7 ms·

Does anyone know of a community of tech professionals (such as hackernews) that isn't full of these libertarian types? Maybe one populated by driven to solve pr

• angersock 13y ago
  This view seems very much oriented at solving the problems of communities and the under-privileged: it explicitly identifies how you are bound to pay rent to the community when you use common resources. The problem I think you may be having here is the conflation of "I don't want to be part of any community fuck-you-got-mine" with "I want to have control over how I give back to my community and what community I identify with".
• _delirium 13y ago
  Depending on what you're looking for as an alternative, some hackerspaces (and the physical + online communities around them) are quite left-wing. That's especially the case in Europe, where many hackerspaces are physically located in "nonprofit social center" buildings that provide housing for mostly DIY/left-wing/anti-authoritarian groups. For example, there's Malmö's Forskningsavdelningen (http://forskningsavd.se/about/ http://forskningsavd.se/about/), which was formerly hosted in Udkanten, and is now hosted in Kontrapunkt.
• danboarder 13y ago
  For a combination of the two, I recommend the Bleeding Heart Libertarians website[1]. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's not a tech-focused site like HN, but does address the topics you mention - a focus on solving problems facing communities and the under- priviledged. 1. http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com
• dublinben 13y ago
  In my experience, the free software movement is much more populated with socialists and other left-leaning individuals than the general technology community.
  • ptaffs 13y ago
    i'm often confused by the FOSS and VC mix here. I agree generally FOSS are left leaning, and would suspect VC are more right?
  • Glyptodon 13y ago
    FOSS is an appropriation of excessive intellectual property laws to create a productive form of Libertarianism-lite (which strangely appears to somehow be 'socialist' to most because somehow many people have been tricked into thinking socialism has to do with things being 'free' rather than things being regulated and rationed by the state or something).
    • mpyne 13y ago
      GPL-style FOSS is not libertarian (which speaks to individual liberty) almost at all. In fact it goes the opposite direction, and says in essence that individual people are too damn stupid to do what's in their common interest. So instead of letting you (the new recipient of GPL source) do whatever you want with that source like a BSD-style license would, restricts your ability to certain things with that source, all in the name of the greater good. Even FSF recognizes that such a license is not the single useful tool in their overall goal of advancing Free Software, which is why there are other GNU licenses. But GPL at least is socialist in the actual Marxist sense; people can take if they need it, but have to contribute back as well (even if that "contribution" is limited to not taking it proprietary capitalists), and can certainly contribute changes back to the commons in accordance with their ability.
      • _delirium 13y ago
        I see it rather the other way around. Copyleft licenses primarily defend individual liberty by guaranteeing the right of downstream users to modify software and distribute the modified versions, which is the natural state of things (absent state intervention, individuals can modify any software in their possession, and distribute it if they wish). The MIT/BSD licenses are freer in one sense: downstream users may sue other downstream users who use their modifications without a license. I can take a piece of MIT-licensed software, make changes to it, and then if someone uses my changes without a license from me, I can sue them for copyright infringement. The GPL takes away that freedom to restrict downstream users. Considering that the right the MIT/BSD license let you retain amounts to using the machinery of the state to restrict other people's freedom to use and modify software, I don't see how this is freer in the libertarian sense. At least, not unless you believe "intellectual property" is literally natural property, rather than a fiction created by the state. Now, the anti-IP libertarian position would be in favor of neither the MIT/BSD nor the GPL approach, but simply in favor of abolishing copyright entirely. Then you would inherently have the right to modify and distribute any software in your possession, and wouldn't need a copyleft license to ensure you retain that right. However, so long as copyright exists, the GPL seems like a pragmatic approach to mitigate its damage.
• Stronico 13y ago
  If you're interested in technology for technology's sake, then that will probably crowd out any interest in either communities or the plight of the less fortunate. Both technology and libertarianism tend to draw from the high side of the autistic spectrum.
  • Iftheshoefits 13y ago
    > Both technology and libertarianism tend to draw from the high side of the autistic spectrum Do you have a source for this claim? It seems quite extraordinary. Anecdotally, everybody I've ever met in technology who has claimed to be on "the high side of the autistic spectrum" has in reality merely been an average-intellect asshole who: a) thinks he's much smarter than he is, and assumes his inability to "get along" is because others are jealous of his abilities or just don't understand what it's like to be "on the spectrum"; b) is looking for excuses for his own boorish behavior.
    • Stronico 13y ago
      It's a personal observation after many years of being acquainted with libertarians and technologists. My personal theory is that a low (relative to most) ability to see status/class relationships between people leads one to care less about relative social positioning - which leads to a rule based theory of politics.
  • mpyne 13y ago
    As a father of a child with autism myself, I'd hesitate to leave the prevalence of libertarian and anti-authoritarian tendencies in tech to such a simple explanation... but I'll admit there are parallels. The "theory of mind" is a known challenge (not an impossibility) with those with autism [1]. This is basically the degree of awareness a person has on the fact that other persons have their own thoughts, prejudices, levels of knowledge, etc. Essentially the idea, can you put yourself in the mind or worldview of someone else? With the types of libertarianism followed in the U.S. there is simply no need to care what other people think: The idea is that the rules are simple and easy to follow, and as long as they're rigidly applied anything that happens must be fair. When you combine the difficulty of understanding why other people feel the way they do, with the very real awareness of how intelligent and knowledgeable our prototypical tech libertarian is, it starts to make sense why they believe that the outcome of these rules are fair. They are able to motivate to work, they are able to produce good work (at least, in their opinion), they follow the rules that respect others' things; why can't you? When you scale that up to the idea that a society of people all trying their best to do good work and live by the rules must obtain the ideal outcome, the appeal is more understandable, if not actually obvious. Why should the government tell a person how to live or what to do, when that person obviously knows best what's good for them, especially when government in general has long historical examples of failure. Even if you point out successes of regulation, the rejoinder is simply that such successes could be replicated with the simple set of rules, if people would only follow them. And either way, how difficult could it be to make rules that are good at an individual level also be good at a national level? The problem with the failure to understand the theory of mind is probably most pronounced with that last question... a difference in scale has always been a difference in kind, but how can you perceive that what's best for society is not always what's best for one person, when you can hardly understand that other individual people are not mirror images of oneself, let alone understanding societies at a macro level? All the same, this is all just a bunch of supposition. I am sure there are better explanations (though I should hope that it's not considered surprising that one's ability for empathy, sympathy and theory of mind may play a role in one's natural political tendencies). [1] http://www.autism.com/index.php/understanding_theoryofmind http://www.autism.com/index.php/understanding_theoryofmind
• chamblin 13y ago
  I wish it were possible to have a tech community that politics didn't eventually dominate.
  • patrickmay 13y ago
    I wish it were possible to have a <s>tech</s> community that politics didn't eventually dominate.
  • snowwrestler 13y ago
    I think any web forum that grows significantly (not just tech) will tend toward politics, because to talk politics, all you need is an opinion, and everyone's got one of those. To talk about technical topics, you need some experience and expertise, and those are a lot harder to come by. So the percentage of those folks declines as the overall audience grows.
• clockworkelf 13y ago
  It has always seemed to me that tech professionals tend to favour socialism or at least lean to the left.
• didgeoridoo 13y ago
  Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but is your comment intended to imply that libertarianism is associated with being unconcerned with the "problems facing communities and the under-privileged"? Might libertarians merely believe that there are better, fairer, more efficient ways to solve these problems than the application of government?
  • poolpool 13y ago
    No one is disputing that people believe that. People dispute that its in any way true in many cases.
    • jpadkins 13y ago
      Which did better for "communities and the under-privileged", Socialist North Korea or Capitalist South Korea? What about comparing under-privileged from 1917 to 1988 in USA vs. Russia? Do you have any counter-examples?
      • eevilspock 13y ago
        First, North Korea is a pathetic straw man. You'll have to do better than that. Second, you assume that people who challenge Libertarians want central control and are opposed to the free market. Why does everyone have to think so black and white? Here's the thing, if Libertarians actually stayed true to the underlying principle of Libertarianism (the sovereignty of the individual over his own person, body and labor), and also stayed honest about what it means to have a free market (which follows from individual sovereignty over their person and labor), then I would become an ardent supporter. Unfortunately, as this article points out, most libertarians completely betray these principles when they argue for 100% sovereign rights over land and any other of the finite resources of this planet. If you understand the free-market, and you looked at it honestly, then you would realize that land ownership (defined as ownership in perpetuity) is completely antithetical to the free market, because you can essentially buy an infinite amount of something (perpetual ownership) for a finite cost. In my opinion, a true Libertarian would realize that some things are part of The Commons, and by necessity we need to figure out a communal way for managing The Commons. If we want the free market to manage the commons, then we have to first treat it like the commons (e.g. we are all owners, and are all owed a share of the ground rent).
• iterationx 13y ago
  Not seeing your Statist views reflected in the comments section? No worries, try CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • bluthru 13y ago
    You think large for-profit corporate news organizations demonstrate "statist" views? Ha! (NPR is one of the more accurate news organizations in the US for a reason, though.)
    • naturalethic 13y ago
      Brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland and a generous donation from the Rockefeller foundation.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    • iterationx 13y ago
      NPR is a joke. You're totally naive.
      • iamjustin 13y ago
        Where do you get your news?
        • iterationx 13y ago
          infowars.com
          • bluthru 13y ago
            I upvoted your comment under the assumption that it was someone else being sarcastic. You're serious. Wow.
• dkuntz2 13y ago
  The problem I see is that most people don't really look beyond the current political parties in their immediate vicinity (IE: those campaigning near them presently). This leads to people really only seeing the American Libertarian movement as an individualist group.
• spindritf 13y ago
  We have a "something privilege" article here probably every day. Women in tech every other. There was an actual "programmer privilege" submission. Twice.
• drcode 13y ago
  Try http://www.reddit.com/r/marxism http://www.reddit.com/r/marxism
• logfromblammo 13y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "these libertarian types". There are more philosophies on Earth, Horatio, than are things in your dreams... er... can't be fooled again. The article is by a geoist, or Georgist. Those people are no more true libertarians than they are true Scotsmen. Or at least that's how it is according to the libertarians that do not agree with their principles. If you're looking for social justice and community-based governance, you would be better served by hanging out with an-soc (or socialist anarchist) proponents, and then the an-caps (capitalist anarchists) will mock you for your beliefs. If libertarianism seems like a narrow perspective to you, you might want to examine it from a different angle. Freed from the bonds of actually having to agree with anyone to accomplish something, libertarians can and will believe in almost anything that sounds even remotely plausible, then defend that well past the Godwinning of the thread. The end of a libertarian thread is actually when Somalia comes up, not Hitler. In any case, the ability to argue endlessly over an irrelevant topic and always be correct, regardless of any findings of fact is strangely attractive to people with an engineering temperament. You see, the more government looks like a problem, the more tempting it is to try to solve it. And with more solutions proposed, the more tempting it is to argue over them. And how many times have you heard a naive younger developer say, "Wouldn't it be easier to scrap the enormous messy kludge we have and start over from scratch?" So I don't think you will easily find such a community unless you go out of your way to create one yourself, and police it rigorously with a NO POLITICS rule.
• naturalethic 13y ago
  Are you kidding? This place is 90% socialists.