Cyberselfish: Technolibertarianism 495
| 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 |
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.
Sounds like.. (Score:2)
Re:History repeats itself (Score:2)
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.
Re:Libertarianism (Score:2)
Any interpretation of this "welfare" intimating any connection with the modern connotation of the word (free government handouts) is just plain wrong.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:2)
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.
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
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.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:2)
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.
You gotta trust *somebody* (Score:2)
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.
None of these individuals acted alone (Score:2)
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.
What's this "our", Yankee? (Score:2)
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"
My own brand of libertarianism (Score:3)
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.
debates (Score:2)
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 [votenader.org]
Re:Libertarianism vs. Objectivism (Score:2)
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)
Re:Libertarians and Charity (Score:3)
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.
Re:Libertarianism and Objectivism. (Score:2)
Re:Libertarianism (Score:2)
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 [infoshop.org]
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:Libertarianism (Score:2)
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 [infoshop.org]
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
Libertarianism, not just for yourself... (Score:3)
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 [fortunecity.com]. 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
Re:Libertarianism vs. Objectivism (Score:2)
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.
Re:Libertarianism and Objectivism. (Score:2)
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...
Backwards? (Score:2)
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.
Libertarianism and Objectivism. (Score:5)
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)
Re:A lot of people just don't Get It. (Score:2)
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
Re:A lot of people just don't Get It. (Score:3)
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
A lot of people just don't Get It. (Score:5)
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
Re:Open Source Libertarian (Score:2)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Why (Score:2)
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 [velocinews.com])
Re:Selfish vs. Self Absorption (Score:2)
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 [lp.org] and this [lp.org]. 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 [gop.org] instead?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Libertarianism and Objectivism. (Score:2)
In some cases libertarianism seems to have become as much a tool for making yourself more equal than others as Marxism became. Take, for example, the (actually objectivist, but hey) claims made elsewhere in the comments for this article that its OK to polute, make noise, and generally behave in an obnoxious manner, because "noone should tell me how to live my life" (and incidentally the LP seems to support this viewpoint). As the previous-but-one poster pointed our, in these cases one must suspect that libertarianism is merely an excuse to behave as one pleases with no regard for others.
Re:Definition of 'libertarian' (Score:2)
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.
Why not to be a libertarian (Score:2)
Re:Missing the Point Entirely! (Score:2)
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 [std.com] including his Non-libertarian FAQ [std.com] 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.
Re:Libertarianism and Objectivism. (Score:4)
I think many techies are disturbed by the woolly and complex nature of most people's moral ideas, and tend to resort to libertarianism (in personal life and politics) because it offers a safe harbour from that wooliness and a clear response to allegations of wrongdoing.
Many libertarians become irate to the point of appearing to panic when their ideas are challenged, especially by someone coming from a logical but more socialistic or conservative framework of ideas. This implies to me that libertarianism is really very important in their worldview, and I suspect this is a tool for cutting away the large swathes of fuzzy, illogical human concern which the more technical mind finds disturbing (I know I do) that libertarianism (and moreso objectivism) says are irrelevant.
Tax? Stealing? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Open source is Socialism. (Score:2)
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 (=
WHY IS THIS MARKED DOWN AS A TROLL!?! (Score:2)
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.
Unfair Characterizations (Score:2)
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.
Re:Open is _not_ Libertarian (Score:2)
Selfish? (Score:2)
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
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Ad hominem, I get the feeling that you're a rabid liberal. Let's see if I'm right.
They're basically trying to put Christianity into schools.
Gee, I musta missed that. Being a pagan and all, I don't really pay close attention to what my Christian buddies are up to.
trying to destroy a woman's right to control her own body.
This is what it's all about isn't it? You just threw in that comment about Chrsitianity in schools to make it sound like you weren't primarily concerned with baby killing. If you want to pretend that it's really about a "woman's right to choose", fine. Delude yourself if you wish. A certain group of men have foisted this rubbish upon women so that they can use them sexually and erase any evidence of what they've done. "You're empowered because you can kill your baby." is just a mask for "I don't want to pay child support, you were just a casual fuck.".
America can steal from the poor, but Republicans try to kill off anyone poor who tries to borrow from the rich.
WHAT? Is that right? Well OUR presidential candidate isn't a slum lord. A certain other pary can't say that.
Can Republicanism pass for INTELLIGENT?
Intellect and reason are all that we have, it is liberalism that needs to resort to emotionalism because their theories don't hold water.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
You and people like you are precicely the reason why I vote the way that I do. I go to work, I pay my taxes, I don't hurt other people, I obey the law. Beyond that, whatever else I do is none of anyone's business. I reject the notion that you have any reason to be concerned with details of my life, even if you think that the good of the planet is at stake. I'll let everyone else choose for themselves what is best for them.
That's why. You just do what you feel like - and caring about the world, the universe and everyting with someone who just does with his guns what he feels like, seems utterly inapropriate to me.
Jeez, this gets easier every time. I knew that I'd either get to the eco-whackos or the hoplophobes with that line. You have a problem with private ownership of firearms? Go complain to Switzerland, we all can see what terrible freedom those things have preserved for them.
LK
Re:george w. bush (Score:2)
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
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
The libertarians have no opposition to legal infanticide. I can't vote for them because of that.
Or maybe you shouldn't be voting at all, which would be fine with me.
Of course, you'd rather not hear the voice if it's not parroting what you believe.
You've clearly expressed yourself as an economic conservative, which I think is fine, but when you rabidly argue on behalf of the GOP you clearly haven't done your homework and you're really just a tool.
I am also socially conservative. I believe that killing babies is wrong. I believe the the Constitutional protections we're afforded shouldn't be violated just because it's politically expedient.
It's really not as clear-cut as that.
Yes, it is. If you actually believe that the vast majority of abortions are performed for any reason other than birth control, you're deluding yourself.
Rape, incest, mistakes, etc.
Red herring. Rape, incest, life of the woman, those are all valid concerns, but what falls under the "mistakes" and "etc." catagories? "Whoops I didn't mean to get her pregnant"?
Incidentally it should be no surprise that most anti-abortion people are male.
According to whom? Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
"Fuck da bitches!"
The ones who want to kill their babies, yes.
Did I ever say I was voting for Gore?
All the better.
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
I'd rather deal with someone who is concerned about what goes on in my bedroom, than someone who wants to control what I do everywhere else.
I'd like to see a Keyes/Buchannan ticket. I'd vote for that. However that just "ain't gonna happen".
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Actually, they were.
I believe it is too arrogant to think one is entirely an island with no duty to country or countryman.
My duties primarily consist of getting a job and supporting myself, providing for my family, no hurting other people, and helping out when an emergency arises.
Ditto. And I think we need to be giving people the opportunity to get OFF welfare. I don't see how anybody could expect someone who is uneducated and unskilled to get off welfare magically. The resources and opportunity should be there so people can pull themselves up. Not just take handouts.
At least one thing that you're saying makes sense. I was thinking something along the lines of, when you get welfare you have 6 months to either #1 get a job and take part in the "workfare" system or #2 go to your local community college and work towards an associate degree in some field.
However, in evidence of the injustice of the criminal justice system, and the bias against minorities
Classic liberal mistake #2 race baiting. That's not going to work here. I'm black. You're not using that one against me. October 21, 1979 my father, a black man, was murdered by.....YES you guessed it another black man. Which is typically the case. Criminals stick to their own, so even if there is a disparity among criminals who are executed the majority of them have killed other members of a minority.
BTW, my father's murderer didn't get executed, he didn't even get life. In less than a decade, he was back on the street. He's in jail again for drug dealing. A real stand up guy! It would have been a travesty to execute him.
If you are worried about corporate influence and corruption of government you are *definately* in the wrong party. If anything, join the Libertarian party.
They have the wrong position on abortion.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
What is more important is does it forbid it?
If you believe in the death penalty you are a hypocrite if you are against abortion (what is the death penalty but delayed "abortion"...maybe we should just call it "abortion"). If you tell me, "oh, it's different, the person is criminal"
If there is no difference in your mind between a defenseless child and a murderer, then the mental defect which causes you to have no opposition to abortion is plainly obvious.
say as long as your qualifying something that is non-constitutional why can't another person qualify abortion?
There is a difference between "nonconstitutional" and "unconstitutional".
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
That's nonsensical. If you believe that abortion is murder, how can it not be within the power of government to outlaw murder?
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Can you provide any quotes, from the person in question, to back up your assertions?
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Actually you DON'T know what the response is. The response is. You can't be both free and safe. Freedom and safety have an inversely proportional relationship. They must be balanced to some degree, but the freedom side of the scale is, by far, the more important one.
but remember a vast majority of Americans are probably poorer and more desperate than you.
Poorer? Probably not. More desperate? Maybe. Makes no difference.
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property withough due process of law."
I'd say that she is.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
It's not that hard to figure out, but then again I guess that straddling the line serves you better.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Let me hit you with a quote or two...
"Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits
the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime."
Care to guess who? Susan B. Anthony. She even referred to abortion as "child-murder". This is not new. http://www.roevwade.org/women2.html Have a look.
This notion that "all women are pro abortion" is a blatent lie.
LK
Re:I am a woman (Score:2)
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
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
I assume that you mean men like Paul Hill. I'll never shed a tear for David Gunn or Barnett Slepian. Men like these are far from innocent. I can't agree with using violence to solve problems when there are other means available, but when one bad guy kills another bad guy, I find it easier just to stay out of it.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
I'm not a Christian, or a Jew. The 10 commandments have no meaning for me. However, if translated directly from the hebrew, that would read "Thou shalt not murder." Hebrew, to Greek, To English, a little of the meaning can get lost.
Apparently to you two wrongs make a right.
Not at all. If you commit a crime you go to jail. If you murder someone, you risk facing execution. Now I suppose that we can get into the discussion of whether or not your intent is to commit murder if you think that you're trying to save someone else's life.
Well, I'm satisfied that you, like Keyes, reach you're conclusions through a series of rational observations, trumped at the very end by your hypocrisy and unwillingness to believe that what goes for you, goes for everybody.
I promise you that I'll never murder any of my children. Not even while they're still in utero.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Red Herring! Who have you heard speak of forbidding women to have abortions when one is needed to save her life?
What I really don't understand is how you can justify your gas-guzzling environment-destroying SUV and then claim you want to protect unborn children.
There is no conclusive proof that the vehicle that I choose to drive has any negative effect on the environment. My Jimmy is more fuel efficient that the big, long, lincolns and cadillacs of 15 years ago. Which would you rather see? People driving 85 Sevilles or 95 Blazers?
Why have children if they're going to enter an unliveable world?
Those of us who live in this world (and not one of make believe) have no problem doing so.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Point 1. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that.
Point 2. Just because I refuse to mourn the loss of human debris doesn't mean that I think that anyone should be murdered.
And apparently "Thou shalt not murder" has "no meaning" to you, murder no inherent "wrong" associated with it, besides your anti-abortion stance.
I've never murdered anyone. I've never paid for the contract killing of another human being. I've never given solace, or support to anyone for murdering someone.
That just boggles me.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Also an extremely cowardly occupent. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto kept them at bay for nearly two weeks with a few cheap pistols.
As a matter of fact, I have often wondered if "well-regulated militias" in the US constitution couldn't possibly mean something like the Swiss Army (please bear in mind that my knowledge of american history is verry limited).
This confusion is understandable, in fact some people intentionally champion that idea with the intent of confusing people. At the time the US constitution was written, militia meant every man who could show up with a musket in his hand.
I think that firearms training and safety courses should be mandatory for every child in a publicly funded high school. When you see first hand what a firearm can do if in the wrong hands, you gain a whole new respect for the responsibility that you take on when you own one.
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Not liking it isn't good enough. I don't like the fact that we have homeless people, I would not be willing to double everyone's taxes to prevent it from happening though.
LK
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
What would you rather deal with "Five years of welfare and you're cut off." or "We're taking at least 50% of your income, and if you complain about it, you're just a selfish bastard who doesn't care about his fellow man!"?
It's not a difficult question in my mind.
LK
The Line Between "Visionaries" and "Technologists" (Score:2)
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
better review in Reason Online (Score:2)
Open is not anti-libertarian (Score:2)
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.)
---
Web site with good critiques of libertarianism (Score:2)
--
Re:Yes he did, and now you can gain kharma (Score:2)
Re:A (large) quibble (Score:2)
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.
Re:A (large) quibble (Score:2)
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.
Re:A (large) quibble (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org].
I'm asking Paulina for a response on this; she's usually pretty responsive to reasonable emails.
Re:Libertarianism vs. Objectivism (Score:3)
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)
Re:Libertarianism (Score:3)
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!
Open Source Libertarian (Score:5)
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 Problem With Libertarianism Is... (Score:2)
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.
Libertarianism vs. Objectivism (Score:5)
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
An *intelligent* review of this book (Score:2)
Re:Libertarianism: A flawed concept (Score:2)
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
Because, my friend, you do not live in a vacuum. I am not talking about personal sovereignty, I am talking about personal responsibility.
True. Libertarians support responsibility; it's the only way a libertarian system can work. But I fear you do not understand what responsibility is. As an example, you might say that it is irresponsible to hold a baby over a cliff. This is not true. It is completely responsible if and only if the one who does it takes responsibility for the results. The word itself rings of `respond' and `response.' Authoritarians like to redefine the word. It is `irresponsible' to allow individuals to own guns, because they might misuse them. Wrong. It is irresponsible for individuals to use those guns and not take the consequences. Were I, in a fit of anger to kill a man, I would like to think I would plead guilty and accept the noose
The rights, privileges and opportunities you have were not randomly granted by God on you.
Actually, that's exactly what a right is. Man has a fundamental right to free speech, to bear arms, to be secure in his property from unwarranted invasions and seizures, to believe in his god &c. The fact that no government recognises those rights does not mean they do not exist. Privileges are another matter entirely. Privileges are not fundamental to man's existence.
I believe it is too arrogant to think one is entirely an island with no duty to country or countryman.
I agree. I do have a duty to my country and to my fellow-man. BUt who are you to force me to do it? If we ever have a war--a real war--I will fight in it if they'll have me (I've bad eyes). But I will not fight an unjust war. And I cannot support conscription. Slave-soldiers cannot defend freedom.
Re:Misses the point (Score:2)
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?
Re:History repeats itself (Score:2)
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.
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
It is to the states and localities to outlaw abortion. Of course, it is already outlawed; I know of nowhere in this country where extralegal murder is legal. We just need to enforce those laws...
Re:Selfish? (Score:2)
It is better for me to kill the opponent of my nation than to let him kill me. Thus I have no problem with serving in the military. It is the lesser of evils for a woman to kill her child when its birth would kill them both.
The world is a nasty muddled place. We cannot be perfect; we will be forced to do that which is wrong, in order to avoid the greater wrong. That is part of the tragedy of life.
Re:Gender Neutrality (Score:2)
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:-)
Re:Missing the Point Entirely! (Score:2)
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).
Re:Missing the Point Entirely! (Score:2)
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
Re:History repeats itself (Score:2)
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.
Re:Misses the point (Score:2)
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.
Re:Missing the Point Entirely! (Score:2)
Re:Missing the Point Entirely! (Score:2)
Missing the Point Entirely! (Score:5)
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! (Score:5)
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:
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.
Re:Web site with good critiques of libertarianism (Score:3)
On the other hand, detailed, comprehensive, and well-thought-out arguments against the arguments on that Web site [std.com] can be found on this Web site [best.com] or perhaps this other one [impel.com].
/.
Libertarianism (Score:5)
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' (Score:5)
Libertarian.org [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 [libertarian.org].
Some other good links:
Libertarian Party [lp.org]
Harry Browne for President [harrybrowne.org]
Liberzine [liberzine.com]
Counterprotest.net [counterprotest.net]
Libertyboard.org [libertyboard.org]
--
The Post is Redundant =) (Score:3)
Re:well said (Score:3)
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 [reason.com]. It contains not just an interesting critique of the book but a sampling of many of the book's factual errors.
-BBB
i want to mention the thread on salon about this (Score:3)
Re:Libertarians and Charity (Score:3)
--
Cybersilly (Score:3)
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 [reason.com] -- 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."
Misses the point (Score:3)
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?
The problem with labels (Score:3)
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?
No thanks. (Score:3)
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.