8 ms·

Code Free or Die(): Why Hackers Are so Often Libertarians

56 points by dfranke 18y ago

rw 18y ago
"Libertarian" can mean something besides "idealistic capitalist."
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- pragmatic 18y ago
  No it cannot. All rights and freedoms come from property rights. Without property rights there are no other rights.
  - ajross 18y ago
    Uh... that's a bit far. Even Ayn Rand would probably quibble with that definition. Certainly freedom from physical suffering is orthogonal, no? Or you're saying that it's OK to, say, stab you repeatedly as long as you're on my property and I'm not stealing anything from you? And sure, sure, I know you can get around this by defining your body and mind as your property. But then the whole thing becomes kind of a silly point, no? Everything can be a property right if everything is defined as someone's property. That's hardly profound.
    - IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
      Even Ayn Rand would probably quibble with that definition. Really? He was actually paraphrasing Ayn Rand. Although, she would probably put it more like this: >>> The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 94 >>>
  - divia 18y ago
    There's a school of libertarianism that doesn't derive its conclusions from property rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism
pavelludiq 18y ago
im not libertarian, im anarchist, you can tell by my music taste http://www.last.fm/user/Pavelludia http://www.last.fm/user/Pavelludia
bokonist 18y ago
Rather, people with a naturally anti-authoritarian attitude tend to become attracted to programming. I was actually a staunch progressive before entering the startup world. A few things turned me into a libertarian: 1) I realized that nearly every instance of what my college professors called a "market failure" was really an instance where there was a web of government regulations preventing me from starting a business to solve the problem ( such as health insurance, education, or corporate governance). Once you stop thinking, "How could the government solve this problem?" and start thinking, "How can I start a business to solve this problem?" your perspective on the world change dramatically. 2) The software industry is so new it hasn't had the time to earn government favors and protection. Thus an engineer pays a lot to the government, but gets virtually nothing in return. Other professions used to be this way, and were much more libertarian ( farmers being the original case, but also doctors, bankers, etc.). Long ago those professions started getting either direct government funding or laws protecting entry into their industry. They became dependent on government. Engineers are also wealthy enough that they are net losers from income redistribution. And finally, by working in the startup world, most engineers see the free market at its best, rather than only seeing the soulless corporate side. 3) I decided to actually read about this "Austrian economics" nonsense. I read a bunch of books from both sides and scoured the internet for arguments and counter-arguments. At the end, I was shocked to realize that Ron Paul was right. Before, I thought he was a nut-job and Austrians were just ignoramuses who had never even taken a college macroeconomics course. After, I was ready to don my tin foil hat :-)
- dualogy 18y ago
  Great, one more Austrian, welcome to the Club! :)
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  " Once you stop thinking, "How could the government solve this problem?" and start thinking, "How can I start a business to solve this problem?" your perspective on the world change dramatically." I have yet to encounter a critique of capitalism that can't be rephrased as a business plan. I think libertarianism as an ideology has survived for so long because it's adaptable in that way.
- 18y ago
gcv 18y ago
Wait a second --- I am very much a libertarian, but I also use Emacs! :) (This comment will not make sense to you if you haven't read the linked article.)
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Yes, I find that there's a disconnect the notion of liking places where good ideas win and a dislike of 'bloat.' What's one man's bloat is another man's potentially useful library / tool-chest. Emacs stays around because it's useful to many people. For software, that's an important kind of 'win.'
- dfranke 18y ago
  So do I :-). Like I said in the essay, the bloat objection to emacs is irrational. Nonetheless, though, it's a natural reaction that most people have to get over. The key to appreciating emacs is to realize that it's only incidentally a text editor. It's really a not-quite-general-purpose application platform for tasks that fall under the broad heading of "text processing". Similarly, Mozilla has evolved into a not-quite-general-purpose platform for interacting with internet services. With the advent of Web 2.0 the world seems to have suddenly embraced that interpretation of Mozilla. Before that, people used to gripe about Mozilla bloat in the same way that they still gripe about emacs bloat. (Think Zawinski's Law.)
vaksel 18y ago
Its simple really, the internet is the most free medium in the world, and we've all seen first hand that its possible to accomplish many great things w/o government intervention.
- kirubakaran 18y ago
  By 'the internet', do you mean the descendant of the government funded Arpanet? ;)
  - bokonist 18y ago
    Just because the government initially funded one piece of what eventually became the internet, doesn't mean that government sponsorship was necessary. Many other parts of the internet ( telnet, SMTP) were originally developed outside of the government, as were technologies before the age of the mega-state ( such as the telegraph).
  - vaksel 18y ago
    does the government get credit for Walmart, for laying down highways? Same concept...the internet is more than just "a series of tubes".
    - sethg 18y ago
      One of the benefits of the government-subsidized interstate highway system is that products can be moved cheaply by truck from ports of entry and factories to wholesalers and from there to retailers, no matter where in the country those wholesalers and retailers are located. Another benefit is that it's economically feasible for a family to live in the suburbs, work in the city, and shop in a more distant suburb. I wouldn't give the government "credit for Walmart", but the government has created an infrastructure that Walmart used to its benefit.
- sethg 18y ago
  Except for the government subsidies that sponsored the development of the Internet back when it was called the ARPAnet, of course.
msluyter 18y ago
I'm not a libertarian. I'm also a fan of python. Coincidence? ;)
edw519 18y ago
I think you can extend this argument beyond hackers to scientists in general. When you live in a "black and white" world, there's much less need to tolerate gray areas. Ask 100 politicians, writers, or clergypeople a question and get 100 answers. Much less so for us scientists. Sure we debate a little, but in the end 2 plus 2 still equals 4 (most of the time), and it's often easy to see if something works or doesn't. Libertarianism is probably the most "black and white" of the political ideaologies, so the transfer is pretty natural for us.
- dfranke 18y ago
  > Libertarianism is probably the most "black and white" of the political ideaologies I think Marxism and radical environmentalism (Earth First, Human Extinction Project) are equally so.
pragmatic 18y ago
Don't overlook the Myers Briggs personality type. I'm betting a large portion of hackers fall into that INTP/INTJ or a similar type. Thus we assume that people are rational, will act rationally and by extension, live peacefully with their neighbors. However we are a small minority of the population. Our personality type is drawn to systems work, the architecture of things. We strive to understand systems, whether it's a desktop PC or the government. The aesthetic we seek is a simple, logical architecture that can be explained and reasoned about. Unfortunately, the world doesn't often meet our expectations. We are left with C++ not Lisp and a republic slipping towards totalitarianism, not an anarcho-capitalist paradise.
- ajross 18y ago
  And conversely, hackers tend to assume more competence from their fellow human beings than is really present, and thus are surprised when people end up suffering due to their own stupidity. And since it's surprisingly stupid, hackers tend to be less compassionate to the folks affected. But the problem is, suffering is still suffering whether it be stupid or not. A society with a destitute underclass suffering due to its own idiocy is still a society with a destitute underclass. The general definition of a "progressive" is someone who sees this as a problem irrespective of culpability, where a "libertarian" is someone who doesn't see it as a problem at all. I was a libertarian in high school, for the same reasons I was more or less a jerk in high school. I've softened since.
  - jotto 18y ago
    You mention an "underclass" as a talking point for your "progression" from the libertarian. You subsequently argue that hackers wrongly disrespect the underclass. Wrongly, because the underclass is [unknowingly] stupid. Being an uninformed idiot is not always a choice, but often times it is. I argue that some of them earn their lack of respect because they are selfish and ignorant. They earn selfish because an uninformed person is a cost to society, through pollution, welfare, medical, insurance, etc... When you have a population of intentionally ignorant people, you need to lie to them to prevent them from doing dangerous things. For example, abstinence instead of protection. This is a problem because it is a bad way to solve problems, and an ugly trend.
jellicle 18y ago
Assumes facts not in evidence.
stcredzero 18y ago
From what I've seen, Libertarianism seems to be the most logically consistent and internally consistent ideology. I think it glosses over some aspects of human nature, but if you accept all the tenets, it can achieve an unmatched level of internal consistency. I suspect this is why hackers are attracted to it.
dsffdsfdsdsfdfs 18y ago
Hackers tend to be libertarians for the same reason that neither the essay nor the 18 comments so far mention demographics more than glancingly: they've stumbled into a high-status/high-reward niche in society, and like most people who do so, they prefer to think that this means they are exceptional. Libertarianism is an ideology for those who fear constraints on their own (self-perceived) excellence more than they fear luck. It attracts mainly those who have had very good luck, and it tells them a bedtime story about how that luck is really talent/accomplishment.
- dfranke 18y ago
  That's a lot more descriptive of objectivism than of libertarianism, yet it seems like a rather small minority of hackers are objectivists.
- lsc 18y ago
  Well, yeah, that is a particularly negative way of stating it, but mostly true. Most people favor political ideologies that favor them. (e.g. those who identify with those who are unable to earn much tend to prefer more collectivist ideologies, and to call tallent luck, while those who identify with people who earn a lot tend to support more individualist ideologies, and call luck tallent.) I think it is somewhat self-reinforcing, a person who believes that it is all a roll of the dice is less likely to put as much effort into self-improvement than someone who doesn't believe in luck. But then, I don't believe in luck. A religious friend has suggested that this is because I'm just lucky :)
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  I'm a libertarian because I appreciate how order can develop in seemingly chaotic systems without central control. In human history, this organic order has been shown to provide the best incentives for progress. It causes life to improve for the most people at the fastest rate. Also, I enjoy living in a free and prosperous society, I want my future children to live in a free and prosperous society, and I think the organic order of the market, which is a product of freedom itself, is the most likely organization of society to preserve freedom and prosperity. All the alternatives to the market that have been tried throughout history are versions of Plato's philosopher-king. Whether leaders are elected or chosen by birth, the idea is that society needs a few wise people to have more power than everybody else in order to guide the rest. The arguments for a philosopher-king are simple and straight-forward, so many people advocate the idea. However, although arguments for the market are more subtle, I believe evidence and logic shows that the organic order it produces is better for society than order imposed by a philosopher-king. Bottom-up is better than top-down. I'm not particularly successful, although I guess I am of above-average competence and have a fair chance at success. I resent the implication that I hold the ideas I do for solely self-serving reasons. I don't accuse the billionaire leftists I know of being self-serving.
Prrometheus 18y ago
As a die-hard radical anarchist-on-wednesdays libertarian, I am hesitant to read these comments. I have a feeling that I'm about to wander into a flamewar.

56 points by dfranke 18y ago

rw 18y ago

"Libertarian" can mean something besides "idealistic capitalist."

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
pragmatic 18y ago
No it cannot. All rights and freedoms come from property rights. Without property rights there are no other rights.
- ajross 18y ago
  Uh... that's a bit far. Even Ayn Rand would probably quibble with that definition. Certainly freedom from physical suffering is orthogonal, no? Or you're saying that it's OK to, say, stab you repeatedly as long as you're on my property and I'm not stealing anything from you? And sure, sure, I know you can get around this by defining your body and mind as your property. But then the whole thing becomes kind of a silly point, no? Everything can be a property right if everything is defined as someone's property. That's hardly profound.
  - IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
    Even Ayn Rand would probably quibble with that definition. Really? He was actually paraphrasing Ayn Rand. Although, she would probably put it more like this: >>> The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 94 >>>
- divia 18y ago
  There's a school of libertarianism that doesn't derive its conclusions from property rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism

pavelludiq 18y ago

im not libertarian, im anarchist, you can tell by my music taste http://www.last.fm/user/Pavelludia http://www.last.fm/user/Pavelludia

bokonist 18y ago

Rather, people with a naturally anti-authoritarian attitude tend to become attracted to programming. I was actually a staunch progressive before entering the startup world. A few things turned me into a libertarian: 1) I realized that nearly every instance of what my college professors called a "market failure" was really an instance where there was a web of government regulations preventing me from starting a business to solve the problem ( such as health insurance, education, or corporate governance). Once you stop thinking, "How could the government solve this problem?" and start thinking, "How can I start a business to solve this problem?" your perspective on the world change dramatically. 2) The software industry is so new it hasn't had the time to earn government favors and protection. Thus an engineer pays a lot to the government, but gets virtually nothing in return. Other professions used to be this way, and were much more libertarian ( farmers being the original case, but also doctors, bankers, etc.). Long ago those professions started getting either direct government funding or laws protecting entry into their industry. They became dependent on government. Engineers are also wealthy enough that they are net losers from income redistribution. And finally, by working in the startup world, most engineers see the free market at its best, rather than only seeing the soulless corporate side. 3) I decided to actually read about this "Austrian economics" nonsense. I read a bunch of books from both sides and scoured the internet for arguments and counter-arguments. At the end, I was shocked to realize that Ron Paul was right. Before, I thought he was a nut-job and Austrians were just ignoramuses who had never even taken a college macroeconomics course. After, I was ready to don my tin foil hat :-)

dualogy 18y ago
Great, one more Austrian, welcome to the Club! :)
byrneseyeview 18y ago
" Once you stop thinking, "How could the government solve this problem?" and start thinking, "How can I start a business to solve this problem?" your perspective on the world change dramatically." I have yet to encounter a critique of capitalism that can't be rephrased as a business plan. I think libertarianism as an ideology has survived for so long because it's adaptable in that way.
18y ago

gcv 18y ago

Wait a second --- I am very much a libertarian, but I also use Emacs! :) (This comment will not make sense to you if you haven't read the linked article.)

stcredzero 18y ago
Yes, I find that there's a disconnect the notion of liking places where good ideas win and a dislike of 'bloat.' What's one man's bloat is another man's potentially useful library / tool-chest. Emacs stays around because it's useful to many people. For software, that's an important kind of 'win.'
dfranke 18y ago
So do I :-). Like I said in the essay, the bloat objection to emacs is irrational. Nonetheless, though, it's a natural reaction that most people have to get over. The key to appreciating emacs is to realize that it's only incidentally a text editor. It's really a not-quite-general-purpose application platform for tasks that fall under the broad heading of "text processing". Similarly, Mozilla has evolved into a not-quite-general-purpose platform for interacting with internet services. With the advent of Web 2.0 the world seems to have suddenly embraced that interpretation of Mozilla. Before that, people used to gripe about Mozilla bloat in the same way that they still gripe about emacs bloat. (Think Zawinski's Law.)

vaksel 18y ago

Its simple really, the internet is the most free medium in the world, and we've all seen first hand that its possible to accomplish many great things w/o government intervention.

kirubakaran 18y ago
By 'the internet', do you mean the descendant of the government funded Arpanet? ;)
- bokonist 18y ago
  Just because the government initially funded one piece of what eventually became the internet, doesn't mean that government sponsorship was necessary. Many other parts of the internet ( telnet, SMTP) were originally developed outside of the government, as were technologies before the age of the mega-state ( such as the telegraph).
- vaksel 18y ago
  does the government get credit for Walmart, for laying down highways? Same concept...the internet is more than just "a series of tubes".
  - sethg 18y ago
    One of the benefits of the government-subsidized interstate highway system is that products can be moved cheaply by truck from ports of entry and factories to wholesalers and from there to retailers, no matter where in the country those wholesalers and retailers are located. Another benefit is that it's economically feasible for a family to live in the suburbs, work in the city, and shop in a more distant suburb. I wouldn't give the government "credit for Walmart", but the government has created an infrastructure that Walmart used to its benefit.
sethg 18y ago
Except for the government subsidies that sponsored the development of the Internet back when it was called the ARPAnet, of course.

msluyter 18y ago

I'm not a libertarian. I'm also a fan of python. Coincidence? ;)

edw519 18y ago

I think you can extend this argument beyond hackers to scientists in general. When you live in a "black and white" world, there's much less need to tolerate gray areas. Ask 100 politicians, writers, or clergypeople a question and get 100 answers. Much less so for us scientists. Sure we debate a little, but in the end 2 plus 2 still equals 4 (most of the time), and it's often easy to see if something works or doesn't. Libertarianism is probably the most "black and white" of the political ideaologies, so the transfer is pretty natural for us.

dfranke 18y ago
> Libertarianism is probably the most "black and white" of the political ideaologies I think Marxism and radical environmentalism (Earth First, Human Extinction Project) are equally so.

pragmatic 18y ago

Don't overlook the Myers Briggs personality type. I'm betting a large portion of hackers fall into that INTP/INTJ or a similar type. Thus we assume that people are rational, will act rationally and by extension, live peacefully with their neighbors. However we are a small minority of the population. Our personality type is drawn to systems work, the architecture of things. We strive to understand systems, whether it's a desktop PC or the government. The aesthetic we seek is a simple, logical architecture that can be explained and reasoned about. Unfortunately, the world doesn't often meet our expectations. We are left with C++ not Lisp and a republic slipping towards totalitarianism, not an anarcho-capitalist paradise.

ajross 18y ago
And conversely, hackers tend to assume more competence from their fellow human beings than is really present, and thus are surprised when people end up suffering due to their own stupidity. And since it's surprisingly stupid, hackers tend to be less compassionate to the folks affected. But the problem is, suffering is still suffering whether it be stupid or not. A society with a destitute underclass suffering due to its own idiocy is still a society with a destitute underclass. The general definition of a "progressive" is someone who sees this as a problem irrespective of culpability, where a "libertarian" is someone who doesn't see it as a problem at all. I was a libertarian in high school, for the same reasons I was more or less a jerk in high school. I've softened since.
- jotto 18y ago
  You mention an "underclass" as a talking point for your "progression" from the libertarian. You subsequently argue that hackers wrongly disrespect the underclass. Wrongly, because the underclass is [unknowingly] stupid. Being an uninformed idiot is not always a choice, but often times it is. I argue that some of them earn their lack of respect because they are selfish and ignorant. They earn selfish because an uninformed person is a cost to society, through pollution, welfare, medical, insurance, etc... When you have a population of intentionally ignorant people, you need to lie to them to prevent them from doing dangerous things. For example, abstinence instead of protection. This is a problem because it is a bad way to solve problems, and an ugly trend.

jellicle 18y ago

Assumes facts not in evidence.

stcredzero 18y ago

From what I've seen, Libertarianism seems to be the most logically consistent and internally consistent ideology. I think it glosses over some aspects of human nature, but if you accept all the tenets, it can achieve an unmatched level of internal consistency. I suspect this is why hackers are attracted to it.

dsffdsfdsdsfdfs 18y ago

Hackers tend to be libertarians for the same reason that neither the essay nor the 18 comments so far mention demographics more than glancingly: they've stumbled into a high-status/high-reward niche in society, and like most people who do so, they prefer to think that this means they are exceptional. Libertarianism is an ideology for those who fear constraints on their own (self-perceived) excellence more than they fear luck. It attracts mainly those who have had very good luck, and it tells them a bedtime story about how that luck is really talent/accomplishment.

dfranke 18y ago
That's a lot more descriptive of objectivism than of libertarianism, yet it seems like a rather small minority of hackers are objectivists.
lsc 18y ago
Well, yeah, that is a particularly negative way of stating it, but mostly true. Most people favor political ideologies that favor them. (e.g. those who identify with those who are unable to earn much tend to prefer more collectivist ideologies, and to call tallent luck, while those who identify with people who earn a lot tend to support more individualist ideologies, and call luck tallent.) I think it is somewhat self-reinforcing, a person who believes that it is all a roll of the dice is less likely to put as much effort into self-improvement than someone who doesn't believe in luck. But then, I don't believe in luck. A religious friend has suggested that this is because I'm just lucky :)
Prrometheus 18y ago
I'm a libertarian because I appreciate how order can develop in seemingly chaotic systems without central control. In human history, this organic order has been shown to provide the best incentives for progress. It causes life to improve for the most people at the fastest rate. Also, I enjoy living in a free and prosperous society, I want my future children to live in a free and prosperous society, and I think the organic order of the market, which is a product of freedom itself, is the most likely organization of society to preserve freedom and prosperity. All the alternatives to the market that have been tried throughout history are versions of Plato's philosopher-king. Whether leaders are elected or chosen by birth, the idea is that society needs a few wise people to have more power than everybody else in order to guide the rest. The arguments for a philosopher-king are simple and straight-forward, so many people advocate the idea. However, although arguments for the market are more subtle, I believe evidence and logic shows that the organic order it produces is better for society than order imposed by a philosopher-king. Bottom-up is better than top-down. I'm not particularly successful, although I guess I am of above-average competence and have a fair chance at success. I resent the implication that I hold the ideas I do for solely self-serving reasons. I don't accuse the billionaire leftists I know of being self-serving.

Prrometheus 18y ago

As a die-hard radical anarchist-on-wednesdays libertarian, I am hesitant to read these comments. I have a feeling that I'm about to wander into a flamewar.