Slashdot Mirror
Why Are So Many Nerds Libertarians?
BrendanMcGrail writes "Why do so many nerds seem to lean toward the Libertarian end of the spectrum? As a leftist, I know there are many people who share my ideological views, but have very little in common with me in terms of profession and non-work interests. Is the community's political bent directly tied to our higher than average economic success?"
that creativity is not a group project. It is about the individual.
Why do so many nerds seem to lean toward the Libertarian end of the spectrum?
Can you cite your source for this data? Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?
Because they're smarter. (n/t)
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
Nerds are unrealistic when it comes to how human beings actually work. They seem to have some vision of people that is way closer to ideal than actually exists. What's more, most nerds I talk to recognize this even in themselves, yet persist in the delusion.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Because they see the average level of intelligence shown by those around them and don't want any of that lot deciding things for them?
But, are they really libertarian or do they just use the word?
New! Device Legs: These legs will help your poor OEM installed product escape any hamfistedness it may encounter. Ava
Note this is purely an American problem. Geeks and nerds from other countries turn into lefties, not Thatcher's little free-marketeerians. People outside of America have no idea who Ayn Rand is, and tend to think that 99% of America (excepting San Francisco and Boston) are rabid right-wing capitalists.
Nerds are often psychologically isolated and have grown up without any sense of community or personal involvement. They already reject other people, rejecting any cohesive form of government is just the next step. They felt they were better than anyone else when they were young and (rightly) detested the very broken American public school system. However, because they are actually idiots, and incapable of seeing further than their own nose, they think smashing it all up is the key.
How anyone can think the private sector is a panacea is beyond me. Look at the fucked-up American medical system for a simple example. Look at how Canada and Sweden regularly top the standard-of-living charts despite having much smaller GDPs than America.
Heck .. both the dems and the gop are screwing us .. less laws , more freedom and .. not more
big time.anyways
a better attitude is what we all need
government intervention in what i want to do with
my life.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Not to generalize (but to generalize...), nerds tend to be from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. They're usually intellectual workers, been to college and university, and so... how much experience do they actually have with the brutality of the world as it is for most people?
For me, (economic) libertarians seem out of touch with the way the world really is. Nerds tend to have brains and tend to be well-educated and as such, tend to do well, economically. It's very easy to forget not everyone has that natural advantage (as least with intellect) and that not everyone might react the same way as you.
Libertarianism sounds great until you actually realize a few things: property isn't the centre of human life, human nature isn't built around the adorational worship of negative rights and that a lot of people are just plain exploitative of people less well off than them and less intelligent; and to say, "oh, too bad, it's your fault, we're realizing our potential and you have right to hold us down!" isn't just wrong, but cold-hearted ... and is that the libertarian paradise you want to live in, really?
There wasn't even an implication that libertarianism is leftist, to me. As I read it, the submitter is a leftist who is confused about the perceived popularity of libertarianism, not a libertarian.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Nerds are particularly sensitive to individual liberty, because they tend to want to think and act in ways that deviate from the norm -- that is, break new ground and innovate, whether scientifically, technologically, or philosophically. So they are very aware that if society is to dictate some small number of acceptable ways of thinking or acting, then their ways, being unique, will not be among the acceptable ones. Therefore a libertarian society is the only type in which they are free to innovate.
I think that you need to re-read the question. The OP seemed to be saying that he is, himself, a leftist who has noticed that his leftist friends are rarely nerds and his nerd friends are usually libertarians. As for myself, I'm old enough to have watched Armstrong step onto the moon on live television. I'm pretty sure that I was a libertarian well before I achieved any economic success, which I attribute to an early exposure to the works of Robert A. Heinlein.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
2. Even if there is a correlation, it does not prove causation. Nerdiness, wealth and libertarian beliefs... which is the cause and which is the effect?
3. You use the terminology left (and right by default). These labels are inadequate to describe the political beliefs of a person. Traditionally Left stands for lots of liberties in the social arena and mostly restrictions on economic activities. Not necessarily unreasonable restrictions, but restrictions nonetheless. And Right stands for lots of liberties for corporate and economic activities, but severe restrictions on social liberties, again not necessarily all unreasonable. A true libertarian will stand for freedoms and liberties in both the corporate/fiscal arena as well as social arena. And a true libertarian will also stand for rights as well as responsibilities on the exercise of the liberties. There are very few true libertarians. Sometimes libertarianism appears to be an ideal that will never be practical. Please don't say, if everyone becomes a true lib, because a practical working system should work even if all parts of the society does not believe or agree with the principle. A libertarian can not impose even libertarianism on an unwilling population. S it is tougher than you probably imagine.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I think it goes beyond just being smarter. All of my nerd friends and me, besides being smart, are very analytical. We really analyze situations and are usually not swayed by cheap simple tactics the mainstream politicians use. Phrases like "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" just make us think "Well fuck, I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that." We understand political issues beyond just the talking point sound bytes, which is why we see it's complete BS from both sides of the aisle right now. Libertarian is the only choice in my mind.
Name...That...Autocomplete!
i think it says much about the two mainstream parties in U.S. politics when upon stating that you value the right to individual freedom, people assume that you don't identify with either of them...
I think you're misunderstanding the original post (which is easy; it's not very clearly written). Rephrasing:
Most tech nerds I know are libertarians. Most of my fellow socialists/communists whom I know are hipsters and artists and hippies and drama dorks, and have no technical background. Why is this the case?To respond to the original article, I don't think it's necessarily related to money either. Regardless of politics, all of the engineers I knew in college were pretty hard-nosed and independent. You're going to wash out if you're not. And if you're an independent, hard worker, you're more likely to think that others should be too.
I put in the phrase "direct harm" because it is all to easy to declare anything you want as an "indirect harm" without any justification. When I say "direct harm", there has to be actual clearly identifiable victims of that harm, and also clear, identifiable harm. Alas, much of what in politics and the law today that is declared "harm" isn't really.
So, in essence, unless you see me actually doing something that is clearly harming someone else, you are to leave me alone. And I, of course, will do likewise.
I have lost count of how many times in my own life, for instance, someone has phoned the police on me simply because they *thought* I was dangerous, regardless of the fact that I had not done anything wrong nor had any intentions of doing so. And that has caused much damage -- much harm -- to me and my family, and yet no one learns from this. Police still encourages the public to phone everything in at the drop of a hat. Then they go out and harass innocent individuals, doing harm to them.
If I were libertarian-leaning before, such experiences have firmly pushed me into that camp.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
That said, I'm not a stereotypical fundamentalist in all areas. I believe global warming is a real problem that has to be dealt with. I think George Bush screwed up in a big way in Iraq and other areas of policy. I'm skeptical of the capitalism, as it depends on an economic model that is destructive to our planet and favors the rich over the poor. In other words, I'm not just blindly fitting myself into one category of political / economic alignment. One group usually doesn't have all the answers.
Sure, maybe more nerds have long pony-tails than short hair, and maybe more have body odor than not. However, I think you'll find there's greater variety and diversity within this people-group we call "nerds" than is implied by the original post.
- Mike
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Here in Europe they would be considered right wing nut jobs, certainly not left wing.
I am so fucking tired of seeing this "In Europe..." crap on Slashdot. Appears so often it may as well be a fucking meme like "In Soviet Russia..."
Seems like every American political party that is a smidgen to the right of the American Communist Party "would be considered right wing nut jobs" in Europe.
Those Americans consider to be leftists "would be considered right wing nut jobs" in Europe.
Those Americans consider to be centrists "would be considered right wing nut jobs" in Europe.
I suppose those Americans consider to be right wing would make the Nazis seem like far-left progressive socialists to Europeans?
Europe can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The last report showed our economy growing at a 4% clip. (It would have been 10% but our schools are socialized.) Go capitalism!
Libertarians, especially big-L Libertarians, are often deluded about that. There are things that must be handled by government, on a larger level. Healthcare is one. Public transport is another, unless you want it to go to shit, as in some European countries.
Vroomfondle: We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
Douglas Adams was right. This question is degenerating into the same sort of scenario as Vroomfondle and Majikthise had with Deep Thought.
Then here is your answer from Deep Thought him/her/it's self.
Choosing Libertarian is mostly a question of fusing both sides of the political wings into one. Keeping the general liberal social attitudes of the left with the self-defense and financial responsibilities from the Right. Conspicuously absent is such things as obvious save-the-gay-baby-whales-hippy-granola boondoggles from the left and the right's pandering to theocratic christers.
frankly I got tired of watching both parties try to morph into each other every election depending on the mood of the day.
Fiscal conservatives I can deal with Government should be accountable on as to the books and stay out of personal matters. Defense, Police, Disaster relief, public safety. These are the business of government.
on the other hand, I don't give a rats ass who sleeps with who in private, likewise I don't like someone else sticking their nose into bedrooms looking for stuff they have no right to. Social Conservatives make me think of guys like Foley, Craig, and Limbaugh. Two faced jerks with a agenda of sleaze.
As to the Left, the hippy stuff just bugs me that all. I don't like drum circles nuff said.
Government should stay the hell out of area of Doubt and Uncertainty. That is what most of politic is so there.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Not at all. Libertarianism leaves a power vacuum, into which large corporations would be only too happy to become the authorities.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You know, government rules don't get created unless someone's interests were hurt. I think everyone in the society believes this creed; the problem is that way more activities than you might think at first affect other people's interests.
Motorcycle helmets are the classic example.
A consistent libertarian says "Don't make me wear a helmet. If I crash, it's my responsibility, and it's OK for you to leave me dying in the street." The problem is that we as a body politic are simply unprepared to leave people dying in the street, for several reasons. 1) it's ugly and stinky, not to mention unsanitary; 2) our humanity just doesn't allow us to see that level of suffering and ignore it; 3) it scares people and causes them not to ride, depressing economic output. The result is that if the motorcycle rider is uninsured we treat him at public expense -- and, if he rides without a helmet and is honest about it, he won't be able to get insurance. Therefore his riding affects all of us by costing us money.
Pollution regulations are another good example (and the best current "tragedy of the commons" issue).
There is simply no incentive for any one individual not to pollute -- one person's pollution, no matter how bad, is usually not going to affect the rights of others. But in a country of 300 million individuals, of course widespread pollution will affect everyone's rights! There is no solution to this problem that does not involve society as a whole somehow coercing the individual -- in other words, regulation.
Also, I think you'll find that allowing parents to hurt their kids in any way they want leads to some pretty gruesome consequences...
Remember a libertarian would not harp on Microsoft, would not have guns laws restricting the use of bazookas, and would not restrict people from following creationism. Libertarian means to live and let live, and most importantly it means for people to be idiots!
Yes, and every Republican is anti-abortion. Every Democrat is pro-choice.
Well, not exactly.
Suppose you agree with every part of the Libertarian party platform except for one part? You are suggesting that person is not a libertarian? What, exactly, are they?
(for the purpose of this argument we are going to ignore the differences between "libertarianism" and "the Libertarian Party", since your argument does not really cover the differences)
One only needs glance at the differing platforms of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton to realize there are always differences of opinions in a political party.
I consider myself a libertarian. I have minor issues with the capital-L Libertarian Party, but not enough that I do not support them fully. I do believe in some gun-control, however. I believe it is best done (and correctly done) through a Constitutional amendment.
As far as Microsoft goes - I feel one of the responsibilities of the federal government is to prevent monopolies from abusing the market. The government should stay out of capitalism until there is a failure of capitalism (i.e. a monopoly). As a good libertarian, I feel that the government SHOULD investigate Microsoft, and take actions to prevent them from using their monopoly to unfairly control the market.
I also have never seen any Libertarian saying that people should be prevented from following Creationism, but that it should not be taught in schools as "science". A libertarian is going to see that the Constitution provides for a separation of Church and State, and therefore a government entity (public schools) should not be teaching faith in a specific Christian ideology. Followers of Creationism are free to continue to believe what they want, are free to gather outside of schools.
Oh, and the quiz you link to? Here is one of the questions:
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
This is a horribly worded question. Apple's stock dipped a bit due to Greenpeace's (poorly done) criticism of Apple's environmental policy. I would say that this is an economic factor that a corporation should pay attention to. The company also needs to pay attention to the fact that more consumers are buying based on environmentally friendlier products. This drives profits. But the question is worded such that this should be ignored.
As others have mentioned in response, the questions are sometimes poorly worded, and there is not a "Do not care" answer, which seems almost critical to a Libertarian at times. What do I care about nationalistic movements, for example?
Another question: The rich are too highly taxed.
This question gives no perspective or comparison. Too highly taxed compared to poor people? Compared to middle-income? Or just in general do I think that the rich should not be taxed at all?
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Because so many nerds are oblivious to society, and libertarianism is a very oblivious political philosophy. It starts off with assuming anarchy, and then replaces any occurence of 'violence' with 'money'. Never mind that a libertarian society would inherit an old system in which people already have, or don't have a lot of money. Never mind that people would like to be able to _trust_ certain institutions a tad beyond 'I've paid them'. Never mind that people expect all sorts of emotional things from leaders that money won't ever be able to buy.
But it can work for you, if you're insular, unemotional, marketable and oblivious, but take any of these characteristics away from a person and libertarianism starts to fall apart for them. And that's the majority of society I'm talking about. It might not seem that way on slashdot, but it is.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Second, there's a greater trend in the geek population away from the sort of religious belief. Few geeks have the religious motivation to be against abortion and gay marriage, the two social rallying flags of social conservatives today in America.
So, that pretty much only leaves the economic axis to worry about to differentiate the remaining geek populace into either liberals or libertarians. This is why this Slashdot poll did not surprise me in the least. While there was no populist/authoritarian option, conservative was the least picked choice of the mainstream political beliefs, and liberal and libertarian were the top two.
So, then the question fundamentally comes down to, "What do you fear the most?"
- An inefficient government running roughshod over you (taxation, interference in property rights, tyranny of the majority, etc).
- Powerful, unaccountable private entities running roughshod over you (monopolies, externalities, inequity of power, etc).
Of course, this is a bit of an oversimplification (as is the notion that most people fit into these little political boxes), but it mostly suffices. I find that most libertarian and most liberal points of view come down to concerns that their favorite bogeyman will ruin everything if left unchecked and powerless. More nuanced views come from realizing that they both are pretty bad and that you have to make a choice how to balance them (even if you tend to throw the balance almost entirely one way or the other). The crazy ideologues you see here on Slashdot and elsewhere are the people who seem to never acknowledge that the other side's feared enemy is a problem too.If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That works as long as you are always right. The one advantage to team work is individuals aren't infallible and don't have infinite knowledge. The one big advantage to a good team is someone else might know a better way to do something, or see the flaws in your approach and help you correct them before you do something stupid.
You are however correct that one good individual is better than a bad team, if the rest of the team is clueless and just there to take up space and consume oxygen. They are bad when they are just there to form a consensus which, rather than being the best solution, is one of the poorer ones, it just happens to be the one everyone will agree to just to put an end to a pointless discussion and escape.
If you've every worked on a good team you will appreciate that they are priceless, unfortunately they are also somewhat rare, and being stuck on bad teams is a soul sucking nightmare.
@de_machina
We're libertarians because we're surrounded by fascists. Ask any 20 yr old who has been systematically denied federal student loans because they were arrested for possession of cigarette rolling papers or a plexiglass tube. Ask any 30 year old who can't get health care for their two year old infant because their company demands $500 a month for 'coverage of dependents' on a $11 hr salary. Ask any forty year old who was thrown out of the military or good job that they did well because they were a sexual minority (or wouldn't fuck the boss or commanding officer). Ask any fifty year old who was raped by a football player, forced to bear an unwanted child 'out-of-wedlock', and had the child taken out of her arms at birth to never be seen again. Ask any sixty year old who was beaten half to death in the back of the police station for drinking from a white-only water fountain, or just 'having a bad attitude'. Ask any seventy year old who couldn't get into a good school because they were Jewish, or Asian, or Mexican, or Indian, or even one/tenth of anything.
Just talk to anybody and you'll soon know why we're libertarians. Because the libertarians are the only people who consistently, uncompromising, and publicly affirm that having all this kind of vicious bullshit written into the legal code is cruel, stupid, and wrong.
Really, the only question you should ask yourself is 'Why aren't I a libertarian?'
And it's not that I don't like what they do, it's that I don't like what they do to me.
Why should I be forced to act a certain way just because they decided to make me inhale poison?
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
> If you have a factory up-stream of me and you're making the water toxic, I get people from further downstream together and we first ask you to stop.
> If you refuse we take it to the media and hurt your profits.
Right. So in your perfect world, we can expect all major polluters to *own* the major media outlets, or will at least have financial arrangements to enable collusion? That way, when you go to one newspaper to claim someone is polluting, the other one can pipe up that nothing of the sort is happening and that the first one is biased.
It's particularly insidious since the press will be completely based on a free market the most believed newspaper will be the one that is most popular-- you know publishes the most gossipy information about celebrities or features the human interest stories that appeal to the widest audience without publishing boring news about the war or whatever.
Be wary of any political system that requires major changes in human nature in order for it to succeed.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
ResidntGeek
It is purely bidirectional. If we don't protect the State from Church A, then it'll start bearing down on Church B.
Why do people keep talking about Church in singular terms? Freedom of Religion is per person, not per state.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
That's happening as we speak. Which is why Libertarianism can never happen: not many people follow your logic. You even have major dissent among the nerd crowd. Starting with me, of course.
You mean the way Libertarians consider their opposition "communists" or "statists" (translation: less than human).
On planet Libertaria, I can imagine that question being quite relevant when you Libertarians find yourselves confronted with a socialist counterculture. Yeehaw, get your thirty oughts we's goin for some target practice, yip yiiip!!
You mean, the ends justify the means?
I'd rather be sacrificed by a bullet to the head right quick, right now, than be one of the unlucky people in your paradise of greed and selfishness, one of the poor people who are sentenced to die slowly by starvation.
Oh and about all those weapons you keep talking about wanting the unrestricted right to having? I'm in favor of that, actually. Especially when the starving masses use them against you. Happens every time a "Libertaria" is founded. Oh wait, there has never been a Libertaria. It's nothing more than a myth.
Dead by a Communist's bullet, or dead by toxic waste, cancer, or simple starvation? Dead is still dead, whether it's by the malice of Communism or the utter negligence and apathy of Libertarianism.
Communism is the enemy of freedom; Libertarianism could lead to human extinction.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
> I think the book's focus is more on competence than brilliance per se.
I don't even think her issue is competence per se, so much as it is a matter of honesty and justice.
Even Ayn Rand would agree that human ability is a matter of degree, and, indeed, there are many characters in Atlas Shrugged who are portrayed sympathetically, while showing a wide range of capability. Any person who is working within his or her ability (and preferably up to full potential) to earn an honest living, is okay with Rand.
Rand's villains, on the other hand, are those who (dishonestly and unjustly) demand wealth that they have not earned, and authority that they are not capable of wielding (which is where your "competence" factor comes in). And the weapon that those villains use to gain (i.e. steal) their unearned wealth and power is the philosophy of Collectivism. In other words, they use guilt, based on the philosophical premise that the more capable _must_ help the less capable, to demand that the creators of the world give away the wealth and power that they have earned -- putting that wealth and power into the hands of the villains, in the name of society, because they _need_ it more. (Note that this is very different than voluntary charity, and a desire to help one's fellow man.)
The story of Atlas Shrugged is what happens when the most capable in society decide to stop giving away that power, and thus stop supporting the many thieves and mini-dictators in our society. Rand's goal is a society where the honest creators are fully paid for their creations, while the dishonest second-handers (those who would steal, suppress, and pervert those creations) are held powerless, as they deserve.
To use a real world example, most composers, musicians, and the many people in the music distribution business who still choose to compete fairly, would be the heroes in a Rand story. On the other hand, those who are using the RIAA, and government power, to try to suppress the new, more efficient methods of distributing music, would be the villains -- second-handers, who are using unearned power to gain unearned wealth, while causing harm to the rest of us.