
Something was wrong. It seemed I had angered the techno libertarians. - blasdel
http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/167363113/why-people-are-sheep
======
unalone
I was disappointed by the backlash against Squashed on this site. Partly it's
because he writes a personal blog, doesn't go out of his way to promote
himself, and so probably wasn't writing for the Hacker News crowd; partly
because as a former Tumblr user, he was one of the bloggers in the "in" crowd
that wasn't snooty or irritating, and he spent a lot of time crafting his
ideas to display online.

Also, the phrase "Lodwickian UberMensch" is worth a hundred upvotes. I'm a fan
of Jake Lodwick's work, met him once in NYC at a concert, but his attitude
towards other people is at least somewhat off-putting.

~~~
grandalf
Are you serious? The guy's whole post is one massive trollbait designed to
make people angry.

~~~
unalone
No, it's not. Again: I've read Squashed for a long time. He goes back to the
very beginning of Tumblr. Usually, he writes for himself and, perhaps, for a
small core of readers who like his opinions. You need to understand that
Tumblr's different from most blogging platforms in that it has a built-in
community, so that the people who use it frequently feel a lot more freedom to
express their opinions in a more personal way. Marco Arment, who's on Tumblr's
staff, just wrote this week about how he never tries to write for news
aggregators anymore.

So Squashed disagrees with the people who flamed out against him, and I'm
certain he believes what he's writing, but don't see it as him trolling.
Rather, it's him writing how he feels without thinking about who's going to
read it. I'm certain he didn't expect Hacker News picking on him, and so
didn't make an attempt to round out his writing and make his ideas balanced.

He has that right. Since when do bloggers have to write for any audience other
than themselves?

~~~
calcnerd256
since the 'net made the world small enough that you have to deal with the
opinions of those you've offended

~~~
unalone
He doesn't, really. If things got bad enough, he could disable comments and
ignore us all.

I think we're a mature enough community, however, to learn not to get
ourselves enraged over one man's personal blog, and to let him keep to his own
circle. We can just not upvote the things he writes that we decide offend us.

It would be a shame if the shrinking world led to alienation and hatred rather
than to communities selective enough not to start flamewars with all the other
ones.

~~~
squashed
I think grandalf is right on this one. That last article was pretty dickish.

I hadn't actually expected a whole lot of people to read it. (No, I'm not
doing anything to promote the site. Some of the ... less gracious than usual
comments tipped me off that something was up, and Google Analytics suggested I
look at ycombinator to figure out why the heck it had increased my monthly
traffic by 900%.)

The big regret? I was reworking the layout. Because I suck at CSS, this takes
a few days. Normally it's not a big deal. There may be forty or fifty non-
Dashboard visitors. When traffic spikes at the same time as the layout is
unprecedentedly ugly, that's something to be ashamed of. I'm surprised anybody
even read the article. I would have been tempted to comment, "D00d, ur site is
uglier than ur m0m. tl/dr."

------
TomOfTTB
Maybe I'm crazy but this seems like an argument for communism. Basically he's
saying success is due to luck and that the playing field will never be equal
when some people can be lucky and others can't. Take this quote…

"This can lead to some awkward philosophical conclusions. If you have
succeeded by doing something relatively simple, you have to ask yourself why
everybody else hasn't done the same thing. You could tell yourself that they
simply value different things and thus chose their lives. You sacrificed and
worked hard-and even if somebody else looks like they've worked hard without
the same results, they must be secretly lazy."

He's basically putting forth two premises: (a) 2 people can work equally hard
and get vastly different results and (b) that there's something inherently
wrong with that. But if both those are true than there's really only one
solution which is communism. That's the very definition of communism in fact.
Government is the only entity that has enough power over people to make things
fair so it should control all the resources because it will act fairly and
distribute rewards evenly.

I don't mean to accuse him of holding a belief he doesn't hold but how else
could the world create the environment he desires?

~~~
anigbrowl
Communism? I certainly didn't read it that way. Have you considered the idea
of a basic income - it's been mentioned before here, most recently
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=756880>

Via the inspiration for that thread:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income>: "Winners of the Nobel Prize in
Economics that fully support a basic income include Herbert Simon[24],
Friedrich Hayek[25][26], James Meade, Robert Solow[27], and Milton
Friedman[28]."

Hardly communists, or even Marxists. It seems to me that the original poster
is not arguing for government enforced fairness (and communism isn't any
better at delivering that than capitalism IMO), but for mitigation of the
worst inequities. Over in Europe colege education is heavily subsidized by the
state, on the understanding that the state will collect a rather greater share
of subsequent income in the form of taxes. This is by no means perfect, and
indeed European college graduates are not assured of a job or promising
opportunities on graduating either, far from it; but at least they graduate
without enormous debts.

On the flip side, America provides far better business opportunities for
entrepreneurs, not least the simple fact of a single market of 300 million
with a single dominant language and a national media landscape, which is not
to be sneezed at. Indeed, in 50-100 years, when China or India have caught up
with the developed world in terms of GDP per capita, the potential
entrepreneurial gains from being able to market to a Billion people at once
will make US business fortunes look modest.

I think the point being made here is not that communism or any other system is
better than capitalism, but that diligence and loyalty are socially exalted
but economic rewards flow more towards opportunists and rent-seekers.

~~~
pyre
> Indeed, in 50-100 years, when China or India have caught up with the
> developed world in terms of GDP per capita, the potential entrepreneurial
> gains from being able to market to a Billion people at once will make US
> business fortunes look modest.

I don't know about India (but I'm sure it's a similar situation), but in China
you have vastly different cultural groups across different regions. It's a
_large_ country. And I'm talking a larger cultural divide than "East Coast" vs
"West Coast" in the USA.

I doubt that you'd be able to having a marketing campaign that included all 1
billion people... It might be viewed by close to a billion people, but you'd
have to be targeting a smaller demographic.

------
gizmo
Surprisingly well written article. I'm going to check the rest of his blog;
let's hope it's all this good.

The article is supremely smug (because he doesn't seem to consider for a
second that his point of view may be incorrect), and he shamelessly dismisses
the counter arguments as delusional Ayn Rand fanaticism. However, it made the
rant all the more compelling, so I don't mind.

The problem is that he made no real effort to acknowledge any of the counter
arguments. Starts strong. Digresses in the middle. Ends abruptly.

~~~
grandalf
How can you say that it's well written when it's smugness is over the top?

I thought it was one of the worst articles ever linked from HN, both in its
annoying tone, its irrelevance, and is lack of actual points.

------
Semiapies
So, let me get this straight:

1) Some young graduate is bitter because he didn't fall into an awesome job
right out of college.

2) His blog post about that was somehow worth someone linking it here, and
people getting pissy about it.

3) He's followed it up.

4) That follow-up is somehow worth a huge debate here between people who can't
meaningfully discuss libertarianism and people who can't meaningfully discuss
libertarianism.

 _Seriously?_

"Graduate unhappy about not being given job" is not news. Complaints about the
"young generation" are not news. Talk about how the "old system" that handed
out jobs has "broken down" is not news.

These are stories that are older than many of the people posting here.

Maybe a discussion of why anyone in 2009 goes through life with 1950s-vintage
ideas of how the world works is in order, but that seems under-examined.

------
chasingsparks
The author is saying that libertarians are the product of luck, moderate
intelligence, and a bad understanding of sociology that limits their
perspective to introspection alone.

The author's observation is based on a product of his bad luck, moderate
intelligence, and a very selective view of the arguments advanced by
libertarians.

------
Dilpil
A few of his arguements rest on the idea that "techno libertarians" all got
rich from the tech bubble, but I know plenty of them getting rich _right now_
sans bubble. Indeed, one of my most succesful friends got a job right out of
college, and the offer came in august of 2008.

The author points out that many people do not have the luxury of enjoying
computers. Well there are plenty of other careers that are high paying and
intellectually stimulating (sales, actuary, contracting all come to mind). All
of them require several years of practice and hard work before they result in
a middle class income however.

~~~
roc
I interpreted the dot com comments as an example of the larger point about the
disconnect between 'being smart/working hard' and 'success'.

E.g. People get rich without being smart or working hard. They also _don't get
rich_ by being smart and working hard.

Ergo Rand-ian assumptions are debatable and their conclusions in serious
doubt.

~~~
pyre
I think there are few people that get rich without working hard or being
'smart'... but it depends on your definition of 'smart.' There are plenty of
people that have gotten rich by being clever, while not well educated.

[ This obviously excludes people that have obtained wealth as some sort of
'birthright' ]

------
grellas
The truly limiting aspect of this article is the author's assumption that a
person can be typed as believing anything philosophically simply because of
what he does or what he has or has not achieved.

This incorrectly assumes that one's belief in something being true cannot vary
from a particular life perspective.

Can a student be a libertarian even though he has yet to accomplish much in
life? Can a wealthy mogul believe in communism even though he is positively
dripping in filthy lucre? Not according to the author's (implied) premise and
yet we know that in both cases the answer is yes. It is the premise that is
false.

Thus, the author basically answers his critics by slipping in, _sub silento_ ,
an _ad hominem_ attack to the effect that only an unthinking person who
happens to have gotten quick financial success in life can possibly be a
libertarian. The unexpressed corollary to this is that no one could otherwise
possibly be so stupid as to believe in a libertarian philosophy.

I am not defending any particular philosophy in saying this; just noting the
below-the-belt mode of argumentation. I think this is why it can rub people
wrong even if points made along the way might otherwise be interesting to
consider.

------
rincewind
I paraphrase:

He constructs a narrative of a hn user who does not feel "entitled" because he
got what he wants. This hn user must be in constant anxiety because he is more
successful than he deserves, so he rationalizes his position by explaining why
others do not deserve as much success.

The phrases "entitled", "deserve" and "dumb luck" are much too overloaded. (PG
essay: <http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html>)

------
rincewind
_Odd. I generally only pull in a few comments a day—and most of those are
fairly constructive—even when they are critical. Something was wrong._

half of the comments on that post are just stuff like "great post. thank
you.". To the other half he replies with snark. Somehow this blog post is the
opposite of the ideal HN discussion.

------
araneae
I suspect the reason that technology and libertarianism go hand and hand are
very different from those presented here. People who are technological are
generally more engaged by machines than people, and have less of an
appreciation of social norms. They also are more likely to appreciate the
Austrian school of economics which is very mathematical in nature, and be less
susceptible to emotional appeals in favor of certain policies (i.e. "oh how
the poor kittens are starving, let's spend 1 billion on animal shelters this
year").

~~~
thomaspaine
Austrian economics is the antithesis of mathematical economics.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Analytical_fram...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Analytical_framework)

Many libertarians latch on to austrian economics because they already agree
with the conclusions austrian economists come to, and it's easy for lay people
to understand. Conversely, it takes quite a bit more effort to understand a
neoclassical dynamic partial equilibrium model.

~~~
araneae
I perhaps should have explained a bit more clearly. The Austrian school relies
on mathematical proof, as opposed to experimentation and the resulting
analysis with statistics. Yes, statistics is math, but hardly anyone who finds
logical rigor psychologically satisfying gets the same enjoyment out of a
p-value of .082.

------
tom_rath
It looks like somebody should ask Santa for a thicker skin next Christmas.

The advice I read here was of the tone: "Hey, we were once where you are now.
Take it from us: It gets better, but your current mindset is set for failure."

The author should spend a day picking through the youth-directed angsty tunes
and movies of the early 90s. He's not the first to go through crap like this,
even in recent history.

Suck it up and take on a McJob to pay the bills until things recover. The
experience in social survival will do you a load of good the next time things
get rough.

~~~
unalone
So you see a problem, which is, "The way that modern society works puts a lot
of people in soul-killing menial jobs and wastes their childhood", and your
solution is "It's okay, other people have gone through it, stop complaining"?
That's both cruel and obtuse.

~~~
tom_rath
Hardly! I'm saying "we're not strangers to what you're experiencing, but your
conclusions are incorrect".

You can believe whatever you want, but belief alone won't make it true. Accept
the environment you've found yourself in and then do what you can to adapt to
and correct it. That's what I've done.

Bitching about it without action is going to do squat.

~~~
unalone
I agree, but I also think that there's great value in trying to change the
environment entirely.

~~~
tom_rath
...and how's that working out for ya, Bruce Lee?

Many, many generations have come before you with exactly the same idea, and
all struck out (most notably the "boomers", who went a long way towards giving
us the environment we're facing now). It sounds as though you want someone
else to fix the problems you're facing rather than pick up your tools and fix
them yourself.

Learn about the environment you've found yourself in and then try to fix it to
the extent you are able. If _everyone_ did that in their own corner of the
world, we'd get the result we wanted.

I faced a load of crappy jobs when I graduated in the early 90s and found
myself far, far behind where I thought I'd be. Today, I'm running the kind of
company I wanted to work for when I graduated.

I've worked at fixing my corner of the world and have succeeded to some small
extent -- what have you done?

~~~
unalone
I don't agree with the people who're looking for some huge revolution in
society. I prefer the guys who're quietly ducking out and finding some place
where they can be happy. That's the subject of a whole different diatribe that
doesn't belong here.

However, I sympathize with the thought that society as a whole does a lot of
harm, and I don't like the people who get mad at the people who complain about
it. That holds even if I disagree with some of the ideas of the original
complainers.

~~~
tom_rath
Good for you, Sparky.

Now, what are you going to do about it out here in the Real World?

~~~
unalone
I'm afraid I don't know who Sparky is. I'm guessing he's not another martial
artist?

I don't care much about the Real World. I'll just keep things stable and happy
where I am, and avoid the rat race as much as possible.

~~~
tom_rath
So, nothing then? Of all the plans to 'change the world', that's the worst
I've heard.

Kindly stay out of the way whilst the rest of us continue trying to improve
things.

~~~
unalone
My actual stated plan was to worry about _my_ world, which is to say the
people and places that matter to me. If people stopped trying to treat the
world as a single breathing mass, we'd have less conflation and we'd all be a
lot happier.

Don't act like you're on some sacred mission I'm not. You're on Hacker News. I
know why _I'm_ here - I get a thrill out of debating people. You're here for
no better reason. The difference is that you seem to think that your argument
is above mine.

------
Tichy
What is his point? Either you grow rich in a bubble by sheer luck, or being a
worker drone is your only option?

Seems to me he misses a few grey areas in between. Also, if you are not a
Computer whizkid, there are other areas where you can succeed. Some people
even got rich with a multitrack. (Not that getting rich is the only meaningful
measurement for success).

What is the more cynical attitude: to assume people are miserable because they
are sheep and just too scared to try anything, or that they are miserable
because they are hopeless?

------
RyanMcGreal
If you're angering the techno libertarians, that's a pretty decent sign you're
doing something right.

Also: techno libertarians on the internet == unintentionally hilarious.

EDIT: this comment score is a pretty decent sign I'm doing something right. :)

------
Pistos2
Maybe I'm too much of a geek, or not enough of one, but I got a kick out of
the "a dozen or so comments" turning into "71 comments" a second or two after
page load.

------
johnbender
disappointed when this was not an article about Warhammer 40k.

 _+5 to your nerdosity_

------
billswift
"Nor do they have any monopoly on a distorted view of reality." Libertarians'
views of reality are almost always less distorted than the downright wacko
views held by most Democrats and Republicans, socialists and conservatives.

Nor are all, or even most, libertarians particularly successful, much less the
money worshipping conservatives the socialistic "social responsibility"
whiners like this essay like to criticize.

~~~
gloob
_Libertarians' views of reality are almost always less distorted than the
downright wacko views held by most Democrats and Republicans, socialists and
conservatives._

From the perspective of a libertarian, perhaps.

~~~
billswift
There are two kinds of people in the world, libertarians (whether or not they
call themselves that) and evil scumbags who want to control other people. It
makes no difference what excuses you make for your evil; you all still have to
twist reality to justify it to each other and to yourselves.

~~~
unalone
There are many kinds of people in the world. One similar dichotomy I could
draw is between people who appreciate the nuance and complexity of being alive
and having to make millions of decisions as you grow up, and people who think
it's possible to draw a line and declare some people as evil and other people
as good based on a single part of their existence.

~~~
billswift
People are extremely multidimensional; but the fundamental political division
is willingness or unwillingness to coerce others, that is to use force to make
others do what you want them to, which is THE fundamental feature of gov't.

~~~
unalone
I'll agree with you to some degree, but in some cases force is needed. See my
response to you elsewhere regarding regulations, which I think is an important
part of society.

