5 ms·

Because this is hackernews and not libertariannews?

by jonknee 9y ago

ekianjo 9y ago
Arent hackers all about changing the world by themselves instead of relying on Ultimate State powers?
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Copy-pasting an earlier comment of mine: > Please stop perpetuating this myth- started by Eric Raymond and happily encouraged by SV "thought leaders"- that hackers must, by definition, be laissez-faire capitalists who love Ayn Rand and treat breaking laws as a noble goal in and of itself. I do none of those things, because I recognize that many times regulations are vital for ensuring human health and happiness, and think that free-for-all capitalism leads mostly to misery for all but a few in the plutocracy. "We can do beter" implies not settling for a world like that. > Other people don't have to agree with my politics, but if they want to say I'm "not a hacker" because of that, they can take their very-politically-motivated prescriptivism and... well, I got told by dang the other day and I'm trying to cut down on the angry HN posts because of it, but you get the idea.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > that hackers must, by definition, be laissez-faire capitalists who love Ayn Rand and treat breaking laws as a noble goal in and of itself. I implied none of the above. It's not because you believe in bottom to top action that it means you are an anarchist, and not many libertarians want to see the actual State gone, so don't caricature things either. There's a lot of ground to cover between "the State banning stuff on a whim" and "Doing things in the dark by breaking the law". Let's not pretend every action is binary.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  Government == Initiation of Force, or threat of same. So yeah, I'd say that historically, many (albeit not all) hackers have felt like we can do better than a system built on force/violence. The problem is, too many people assume that seeking such a model rules out any kind of collective / communal action or coordination. That's just a strawman though. People can, and do, collaborate on a voluntary basis all the time. What is needed is to encourage and facilitate more of that, not seek more application of Ultimate State powers. And I would think that somebody who considers themselves a hacker would look at a problem like that and think "Yeah, let's get too it and find a way to do this", not think "meh, let's just put up some huge State apparatus and call it good".
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > think "Yeah, let's get too it and find a way to do this" The transition to Electric vehicles is progressively happening already, it's not like nobody is working on it. There are still numerous problems with electric cars that won't be solved in any reasonable timeframe unless there are major breakthroughs. So a "ban" is easy to do, but it does not make the technical challenges go away by itself.
Helmet 9y ago
Completely ignoring for a moment the parallels and long established links between hacker/tech culture and libertarianism, you don't need to be seasteading, Ayn Rand worshipping Peter Thiel protégé to see something wrong with the idea that the State outright banning a product that contemporary society uses every single day, that many people need to survive for which there are currently no affordable and/or reasonable alternatives. Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved to the point where cost won't be an issue and maybe we will have charging stations everywhere, or maybe not, maybe the innovation plateaus as happens often. My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  > Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved to the point where cost won't be an issue and maybe we will have charging stations everywhere, or maybe not, maybe the innovation plateaus as happens often. Upon which the regulations will be adjusted accordingly. > My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040. You mean like by the election they just had?
  - Helmet 9y ago
    > Upon which the regulations will be adjusted accordingly. So you seem to be advocating for wide, sweeping bans and regulations, and then working backwards if the technology doesn't pan out. I'm advocating the opposite: tax credits, incentives, etc. to move the technology forward and when it's ready, perhaps make the big shift to all electric. > You mean like by the election they just had? I guess we differ on the authority that elections that for out should have. But that is a more ideological issue, so I'll concede the point.
    - 9y ago

Because this is hackernews and not libertariannews?

ekianjo 9y ago

Arent hackers all about changing the world by themselves instead of relying on Ultimate State powers?

Analemma_ 9y ago
Copy-pasting an earlier comment of mine: > Please stop perpetuating this myth- started by Eric Raymond and happily encouraged by SV "thought leaders"- that hackers must, by definition, be laissez-faire capitalists who love Ayn Rand and treat breaking laws as a noble goal in and of itself. I do none of those things, because I recognize that many times regulations are vital for ensuring human health and happiness, and think that free-for-all capitalism leads mostly to misery for all but a few in the plutocracy. "We can do beter" implies not settling for a world like that. > Other people don't have to agree with my politics, but if they want to say I'm "not a hacker" because of that, they can take their very-politically-motivated prescriptivism and... well, I got told by dang the other day and I'm trying to cut down on the angry HN posts because of it, but you get the idea.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > that hackers must, by definition, be laissez-faire capitalists who love Ayn Rand and treat breaking laws as a noble goal in and of itself. I implied none of the above. It's not because you believe in bottom to top action that it means you are an anarchist, and not many libertarians want to see the actual State gone, so don't caricature things either. There's a lot of ground to cover between "the State banning stuff on a whim" and "Doing things in the dark by breaking the law". Let's not pretend every action is binary.
mindcrime 9y ago
Government == Initiation of Force, or threat of same. So yeah, I'd say that historically, many (albeit not all) hackers have felt like we can do better than a system built on force/violence. The problem is, too many people assume that seeking such a model rules out any kind of collective / communal action or coordination. That's just a strawman though. People can, and do, collaborate on a voluntary basis all the time. What is needed is to encourage and facilitate more of that, not seek more application of Ultimate State powers. And I would think that somebody who considers themselves a hacker would look at a problem like that and think "Yeah, let's get too it and find a way to do this", not think "meh, let's just put up some huge State apparatus and call it good".
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > think "Yeah, let's get too it and find a way to do this" The transition to Electric vehicles is progressively happening already, it's not like nobody is working on it. There are still numerous problems with electric cars that won't be solved in any reasonable timeframe unless there are major breakthroughs. So a "ban" is easy to do, but it does not make the technical challenges go away by itself.

Helmet 9y ago

Completely ignoring for a moment the parallels and long established links between hacker/tech culture and libertarianism, you don't need to be seasteading, Ayn Rand worshipping Peter Thiel protégé to see something wrong with the idea that the State outright banning a product that contemporary society uses every single day, that many people need to survive for which there are currently no affordable and/or reasonable alternatives. Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved to the point where cost won't be an issue and maybe we will have charging stations everywhere, or maybe not, maybe the innovation plateaus as happens often. My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040.

ceejayoz 9y ago
> Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved to the point where cost won't be an issue and maybe we will have charging stations everywhere, or maybe not, maybe the innovation plateaus as happens often. Upon which the regulations will be adjusted accordingly. > My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040. You mean like by the election they just had?
- Helmet 9y ago
  > Upon which the regulations will be adjusted accordingly. So you seem to be advocating for wide, sweeping bans and regulations, and then working backwards if the technology doesn't pan out. I'm advocating the opposite: tax credits, incentives, etc. to move the technology forward and when it's ready, perhaps make the big shift to all electric. > You mean like by the election they just had? I guess we differ on the authority that elections that for out should have. But that is a more ideological issue, so I'll concede the point.
  - 9y ago