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?"
As a leftist, I know there are many people who share my ideological views ... Is the community's political bent directly tied to our higher than average economic success?
First off, I don't agree that Libertarianism is "leftist" per-se. Secondly, I don't think income has anything to do with it. Constitutionalism/Libertarianism is simply a very logical conclusion, if one is of the opinion that the United States constitution is a very good document for the foundation of government. Given that "nerds" (as you call them) have an affinity for logic, I don't see why the two are such an unusual fit.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Socialism does actually work. It is just the Americans who think that all socialism is communism who are wrong. In Norway we have a socialistic government, and we are currently rated as the best country in the world to live in. Also, socialistic health care has been proven many times to be the best.
In fact, most political ideas work, if they are not put to their extremes. USA is going towards a capitalistic extreme, witch can become just as bad as the communism they hate so much.
It's not that being a nerd makes one a libertarian, or that being a libertarian magically transforms one into a nerd (though I hear it can do wonders to your, err, self-confidence).
There is a common cause to this politicial leaning and that way of life called "the nerd way". One hint is that the overwhelming majority (75% approximately) of all the libertarians I know are categorised in the "*NT*" part of the MBTI, meaning they are all Thinking rather than Feeling, and iNtuitive rather than Sensing. For example INTJ is the archetype of nerd.
That makes them more inclined to think about theory and complex problems, than what their colleague thinks of their look or how a given principle will make them feel about themselves. When you apply this to politics, that means they'll be looking at society, economics, justice, right and law with a mind that is non-pragmatic but dedicated to finding the actual truth. They will often develop complete theoretical structures for explaining their choices, because they are easily swayed by a convincing, rational argument, however obscure ; and not by a popular soundbite or appeals to emotion.
Libertarianism is one such political interpretation: it leaves little to no place to emotional reaction, does not call upon popularity, and instead builds on the strictest rational analysis (it's not a secret that Ayn Rand was obsessed with acting as rationnally as possible, to the point of obsession) and "heavy" theoretical considerations about "what actually is justice", "how economy actually works", etc.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
> Can you cite your source for this data? Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?
Agreed. And I'm sure if anyone else disagrees with the author's assumption, we'll get to find out the question about how many moderators are libertarians.
I think it's a combination of a number of factors:
1. There is a relatively larger sampling of people willing to talk about being Libertarians, whereas other people aren't necessarily as vocal about their political party membership or whether or not they've adopted a term to conceptualize their political philosophy. Apparent over-representation isn't uncommon where you have a small group of vocal fanatical people.
2. People heavily involved in technology are probably less knowledgeable (nor even interested) in public policy and politics. For those people, Libertarianism provides a certain simplicity without nuance which can be appealing. In this way, Libertarianism is like Communism: fine in theory, but not attractive in practice.
3. People heavily involved in technology are younger with less experience: exactly the type of people who would find appeal in an economic/political movement characterized by simple messages (but with untested policy). In other words, bumper stickers that reinforce ideology are more interesting than policy analysis.
As for point #3, here's an old example. A couple of years ago on Slashdot, there was a discussion about 911 services. A presumed libertarian said that we ought to privatize 911 services and not provide it to everyone who can't pay (and let charity help the rest). I was getting my MBA at the time, and we had just covered heavy fixed cost models that illustrate textbook-perfect examples of situations where regulation is more economic beneficial to all parties than a voluntary purchase model. So I wrote a response. The result was very similar to the other times I've had a discussion with a Libertarian.
In that thread, I used a simplified example with hard numbers to show economically that the regulation case actually benefitted everyone (even if you excluded any altruism). What was interesting is that over the course of the thread, the Libertarians who responded did not do any quantitative analysis at all; they responded with simplistic slogans instead. They threw out a couple of half-baked ideas: tiered services model or vouchers for poor people (both easy to say, but with no hard details). For good measure, They sprinkled a few slogans: "There's absolutely no reason that the government needs to supply a monopoly service" and "An argument based on cost is 'bee reasoning'" and similar sentiments.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Hahahahahahaha... that gave me a good laugh. I didn't think there were people in Norway reading Slashdot that actually believes that chit. Oh well, I guess all nerds are not smart.
Now, before we get going on this, I was born in Norway, I lived in Norway for the first 30 years of my life, and I finally ran away. Couldn't take it any more. There is no country in the world where people are more full of them selves for absolutely no reason whatsoever (not talking about the Bergen population only, or at all in fact). I now live in the US, where people are not close to that full of them selves, not even in Texas, but there are other shortcomings. Some of which Americans share with Norwegians. More below.
Now, let's work on a myth. "Norway is the best country in the world to live in". It isn't. Never was. Not even close. The main reason Norway is awarded this title is that it has a very nice social system that encompasses everyone. This social system is financed by virtue of a lottery jackpot Norway hit in the late 1960s, oil in the North Sea. Since Norway won the lottery, more than half of the population has worked for the central or local government. Standards of living are generally high-ish in all of the country. People do not suffer. Other than that, there isn't all that much good about Norway. It is a beautiful place to visit though. If you can afford it, I'd recommend it. My family is there and my soccer team is there, but I am glad I am not. If you measure on more than social welfare, Norway doesn't come close to being "one of the really good places in the world to live" even.
Nobody in Norway excels. The only area where excellence is allowed is in sports. The Norwegian "constitution" is a law called The Jante Law. In the rest of Scandinavia, this is what you call sarcasm, in Norway this law is more important than the real constitution. Anyone who tries to excel outside of sports is shot down immediately and ridiculed in all kinds of ways. Serious business men are made into fools by the media, while a mentally ret@rded "princess" is given all kinds of support.
Norway isn't the best country in the world to live in by any standards other than social welfare. This isn't, and will never be, the only measure of "best" in any way. It is just quantifiable, and it is therefore measured. The sad thing is that when a population that hardly travels beyond the borders of Mallorca (Spain for the uninitiated) are told they live in "the best country in the world", they actually believe it. In the western world, I think the only population that travels less outside of their own heads is the American population. In fact, Americans and Norwegians are limited in their views of the world in a way that is so similar it is scary. Sadly most Norwegians think that they are better than Americans in this regard too, they are not. A Norwegian is "well traveled" if he goes to southern Spain, Greece or Italy once every three years. This is about as "traveled" as a Texan who takes a vacation in Florida or California.
Now, the socialism that is so important to the Norwegian population actually works. Believe it or not. It is probably a good thing for a mediocracy (as opposed to a meritocracy). It also only works because Norway, as I said, won the lottery in the late 1960s. Struck oil as we say, but literally. For years Norway didn't do anything with this oil, British and US companies extracted it, and they were taxed heavily. This taxation made it possible to build a social system that protects the mediocre and cradles it. It has been protected and nourished to the level where it is now the ultimate goal. Meidiocracy (tm). Socialism rewards mediocrity. Norway is a so
This is a perfectly reasonable philosophy but Libertarians apply it very narrowly. Two, three hundred years ago an individual sitting on his property minding his own business had virtually no ability to impact the people around him. He could swear at passerbys, throw rocks, or maybe even shoot at them. In some extreme cases he might live uphill from a settlement and cut down trees all day and all night until he had a huge pile of logs that he could unleash on the unsuspecting town below. Someone this hell-bent on causing destruction is rather rare and the destruction is rather limited, so the society could afford to extend so much autonomy to the individual. The risks were really low.
The world is a lot different now. Technology has vastly amplified the power any individual can exert over their larger society. Lets assume the extreme case now: plenty of individuals have the resources to build a nuclear reactor on their property. Can society afford to butt out and ignore the risk that his reactor could explode and poison the environment for hundreds of miles in every direction? Good God, no. We restrict their autonomy in mob-like fashion (maybe unreasonably so, I like nuclear power) because the risks are so high.
Libertarians might say society will do fine as long as everyone minds their own balance sheet.
But in today's society the free market is essentially broken. The true costs of every transaction are not being accurately reflected.. The environmental damage caused by burning a gallon of gas is not paid by anyone that is a party to the transaction. Additionally, a future that forever will have one less gallon of gas is a cost that isn't paid at transaction time either. Right now we discount the future so highly that destroying a finite resource somehow has a non-infinite price. It is only lately that each transaction carries such hidden costs because it is only lately we have such awesome technology and so much individual power.
In the aggregate our wealth is diminishing, and because these losses aren't appearing on any individual's balance sheet is exactly why the Libertarian argument has to be rejected.
No, it is not a book to run the world on. It did become somewhat farcical in the end when society falls apart. But we have seen societies fall apart like that in very similar ways during real revolutions. All in all I think she did a good job of showing how political corruption can eventually cause social chaos and upheaval and the personal toll that it causes people when their dignity is taken away. I have just spent way too much time googling for a comic that someone once linked in a
It was hilarious, and an extremely to-the-point comment on the shortcomings of Rand's "philosophy". Well, I partially agree that there were short comings in her philosophy as it relates to the real world. Especially, today we live in a very differentiated society where no one person knows how to do every job. I think those of us in any work situation were we rely on others and then change jobs or companies know how startling it is when we suddenly have to do something that seemed easy when other people were doing it.
But I think that is partially portrayed in the book when Dagny Taggart is thrown into that new society and there are no railroads to run, so the first thing she can do in order to make her way is to clean dishes and be John Galt's maid. And it wasn't as if all the 'haves' are portrayed as being superior to the 'have nots'. In fact, the real villains of the book are the ones that do not attain their wealth through being smarter and more hard working than everyone else, but through advancement through interpersonal relations and political capital. If anything it is the corrupting influence of favor without merit that is the villain of Atlas Shrugged. Actual working people are very much portrayed as the unwitting victims in the book, which is an unfavorable treatment in some cases, but it is those that expect others to take care of them and tell them what to do which are treated most harshly. But there is a lot in that book for everyone, even its critics, to find.
Oh and having a near limitless and clean source of power certainly helps when trying to set up your own little enclave in the mountains.