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?"
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?
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?
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.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
If you see political ideologies as a one-dimensional spectrum, you aren't paying enough attention. Educate yourself.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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?
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.
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 ?
I know geeks with many different politics. The one thing we have in common is that we all approach the political question from a logical, systems-analysis angle. That's why so many geeks want radical changes in society - we're interested in root causes and want our beliefs to be founded on a set of basic principles, because if those principles are logical then everything we derive from them will be logical too. A mock-scientific approach.
A large section of American geekdom is right-libertarian. This is because (a) certain things about US culture and the US economic setup mean that right-libertarianism looks the most viable option to many people and (b) a strong sense of and desire for liberty and a knowledge of historical tyrannies encourage them to look for a libertarian option - and they come upon the axiom of free individuals forming contracts with each other freely - essentially classical liberalism.
So, why are so many geeks right-libertarian?
Of course, there are plenty of geeks who are Republicans or Democrats or Greens or Communists or Anarchists in the US too. In Europe we have many social democrats ("liberals"), greens and far-left types.
I'm a geek and a libertarian myself, but I'm a left-libertarian. An "Anarchist Socialist". I think the flaw in right-libertarianism is that contracts are rarely freely entered into. If I have $1m and you have $100, I can easily get you to enter into a $200/week contract - I can bully you in the market through greater control of resources. I think its important to differentiate between personal property and productive capital. My computer should be mine; only I use it. My workplace should be equally mine with my co-workers; we all use that productive capital. My community should be held in common with my neighbours. I see landlords and the bourgeoisie* as parasites, living off our labour.
Of course I'm the same as the rest of the geeks, looking for a consistent system and solid axioms before deciding my political beliefs. In my case, it's a fanatical belief in democracy that has led me to my position - if we wouldn't tolerate a dictatorship, why do we tolerate not being able to elect our bosses? If electing politicians isn't democratic (and it's not), couldn't we place the base of power in mass meetings in workplaces and communities, and federate them?
* As in Marx's class system, which is class division based on power, not wealth (except in that wealth is power)
Proletariat: the class that has to sell its labour to survive
Bourgeoisie: the class that purchases the labour of the proletariat, and does not have to work
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
The classrooms we all endure at public school are more designed for the meta-effects than the effect on the individual. Schools were designed to train children to sit still, to take lunch at a bell, to take breaks at a bell, and to be discharged by a bell - perfect fodder for the primitive factories of the industrial revolution. This is why society can't figure out what's wrong with schools now; they're turning out people who can't think for themselves, and that's not what a post-industrial economy needs.
And, of course, one of the functions of the standard public school is the same one as military boot camp - to break the individual's spirit, to make him/her conform, to expressly have him/her (oh, let me use "he" from now on, but understand it includes women as well) not think for himself, but to have him follow orders blindly - again, just what was needed on the production floor. Someone above posted that "Atlas Shrugged" was poorly written, but there is a passage at the end where Galt is being tortured by electric shocks, and James Taggart is hanging over him, frothing at the mouth, shouting "He'll take orders! He'll take orders!!" (not an exact quotation, but the gist of it). That seems an accurate description of the goal of public schools.
I'm sure like many others here, I got very good marks at public school, but was also often in trouble and sent to the principal's office for mouthing off in class, etc. Why? Because while I would accept that the teachers were more learned (or in some cases, less ignorant), I never thought for a moment that they were more intelligent. They demanded respect from me, but never offered the same in return (there were precious few exceptions, and for their counsel, I will always be greatful).
So what messages did I receive in those public school classrooms? "You're no better than anyone else", "Take your place and shut up", "Slow down and learn at the same rate as everybody else; you're not special". All the while, within myself, I was thinking "But I can go faster than everyone else", "I can see a better way to do this", and "I am special". When the very core of your being is surpressed, you naturally look for a way to allow it to flourish.
And this is the core of libertarian thought: if I'm not hurting you, leave me the hell alone. Don't tell me what to do. Don't order me to attend your schools. Don't take my money for your causes. Let me trade freely (for example, let me buy sugar from Cuba). Let me read, or view, or say, what I want. I don't need you to tell me what to do; I'm quite capable of figuring it out for myself. Let me have sex with any adult I want, male or female (n.b. I'm quite straight, but I see no reason to surpress other adults' desires; I'm still protective of minors). Let me put into my body what I choose to put in it.
Now, the operative clause above is "if I'm not hurting you". There can be much debate between libertarians about that, as it applies to various issues. Second-hand smoke and drunk driving are two; I very much believe the dangers of the former are over-blown, while the dangers of the latter are relatively obvious. Global warming is another contentious issue, on which my own mind is not at all made up. Finally, abortion is the ultimate issue on which libs can disagree; some feel a woman controls her body, others feel that when the woman consents to sex, she implicitly consents to the creation of a life within her. (Please let's not get sidetracked on this issue - I'm just raising it to say that there are issues with which libs can (violently) disagree.) So I'm not saying being a libertarian means that you think you have the answers to everything, although it may often seem so.
Why are so many nerds libertarian? Because you can't code by rote. You can't create or develop a new application following s
What was once true, is no longer so
Good example (though they rarely composed together after about 1964). It really boggles my mind the level of self-assured ignorance that so many "geeks" have. They think a mastery of software and/or hardware somehow gives them insight into every area of human endeavor. They share that horrible disease with engineers, who also tend to pontificate on things quite beyond their experience.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
"To put it succinctly, the libertarian believes in the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives as they see fit, as long as they cause no harm to others, with minimal governmental interference."
Quoted from
Deleted
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.
So Mod Parent Down, Mod Grand Parent Up.
I don't agree with everything that the Grandparent said, however he was well spoken and backed up his statements with evidence (however anecdotal).
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
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").
And why in God's name should your teacher give you any respect? Your self-righteous attitude is, in my opinion, one of the main problems with youth culture today. As a child, it is highly unlikely you have done anything worthwhile. There is simply no reason why any responsible adult should give you (as a child) any "respect" at all.
So you were smart. Big deal. Intelligence, by itself, is not that important -- it only provides potential. While it is a common amongst the youth to feel that their innate abilities and potential somehow deserve accolades and celebration, most learn quickly upon entering adulthood that accomplishment counts for far more. What saddens me is that, years after you have left physical childhood behind, you still think like a child.
And so I skipped ahead about 50 pages:
Then another 50...
Then another 50...
And so on. I'm pretty sure I got a good idea of the point of the book without having to subject myself to more than 40 random paragraphs or so. Everyone I've ever met that says they idolize Ayn Rand turns out to be a self-involved, spoiled whore.
God I hate her. But truly, do I hate her more than I hate myself? It was a muggy, shitty Sunday in St Petersburg, FL, and he began to question whether he was just posting to slashdot in a vain attempt to eke a teensy bit of self-recognition out of the Internet once again, or did he really believe that posting some inane bullshit about Ayn Rand was truly noteworthy?
He got up from his mother's computer;smelled the stale milk from the bottom of his empty coffee cup. God, he had to take a shit. And he bets it's going to be smelly, because God is spiteful like that....
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I suspect, from the description, it was this.
Bob the Angry Flower rules!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So by your logic the society must act as one, it has to have a well defined path to non-destruction and respect of the future and so on and such. What if many many many people do not want to follow your logic, do not agree with it, don't care about it, hate it actually? Well then, as many socialist radicals have shown, in your mind your logic works for the betterment of society (whatever you assume it is, depends on your environment.) At some point you will become frustrated that so many many many people are not with you on your set of issues. Will you then decide that they are lesser of human for not thinking the way you do? Will you decide that they should be shown 'the light'? What if they reject your light? Will you decide to take them their even against their will? What if they resist? Will you decide that means justify the ends? Will you decide that it is OK to sacrifice some now, to build a better, new society later on? Will you stop once you killed 1 person for your cause? 10 people? 1000 people? 1000000000 people? How many does it take? So called Communist regimes of our recent past and our current future have not hesitated, what makes you different?
I understand that you may actually have good intentions now, but history shows that in every such case the good intentions became the road to Hell. I don't want your good intentions trumping my choices, my life. I want you to leave me out of them. I don't want to become your fodder either, I will fight you if you come with your good intentions to my doors. Today for me this means being mobile, avoiding any government intervention, avoiding taxes for example, avoiding your political causes. If necessary my resistance will become violent.
You can't handle the truth.
You went out into a publicly accessible private place that has no stated policy against smoking. You knew it could happen, and you went there anyway.
If you hate smoking, as I do, patronize businesses that have no-smoking policies, or at least decently segregated no-smoking sections. You don't have any right to demand people conform to your expectations, nor do they have a right you conform to theirs. You can still chose, however, what environment you choose to place yourself in. And you can declare smoking off-limits in any property you control.
I could see a decent argument for making smoking illegal in publicly owned and operated facilities, however.
> 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.
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.
>
> 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".
You're after Bob the Angry Flower.
BTAF is one of the funniest web comics I've ever read, but Stephen Notley mustn't have read the book too closely. The cartoon's still funny, but you have to ignore the fact that he got it precisely wrong.
*** spoiler warning ***
One of the key plot points in Atlas Shrugged is how John Galt (and other characters) managed to hide themselves when recruiting followers from the rest of society. They did so by working precisely the sorts of menial jobs that the BTAF cartoon implies they couldn't. They gave society what it wanted: their labor. They withheld from society what it needed: their mind.
Atlas Shrugged is about what happens when genius goes on strike. You can pass laws that force a man to work, but you can't pass laws that force him to invent. Suppose you're a nuclear researcher. If you're a capitalist (in the Randroid, "never take a dime from the government, and never owe it a dime in taxes" sense), a nuclear power plant provides you a much better return on investment. A nuclear bomb, by contrast, is only useful to a non-profit operation. To a capitalist, nuking a city is a terrible waste of potential (or actual!) customers, employees, and factories. To a government, it's just a policy decision to be made for the greater good.
Would WW2 have been lost (apart from a few million more casualties in the invasion of Japan) had the nuclear scientists of the day simply gone on strike, working at burger joints, riveting aircraft together, or casting bullets and turning shell casings on lathes, and passing on the really interesting jobs until after the war was over?
(Where Rand fails is that although she's half-right -- you can't compel genius to invent -- she's just as half-wrong, in that one of the hallmarks of genius is that not even the genius can compel himself not to invent. People like Teller had to invent the H-Bomb, even though WW2 was over, and the Cold War had barely begun. Open source developers had to invent Linux, GCC, and so on, and would have invented something much like it even in the absence of non-Free UNIXes and Microsoft.)
As for the literary criticism, it's valid -- but only up to the point. Stop assuming it's a novel, and start assuming it's a philosophical system masquerading as a novel, and the cardboard characters become much more forgivable. Much like the animals in Animal Farm, they're not there to entertain you, they're there to make a point. The scariest thing is that the talking heads on the TV sound more and more like her villains (and Orwell's) every day.