Libnerdtarianism

I'm having a great time reading The Android's Dream by John Scalzi, and since he's been blogging for over a decade I thought I'd check out some of his online writing as well—which is how I happened across this worthwhile rant of his that explains why he hates liberals, conservatives, and libertarians.   It's hit and miss, but hits most often in the section on libertarians, with observations like this:

Libertarians blog with a frequency that makes one wonder if they’re actually employed somewhere or if they have loved ones who miss them. Libertarian blogs [are] even more snide than conservative blogs, if that’s possible.

And this:

Blissfully clueless that Libertarianism is just great as long as it doesn’t actually involve real live humans.

And especially this:

All for legalized drugs and prostitution but probably wouldn’t want their kids blowing strangers for crack.

(For more on the "doesn't actually involve real live humans" bit, see this.)

I'd guess that Scalzi comes closest to the mark with libertarianism because (as he observes) it's the "official political system of science fiction authors," so he's had plenty of chances for close observation.  But that draws the line too narrowly; libertarianism is actually the official political system of nerds in general, of which science fiction authors are just one particular category.  "Science fiction fans" (which necessarily includes science fiction authors, and by definition includes nerds) is more inclusive, and it has the benefit of largely encompassing tech geeks—a particularly sizable and important species of the libnerdtarian genus.

(If I had a dollar for the number of times I've seen someone reading Atlas Shrugged on the train to Silicon Valley, I'd have...well...about three dollars.  Maybe four.  But hey, that's still more people than I've seen reading any other book on the train over the years.  Just trust me on this: there's a tech geek libertarian contingent out there well out of proportion to libertarian representation in the general population.)

So what explains the prevalence of libnerdtarianism?  I'd like to tell you I've studied this deeply and amassed a wealth of historically-informed speculation about it, but honestly, I haven't.  I do, however, have a half-assed theory.  It goes like this: nerds spend their formative years being turned into surly loners by the taunts and abuse of their intellectual inferiors.  Since they've essentially been rejected by society, they reject society right back, embracing a political philosophy which raises "the individual" (read: them) above all else.  Nobody ever cared about them, after all, so why should they care about anyone else?  The nerd may grow beyond this feeling in adulthood, but the sense of being outside society is likely to linger.

So liberalism, with its ostensible focus on the common good, is of course right out.  And while the selfishness at the core of conservatism makes it more attractive, the expected expressions of compassion—twisted and limited though they are (love the fetus, but the kid's on its own)—still require too much of a communal focus.  And then there's the conservative fetish for tribal institutions like the military, whose lower ranks are largely composed of nerd-abusing post-jocks.  No, libertarianism of the right-wing American variety is perfect for the nerd because it gives political expression to his (yes, his) childhood isolation; he wants to be left alone, and he's more than willing to return the favor.

Which is somewhat sympathy-inspiring, of course, but that's only part of the story.  As already noted, the nerd is generally smarter than the people who abuse him, but his fatal flaw is that he comes to see this intellectual superiority as a mark of an overarching superiority.  After all, isn't it intelligence that sets us apart from the beasts of the field?  So in any rational assessment supremacy of intelligence should equate to overall superiority, right?  Honestly, he can be a real jerk about it.

So the notion of meritocracy that's inherent to Ayn Rand-style libertarianism, which elevates the superior (read: smarter) man (read: him) above all others, holds near-infinite appeal for the nerd; basically, he wants very much to see the establishment of a system in which the one with the biggest brain gets all the money and chicks.  Well, ok, maybe the chicks part is a bit of a stretch, but the nerd is nonetheless deeply interested in having society organized such that the smartest people are rewarded the most (read: financially) and are left alone to enjoy the fruits of their labors (read: to keep as much of that money as possible), because he's convinced that he's one of those smartest people.  And with the rise of the Internet, the ability to monetize nerdly talents has never been greater.  In other words, the nerd favors libertarianism in large part because he's confident that in a libertarian meritocracy, he wins.

All of which is why right-wing Randian libertarianism—with its deification of self-interest, its testy rejection of altruism or any other form of communal responsibility, and its tantalizing promise of an intelligence-biased meritocracy—is tailor-made as a nerd philosophy.  The wonder isn't that so many nerds become libertarians, but rather that any of them manage to become anything else.

[ Just in case someone thinks I'm a bad person for mercilessly picking on one of society's most abused groups: I'd probably have scored a solid 93% on the nerd identification test as a teenager, and I could probably still answer all of the Tolkien questions (even before I saw the movies). ]

ON AN EXTREMELY RELATED NOTE: As part of my extensive research for this article, I happened across this perfect quote:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.  One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.  The other, of course, involves orcs.

Comments

[Christopher Wing]

The internets once told me (and they are never wrong) that "Libertarianism is anarchy for rich people."

[Rob Payne]

I don’t identify with any political party though I used to. I don’t know about the nerd libertarian correlation, but the basic theme of the libertarian party has struck me as rather self-centered, might have to do a study like the one where you eat eggs for a few weeks to see what it does to your cholesterol thus proving once and for all, what? Of course I always pictured libertarians running around wrestling bears and wearing coonskin hats so my opinion of them shouldn’t be taken too seriously. At the same time I like to think that humanity could progress to the point where we don’t need a government. Of course considering how we are now I can’t see that happening except at some extremely distant and far away remote point in time.

I enjoyed the quote. I think of Lord of the Rings as propaganda myself though not at the time I read it being a mere youth at the time. It’s way corny as well.

[glib ion]

"The wonder isn't that so many nerds become libertarians, but rather that any of them manage to become anything else." - given that you later rationalize this psychoanalysis with the claim of some identification with the group, how is it, then, that you did manage to become something else?
I never really got the whole deal with Tolkien. I mean, I liked /The Hobbit/ but I was so bored with the rest of the Middle Earth stuff that I probably never read more than 3 chapters out of any of the books.

"(yes, his)" - now that's just sexist.

[John Caruso]

...how is it, then, that you did manage to become something else?

Personality defect, I'm sure.

[SteveB]

"(yes, his)" - now that's just sexist.

Sure, and Sonia Sotomayor is a racist.

[NomadUK]

I'd guess that Scalzi comes closest to the mark with libertarianism because (as he observes) it's the "official political system of science fiction authors,"

Meh. It's the official political system of some science fiction authors, notably those of the Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle/Steven Barnes/Robert Heinlein variety. I don't think you'd get far calling Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clarke, Harlan Ellison, or Jack Haldeman libertarians.

As you point out, it's generally the high-tech geeks who are libertarians. My experience is that this is primarily because they don't want the state or those poor people getting in the way of them making fucking huge piles of money and keeping it all for themselves. And buying cool cars. And big houses.

I'm not convinced that most SF writers are drawn from that pool, but I'll allow it's possible. I contend, however, that most good SF writers are not.

By the way, I think Niven & Pournelle wrote some good stuff. It doesn't get much better than The Mote in God's Eye or Lucifer's Hammer. And pre-stroke Heinlein was great (Orphans of the Sky is my personal favourite.) That doesn't mean I'd vote for any of them.

[Euripides]

As a Libertarian Socialist (anarchist), you should always point out to Libertarians (properly known in anarchist circles as 'Propertarians') that there are more Socialist (ooga booga) Libertarians than right-wing ones.

The main ones you find on the web are the sort of self-employed workers who own the means of production and enjoy the freedom it brings, while at the same time soiling their pants at any mention of socialism.

Fun Propertarian economic theory fact of the day: Capitalists only aquire money in order to consume, NEVER to buy power or influence.

To suggest such a thing is the most evil thing you can probably say to a Propertarian apart from 'I like Trade Unions', or 'Capitalism is inherently authoritarian'.

[Thomas Daulton]

Rob Payne: At the same time I like to think that humanity could progress to the point where we don’t need a government.

The context of your statement above implies that you think only Libertarians can envision humanity without a government. If that assessment is true, you really need to read up some more on anarchism.

The real question is: do you think that humanity can live without money itself? Money as we know it is always backed up and kept stable by a government. You'll never be free of government if you are still dependent on currency to do your economics. If you think that some independent object, such as gold for example, could be a medium of exchange independent of a government... then you are really just bartering things for gold and then bartering gold for things. It's a step backwards for civilization, which statement infuriates Libertarians no end. You end up with a relatively primitive society where an ounce of gold buys you a tenth as much ice cream during a heat wave as it does during a snowstorm. This is not conducive to savings for adversity, career planning, Fire Departments, investment in industry and trade, etc. etc.

If you can envision a society where the medium of exchange is a unit of personal labor, you are probably an anarchist. If you imagine that gold can be an independent, fair and stable currency even during conditions of famine -- or if, say, one town is sitting on top of a literal gold mine whereas its neighboring trade partner is not... then you're a libertarian.

[John Caruso]

NomadUK: I don't think you'd get far calling Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clarke, Harlan Ellison, or Jack Haldeman libertarians.

Haldeman, probably, but I honestly have no idea on the others (and not for lack of reading them). But, most of my SF reading was back in the day when political messages would have gone flying right past me, so maybe I didn't notice that the Ramans were flaming socialists. In fact even Scalzi's politics are hard to pin down, both in the book I just finished and somewhat in the few blog postings of his I've read. It's not always that easy to glean political leanings from fiction.

I'm not convinced that most SF writers are drawn from that pool, but I'll allow it's possible. I contend, however, that most good SF writers are not.

Impossible to prove or disprove, I'd say, especially since (as I said) not every writer broadcasts their politics in their writing. One particular example I can think of is David Brin, who's apparently a rabid right libertarian; I didn't notice it years ago when I read Startide Rising (a terrific book) and others, but it was painfully apparent when I recently started reading Kiln People—so much so that I just put the book down. So not only wouldn't I vote for him, I don't even want to read him anymore. Same with Pournelle, now that I know what a loon he is, and Orson Scott Card as well (not much of a loss, considering how his more recent work compares to his older stuff).

Euripides: As a Libertarian Socialist (anarchist), you should always point out to Libertarians (properly known in anarchist circles as 'Propertarians') that there are more Socialist (ooga booga) Libertarians than right-wing ones.

Yeah, totally agreed. That's why I tried to emphasize throughout the posting that the libnerdtarianism I'm talking about is right/capitalist/propertarian libertarianism, and also why I linked to Chomsky's take on Murray Rothbard's vision of utopia.

...'Capitalism is inherently authoritarian'.

As I said on the Chomsky/Rothbard thread, I've always found it difficult to understand how capitalist libertarians in the US can reconcile their opposition to concentrated coercive state power with a near-fetishistic desire for more concentrated coercive economic power (or for a system which will make that inevitable, in any case). But considering they've allowed unmitigated horseshit like this into their brains, it's not surprising.

(You've got to give Rand her due; it takes real talent to make the notion that "money is the root of all good" sound anything less than completely insane. On the other hand, when you're offering people sophistic rationalizations for their worst impulses, you're definitely rowing with the current.)

[Rob Payne]

Thomas Daulton,

Well that was not my intention to say that only libertarians can envision humanity without government. It was the invention of monetary systems that created different classes. And since the function of legislation and government is to allow one group of people to suppress or oppress another group or groups of people it works quite well with monetary systems where the wealthiest oppress the classes beneath them.

An example of this class creation can be seen in a tribe of Native Americans in the south east. They were the only North American Indians to form a monetary system and were the only North American tribe that contained different classes. An exception to this may be that some eastern tribes mimicked the invading hordes from the Old World by taking blacks as slaves which I suppose could be construed as different classes though it had nothing to do with any monetary system.

As to whether I am an anarchist or a libertarian I am neither one. I do read Justin Raimondo’s columns as I find them informative even if I don’t always agree with him, though I do agree more than not, but he considers himself to be a libertarian and what that really means or if it means anything is not that important to me.

[BrianM]

The Iain M. Banks "Culture" novels posit a post-scarcity, money-free anarchistic society. He doesn't really explain how said society works, as his novels, for the purposes of having plots and actual things happening, focus on the fringes of Culture Society where there is war and colonial interventionism that would be a right wing Democrat dream system (Special Circumstances).

[Thomas Daulton]

Rob Payne, thanks for answering, your original post sounded like you were kinda groping for definitions, and apparently that's not the case -- but I like a man who is comfortable eschewing strict definitions!

To John and the thread in general: One quick argument I found usually shuts up the Objectivists and sundry other Ayn Rand admirers... Do Objectivists stop at traffic lights?

Because Ayn Rand teaches us that any compromise or accommodation to the less deserving is pure, pure Evil, and you can't know whether the cross-traffic you are sitting there waiting for might be Co-operativist scum who are getting a jump on you in their mission to corrupt people's work ethic and steal from the meritorious rich. Howcome we don't just set up a system where anyone who uses their superior speed and driving skill to make it through the intersection alive, is praised and lauded as the winner of the competition?

[Duncan]

Incidentally, Ayn Rand herself didn't drive.

When Libertarianism/Objectivism came up here before, I lauded traffic jams as the ultimate expression of individualism.

[JMC]

In my experience, nerds are more likely to be involved in political activism in general, not just in libertarianism. We are certainly well represented among activists I know in the SF Green Party. But I think libertarianism is most popular among the young, who also tend to dominate online forums; as they grow up, they mostly turn either Republican or progressive.

There was a slashdot poll a few years ago, and all the fringe political parties seemed to be enriched.

It's also worth noting that most of the leading figures in the free software community have strong political views--either you think RMS is a dirty commie hippie, or ESR is a gun-toting libertard, and that is likely to be correlated with whether you use the phrase "free software" or "open source."

Regarding sci-fi authors, the good ones are from all political stripes. RAH probably influences many kids because he was so prolific and writes to their level, but there are many other scifi authors who have written better stuff. Check out the first few authors on the current top 100 list. You have a mainstream Democrat (GRRM), a conservative Catholic (JRRT), and a fascist asshat (Card). But you can enjoy their books without agreeing with their politics; I certainly did.

As for Rand, I managed to get through one of her books, as required reading for political geeks. But I can't say I enjoyed it enough to pick up a second one.

[John Caruso]

As for Rand, I managed to get through one of her books, as required reading for political geeks.

Yeah, I did the same. I chose Anthem, mainly 1) because it was the shortest and 2) for the Rush connection. So I suffered, but not for long.

[Duncan]

I chose Anthem, mainly 1) because it was the shortest ... ...

Me too, for the same reason. (I've never listened to Rush.) As a 1984-type dystopia, it was sorely lacking in ideas, style, and coherence. And that excerpt you linked to from Atlas Shrugged effectively dissuaded me from taking another crack at that monolith.

[Federico]

John,

It seems to me that your gut statistics might be biased by some prominent examples of "american dream" nerds. Your mention of people traveling close to Silicon Valley reinforces this impression.

For one thing, it doesn't seem that most GNU/Linux users -which seems to be a sizeable nerd demographic segment- are right wing libertarians. For example, see this ubuntuforums thread. The whole business of "wasting" your time helping other users out of their problems by spending time contributing to forums and wikis, seems to be right against the spirit of right-wing libertarianism, even though I don't think this ideology strictly precludes this. (in fact contributing to wikis of any sort or any other community effort seems like anti r.w. libertarian in spirit).

My own worthless impression is that nerds tend to be anti-authoritarians of some sort, and your "half-assed theory" seems like a nice armchair explanation for this. I tend to agree with you there; but I see too many nerds putting community before money to support a high correlation with a fundamentalist defense of property rights.

The concept of excluding knowledge from appropiation that belies the Free Software movement is not quite right wing libertarian. I'd say that Free Software nerds are almost by definition anti r.w.libertarian, and I suspect that many of those who claim to be such are only speaking nonsense because they haven't properly thought it out.

Of course the world is filled with many a kind of nerd, I wouldn't want to suggest we GNU nerds are the only type out there.

[John Caruso]

Thanks for the comments, Federico.

I'd say that Free Software nerds are almost by definition anti r.w.libertarian, and I suspect that many of those who claim to be such are only speaking nonsense because they haven't properly thought it out.

I'd agree with the second half, but not so much with the first. I don't think there's any contradiction between involvement with community projects, helping other users out with their problems, etc, and libertarianism (of any stripe). For one thing, right libertarians don't reject all forms of human contact and cooperation; their main driver is opposition to government authority in any form. Open source is in fact a perfect example of a libertarian (left or right) phenomenon, because it's an intentional community of individuals creating something for their mutual benefit. The same goes for many of the foundations of tech culture, which in many ways has been an attempt to handle complex interactions according to anarchist principles (keeping centralized authority to a minimum). Think of RFCs, Usenet, DNS, large software projects, groups like NANOG, and so on—everywhere you look you see attempts to self-organize and to avoid government authority. I'd actually argue that in many ways the modern Internet is the most prominent real-world expression of anarchist/libertarian principles.

Also, libertarianism doesn't necessarily imply a desire to monetize every interaction, so it's not like the absence of some kind of direct financial exchange in an interaction implies that the participants aren't libertarians. Even so, there've been plenty of projects that started as open source and then ended up being privatized/monetized in one way or another (Sendmail, Tripwire, Snort, vendor Linux distributions, and so on). And there are even major efforts out there to make money off of people helping one another.

Setting all that aside, there's another nerdly reason to contribute to software, answer questions in public forums, etc: status-seeking behavior. Writing a useful network daemon, demonstrating deep knowledge of code injection attacks, or giving the quickest and best answer to a thorny Perl question are exactly the ways someone becomes an alpha geek (or becomes recognized as one, which is the point). Anyone who's ever seen nerds engaged in a battle for technical one-upmanship knows that it can be barely a step up from loincloths and angry hooting. This isn't just about ideology—there are deeper forces at work, especially for nerds, for whom technical status may be a primary source of self-esteem. And I don't mean to say this is all-encompassing by any means; it's just part of the equation. Nonetheless, if Randian libertarianism is about establishing who is the "superior man", there's a lot of that going on in geekly interaction.

Finally, most human beings (regardless of their professed ideology) feel good when they can help someone out, and libertarians are no exception. Rare indeed are the people whose lives entirely match their slogan-level ideological views—which in most cases is a good thing.

Anyway, that's way too many words and I've barely scratched the surface (which is why I usually avoid bringing up libertarianism on here; there are a few subjects out there that can generate more pointless verbiage, but not bloody many).

[Charles F. Oxtrot]

nerds spend their formative years being turned into surly loners by the taunts and abuse of their intellectual inferiors. Since they've essentially been rejected by society, they reject society right back, embracing a political philosophy which raises "the individual" (read: them) above all else. Nobody ever cared about them, after all, so why should they care about anyone else? The nerd may grow beyond this feeling in adulthood, but the sense of being outside society is likely to linger.

you may be onto something here John. I think it's what you say, as well as the fact that any true nerd with high intelligence and good analytic skills will quickly conclude that Conservatives and Liberals are not worth following, and while the average nerd may want to elevate himself above others, merely identifying with Libertarians indicates a desire for group-relevance and group contact.

else they'd be anarchists.

personally, I like about 2% of what most "liberals" argue, about 5% of what most "conservatives" argue, about 7% of what most "libertarians" argue, and the rest of me agrees mainly with anarchists or at least minarchists.

[Elliot]

My favorite quote re: libertarians (from comments elsewhere, can't remember the author, sorry): "Well, the Libertarian Leaders and Funders are perfectly clueful about the consequence of Libertarianism for themselves. It means more money and power to people of their social class. . . . Libertarianism is about the Money, the Whole Money, and Nothing But The Money. That's all it ever will be. That's all it ever was. Just like Conservatism.
And now that Conservatism is taking on water, Libertarianism is the nearby ship which all the passengers will swim to, if they can make it."

[MrBozo]

Have you guys actually read Rothbard, or Mises, or Bastiat, or Hoppe, or Moldbug?

I'm not saying your ad hominems are not true. You are absolutely right in fact, most libertarians are nerds. Why? Well simply because you have got to be a nerd to spend that much time reading about economics, history and philosophy. And it's not like you win any prize by doing so, in fact one could argue that libertarians would be much better off financially and emotionally if they were NOT libertarians but mere liberal democracy-believers like everyone else.

So yeah, sure, most libertarians are nerds, but that in no way means libertarianism is wrong.

That's like saying, hey you know what? Most rocket scientists are nerds! Sure they are. Yet last time I checked rocket science works pretty damn well.

[John Caruso]

So yeah, sure, most libertarians are nerds, but that in no way means libertarianism is wrong.

Definitely not, but I didn't say anything like that. I'm guessing you came here by way of this nimrod, so you're probably misreading the posting based on the way he misrepresented it.