3 ms·

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 peopl

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.
- bokonist 18y ago
  My definition of a progressive is someone who wants to use government to bring about the perfection of society. Unfortunately, the track record of this philosophy is pretty awful. Most of the time, top down planning by people who think they know best for society results in utter disaster. Read "The Power Broker" about Robert Moses in New York, or "Urbanism and its End" about urban renewal in New Haven. "The Triumph of Conservatism" and the "Assault on Parenthood" are also very good books on the subject. I care about helping others, but I don't think the vehicle for doing so is a mega-sized bureaucracy that sits on a former marshland a half-continent away from me. The proper place for help others is in your own community.
Prrometheus 18y ago
>Thus we assume that people are rational, will act rationally and by extension, live peacefully with their neighbors. If libertarianism was contingent on people acting rationally and peacefully, then I wouldn't be a libertarian. Rather, I assume that people respond to incentives. When people have incentive to live peaceful and orderly lives, they tend to do it more than when those incentives are lacking. I find it mystifying that the "progressive" type assumes that citizens will behave stupidly and violently but that they will somehow elect smart, saintly public servants to guide them. I accept the Public Choice critique of government. I believe that government actors are just ordinary people like you and me and that they also respond to incentives. Disturbingly, they often have only very weak incentives to act for the public good, but strong incentives to SAY they are working for the public good, which I think explains much of what we see in politics. I don't think giving someone power will instantly make them a selfless angel. Libertarianism is a realist philosophy, and it outperforms other philosophies in addressing the real world.
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
  I assume that people respond to incentives. You hit the nail on the head there. People do what the incentives say they'll do. The incentives may be rational or not, but whatever they are, that's what you can bet people will do, and you'll be right almost 100% of the time. The biggest difference between dogs and people is that people learn faster; but the nature of the learning is roughly the same. Cookie = do that again; swat = don't do that again. Capitalism protects individual freedom, which is morally right. Incidentally, it also turns the incentives towards efficient use of resources, which is in the public's best interest. I find it mystifying that progressives claim to impose regulation for the public good, when that almost always leads to a very wasteful misuse of resources that hurts the public in the end.

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.
bokonist 18y ago
My definition of a progressive is someone who wants to use government to bring about the perfection of society. Unfortunately, the track record of this philosophy is pretty awful. Most of the time, top down planning by people who think they know best for society results in utter disaster. Read "The Power Broker" about Robert Moses in New York, or "Urbanism and its End" about urban renewal in New Haven. "The Triumph of Conservatism" and the "Assault on Parenthood" are also very good books on the subject. I care about helping others, but I don't think the vehicle for doing so is a mega-sized bureaucracy that sits on a former marshland a half-continent away from me. The proper place for help others is in your own community.

Prrometheus 18y ago

>Thus we assume that people are rational, will act rationally and by extension, live peacefully with their neighbors. If libertarianism was contingent on people acting rationally and peacefully, then I wouldn't be a libertarian. Rather, I assume that people respond to incentives. When people have incentive to live peaceful and orderly lives, they tend to do it more than when those incentives are lacking. I find it mystifying that the "progressive" type assumes that citizens will behave stupidly and violently but that they will somehow elect smart, saintly public servants to guide them. I accept the Public Choice critique of government. I believe that government actors are just ordinary people like you and me and that they also respond to incentives. Disturbingly, they often have only very weak incentives to act for the public good, but strong incentives to SAY they are working for the public good, which I think explains much of what we see in politics. I don't think giving someone power will instantly make them a selfless angel. Libertarianism is a realist philosophy, and it outperforms other philosophies in addressing the real world.

IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
I assume that people respond to incentives. You hit the nail on the head there. People do what the incentives say they'll do. The incentives may be rational or not, but whatever they are, that's what you can bet people will do, and you'll be right almost 100% of the time. The biggest difference between dogs and people is that people learn faster; but the nature of the learning is roughly the same. Cookie = do that again; swat = don't do that again. Capitalism protects individual freedom, which is morally right. Incidentally, it also turns the incentives towards efficient use of resources, which is in the public's best interest. I find it mystifying that progressives claim to impose regulation for the public good, when that almost always leads to a very wasteful misuse of resources that hurts the public in the end.