. They have a different interpretation of the Constitution. The ACLU is not a libertarian institution. They are for civil liberties, but are not generally considered libertarians.
- Rev.(Bonus! He's alive!)
Dave Barry. The Falwell piece was especially amusing, but he covered the Republican convention and has plans to cover the Democrat convention the same way shortly. He tends to do a better job on the conventions than some of the "serious" journalists, and all of his recent convention columns are at that URL.
For more about his libertarian politics (which tend to match mine) see:this interview. BTW, Dave Barry isn't just right & Paulina Borsook's wrong (although that's so, IMO) he's also a FAR better writer. I find Paulina downright tedious in her partisan, repetitive zeal to paint libertarians as all-one-thing. Wrong.
Mr. Barry also won't blow his own horn about it (and he has a right not to tell Paulina what he does with HIS! money) but I happen to know that he's a generous person, too -- as if that matters to this "debate." In fact, I find the spectacle of pre-announced, feted, giving (like Ted Turner's immense gift to the UN) to be distasteful for a number of reasons, and certainly every bit as political & ideological as a gift to the Boy Scouts or the NRA, whether or not the news media choose to paint it as such. I refuse to disclose or defend, to Paulina or anyone else who can't mind her own business, my charitable activities.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Agreed. And programmers are the mechanics of the revolution. But the architects of information systems have *incredible* power to change things the way they want them. "Code is Law" as Lawrence Lessing says. But conter Lessing, the way the architects want it is pro-privacy, anti-government interfernce.
So hopefully that's the way it'll be...
Microsoft would not be an issue if it weren't for *government* enforcement of copyright laws -- a government-granted monopoly.
I'm one of those odd anti-corporation libertarians. The corporate charter is another artifact of government, and it should be eliminated or reduced in scope (i.e., corporate responsibility).
But I agree with the notion that less government leads to less government for corporations to abuse. That's the real problem: the corporations own the government. Remove government, remove problem.
You should read Guns, Germs and Steel to see how they faired.
It's actually an excellent book. It changed my view of the necessity of government, and I'm an anarchist of sorts.
Nozick didn't actually advocate the total absense of government. His book Anarchy, the State, and Utopia describes how a microstate could develop from anarcho-capitalism without violating anyone's rights. He then used that as justification for the existence today's states (even though they did not arise that way), and as justification for reducing them to the microstate level.
It's a good book, but I disagreed with it when I read it. But that was four years ago, so maybe I'd have changed my opinion. Nozick is a brilliant man. Ironically, he was a Harvard classmate of John Rawls, welfare state appologist.
But not until 1998. He wrote the first edition of the book in 1993, I believe, and the second in 1996.
Don't we all, though 8^)
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
the point is the poor aren't as poor as you think they are. Further, they don't have a right to a share of anything - we're a constitutional republic, not a communistic wealth redistributor. You deserve only what you earn.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
From the constitution:
From Federalist #18:
From Federalist #23:
Federalist #26:
Federalist #33:
From Federalist #41:
From Federalist #45:
Federalist #63:
When the Constitution says "promote the general welfare", it simply means to ensure that the government remains healthy for the benefit of all of it's citizens, not that government should provide education, healthcare, food, etc for it's citizens. Government best serves the general welfare by staying out of people's lives and only intervening to ensure that their basic rights - the rights to life, liberty and to persue happiness, as well as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other unlisted rights, are not encroached upon.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
OK... I've heard this a few too many times now.about the "rich getting richer while the poor get poorer." The concept was originally started by liberals so they could justify the socialistic programs they favor... Make all the "poor" people think the rich are getting richer while stepping all over their "right to happiness" so that they can justify the raping of the income of the middle class and up.
Are the rich getting richer? You bet. Of course, what they don't say is the number of millionaires is now in the thousands when just 50 years ago, you could probably count them on both hands. Are the poor getting poorer? Let's look at that:
So, the poor don't really seem to be getting poorer. They've had a HUGE improvement in quality of life... similarly, the rich get to play with all the new fancy toys (that they pay out the ass for since they're new). The "class" that has seen the smallest improvement is the middle class who have the burden of supporting the "poor" people without the benefits of having the money to waste - we're allowed enough to just get by. Take a look at third world countries for truly poor people.
Heed my warning... the increasing demands of the "poor" for government support is increasing the burden of the middle class. Eventually, we're going to get fed up with it. It'll be one of the preciptating factors behind the second american civil war( expected before 2050, maybe 2030 ).
If anyone is interested in more of my rantings, see http://krw.penguinpowered.com/~ ken/rants/rants.html
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Having read the book myself, I think what you're saying is broadly true.
The longer I work in this sector/business the more I see what she is getting at. I like to think of much of what she describes in the book is the geek side of the ragged social interface between geeks and "The rest of the world" where things aren't as simple, or as internally consistent as software and hardware.
Of course there are plenty of people in this techno-world who exhibit none of the behaviors she talks about (actually, these are likely the majority). Isn't that the same with most things?
Cyberselfish is an important book to me, mostly because it challenged many of my ideas, especially about own Wired-inspired quasi-libertarian self-definition.
I found her history of Wired Magazine a cipher for the late 90s. I was personally suckered by the quiet agenda of the magazine, which I used to think of as a balanced view of things post-industrial.
Man was *I* naive. And so are many of our peers.
-pbk
My condolences; can any of us assist with the funeral arrangements and voting re-registrations?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Yes, and the solution to that problem is to shrink the government small enough that owning it isn't worth anything -- not to let somebody else (i.e. you) take possession of it so they can have their turn fucking everybody else.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Actually, it is all due to the existence of a legal system which defends property rights, which, Borsook to the contrary notwithstanding, cannot be treated as synonymous with "government". If Borsook's (over)simplification worked, North Korea, Iran, or Zimbabwe, all of which have far more government than Northern California, would be better choices for a start-up.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Because it's not desirable to (for example) effectively require everyone to carry a chemical testing lab on every shopping trip, just as it's not desirable to effectively require everyone to go armed every time they step out of doors. (If people choose to take steps to augment their personal protection over what the government provides, fine, but mainstream libertarianism advocates just enough government to prevent a Hobbesian war of all against all.)
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
We don't need it anymore anyway. We have NATO. :)
You obviously haven't got a firm grasp on the history of calculation machines, data processing, or computers. I would suggest you look into:
/
a. Charles Babbage
b. Herman Hollerith
c. Konrad Zuse
d. John Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford E. Berry
Also, take a look at this site:
http://zeus.fh-brandenburg.de/~tenbusch/history
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Katz wuz there.
Much of this "libertarian" discussion steps too quickly away from looking at the implications of what drives it. During the cold-war era, Heilbroner observed that American and Soviet middle managers often got along better than their politics might have led you to believe they would. He attributed this to the fact that both were educated in terms of production system efficiencies as core values whether they consciously assented to that or not.
Both "cowboys" and "functionaries" tend to agree on the general mechanics of IT system efficiencies although they'll toast each other at a moment's notice over the details. That's neither unpredictable nor surprising. What's more often amazing is the neophiliac embrace of technology as the means to every end from Al Gore's invention of the internet to the "V" chip equipped TV as the perfect babysitter.
Libertarianism, Objectivism, You-fill-in-the-blankism all find their roots not in mechanical efficiencies, but in the search by us carbon units for something more whether that's God, power, moderator points, or free beer. Questions as to whether or in what ways the expansion of these systems function as an a priori "good" element of our culture are often either overlooked or dismissed as low-brow luddism.
Technology's only a tool. I think the important discussions have to do with the ends we're being driven to with our too often unexamined assuptions about the means.
PS - Ayn Rand didn't care if I was charitable with my own money as long as I didn't try to tell her what to to with hers. Ah, Ayn - now there was a great rant writer!!
We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo (Walt Kelly)
I have a question, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic. But it sounds like this book is pretty awful based on your description. Why does it get an 8/10?
It seems like good books get 9/10 and bad books get 8/10. Is that correct?
I think that just about covers everyone :-)
I think several interpretations support the definition of "general welfare" that I subscribe to. Also, provisions for "standard of education" and "progress of science and useful arts" are explicitly listed. I think "promote the general welfare" (among many other things in the constitution) was explicitly vague to support things they could not foresee. I believe health care is a rational provision (I imagine at the time there really was no concept of ongoing health care). If it is aconstitutional, it is at least moral, and strangely enough, those who traditionally oppose social programs like the above have no problems legislating other types of morality.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'd agree with you but I would tend to think some things are simply civil duties, not favors. People who have come by masses of wealth by the grace and opportunity in this country do have some responsibility I believe. That's why we have taxes and social programs.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I believe there is at least one case in which the constitution has been interpreted as implying "standard education", although I can't find it now. It had to do with states trading and the need for people to have some common level of education.
And we have socialized food distribution...sorta: food stamps.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Or perhaps instead, the powers that be which influence people don't want the government to change. People think everything is A-OK and gladfully vote for one of the two identical, and big-business-backed candidates. That's the feedback loop. To break it you raise awareness and give facts and choices to the people.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Justice. That sounds familiar. What is that again? Why do both of the major candidates go on an on about liberty and the pursuit of happiness and never even mention "justice"? It's because justice would fix the system that feeds them and corrupts government. The BILLIONS of corporate profit money that is dumped wholesale into the major parties is an *injustice*. See my sig.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It seems to be that anarchy is just basically laissez-faire sovereignty. How can you possibly expect an entirely voluntary system in which everybody voluntarily respects each other's rights?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I strongly suggest you read up on Nader and get a feel for him. Unlike Libertarians/Anarchists whose premise is that government is inherently evil and needs to be abolished entirely, and Communists who believe the same, but want to replace the government with a Utopic state, Nader believes in *REAL* democracy. He believes it can and does work if the major powers that I assume you oppose are banned from interfering with politics and if citizens take upon themselves the responsibility of daily citizenship. Usually independents are strongly principalled, but I suggest you consider "throwing in" with Nader and the Greens (if Nader is not progressive enough for you check out the general Greens philosophy, I think you'll like it). If anything Nader will at least set and environment in which you *can* actually and effectively voice your opinions instead of being crowded out and shouted down.
And with the advent of ubiquitous computing I have no doubt in the feasibility of a first class, true Democracy (not Republic).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
You shouldn't be afraid. We already live in the height of a "happy capitalism", it can't get worse. And anyway, many of his policies certainly aren't going to be liked by capitalist "fat cats". The $10 "livable" wage, for instance. Nader is a populist to the core (in fact, you should be aware of the history of the Populist party...it was fundamentally a labor party and agricultural party, very much like the Green party).
As far as the polls, Nader would have enough to participate in the debates and gain a huge number by engaging fence-sitters, independents, and non-voters, like Ventura did, if the commission hadn't set the arbitrary and artificially high percentage at 15%. 5% is the percentage for federal matching funds, yet to get into the debates, for which a Republicrat commission sprang up over night to control, he has to get 15%. People are actively trying to get that down.
As long as independent parties go with their independent streak and don't support each other, we will never have a viable third party, which is just as well for the Republicrats. At some point you have to make a real change. And I think Nader presents us with that. And I invite anybody and everybody to look over his position and record, and his singular integrity over his lifetime, and put a vote in "for us all".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm not so fatalistic. I don't think government is always going to be "corrupt" or has to be "corrupt". What makes government corrupt today are corporations and big money exerting their influence. I believe if these factors are taken away, that there is no reason government can't work correctly. In any case, no government, is hardly a solution to curropt government.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Because the system is corrupt.
You are "responsible" to the country insofar as the country has enabled you to prosper. That's why 18% tax takes a larger chunk out of wealthy people than poor people. I'm not arguing for an *unfair* tax. I'm saying taxes should proportionally represent the amount you have prospered in the country that hosts you. If you don't like it you can always go to a different country which allows you to prosper more freely without any responsibility to the society that hosts you.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I think all of us on the net have a libertarian streak running through us. I do. However, I think that pure libertarianism (like that proposed by the Libertarian party) is just plain irresponsible. Take to an extreme it is just an anarchy (every individual is entirely self-sovereign). I think there is a clear mandate in the Constitution for the government to provide a specific set of services. I interpret "provide for the general welfare" as standardized education and some form of really basic universally accessible health care. You might throw Social Security in there too (funny how conservatives and Republicans are so frothingly anti-socialist, refusing to support universal health care, yet supporting one of the most socialized of programs: Social Security).
I also have to say that I'm rather disgusted with the gold rush mentality of Silicon valley and the high tech sector in general. More than any previous time we have intelligent, educated people, coming out of colleges and being immediately consumed in a blind haste to ammass and burn vast amounts of fortune in a vaporous economy. Shame on us. While Clifford Stoll is just a little too eccentric for main-stream, he has a damn good point. Wake yourself out of your cyber-stupor. Look at the world around you. Do something *real*. It is all too easy these days to be captivated by glitz and by enraptured by the goal of 15 seconds of fame.
Your computer doesn't love you. Make a difference.
I'm sure by now I don't have to explain my sig.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
What wasn't libertarian about his book? He WAS a registered member of the party...
I don't know if I'd call it selfishness as much as a weird cluelessness about technology. I'm not referring to grandma here, but the people that make up pseudo-techie communities on the web. For example, there are many people who take violent affront to the idea that that the PlayStation 2 is "superior" to the Dreamcast in some hardware-centric way. It is mind boggling to me that people will waste hours and days arguing fervently about such topics. There are other notable examples:
* Overclockers who somehow think they're sticking it to the man, though they're mostly putting their personal investments at risk for no tangible benefit (Quake runs at 280fps instead of 250!).
* Loons who argue the superiority of Linux over Windows when they don't use a computer for much more than downloading MP3s, surfing the web, and occasional word processing.
* People who violently argue the superiority of one programming language or methodology over another, when they don't seem to have a real need to write programs in the first place.
* Open Source advocates who have to go looking for projects because they don't have a personal need for any sort of program, and really don't know what end-users are wanting.
* Compulsive upgraders who buy new video cards every quarter because they just have to have the fastest graphics around, even though they have to deal with endless driver problems and most games don't run particularly faster or better with card X anyway.
* People who routinely put down 400MHz machines as slow (e.g. the PPC chip in an Apple G4 or a Transmeta offering) without a real purpose behind why such speed is needed. When cornered, they come up with "high-end video processing" and "solving systems of thousands of equations." The general philosophy is becoming "Anything released in the last six months is fast; anything prior to that is slow and worthless crap."
Maybe cluelessness is the wrong word. It's more of a peculiar techie geekishness without a purpose behind it other than consumerism.
And Pepsi is communist because all bottles are the same. No extra sugar or less caffeine. You're likening license agreements to libertarianism? Oh please.
While we are at it: GPL doesn't force you to release YOUR source code it forces you to release OTHERS source code that you modified.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
That's why we have taxes and social programs
Agreed, so why is it that all the tax breaks go to the folks with the most money?
(OT: I dig Ayn Rand as an author, but not necessarily as a political figurehead.)
As for the wealthy being 'responsible' for helping the poor, no way. It'd be NICE, certainly, but to say that because I have more cash than the average Joe I am also obligated to give some of it to the lady who lived in a shoe? That's ridiculous. At what point does someone become wealthy enough to have to donate, and who decides who gets the money? Again I ask, why do the richest of us get the biggest tax cuts? THAT's where the problem is, IMO. (For the record, I ain't rich.)
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
capitalism isn't the same as making a living. Capitalism is about letting money rule just about everything. Money as the impetus of society. Making a living doesn't necessarily have anything to do with money. And such a sudden turn-around as starting to sell your interpreter instead of giving it away like everyone else could be seen as an extremely anti-social act, which would be bad. Especially if you deny others knowledge that they have shared for years and years.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
For a Libertarian critique of the book, try Cybersilly, published in Reason magazine.
you can't hurt anyone *else* because you don't wear *your* seatbelt
Actually, it's fairly common for unbelted adults to seriously injure children in carseats, etc. You have such tremendous momentum that you push forward on the seat in front of you with a force of thousands of pounds, potentially crushing the person in front of you against the dash.
Walt
I really don't understand why the reviewer thinks that Libertarianism doesn't work with Open Source.
Libertarianism is about the individual doing what they want without infringing on the rights of others. Open Source is about individuals choosing to cooperate to create some really cool software, of their own free will. The key word here is choice. Libertarianism = choice. Participation in open source project is totally voluntary, which makes open source totally compatible with Libertarianism.
My Weblog
2^8, it's just a coincidence ?
Open Source IS Libertarian because it takes away from the huge master and gives to the individual to decide how to code. Compete freedom.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
"Agreed, so why is it that all the tax breaks go to the folks with the most money?"
Probalby because the folks with the most money are paying most of the taxes. The top 10% pay around 50-60% of the tax burden.
This would only be unfair if wealth and income in America were distributed evenly, say in a nice bell curve. In reality, things are way skewed. The richest 1% of the population owns 40% of all wealth (houses, boats, cars, etc) and 62% of business assets! The bottom 90% controls only 28% of all wealth!
80% of the income tax (the overwhelming source of federal revenue) comes from 20% of the households (FWIW, 40% of American households pay no income tax at all. . .some even come out ahead after the earned income tax credit is factored into the equation)
This would only be unfair if wealth and income in America were distributed evenly, say in a nice bell curve. In reality, things are way skewed. The richest 1% of the population owns 40% of all wealth (houses, boats, cars, etc) and 62% of business assets! The bottom 90% controls only 28% of all wealth! I've posted this bit before, but it bears repeating. The distribution of wealth in this country is profoundly unfair. It wounds democracy gravely, and it is un-American.
And about the earned income credit: have you ever known anyone who's received it? Sure, they get a few bucks from the government, but the people I've known who've qualified for the EIC haven't "come out ahead" in any regard. They have struggled to feed their families.
Never mind that freedom is in many ways incompatible with the idea of society
Ah yes, the main arguement of totalitarianism.
It's often useful to think of different categories of freedom. Social freedoms, like owning guns, marrying who you feel like, etc, and economic freedoms, like the freedom to incorporate and exploit workers are two examples. For me, more social freedom and less economic freedom makes the most sense. This does not mean totalitarianism. It means a responsible society that provides for its members, and holds all people accountable for the gains they acheive as part of being hosted by society.
Large corporations like Microsoft or multinats are certainly NOT the libertarian ideal, nor are they the product of laissez-faire. On the contrary, they are paternalistic expressions of a paternalistic societal, economic and political system with a highly regulated, non-free market.
So don't "throw the baby out with the bath water," as it were. Government can do many Good Things for people, like keep the peace, provide health care, and provide education. Lets have responsible government minus big business.
The government taking money from people is not necessarily stealing. If you get rich in America, and America's laws and infrastructure enable you to get rich, you owe America something. To let individuals, and especially corporations, keep all the profits they are able to receive because of services provided by the government amounts to stealing from everybody! Sure, you could just eliminate the government altogether, and that's what it would take to get around this. In many other countries, people pay tons of taxes, but they get things in return! Admittedly, that doesn't happen in America, but that doesn't have to be the case forever. Mybe you don't want government to provide any services for you, and that's fine. There are plenty of countries all around the world that will let you do pretty much whatever you want and don't ask much in return. Would you really want to live in any of those places?
I haven't read it, so I won't comment.
"First rule of government spending: Why build one when you can build two at twice the price?" -- Mr. Haddon, Contact
Who knows better what to do with a particular plot of land. . .a family that's farmed it for 20 years or the EPA?
Dunno seems to me the EPA might know some things better than a farmer eg. The level's of toxicity of his soil eg. when this guy has been spraying it with DDT for the past 15 years.
What pesiticides might be harmful to the population at large. How many emission levels in the air warrant investigation. Arsenic content of the local rivers, do I need to go on!!
Fucking ignormas prick.
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
Different groups of people in different occupations have occupied the '--Selfish' position throughout time. There have been the yuppies, MBA's, lawyers, engineers (ME & EE), etc. It's ironic that the people normally squashed as nerd pukes in the past are now in the position of power - And loving it!
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
You might throw Social Security in there too (funny how conservatives and Republicans are so frothingly anti-socialist, refusing to support universal health care, yet supporting one of the most socialized of programs: Social Security).
(In General), neither do the young, nor the people who want the government to change ("I don't trust the gov't, why should I vote"). So it will never change. Interesting feedback loop.
--
Communication is only possible between equals
I would call that anarcho-capitalism today...
And I would describe contemporary libertarianism as 'minarchist'.
For what that's worth...
--
But at the same time, I like a few things about the Green Party and their complaints about corporate welfare.
Libertarians are just as opposed to corporate welfare as the Greens, perhaps even moreso. And we always have been.
--
I just posted a story from the LA Times on Libertyboard which you may be interested in...
It describes how a free-market society has arisen in Somalia after the overthrow of their socialist dictator and a 10 year power vacuum. It's the closest thing to anarcho-capitalism I've read about in modern history.
LA Times story here
--
Libertarian.org is the best place to start for an introduction to libertarianism... which is not exactly the same thing as the 'technolibertarianism' the Ms. Borsook describes, as far as I can tell. Here is a a snippet from the opening page of libertarian.org:
WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
At this point, a few questions might come to mind. For example, why do libertarians believe so strongly in individual rights? What about other social values, such as equality and security? Or you may be wondering about the historical origins of the libertarian philosophy and movement -- where does libertarianism come from? Who are its leading thinkers? And how do libertarians apply their principles to contemporary public policy issues?
Libertarian.Org is here to help answer all those questions, so read on.
Some other good links:
Libertarian Party
Harry Browne for President
Liberzine
Counterprotest.net
Libertyboard.org
--
The Globe and Mail also revi ewed this book recently.
Maybe the official Libertarian stance on the issue of social welfare isn't so hypocritical, but how about the individual members themselves? I suspect almost all supporters of full-blown libertarianism are able-bodied and well off people fully capable of working and taking care of themselves, who take this fact for granted.
But what if one day, what if, through some crippling injury (eg. auto, skiing accident, etc.) or illness (eg. Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Lou Gehrigs, etc.), your ability to work is taken away from you. Do you have enough saved up to last you through till your natural death? Or will Mom and Dad look after you till you die? Or are you willing to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger to save yourself the dishonour of collecting welfare and "robbing the taxpayer"?
Do you really have the guts now?
As to whether the effects of breaking up Microsoft will be good or bad for the world as a whole, yes, Microsoft products do suck, and maybe this will force them to suck less. But look what's happened to the economy, and to the software business in particular. Part of it was timing - Microsoft stock took the expected dive from the breakup just when Greenspan announced he was jacking interest rates, and the combination tanked the market, especially in technology stocks, and other big technology companies are on notice that they're the next targets (especially Oracle, who are the next biggest company with a rich obnoxious CEO, or Cisco, who dominate their market), so their stocks were affected.
Look at the common business models for startups - you get a cool idea, form a small team in your garage, talk some VCs into first-round money, develop, get second-round VC money, and if your idea takes off, either you go public and get rich on stock, or you sell out to Cisco if you're in hardware or Microsoft if you're in software/services company (like Hotmail). By trashing Microsoft, the DoJ also blew away the "sell out to Microsoft" business model, which not only hurts small companies directly, it makes it much harder to get VC money, especially second-round money, and I've seen several companies that couldn't get money because of it. (Of course, the Silicon Valley job market being what it is, my friend who got laid off from a new job when they lost their financing had another new job by the end of the afternoon (:-) but it is a serious problem for a lot of people. )
Another reason libertarians disapprove of the DoJ attacks on Microsoft are that we're high-tech folks, and the DoJ are technically ignorant goons who don't understand the technical implications of what they're doing. Yes, there are reasons to hate Microsoft, but the DoJ doesn't understand or care about them - they're just going after MS because Bill Gates is the richest guy in the world. Worse, Gates made his money honestly, unlike the Bell System monopoly that came from a government-granted service monopoly or the railroad cartels that had huge government land grants and the US Army killing off Indians and buffalo. Gates may have armtwisted PC makers into buying DOS and Windows, but he could do this because he'd told the public to buy his stuff instead of that superior friendly proprietary-hardware Macintosh stuff or scary Unix stuff - if you want to blame somebody for that, blame Steve Jobs for failing to kick his butt in the market, or blame the public for their herd mentality and lack of creativity.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
On the one hand, Libertarianism is just as prone to assuming ideal behaviour as any ideaology. And, to me, that is its greatest failing; while I am registered Libertarian, I am not impressed with the party's "throw out the baby with the bathwater" solutions to big government problems. But no idealogy is perfect because the people that implement it are not perfect. I find the libertarian "ideal" more appealling than the current "give us more of your money and control of your life and we'll make things perfect" approach that contemporary polititians promise.
Your M$ example is a valid demonstration of the limitations of the Libertarian ideal; as it is, even with the DoJ breathing down their neck, Bill and company are screwing around with Kerberos (sp?) and such with a "who farted?" innocent look on their face. I can't see a way that the "invisible hand" could have influenced M$ behaviour, not with the majority of consumers being technologically ignorant.
Is "rampant capitalism" really a bad thing? While we USians (clumsy, but yes, it's more accurate than "Americans") use a disproportionately larger amount of resources than any other contry; so what? Should we, as a nation, apologize for being prosperous? Should we go back to pre-20th century technology (and the higher pollution levels that entails) while the rest of the world catches up (or stay there if the rest of the world fails to catch up)? In spite of the various environmental diatribes, the US is getting "cleaner" every year. Some of that is through government mandates, but a lot of that is "rampant capitalism" in action; e.g. Coors has been striving to make their beer cans lighter and with more recycled materials for years, not because they are legally required to, but because it is cheaper, making them more competetive as well as getting a little environmental karma bonus.
On this, too, I must disagree. First, is it philanthropy to surrender your money at gunpoint (i.e. pay taxes) on the pretense that, if enough is left over after paying for polititians and their pet projects, some of that money might eventually help the needy? (That's assuming that Federal Welfare progams "help" rather than harm.) The libertairian ideal is that money given to aid those less fortunate is done so voluntarily, and maybe even with an eye on results. Secondly (and most important IMHO), Libertarianism is emphatic about the idea that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin; that's what distingishes it from anarchism. A libertairian might say "you should be free to do X", but implicit in that statement is the corallary "you are also responsioble for the results of doing X".
In conclusion, I found a long time ago that the USofA is, for the most part, populated by malcontents and the children of malcontents from all ove the world. One of the results of this composition is that we, as a country, are sure that there is a "better way" to do things. Any things, from dishwashing soap to political processes. This comstant state of experimentation has had some bad results (usually when trying to force our ideology on other countries), but it has also resulted in good things and ideas, like equal rights (yes, we're still working on that), advanced medicine, the web, space exploration, etc. Libertarianism is yet another experiment and the results aren't back yet...
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
This was already posted on slashdot once. Seems even Hemos likes to have Katz on ignore ... ;P
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
Fascism is extremism in the defense of liberty. Just the liberty of a small select group. Make slaves of everyone so a few can be free. A lack of moderation in the pursuit of justice leads to something like the French revolution. Another attempt at freedom through extremism and the pursuit of justice against those who wronged the people. Moderation, compassion and understanding in all things is the only way we can move forward.
In the interest of full disclosure I'm a goddamn card carrying liberal leftist bastard. The kind repubicrats hide their wives and daughters from, big dick swinging, socialized medicine, tax and spend, freedom for everybody, tax the shit out of the rich.
So what is Borsook's case beyond pique, beyond finding Bionomics conferences to be "little shops of horror," beyond lamenting that technolibs prefer Edge Cities to "real" urban centers, beyond finding libertarians "psychically exhausting"? Boiled down, she makes two arguments: First, high-tech people have no right to attack government since their industry would not have existed without government funding. Second, successful businesses are successful because they operate in a world where governments keep schools going, food and drugs pure, banks honest, and the like.
The first argument is simply a non sequitur. Government is involved with just about any commercial transaction or field imaginable, if only because it builds roads. But the fact that the government paves streets hardly makes it responsible for all the businesses that spring up alongside them. (There is, moreover, ample evidence that road building would continue even if government disappeared.) ...
One of the key insights of libertarianism revolves around the notion of the "spontaneous order," the idea that social orders and markets can, do, and will develop to meet human needs without central direction or control. For instance, just because government has taken it upon itself to finance and run schools does not mean that no one would be educated if it didn't. Nor would restaurants start poisoning their customers if municipal food inspectors disappeared overnight.
But Borsook doesn't understand what libertarians mean when they talk about spontaneous order. Thus she asserts that such a theory of "self-organization" appeals to "engineers' physics envy" and that "the reason for the rise in technolibertarianism is that engineers are practical and like to fix things and get things right, so of course only the sensible political choice of libertarianism would fit."
In fact, the engineering mentality, which presumes a single best way of doing things in accordance with unchanging "natural" laws, is the exact opposite of the spontaneous order mentality that pervades libertarian thinking. That's why Hayek specifically identified the engineering mentality as the mind-set from "which all modern socialism, planning and totalitarianism derives."
The whole review is available here. It contains not just an interesting critique of the book but a sampling of many of the book's factual errors.
-BBB
This brings to mind the TechnoCore from Dan Simmons' Hyperion tetralogy. For those who are unfamiliar with the series, the Core is a super-parasitic collective of artificial intelligences that surreptitiously rules much of humanity. It feeds upon humans, but even more so on itself. It's not exactly flattering, but it does have some undeniable parallels with the real world.
Sanity is relative. For some of us it's just a distant cousin.
From the back of my Libertarian card:
"We hold that all individuals have the right to excercise sole domininion over their own lives, [..], so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose"
I want to smoke pot in my basement, I can...that is my life not interfering with anyone elses!
We need cops so that people do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose...
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
Have you checked the prices of things in silicon valley? Sure there is a huge concentration of multi-millionaires there, but that also has its down side. Most of those rich guys are trying to keep their dot-coms from going under and still pay for their house. A house which probably cost them five times what it is actually worth. On the other hand Bill Gates, the ultimate software mogul, has set up a 17 Billion (thats right with a "B") dollar charitable foundation. That should bring up the average a little.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
The author seems to forget the philanthropy is a gift. It is not an entitlement. She is a typical liberal, she thinks that those who are productive have a responsibility to give away large amounts of their money after taxes to charity because that is their "social responsibility." However there is no such thing as social responsibility. The rich don't owe anything to the rest of society and vice versa. For the record I come from a middle class family ($50,000 a year before taxes)
Libertarianism is a philosophical and political system that prioritizes individual freedom above common good. It is roughly the opposite of socialism (which prioritizes common good above individual freedom).
I myself am a libertarian, and many people are surprised to find that I have a strong interest in promoting the common good. I make frequent charitable donations and volunteer regularly. Libertarianism does not preclude generosity or compassion.
A libertarian simply believes that it is wrong to demand a human to sacrifice himself for common good or for the government to force you to make sacrifices for others.
Brian Woodringbut i'll admit that there's a disproportionately higher number of libertarians in geek culture than in the general US electorate. why? i think it's because they've lived the pain and anguish of needlessly complex OS and application design, and see the same morass in our present legal system. KISS.
but if you actually read the libertarian party's platform, you find some pretty outlandish stuff. for instance, many would agree that the US should decrease its world-wide military presence, but the simultaneous and immediate withdraw of all US military forces from foreign deployment is a position unique to the libertarian party.
-n8
How does the libertarian model address environmental stewardship? How do you solve deforestation, rampant consumption, pollution, global warming, etc?
Now what is a homeless person going to do with a Heads Up Display? Surely, being homeless, they can't afford jets... ;-)
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
First presented to the public by shakesphere; here's how it works: Gather a bunch of big words and invent a bunch of new ones. String them together in such a way the barely make sense and hope that reader is just confused enough to think it might be right or atleast interesting. Here's is an example. If one where to respond to a question by saying, "The multivocacality of semanticism essentialized in a dialogue of being instantiates while it interrogates a hermeneutic of self-annihilating discursive spaces which occlude the ontological signifier", it would possibily get a better reponse than if you said, "It depends on what you mean by 'is'"
That's how I would have titled this book.
After all these years of geeks being made fun of and picked at and bullied, and generally excluded from much of the joys of a healthy social life, it is no wonder that these people grow up with a "me first" attitude towards life.
For years, nobody ever cared whether geeks lived or died. They've grown up learning that fending for yourself is the only way to survive.
Congratulations, society. You created this monster. Now you want the monster to change his own ways while providing absolutely zero indication that you'd give a rat's ass if these geeks live or die.
Sorry, it don't work that way. You alienated these guys, now they have learned to do things their way, and when these guys decide to become politically active, there is going to be a very intense, very cleansing and very lesson-teaching social conflict in this country.
Ultimately, their selfish nature will be a painful lesson to America about why we shouldn't screw people over just because they're different.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Libertarianism can allow for nearly any type of economic system around (except for those that propagate themselves through authoritarian systems, eg governmental communism and welfare capitalism). Libertarianism _only_ refers to the government's role in a person's life. This is a distinction that I have not seen one poster make yet.
There are many libertarians who believe in laisser-faire capitalism for the economic system to follow, but there are those who would rather cooperate and form what is in essence a socialist society. Because the fundamental tenets of libertarianism demand that participation in this society be voluntary, we do not fall into the same traps as we do with governmental socialism (namely having the system turn into a dictatorship, something that is remarkably close to facism, which as we all know was defined by it's creator, Benito Mussolini, as governmental capitalism).
So please, before anyone tries to claim that libertarianism is anything BUT lack of governmental intervention, please reconsider your arguements.
I can't really comment on whether this is the case or not - I live in Canada, an pretty un-libertarian country, and don't really know anyone who would identify themselves as a libertarian. But from what I know of the ideas of libertarianism, it seems like a philosophy that would tend to attract a lot of selfish folks...
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I disagree; the wants or needs of others gives them no right to steal or use the government to steal on their behalf.
The "liberal"-"conservative" dichotomy is a skewed way of looking at things, sort of like adopting "grue" and "bleen" in your color vocabulary. "Liberals" are economically anti-freedom, "conservatives" are socially anti-freedom. Libertarians are pro-freedom.
No offense, but that does sort of beat out George Jr. Dubya was a grade-C student who performed without distinction at yale, where he was admitted only because of the distinctly blue hue to his blood. He was on the goddamn pep squad for crying out loud.
All that being said, the proof is in the pudding. No one could no, for instance, that Bill Clinton would prove to be adept at diplomacy until he actually tried his hand. Likewise, who would have thought Ronald Regan (an actor) would have negotiated so many arms-reduction treaties. Not that I love Regan all that much, but I do think the START treaties were the best thing he did as prez.
-lysurgon revolutionary in training
Howard Dean for president
I'd be surprised if you could explain the philosophy correctly, in your own wrods, including examples. Or even a part of it. Most people who become "ex-Objectivists" never took the time to become Objectivists in the first place, much less the non-Objectivist "critics" of the philosophy. God help us (irony alert - I'm an atheist), most of the self-described Objectivists evodently don't know philosophy from bathwater. And when they realize that they don't understand what's going on, they'll become bitter ex-Objectivists too, and blame all their horrible psychological problems and stupid mistakes on Rand rather than accepting the fact that they should only blame themselves. So, we keep getting these ex-Objectivists who went through their "Ayn Rand" phase, and can't explain the philosophy beyond "She sais people should be selfish, and everyone else tells me that's bad".
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
We posted that at like the same time, but your thoughts are more well organized.
Eh...
Funny, but what I meant is a home that is partly funded by the department of Housing and Urban Development. You probably already knew that, but perhaps some people missed it.
Eh...
As a computer science student, I see a LOT of people who pretty much got into CS because they were told it's a good thing. I'm not saying that ALL women are failures in CS, in fact, most of them do fine, but I know of only a handful that have stayed in our department, but that goes for men too. Men who enter CS because they were told to tend to drop out too. A good friend of mine is a female CS drop out (still in college, just other studies). I don't recall ever telling women to stay away from computer science. If they have a genuine interest in CS, they will enter the program anyways. One of my professors is an EXTREMELY accomplished female computer scientist, and I'm not going to say she's old, but she's certainly wasn't in high school in the 90's. I've never seen a professor stand up in class and say, "Gee woman, get outta here, this is man country." Also, I know a couple of stay-at-home dads myself. I think that, as it goes, I have a pretty enlightened and straightfoward view in this area. No offense, but I think that you are a bit oversensitive and too quick to attack me based on the grounds that I'm sort of male-centric chauvenist mysogenist bastard. Sorry you think that way. I was in high school in the 90s. There are a LOT of programs designed specifically to get girls involved, and not one that says, "JUST MEN." I'm all for equality, but there is DEFINATELY some pushing going on to push for more women in the field. Thanks for crucifying me over something that I really didn't say. I should have you know that I am probably one of the LAST people who would ever tell someone to stay at home on the basis that they are female, and if you had actually read my post with an unbiased mind, instead of just taking the opportunity to flame me, perhaps you would have seen that. Thanks for being closed minded.
Eh...
I find most of your posts gender insensitive (as you labelled me). There are plenty of females in technical fields. You should have said "they" not "he."
Eh...
I read your bio, how is it that you will be "trapped" by CS if there is nobody pushing you in that direction. I've almost graduated and I could still change my major with 1 phone call. Sorry to be so confrontational towards you, but I find posts that blindly condemn me to be rather... irritating.
Eh...
Sorry to have been so harsh.
Eh...
Actually, I was sort of nit-picking her, since she had chosen to call me sexist in reply to a comment which was clearly not sexist in nature. #18 on this thread. I'm sure she's a nice girl and all, but I really am sick of people thinking that they can just toss a flame out as long as it's seemingly politically correct.
Eh...
That was meant aimed at a fellow perlmonk.
Eh...
While I am not terribly politically active, and I don't believe in EVERYTHING that the party does, I am a member of the Libertarian Party.
Minimizing government on all sides is NOT exactly a bad thing. Polyamory isn't. Everybody gets to have a good time without anybody's feelings getting too hurt. People entrenched in old ways of thinking attack those who question these ways of thinking, which is why attacks are made on such points of view. What is wrong with living and letting live. I believe in having a government, I believe in helping the needy, but there are MANY ways to do that, and forcing everyone to do so isn't the best way to go about it. Why attack the rich just because they don't dump half of their fortune into homeless shelters. I want to help the homeless. I tell you what, move out of your house, and into an apartment, take the difference in rent against your mortgage and buy a HUD for a homeless person. Are you going to do it? Skip your next family vacation so you can pay for someone else's college tuition. Are you going to do it?
Before you attack the wealthy for their practices (and I am by no means wealthy, being only a college student), look and see if you would do the same, in reality, given their position. Before you attack a certain culture for its practices, remember that we don't go out to cultural festivals and yell at people for taking part in that culture. You ever smoke a cigarette? Guess what? It's bad for you. You started smoking because all of your friends did, probably. You probably didn't go into a store one day and say, "Marlboro Reds, boy, they sound good, lets give smoking a whirl." So what if people want to be polyamorous.
Just because your heart is bleeding doesn't mean that someone else has to take care of it, go and take care of it yourself, that's what I'm doing.
Eh...
The ePlethora of cyberbuzzwords in the technotitle of this 1337 piece of subculture iLiterature (-- my fave) make this the hacker culture paradigm must read of 2000. Download this to your netburned brain today!
Eh...
Totally dude, Libertarian is a pretty easy label too because just about everyone can fit into that group.
Eh...
While there are certainly plenty of technically oriented women (my boss for instance), there are also plenty who just want to be associated with it. Then again, there are a lot of men who just want to be associated with it to. A lot of women are pushed into it by school programs/guidance counselors/the people who tell you what you should be. If you're a female, you should forget your plans of being a stay at home mom (if that's what you want), because that's just what society is telling you, you should become a computer tech of some sort. This is what we tell women. Ironically, we are telling women to go into a technically oriented field, and we are telling them that this is to avoid doing what society tells them.
The result of EVERYONE glutting technical fields is that not everyone can actually do it or has the motivation to do it, so they become some sort of pseudo-tech. They read the M$ website and write product reviews based on statements and benchmarks that they don't actually understand, and write analyses of the culture along with them.
Oh well, just a thought, though I wouldn't center it on women, even if the reason that I wouldn't is merely to avoid being labelled sexist, evil, bad, bigotted, terrible, and worthy of being shot on the charges of possesion of male chromosomes and physical features.
Eh...
The point of my post was that EVERYONE is glutting the CS field. I was saying that it WASN'T specific to any sex, though I didn't make this point clearly. Sorry if I offended anyone. There are plenty of male wanna-be's too.
Eh...
That's ironic, since I know MANY pro-choice women. Also, since the argument that you made is that you haven't met any who are pro-life. I also know MANY pro-lifers. Men have to live with the consequences too. Have you ever heard of alimony? How would you like to have a kid that you don't even know because the girl who had the kid doesn't want you to. So, you pay for the kid, and never even get to meet them.
Also, girls have the option to *gasp* abstain from sex.
I'm pro-choice. I have sex. I have little against abortion. Your argument still doesn't hold much water. Yes, you are a male hater. You haven't thought about the being a male in that situation at all. You also didn't even read my post before labeling me some kind of misogynist.
Eh...
Just in case anybody else HASN'T GOTTEN THE POINT YET.
There are lots of GENDER-NEUTRAL/MALE/FEMALE/WHATEVER wannabes in the tech field.
That was the point.
The other bit was, that there may be a few more female wanna be's because of programs that push women into it. You, who apparently went to private school, have NEVER seen these programs, because they are pretty much a public school phenomenon. Trust me, there were plenty of girls that I knew who didn't really want to have anything to do with technical fields who were told, "why not go into a tech field."
That said.
I know PLENTY of successful female techs. I'm sure that females are just as capable, and the last thing that I want is a wife who just sits at home. I want one who works too.
IF I judged these programs unfairly, I'm sorry. Some, I am sure, are very good. My post was meant as an attack to the mentality of boosting a single gender rather than just helping out ALL kids who show ability (yes, there is favoritism towards females). It was NOT meant as an attack on females wishing to enter technical fields.
Eh...
I am positively floored by your humility. Doesn't it seem sort of contradictory that libertarianism is so fanatically dogmatic? Then the libertarians start arguing with the objectarians and the left-libertarians. Where are the Trotskyite libertarians? How about the libertarian librarians? Who speaks for them?
The only psychological studies I can think of off-hand of geekdom are Borsook and Jon Katz. Not a flame, just curious as to how many have been done, and whether the sex ratio is as off as you may think.
As for the premise that you have to be part of a culture to understand it, I can't really agree. Ethnographies are usually written by a cultural outsider; I think only someone who is not indoctrinated into a culture is able to really get a good look at it.
--
Well I'm very much against the libertarian viewpoint, but it's nice to see a rather civil and less inflammatory promotion of it...
What they (we, actually) really want is the opportunity to accumulate some wealth of our own, and to keep most of it, and to pass it along to those we love when we pass. Is that selfish?
But are you really missing that? I mean, I think the most taxed income bracket is around 35-40%, (including federal and local taxes), so everyone is able to keep "most of" their money. I think a lot of libertarians don't realize how desperate those on the lower end of the economic scale actually are. Government support isn't a matter of whether you can drive a Honda or a BMW; it's often a matter of whether you eat that day or not. A lot of people think that a government program's failed if it hasn't moved someone up the economic ladder, but that doesn't take into account unquantifiable factors, such as how many hungry people have been fed, or how many homeless people have been given shelter; yes, it would be nice to move people off welfare into self-sufficiency, but I think it's more important that basic needs be met in the short term rather than laying the groundwork for long-term upward mobility.
--
What gives the government the right to confiscate 40% of one's income
The government is mandated by the people. We vote for them. There have been plenty of candidates who have advocated lower or no taxes, but they tend not to be voted for because the majority of people understand that we need tax revenue to carry out the normal functions of government. It's called democracy.
We fought the Revolutionary War over a tax rate of 1/2-6%; that was worth killing and dying for
The revolutionary war was fought because Americans wanted autonomy; while the taxes levied by Britain weren't particularly high (I forget the figures, but the typical British taxpayer living in England paid several times that), I don't think that was the sole, or even the most important reason.
--
Actually, social Darwinism was popularized a long time ago by Spencer, but I guess this is an attempt to make it more palatable and less offensive. It all comes down to an attempt to morally justify greed. Personally, I believe economics, like most cultural elements, is closely linked to evolutionary/ecological systems, but it's so simplistic to reduce it to the 19th century idea of "survival of the fittest", especially if you consider how much natural selection theory has changed in the past 100 years.
I have been astounded but not amazed at the deeply adolescent and peevish libertarian attitudes that so many techies cling to, from gun worship to fear of governmental Internet regulation.
Thank you for saying that. Pauline Borsook also put it well in a reply to Eric Raymond's defense of "geek" values (which he, and a lot of slashdot readers, seem to think are synonymous with libertarian ones). She writes in response to his anti-government position
--
oh and one more thing, polymory would make all things equal if it didn't conviently ignore one simple fact. Women can bear children, men cant. In that sense, polygamy is much more libertarian than polymory. (don't worry - it sure doesn't seem like it's gonna catch on in the bay area anytime soon.)
Because we (geeks, engineers, developers, whatever) work with computers, we are creative, we understand the value of independent knowledge and thinking, we value skills and innovation, and we have (mostly) explicit standards of judgment. Thus we (often) do not belong to the crowd who deny the correlation between freedom, innovation, productivity, integrity, rational self-interest, and independence (basically what so-called "libertarianism" is about).
Please do read a very cogent review of cybersilliness at Reason -- starting thus: "This is a bad book, unlearned in its titular subject, petulant, and poorly argued. It is tempting simply to dismiss it and move on. Despite its shoddy quality, [it] is not irrelevant. Far from it. The book is fascinating as a case study in the reasoning and psychology behind opposition to the mix of individualism and anti-statism that characterizes contemporary libertarian thought."
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
ok, my first response to the publication of this book (which i have not yet read) was, "uh, ok, and . . . ?" but the review has persuaded me to read it, if only for all of the anecdotes.
but while it disturbs me (honestly), i also find it very interesting in several ways:
first, there is something of a conundrum in the relationship between libertarianism and open source, and the answer is not, as an early poster suggested, in the notion of "compete [sic!] freedom." rather, i would argue that libertarian open source types have organized themselves (even if in a distributed fashion -- although, e.g., linus still owns "official" linux releases, or whatever) in response to the threat known as microsoft, or something like it. they hate organizing, but there seems a tacit recognition that collective (not authoritarian) action is required when you aim to fight (authoritarian) power effectively. the only upshots i see to this are nevertheless important: a notion of distributed (a.k.a., collective) organization, rather than hierarchical, and a notion of collective ownership (there is a way in which none of us individually owns linux, for example, but we all do).
second, the above is not the only such paradox, but libertarians/objectivists seem surprising unaware of them as paradoxes. they may be resolvable, but explaining them away with phrases like "comp(l)ete freedom" simply doesn't work, whether it was a typo or not. the truth is we all have the freedom to modify the code, but none of us individually has the freedom either to make money from that (is that libertarian? no liberty to make money?) or to add it to any official release. that's just an example.
Finally, i will point out something i noticed reading the review: what is now called "bionomics" used to be called, "social darwinism." the rise of bionomics just goes to show that if you call something with a catchy new economy name, you can get away with anything, and that to deny that libertarianism is ultimately about a pseudo-darwinian "survival of the fittest" applied economically is a sham.
cheers,
3j
"I've come to the conclusion that revolutions aren't profitable." -kevin kelly
I have only been a geek for about 4 years now and have needed help at various times. When I was first starting out, people came to my home to teach me things. On many occasions I have gotten information from emailing friends and especially from Usenet groups. At my current job I have a mentor who works at a different company. Usually we communicate through email -- but one day I was really struggling with something and he showed up at my work out of the blue to help me. This almost brought tears to my eyes.
I am saying this because I cannot imagine people in most other professions spending that much time and effort helping other people in their profession to make progress. Geeks, however, think that to help other geeks make progress helps the whole community advance. This is altruism. To say that geeks are selfish is to not have a very deep understanding of the culture. Anyone who has spent time working and playing in the geek culture, realizes how profoundly generous we are with our most precious resource -- knowledge.
I really doubt the argument that computer users or nerds are any more libertarian than the rest of the world.
:)
:)
Slashdot isn't the best place to take a quick poll since most of the people reading this forum, and about 99% of those who post regularly are i'm sure pro-open-source - which as other posters have identified is pro libertarian.
I'd also hazard a guess that like myself quite a lot of the people here are students and as such we are stereotypically expected to have more lax opinions on subjects like drugs, sex & piracy (rock & roll has been replace - sorry lars).
There is certainly a growing culture of change but i'm still very sure that most computer users see nothing wrong with carnivore/RiP/your-countries-system-here. And why should they?
I feel that the internet makes it far easier for people to express their feelings and sentiments on a subject, and there is far less of a stigma attached to rebelling against something on here. Personally i'm all for a trial decriminanlisation of cannabis but i've never bothered going to a rally (cos it'd involve standing up man
The anonimity of the internet just provides a mechanism for anyone with non-conformist views to express them and find others like them. This is probably one of the reasons the government seek tighter control over it and why we hail pgp as our saviour
One thing I've noticed relating to many Sys Admins. They tend to espouse a total personal liberty approach in the real world and become quite hostile towards any agency that tries to limit their behavior in the real world. Try to apply these same principles to their server and they become an autocrat. In general I find making an analogy between the computing environment and society a good way to talk with other tech folks about these issues. It's only by maintaining a certain level of limitation on each individuals behavior (resource limits and file permissions essentially) that all the users of a server can co-exist and be relatively free to pursue their personal goals as they see fit.
I'm too lazy to go look for myself, but didn't JonKatz do an article on the technolibertarian culture last week? If I remember correctly, he even mentioned this book and gave it a hearty review. Nice job of coordinating news pieces guys...
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
Your an idiot. Have you even read anything by Ayn Rand?
me too
Thats the best thing I've seen all day.
me too. The world is becoming a truly scary place for free-thinking individuals.
Because the average libertarian does not feel like they need to take responsibility for the actions of other people or corporations
Absolutely. If I didn't murder someone, I don't need to take responsiblity for it. The person responsible is the one who commited the crime not random bystanders trying to live their lives.
Never mind that freedom is in many ways incompatible with the idea of society
Ah yes, the main arguement of totalitarianism.
All you have done is reverse the concept of economic freedom to justify stealing by the government. Like I said before, its an arugement to support totalitarianism.
Dontcha hate the way journalists and writers use prefixes like "cyber-", "techno-" and "e-" to make themselves sound cool?
Most critics of free market economics miss the point. I'm not "libertarian" because I'm selfish and don't care about others. Rather, it's that I want them to have the same opportunities as I.
Give money to a poor person, and you ease they're pain some. And if they're down on their luck, that can be worthwhile. But you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that after you give them a buck, they'll still be on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
Indeed, all forms of economic redistribution, while they might make poverty more bearable, serve to keep those who are wealthy on top. Income tax, for example, is not a tax on wealth, but a tax on getting wealthy. And a progressive income tax makes it very difficult for those on the bottom to accumulate wealth. A person who has one or two years of good income is taxed as if they were a billionaire (or higher, if any of that income is subject to payroll tax).
There are zillions of examples, but I find nothing so despicable as the person who has made their own fortune off of movie rights or record royalties or stock options, and thinks that those less fortunate should be happy with whatever crumbs they can spare. What they (we, actually) really want is the opportunity to accumulate some wealth of our own, and to keep most of it, and to pass it along to those we love when we pass. Is that selfish?
I can see why you might want the government to protect against force. But why "fraud"? Caveat Emptor, surely.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
No one forces you to right closed source software either.
I'm sorry, but the GPL in and of itself is not Libertarian. IMHO, no license can be considered libertarian, because it is in its very nature restrictive. The GPL maybe restrictive for a very good reason, but it is restrictive none the less.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Exactly, the only true Libertarian license is none at all.
Analysts of society love to label people and put in them in neat little categories and pigenholes like "libertarian", "progressive", "conservative", "right-wing extremist" and so forth. I guess it makes it easier for them to quickly label others as to put forth their theories.
But how many of us can be described so simply?
For instance, I like some of the Libertarian ideas such as the problems with the war against drugs or free market economics. But at the same time, I like a few things about the Green Party and their complaints about corporate welfare.
I believe in free markets, welfare reform, keeping as much of my earned wages as possible and responsibility for my actions and those of my country.
However, I also wish to protect the environment (don't use toxic chemicals at home) and endangered species (don't want a world without whales, elephants, etc. and know that human encroachment is the single biggest problem) and want my children to grow up breathing clean air.
But, I don't care for a government "forcing" me to be compassionate or snooping on my privacy or confiscating my personal property for redistribution.
See? There is no one party or group which meets my needs. So these sociologists and writers who analyze people and trends could never pigeonhole me into some neat little category.
Anyone else agree?
I am a woman, and I will tell you quite clearly that I have not met a woman YET who is pro-choice. Woman have to live with the fear that, if abortion is outlawed, they may one day have to take care of a child, a PERSON, for their entire life. Don't you think that having a child changes everything? Maybe not everyone wants to change?
Men don't have to deal with that. They can make a "mistake" tonight, and walk away tomorrow. It's easy for a man to be pro-life, because none of his choices affect him. In many ways, abortion is the only way to create equality for men and women.
But all those other reasons for abortion are out there, and many times, like on rape and incest, it is the man's fault for the baby. Sometimes it is even the dad's fault. That is NOT to be a man-basher, but to show you why we are scared at having our rights taken away.
I am sorry that you feel the way you do about so-called "birth-control abortions", but you have a right to think that. Just don't take away the right to abortion for when it is truly needed.
-rainbowfyre
Vericon is coming!
That;s not the idea that comprises libertarianism, but thanks for playing.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
A Browne-Nader debate would be about a billion times more interesting than the Bush-Gore confrontations we will soon be seeing, even though neither of them has a chance in hell of winning.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
No, fascism, by definition, is extremism in the cause of nationalism.
Interesting that you insist that moderation is "the only way we can move forward", and then in the very next sentence express a very extreme left-wing view.
It has often been noted that liberals in America have re-defined moderation as the liberal agenda being endorsed by conservatives. "We disagree, so you need to be more moderate." You have just provided more evidence of that trend.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Barry Goldwater probably said it best: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Sorry, but this review did nothing to persuade me to buy or even borrow the book... although it has made me consider joining the Cato Institute.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
This review of Cyberselfish is from Reason magazine, which is a libertarian publication.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." --Robert LeFevre
Talk about doubletalk. Morality is all about interacting with others according to principles that transcend the self. This is the very opposite of selfishness.
Of course, a lot of people profess self serving moral codes. But at least they try to hide their motive. Objectivism takes a different approach to the needed obfuscation: it conflates morality with selfishness.
Each to his own self-justifying nonsense.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
Could the author have fit any more corporate buzzwords in the title?
--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Inevitably, someone has already said what I am about to say, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to weed through over 200 comments to find them. Few people will read this so late in the day, but whatever. I feel I must vent.
First of all: To call Libertarianism selfish, as so many have already pointed out, is to totally miss the point. There is nothing that I have seen that says 'be a selfish bastard.' To the contrary, Libertarianism promotes private philanthropy. What better way to reward worthy causes and better yet, effective organizations, than through an open market economy.
Let's take welfare as an example. Until its inception, the poor had been taken care of by churches and other private groups. Has the government done a better job? I don't know the numbers, but I'll bet that there are more poor people and that they are relatively poorer than before. By poor, I don't merely mean financially, but spiritually as well. Why is that my wife and I make a combined income of over US$70k and we cannot justify the purchase of a 30+ inch TV and I see news reports of some welfare queen in her cinderblock apartment with a monster sony flickering in the background. Hello!? But I digress. Why is that poor people seemed to have a greater sense of pride and well..sense?
Why aren't Libertarian Techies more generous with there new found riches? First of all, we don't get to keep that much of them! Second, why should I give to the United Way if I'm already forced to give 30% of my income to the government to do the same things. That's duplication of effort. Given the choice, my money would go to the private charities, but I'm not given a choice.
Libertarianism is founded on the concept that every person has great potential to be a good, generous, selfless individual if given the opportunity. We aren't given that opportunity. We have a government that tells us what to do, where to do it, wipes our nose and takes a huge chunk of our earnings for the privilege. No thanks.
Self interest doesn't have to mean raping the land. How is it in a company's self interest to destroy a resource? That's bad business! Plus, government intervention isn't all that effective at stopping it. A private organization, staffed by interested individuals and funded by private citizens without a conflict of interest (Like Greenpeace or Sierra CLub) would be far more effective at ferreting out such issues. The government should merely be a vehicle for conflict resolution, not a crusader.
Ok... I could go on... But I won't... hylander
Stop the use of force!
This stuff is old news, though it is reliable flame-bait. Perhaps /. needs more hits this week.
On the contrary, Libertarian thought and the movement away from massive government control of economies and personal choice is extraordinarily relevant.
Were the old guard not frightened of it, they'd see no reason to complain about it.
Dogs don't bark at tombstones, and publishers don't publish books on irrelevant movements.
Then how can you trust other people to make the decisions for them? Because that's all that big government is: a collection of other people to make decisions for you (and then enforce them).
Admittedly, we're all merely human. But if you can't make decisions for your own life, then how has anyone else even got a prayer of getting it right for you?
Of course, the government is needed for some things (national defense and the court system being only two obvious examples), but basing your system of government on the idea that people are imbeciles doesn't seem to me to be viable in the long run.
Yes, but no-one forces you to write code under the GPL. This is libertarian.
What's that all about? I have many philosophical differences with the libertarians, but I have never regarded them as selfish...
Cybergeek libertarians need to start defending themselves against this sort of yellow-journalism. It makes you look bad, and it reflects poorly on those of us (geeks, that is) who choose to reject the libertarian point of view.
Am I the only doof to notice that although our "geek" culture is off-balance gender-wise, most psychological studies on geekism are written by women ? No sexism intended, but that's like having a guy write a review on different brands of tampons. Sure there are certainly a few male (?) freaks who use tampons, but as a minority I doubt they can express the full spectrum of associated complexities. It takes a true geek to know a true geek, and I think it's commonly accepted and acknowledge that geek guys and geek grrls have some differences that simply cannot be generalized. You can't write for the smaller of the two groups and expect to appeal to the masses.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I really hate it when a person takes a word out of context, and redefines it to further their own ends, or as in this case, sell a book. The term "libertarian" refers to the Libertarian Party, a political party dedicated to social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics, who are opposed to the concept of domestic government. It is usually bad to generalize about any group as large as the internet or engineering community, but to try to shove them all into a pigeon hole as small as a fringe political party, and then be surprised that they don't conform to the precepts of that pigeon hole is just stupid, and evidence of poor research and fuzzy thinking. Not all social Darwinists are libertarians, not all anarchists are libertarians, nor all laissez-faire economists. There also is no reason to believe that the concept of the rights of the individual, and communal cooperation are mutually exclusive. It is the basis of our constitution. On the other hand, libertarians, anarchist, the internet and engineering communities do live in a fantasy world. As long as their are people who seek power and personal wealth, there will be governments. Whether they are political in nature, or corporate, someone will make the decisions that effect the lives of the individual. The way I see it, with a political government, at least you get the illusion of a say. There is no such thing as a benevolent corporation.
Don't take this the wrong way, but that effective censorship someone did is just shameful abuse of moderation powers. Ah well. Technocracy is fascism, after all. (And now this isn't off-topic; in fact it's a very direct example of the dangers of social conservatism!)
According to Libertarian economic theory and Bionomics, wouldn't Microsoft be one of the greatest companies on Earth? After all, M$ is at the top of quite a few parts of the software industry in terms of market share. It has consistently proven that it is the "fittest" so it has "survived," whereas all the other competitors in the normal user PC market have failed in the darwinian sense.
Last I heard libertarianism, meant that individuals should have almost complete freedom and that the only purpose for the government should be to keep us from killing each other; and business should be based solely on the idea that whatever happens the business that is best will be the one that wins. Unfortunately, in the real world the invisible hand doesn't quite work the way it's supposed to. Here the big usually get bigger, and either use unfair anti-trust practices to drive the little out of business, or simply buy the little company and assimilate or destroy it. I think we, and the press, and the Department of Justice, and the EU can see both of thise practices in Microsoft.
If anything the ideals of Open Source are opposed to libertarianism and bionomic. Open Source is a collective of individuals working together towards the same goal. By bionomic ideals people should not work together on the same thing. They should work separately on different projects, and then the Market will determine which of those projects can continue to exist. Open sourcing your product simply gives an advantage to your competitors who can see how you did things, and then put them in their project. Bionomics would argue that Open Source should disappear, because the companies that use it will not profit enough, and will be "evolved" out of business.
I've yet to read Cyberselfish but I have heard the author speak and I tend to think that their is at least a grain of thought to what she is saying. My favorite example of her's, was when she pointed out that people in Silicon Valley worked to get tax cuts and other libertarian reforms passed in California a few years ago, and now they are finding that the school systems there no longer produce graduates capable of working for them.
credo quia absurdum
Also, I'm no expert on libertarianism, but I would think libertarians would be in favour of some sort of restriction on corporate polluting, provided it could be proven to be effective, because pollution denies everyone else a basic freedom to a live in a clean world.
Right now, I am trying very hard to not comment on your statements about the US and capitalism.
How can you say that libertarianism is another word for apathy? There is no evidence to support that. Most people would call the Libertarians extremists.
Your comment starts with a very contestable thesis and does nothing to justify it. It is just a rant.
Do you pronounce "USia" /yoo-ess-ee-ah/ or /oozhya/?
jeb.
"TBI morphed into software-startup Maxager, which intends to offer Bionomical tools to companies. Borsook wonders what meaning can be ascribed to the success or the failure of the company. If Maxager fails, is it because it wasn't Bionomically good enough, or just because of the many uncontrollable factors that cause the vast majority of startups to fail? If it succeeds, does it validate Bionomics, or just the good connections the founder has with Silicon Valley venture capitalists?"
First, Maxager doesn't "intend" to offer bionomical tools. Maxager Technology has just released Maxager® 4.0! Maxager is the only Advanced Profit Analysis tool available for manufacturers. (See maxager.com for more details.)
Second, Maxager Technology doesn't work like "Darwin's world" internally, but rather like most other Silicon Valley startups, where there's plenty of teamwork, perks and fun (it's not "each man for himself").
Last, I don't believe that the success or failure of Maxager validates or invalidates the concept of Bionomics, as the Maxager product, when it's boiled down to its essence, simply provides manufacturers the ability to determine the product mixes that provide for the greatest profit velocity and machine utilization efficiency. Now wouldn't any manufacturer want to enhance their profits?
Sure, I'm biased, but I wouldn't work for a company that didn't produce and sell a product that didn't have practical value in the marketplace.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
But what I was looking for in my stroll through the site were solutions, not just those observations that anybody with a heart and a pair of eyes can make. For instance, who did her webpage? A consultant? Or did she teach a kid in the Barrio html and make the site his first blip on a resume that would forever improve his life? I'd rather read a book written by someone who attempted some solutions and find out what road-blocks were faced in the effort than the guilt-ridden ramblings of someone who wants it both ways. I'd rather read about Wavy Gravy than about some clown with a word processor.
Of course, if she's got the walk to go with her talk, then she's wayyyyy cool in my book.
"When I food to the poor, people call me a Saint. When I ask why don't the poor have food, people call me a communist" - The late archbishop Romero
I have yet to have a chance to read through this forum, but I'm going to post this anyways.
I'm starting my senior thesis this spring and need to know of some good reads on cyberculture. From what I can tell, I'm not sure if this book would be an good source, but I will probably read it for another view exposer. I've listed some of the books I've seen. If someone could point out some goods ones, or direct me away from the garbage, it would be extremely appreciated.
List of Books:
Digital Delirium
White Noise
Chaos and Cyber Culture
MunITioN
MunITioN
"A mind is a terrible thing to lose"
You never justify your subject line in this comment.
No, I suppose you're right. I sort of got side tracked from the point I was originally going to make.
How can you say that libertarianism is another word for apathy?
Because the average libertarian does not feel like they need to take responsibility for the actions of other people or corporations - after all, they all have their right to freedom don't they? Never mind that freedom is in many ways incompatible with the idea of society, the concept can still be used by libertarians to justify standing back and letting others do what they want.
That was the flaw I meant.
Do you pronounce "USia" /yoo-ess-ee-ah/ or /oozhya/?
/yoo-ess-ee-ah/
The idea that comprises libertarianism - that governemt regulation and intervention can only ever be a bad thing and needs to be fought at all costs, whereas the laissez-faire capitalistism that countries like USia encourage is to be celebrated and promoted - seems to me to be a foolish brand of "eyes held shut" syndrome that does nothing for the tech community.
Despite the rabid pro-"freedom" stance assumed by the average /.er they still manage to fall into hypocracy by condemning Microsoft, the ultimate expression of the kind of socioeconomic structure that they celebrate. If economic freedom is so important to you, then you should be supporting Microsoft again the evils of "big government" interventionalism.
But then again most /.ers are USians who believe that the rest of the world is either a poor copy of their great nation or a socialist hellhole where taxes reach levels of 95%. The rest of the world is there to be exploited, and the libertarians should be cheering USia's corporations on in their efforts to exploit natural resources and engage in anti-competitve practices - after all, it's only the cut and thrust of capitalism right?
The rampant capitalism practiced by USia has led to a nation with approximately 1/20th of the worlds population consuming half of the worlds resources. After all, we don't want to impose environmental regulations, the corporations might not like it. It'd *gasp* harm their profitability if they were forced to clean up after themselves.
No, libertarianism is just another word for selfishness and apathy, a political stance in which the individual is allowed to give up all moral responsibility in the name of profit. And who cares about those that suffer socioeconomic rape at the hands of greedy corporations - it's not our fault if they're poor is it? Should've worked harder.
Thanks. Someone called it flamebait. That wasn't my intent at all. I believe in personal responsibility and I resent being called selfish, compassionless, and fearful for it, as the article seems to imply.
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Im certainly of the new generation of cyber-libertarians. It all starts with education and intelligence. Us in the cyber realm need to promote a reciprocal exchange agreement, respect your ideas - respect my ideas. This is all of course not very likely to happen with the bastard techno-realists trying to cripple free thought with ridiculous rules and censorship. For those interested, I recommend "Data Smog" by David Schenk, this essay discusses interesting points between libertarianism and totalitarianism spawning from electronic media.
Then where would I be?
Money is the only thing that matters...
The real Eric S Gaymond is #216600. Everyone Else is a liar.
you say 'Do something *real*.' Please define real. I don't wish to take offense prematurely after all.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
Yep. What we have here is two definitions of the same term. Michael's use of libertarian is consistant with the 'libertarian socialism' of the Spanish civil war's POUM, closely linked to anarcho-syndicalism, and is certainly what is meant by 'libertarian' in revolutionary polemics dating from the early 20th century. Unfortunately, the late 20th century 'post-objectivists' have latched onto the word for marketing their 'kinder, gentler objectivism'. The upshot is that most people understand Michael's views only as 'anarchist', and don't know that the older meaning of the word 'libertarian' ever existed -- that it once expressed a broad ideal that encompassed strands of both socialism and anarchism, and that many sacrificed a great deal for it... No Pasaran!
I thought this was an excellent review -- much better than Jon Katz's.
I haven't read the book but having read this and other reviews, my impression is that there's a kind of bait and switch going on here. I'm a molecular biologist, so I may or may not be part of "tech-culture" but I'm pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of engineers, coders, admins etc. are not Randians, polyamorists, or even free software / open source zealots. Borsook could write (and maybe has written) an insightful book about why the technical community has an overabundance of these types, but she seems to be saying that they _define_ the tech world, which I think is wildly inaccurate.
I think the big thing that I think about here is that I just can't believe that people are smart enough to make big decisions on their own. If you think they are then you haven't checked out the Darwin Awards or even the Dilbert True Tales of Induhviduals. I think that some people are smart enough to make decisions on their own, but not most people. Probably not even me.
I see this two ways -- there is in fact a Left/Right scale of politics, but it is becoming increasingly irrelevant. On the right, you have reactionary action (move backward toward the past). On the left, you have radical action (move dramatically toward the unknown). America is further to the right on this scale than you might think, but it really is not the most important issue in the world right now. I propose a second scale that goes Up/Down to measure the level of control of a political system. Anarchy is at the bottom of this scale, and totalitarianism is at the top. Again, America is way up to the top on this one. That's what people are mainly concerned about. We need to move a little further down the scale. Libertarianism is pretty near the bottom.
-in a fast german car im amazed that i survived... an airbag saved my life!-
In response to the "lack of philanthropy in Silicon Valley", why is this even brought up? The plunge of the .com market this year rings through the ears of CEO's and company presidents who's entire wealth might be gone by the end of the year. I think that people who gained riches through computers should hold on to their money, and they have a right to, because they might be as broke ass a year later as the people they're trying to help.
Personally, I don't understand why rich people are suddenly burdened with everyone else in society. They DID earn THEIR money, right? So why should they have to give out to people who have failed, and are failures because of their own faults? It might be greedy, but people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their money, rich or poor, and not pressured by everyone to give it all away.
Help me through college please!
Under a free enterprise model there is no regulation of what you can sell or hoard. If you want to get other people's source code, modify it, sell the binaries, and make lots of money doing it (think early 1980's Microsoft, or not even that long ago...) you can. In fact, in a truly open market there is no such thing as copyright since there should be no governing body to impede free trade with pesky little protections for those who might not be the most fit.
Most people who consider themselves Libertarians are in favor of some specific portion of Libertarian ideas, not the whole or the extent that it leads to. We like our capitalism a little reigned in, our own personal limits enforced, and our own sense of apropriateness unsullied by what other people might find apropriate.
Open Source, while a nice little concept which aids development greatly, is not a business model. The idea that any improvement you make belongs to the community is a sure way to prevent you from capitalizing on your own work. It's basically saying that because you got seeds from the community they own the fruit you raised in the fields.
Sun is giving away Solaris 8 for a good reason: It will let them sell a hell of a lot more hardware and services. The machines come with consulting attached, and you'll need technicians. Who cares if you pay for an OS when you pay big bucks for a guy to come and adjust the fans on the back of an enterprise server?
- I settled down long enough to write this and have now collected far too much dust. Damn Dust.
Lets see: what part of Marx's 'to each according to his need, from each according to his ability' don't you understand?
Also do you realize the European terminology is the opposite to American? There a "liberal" is pro economic freedom (as in privatize everything and strip people of any of the guarantees they've fought for) and a "conservative" is anti economic freedom (as in you can't play the stock market).
Fighting corporate fascism everywhere.