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 problems facing communities and the under-privileged?
I like a lot of the technical topics here, but I find the socio-political views I encounter largely limited to only one narrow perspective (with which I almost always disagree).
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?
In my experience, the free software movement is much more populated with socialists and other left-leaning individuals than the general technology community.
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.
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
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.
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.
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/), which was formerly hosted in Udkanten, and is now hosted in Kontrapunkt.
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".
"When the state granted land titles to a fraction of the population, it gave that fraction devices with which to levy, and pocket, tolls on the fruits of the labor of others."
In a master stroke, when the Kings of Scots granted feudal titles to existing lords who controlled lands, who were inevitably potential rivals, they granted them feudal rights over different lands to those they actually occupied - ensuring long struggles between the lords that meant they wouldn't pose a threat to the kings.
Focus less on what you call yourself, and more on what you think. Political labels are so dumb; what use are they? Do you proudly self-identify with a political label at dinner parties? On dates? While chatting with somebody on the bus? To your boss, or in an interview?
I sure as hell don't. I talk politics plenty, but I haven't said "I am a ..." since probably highschool.
If you are already talking politics, then just tell people what you think about relevant issues. It makes for a better conversation anyway.
Isn't that exactly what the article does? I mean, sure, he starts out with a political label in the title, but then he makes an argument about something with substance: specifically, whether or not that land, too, is a good that should be protected by property rights.
They're useful for the forming political parties, for example. I mean that in a general sense. A group of people identifying with political goals and trying to achieve them somehow, maybe by getting elected.
But I agree with your main point. Unless you have a good reason to accept a label, don't. It generally leads to poorer thinking.
libertarians (little "l") in general are pretty good about this due to their inherent dislike of being labeled, caricatured, and stereotyped. Having many libertarian subtypes helps too.
The downside is that, as others have pointed out, focusing on individual identity and personal beliefs hampers meaningful political organization since it requires a certain ideological smoothing and compromise.
the geo clarification makes a huge difference in the article. An article about land ownership and "geo"libertarianism requires a definition! I was totally lost without that...
"One is replacing all taxes on productivity, that is, on land use, with taxes on the value of land itself. The other is the Lockean pre-monetary system. It would have to rely on a judicial mechanism, whereby you assert your claim to land by demonstrating that you are using the land. While the latter method does not provide any community funds (a mixed blessing, perhaps), it does subject your landhold to the discretion of that judicial mechanism."
Why should it be any business to the government what you are doing with your land (as long as it is not illegal)? I am not even sure the government should have the right to judge the value of any land.
I can understand Paine's argument. And for that I think it is not unreasonable that a light tax be assessed to land ownership. But today's property taxes are far too high.
how do you define "land"? is it, "the limited resources of the Earth"? or what? because if the "resources of the earth" are common property, that might say a lot about say, what people put into the air, in the water, in the ground, etc.
[+] [-] krisdol|12 years ago|reply
I like a lot of the technical topics here, but I find the socio-political views I encounter largely limited to only one narrow perspective (with which I almost always disagree).
[+] [-] didgeoridoo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dublinben|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chamblin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logfromblammo|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] spindritf|12 years ago|reply
There was an actual "programmer privilege" submission. Twice.
[+] [-] danboarder|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkuntz2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stronico|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iterationx|12 years ago|reply
No worries, try CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR.
[+] [-] _delirium|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angersock|12 years ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] clockworkelf|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] naturalethic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcode|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|12 years ago|reply
In a master stroke, when the Kings of Scots granted feudal titles to existing lords who controlled lands, who were inevitably potential rivals, they granted them feudal rights over different lands to those they actually occupied - ensuring long struggles between the lords that meant they wouldn't pose a threat to the kings.
[+] [-] Crito|12 years ago|reply
I sure as hell don't. I talk politics plenty, but I haven't said "I am a ..." since probably highschool.
If you are already talking politics, then just tell people what you think about relevant issues. It makes for a better conversation anyway.
[+] [-] lvh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netcan|12 years ago|reply
But I agree with your main point. Unless you have a good reason to accept a label, don't. It generally leads to poorer thinking.
[+] [-] john_b|12 years ago|reply
The downside is that, as others have pointed out, focusing on individual identity and personal beliefs hampers meaningful political organization since it requires a certain ideological smoothing and compromise.
[+] [-] _delirium|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eire1130|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericcope|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] transfire|12 years ago|reply
Why should it be any business to the government what you are doing with your land (as long as it is not illegal)? I am not even sure the government should have the right to judge the value of any land.
I can understand Paine's argument. And for that I think it is not unreasonable that a light tax be assessed to land ownership. But today's property taxes are far too high.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eevilspock|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zzzeek|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] john_b|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism