5 ms·

No, no no no no no no. Perhaps this made more sense in 2008, and I was there for the 4chan and the glory days of Usenet and all that magic jazz and in my early

No, no no no no no no. Perhaps this made more sense in 2008, and I was there for the 4chan and the glory days of Usenet and all that magic jazz and in my early twenties, sure, you could have unironically called me a libertarian and been almost right. but not now. The very premise of the article, taken in today's context, suggests that one should not be a libertarian. Systems thinking, aversion to restriction, and a balking at authority should, if you're using them right and bothering to think, lead one to want less free markets. FAANG, unrestricted, is far more dangerous and toxic to innovation than any government. Same goes for banks. Same goes for the entire legal profession. If I'm at all familiar with the libertarian ethic, the idea is that you let these things expand organically without fetters. This is Bad with a capital B. I would faster align a good hacker ethic today with the far left. Like, far, far left. Not democrats, not liberals, definitely not libertarians. Anarchists, in the "headless governance" meaning of the term. Distributed decision making without representatives. Libertarians, neoconservatives, and all the rest of that "free market, small government" drivel are just handing the keys to the neighborhood burglar. The systems perspective, or rather, my systems perspective on this is that it's to late and the only option is to wait for a total credit collapse. But those free markets got us to the place where k Street has the funds to write their own laws.

iopq 4y ago
> Anarchists, in the "headless governance" meaning of the term. Distributed decision making without representatives. which is the same as libertarianism, since the ultimate libertarianism is a system without a government at all
- willnonya 4y ago
  That's not true at all.
  - iopq 4y ago
    Thanks for that argument, you've changed my mind and now I believe the opposite of what I believed
- jltsiren 4y ago
  Anarchists tend to oppose all kinds of power and authority. Governments, leaders, rich people, corporations, political parties, thought leaders, and so on are all inherently suspicious. From an anarchist point of view, the society should try to limit what those authorities can do with their power.
  - iopq 4y ago
    This sounds exactly like a libertarian to me. Don't make laws against Google, I will just avoid using Google myself. You can't use coercive power of the government to reduce the power of corporations, since now you are just creating an entity that is more powerful that has power over other entities. This is what happened in China where the corporations are just another branch of the government and have to do what the government tells them. I live in China and it's not a leftist paradise. It's a right wing shithole where rights of LGBT people are based on the whims of whoever is in power.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      The difference is that libertarianism focuses on the form, while anarchism is more about the outcomes. Libertarians talk about states and governments and regulations, while anarchists oppose influence of any kind. Assume that there is, in a utopian libertarian society, a corporation that has grown big and successful by providing goods and services people buy voluntarily. Anarchists think that corporation is the problem. If you got rich by founding the corporation, you are also the problem. And if many people listen to me because I speak against the corporation, I am also the problem. Libertarianism is about giving individuals maximal freedom to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate other people's liberties. Anarchism is about opposing excessive influence people have over other people, regardless of how they gained that influence.
      - iopq 4y ago
        If the corporation is still giving a good service then libertarians like it. If it acts as a monopolist, then libertarians would dislike it and look for alternatives in the free market. That's why libertarians want a free market, to be able to do that when there's natural monopolies. If you use the government to split up the big corporation, you're not an anarchist.
willnonya 4y ago
"If I'm at all familiar the libertarian ethic" Doesn't seem to be any danger of that...
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  They do seem to be overlooking that they're probably a left-libertarian.
trhr 4y ago
I tell people I'm an anarchist, and the libertarians throw a fit at me. I tell people I think the government should stay out of my business, and the libertarians love me again. The problem is the label, not the philosophy. If you go far enough left, you get to keep your guns; if you go far enough right, you get to keep your abortions. It's intellectually dishonest to refer to either of those positions as "left" or "right," but at the same time, we have to admit that a lot of people who call themselves "libertarians" aren't actually.
Kamq 4y ago
> FAANG, unrestricted, is far more dangerous and toxic to innovation than any government. That's a pretty high bar. I mean, Google/Facebook/etc have done some skeezy stuff, but there have been a lot of REALLY bad governments. > Anarchists, in the "headless governance" meaning of the term. Distributed decision making without representatives. As someone who's pretty libertarian, I don't particularly mind those folks, and would say the biggest difference between them and I is their optimism. I'm pretty sure the resulting power vacuum would result in an opportunity for totalitarian fuckwits to take over.* * It should be noted, in the defense of anarchists, that they're pretty sure that my cynicism and paranoia has already resulted in totalitarian fuckwits taking over. The possibility that we're both right should also be considered.

iopq 4y ago

> Anarchists, in the "headless governance" meaning of the term. Distributed decision making without representatives. which is the same as libertarianism, since the ultimate libertarianism is a system without a government at all

willnonya 4y ago
That's not true at all.
- iopq 4y ago
  Thanks for that argument, you've changed my mind and now I believe the opposite of what I believed
jltsiren 4y ago
Anarchists tend to oppose all kinds of power and authority. Governments, leaders, rich people, corporations, political parties, thought leaders, and so on are all inherently suspicious. From an anarchist point of view, the society should try to limit what those authorities can do with their power.
- iopq 4y ago
  This sounds exactly like a libertarian to me. Don't make laws against Google, I will just avoid using Google myself. You can't use coercive power of the government to reduce the power of corporations, since now you are just creating an entity that is more powerful that has power over other entities. This is what happened in China where the corporations are just another branch of the government and have to do what the government tells them. I live in China and it's not a leftist paradise. It's a right wing shithole where rights of LGBT people are based on the whims of whoever is in power.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    The difference is that libertarianism focuses on the form, while anarchism is more about the outcomes. Libertarians talk about states and governments and regulations, while anarchists oppose influence of any kind. Assume that there is, in a utopian libertarian society, a corporation that has grown big and successful by providing goods and services people buy voluntarily. Anarchists think that corporation is the problem. If you got rich by founding the corporation, you are also the problem. And if many people listen to me because I speak against the corporation, I am also the problem. Libertarianism is about giving individuals maximal freedom to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate other people's liberties. Anarchism is about opposing excessive influence people have over other people, regardless of how they gained that influence.
    - iopq 4y ago
      If the corporation is still giving a good service then libertarians like it. If it acts as a monopolist, then libertarians would dislike it and look for alternatives in the free market. That's why libertarians want a free market, to be able to do that when there's natural monopolies. If you use the government to split up the big corporation, you're not an anarchist.

willnonya 4y ago

"If I'm at all familiar the libertarian ethic" Doesn't seem to be any danger of that...

Apocryphon 4y ago
They do seem to be overlooking that they're probably a left-libertarian.

trhr 4y ago

I tell people I'm an anarchist, and the libertarians throw a fit at me. I tell people I think the government should stay out of my business, and the libertarians love me again. The problem is the label, not the philosophy. If you go far enough left, you get to keep your guns; if you go far enough right, you get to keep your abortions. It's intellectually dishonest to refer to either of those positions as "left" or "right," but at the same time, we have to admit that a lot of people who call themselves "libertarians" aren't actually.

Kamq 4y ago

> FAANG, unrestricted, is far more dangerous and toxic to innovation than any government. That's a pretty high bar. I mean, Google/Facebook/etc have done some skeezy stuff, but there have been a lot of REALLY bad governments. > Anarchists, in the "headless governance" meaning of the term. Distributed decision making without representatives. As someone who's pretty libertarian, I don't particularly mind those folks, and would say the biggest difference between them and I is their optimism. I'm pretty sure the resulting power vacuum would result in an opportunity for totalitarian fuckwits to take over.* * It should be noted, in the defense of anarchists, that they're pretty sure that my cynicism and paranoia has already resulted in totalitarian fuckwits taking over. The possibility that we're both right should also be considered.