
Code Free or Die(): Why Hackers Are so Often Libertarians - dfranke
http://dfranke.us/cfod.html
======
bokonist
_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 :-)

~~~
nradov
The software industry gets a heck of a lot from the government. It has been
one of the top funders of development work, both as a customer and a direct
employer. Many of the common software tools and technologies we use today
wouldn't exist if not for government-sponsored research. In general I agree
with your other points, but let's have a little balance.

~~~
corentin
The money the government took to fund stuff would have been used in another
way. But maybe they are better investors than the market; how would we know?

------
pragmatic
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
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
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.

------
vaksel
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
By 'the internet', do you mean the descendant of the government funded
Arpanet? ;)

~~~
vaksel
does the government get credit for Walmart, for laying down highways? Same
concept...the internet is more than just "a series of tubes".

~~~
sethg
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.

------
stcredzero
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.

------
gcv
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.)

~~~
dfranke
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.)

------
dsffdsfdsdsfdfs
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.

~~~
Prrometheus
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.

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

~~~
pragmatic
No it cannot. All rights and freedoms come from property rights. Without
property rights there are no other rights.

~~~
ajross
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
_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

>>>

------
edw519
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
> 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.

------
Prrometheus
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.

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

------
jellicle
Assumes facts not in evidence.

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

