Cyberselfish: Technolibertarianism

Adam Brate, Slashdot reader, sent us a review of Cyberselfish: Technolibertarianism, a book which takes a look at the "cyber" culture, and what it means. It sounds interesting, although perhaps a bit off-base - comment below if you've read it. Cyberselfish author Pulina Borsook pages 256 publisher PublicAffairs, 05/2000 rating 8/10 reviewer Adam Brate ISBN 1891620789 summary A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech I heard about Cyberselfish when driving around Vermont Memorial Day weekend from used bookstore to used bookstore. The NPR station was broadcasting an interview with Cyberselfish author Paulina Borsook, a writer who worked for Wired during its glory years. I was put off by the book's wretched title, but engrossed by the subject: the powerful undercurrent of libertarianism that flows through high-tech circles. 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. Listening to Borsook speak intelligently and cogently about technolibertarianism made me want her book very much.

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.

Comments

Libertarianism and Objectivism.

[Uruk]

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)

A lot of people just don't Get It.

[jht]

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

Open Source Libertarian

[YoJ]

It does seem like a conflict, doesn't it? The same people who rave about individual rights and the evils of government are the ones toiling in a collective to create software for the greater good (without monetary gain). How do we reconcile these two facets? How can you be a libertarian and a collectivist?

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.

Libertarianism vs. Objectivism

[IntelliTubbie]

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.

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 ... 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.

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

Missing the Point Entirely!

[Bob Uhl]

To say that `Silicon Valley's impressive lack of philanthropy' is libertarian misses the point of libertarianism entirely, as does considering it a selfish philosophy. The whole point of libertarianism is not that I should be selfish but that I should not force you to be unselfish. It's concerned with liberty, of all things, and considers forcing someone to do what is against his will to be depriving him of his liberty. Pretty dashed hard to argue with that.

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.

Re:Missing the Point Entirely!

[Bob Uhl]

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.

Your argument is true if and only if that premise is granted. Unfortunately, I cannot grant that. Anarchy is freedom from external control--liberty taken to its logical end. Libertarianism, OTOH, is a believe in and approval of liberty which recognises the need for some form of control. Anarchism is utopian, believeing that it will all work without control; libertarianism is realistic, knowing that man is a fallen creature and will tend to get the better of his fellows. Interesting, authoritarianism is also utopian; it believes that some group--minority or majority--is wise enough to exercise paternal power over another group.

A libertarian realises that we live in an imperfect world. Here is a precis of libertarian beliefs as I see them:

1. Liberty is a good thing
2. Every law strips us of liberty
3. Without law & punishment, liberty can be misused
4. By (3), we need laws
5. By (1) and (2), laws are bad
6. By (4) and (5), we're screwed

Thus the problem becomes one of where to draw the line. Intelligent people differ on these points. My own taste is for laws that punish but do not prevent. Thus I support the right to keep and bear arms, drug legalisation and oppose speed limits, but support the death penalty and a tough-on-crime attitude. I believe that this outlook is quintessentially libertarian because anyone is allowed to do whatever he wishes until he causes harm, in which instance he is nailed to the wall.

The tragedy of the commons is related to natural monopolies such as water and power systems. This is, again, one of the few areas that government comes in handy. Others are foreign affairs, military affairs, policing and the judicial system.

Government is bad. Lack of government is worse. Too much government is even worse. That's the humour of the world we live in.

Libertarianism

[Hard_Code]

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.

Definition of 'libertarian'

[phutureboy]

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

--