A couple of days ago, free marketeer watering hole The Distributed Republic picked up my post on libertarianism and nerdiness. The guy who posted the article, Randall McElroy III, seems to agree with my thesis, but the commentariat got all butthurt at my assertion – and in doing so, accidentally tarred themselves as a bunch of dweebs.
First up, Constant_, who’s discovered the TRUE purpose of my post:
It’s a roundabout argument that libertarianism is incorrect, but it achieves that result without directly challenging libertarianism on the merits. Instead, we get things like:
“More specifically I have to wonder if they are socially retarded.”
Insofar as there is a specific political position taken that opposes libertarianism, it is that people (apart from nerds) need the state to save them from vice. For example:
“If we accept the theory that religion exists to keep humanity’s excesses in check, and we accept that government exists for the same reason, it’s not much of a stretch to suggest that nerds disproportionately oppose both for the same reasons. The inability of these folks to drown themselves in sin that leads them to find religion pointless or silly would also lead many of them to think the same of government restrictions on sex, drug usage, and other vices.”
Certain key claims are being made here but not defended.
1) The function of religion is to protect people from vice such as drug use and promiscuity.
2) The function of government is also to protect people from vice.
3) Without government and religion, people would “drown themselves” in vice.
These are not defended, or rather, they are “defended” by calling anyone who doubts them “socially retarded”.
Not exactly the height of political philosophy.
Of course it’s not “the height of political philosophy” – it’s not supposed to BE political philosophy. It’s just a harmless observation on the nature of a particular group of ideologues. Not everyone is out to get you, sweetheart.
This is a trait shared by nerds, geeks, dorks, and all manner of social misfits and outcasts – extreme defensiveness. The nerd, being regularly picked on by his peers, eventually learns to respond to every slight by raising his fur, baring his claws, and hissing. His social intelligence is so poor that he’s incapable of distinguishing between true attacks on his character and innocuous comments, bringing the hammer down whenever he perceives his honor to be assaulted. When normal guys are in a friendly social setting, the default mode is to insult and put each other down, but nothing is meant by it – in fact, you could consider it a form of bonding. The nerd can’t handle these environments, responding to friendly jabs from others with a “fuck you” or something equally offensive, bringing a nuclear bomb to a pillowfight. Part of effective masculinity – hell, part of being a social creature in general is learning to relax, know when to fight, and know when to let things go. The nerd, social retard that he is, can’t grasp these nuances of human communication.
The rest of this guy’s comment is a long-winded diatribe at what he perceives to be my “anti-libertarian” political positions, and is actually longer then my post (exempting the parts of it that I didn’t write myself for that article). Talk about clueless. And self-defeating.
Next up, some joker named Scalping_Elmo takes issue with my discourse:
Here here!
I could blather on about all the vice I enjoy, how I integrate easily into the blackmarket (with the cool kids, as Bardamu contextualized it) and especially how I am very far from being socially retarded. I wont, because the very argument he had presented was fallacious on the whole.
The extent of the discourse was anecdotal correlation. No real data, no empirical causation, nothing.
The second paragraph is a rehashing of the tired, cliched “oh, I could refute everything you say SOOOOO easily, but I won’t because it would be TOOOOO easy.” Hint, keyboard warriors – this only works if you are an actual, credentialed super-genius in whatever field that’s being discussed. If you’re just an anonymous commenter, playing this card makes you look like an insecure fool. Insecurity – another unfortunate character trait of nerds.
And this guy is whining about my reliance on “anecdotal correlation.” Of course it’s anecdotal, dum-dum. I don’t get paid enough to do empirical research on obscure topics. If you want empirical evidence that libertarians are nerds, all you need to do is cut me a check so I can go out to the next Star Trek convention and take a straw poll. The money needs to cover airfare, room and board, and food and drink, as well as a hazmat suit rental so I don’t get any geek on me.
Constant_ returns with more nuttery:
On the bright side, the occasional need that non-libertarians seem to feel to explain away libertarianism as the product of a defective character shows that they do, in fact, feel a need to dismiss it. As if they felt their own ideas… threatened by it.
John Markley approaches with a similar tack:
I’ve long thought that libertarianism correlated pretty strongly with nerdishness- I just don’t think that’s a bad thing. People who criticize libertarianism on that basis are revealing far more about themselves than about libertarians.
Here’s the funny thing here – I’m not strictly against libertarianism. I’m not a libertarian because I find the ideology flawed in some ways, but I’d merrily prefer being ruled by a cadre of Mises-quoting, Ron Paul-supporting liberty lovers to the current left-wing nincompoops in charge. I have a basic idea for a post entitled “Why I am a conservative and not a libertarian” somewhere in my metaphorical filing cabinet, but I’m too lazy and disinterested to actually write it. If you want someone who’s ACTUALLY trying to attack libertarianism by tarring its proponents as maladjusted weirdos, try this guy. Nasty stuff.
All things considered, I still love you guys, but you need to learn to chillax, put your feet up, and not respond to every critique like your mom’s honor is being impugned. Some game wouldn’t hurt either.
PROGRAMMING NOTE: The December Stupid Girl of the Month and Hater of the Month Awards, which are normally held on the second and third of each month respectively, have been delayed until later next week. What, you thought I was going to work on a weekend – New Years Weekend at that? Hahahahaha…
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
On Jan 1, 2010, I hereby declare this decade as a War on Misandry :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
Victory, in 2020, is already in sight.
On the bright side, the occasional need that non-libertarians seem to feel to explain away libertarianism as the product of a defective character shows that they do, in fact, feel a need to dismiss it. As if they felt their own ideas… threatened by it.
We feel the need to dismiss it because it is frequently a bad influence on public policy.
One of the most damning charges against libertarianism is that it comes out of a defective theory of human nature. And, yes, one of the reasons we know that that theory is defective is that it is espoused primarily by people who have trouble understanding other people.
Um,
Libertarians understand human nature all too well. If men are not angels, it’s the epitome of stupidity to expand the powers they have over us. I wonder what Dave in Hawaii (aka Hawaiian Libertarian) would have to say about your statement that libertarians have problems understanding other people.
Anyway, on a lighter note, I wonder how many Alphas and naturals write blogs about literature, politics, and theories of female attraction. In my neck of the woods, they go hunting, fishing, and play X-box probably. Blogging? Er … um ;-)
If you want someone who’s ACTUALLY trying to attack libertarianism by tarring its proponents as maladjusted weirdos, try this guy.
Nope, completely wrong. And coming from someone who’s just identified most libertarians as nerds and nerds as insecure and extremely defensive social retards, this shows a pretty impressive lack of self-awareness.
I’m sure you’re just stung that you didn’t come up with “libnerdtarianism”, though, so no hard feelings.
Thursday:
Since when has libertarianism had ANY influence on public policy?
Anakin Niceguy:
When you have a pointless job, anything is possible.
“This guy”:
Heh, don’t be a bad sport.
You apparently aren’t privy to the “fat kid” rule. It’s not okay to call the fat kid fat…until he starts insulting you. Then you and your friends gang up on his fat ass.
Since when has libertarianism had ANY influence on public policy?
Uh, it’s had a wildly disproportionate amount of influence. Deregulation, free trade, unchecked immigration, unrestricted access to pornography etc. have all been put into practice. Randroids like Alan Greenspan get appointed to the fed. Libertarian intellectuals are the sanctioned opposition, and they often, though not always, get their policies enacted into law.
Its the actual conservatives who have had zero influence on public policy. Immigration enforcement, abortion restrictions, keeping gay marriage illegal, repealing no fault divorce. All these are dead in the water, despite often considerable public support.
To the extent that the Republicans aren’t just pork barrellers, it is the libertarians who are in charge. Look at what happened when an actual conservative Christian like Mike Huckabee threatened to become their nominee. The party’s alleged social conservatism is only lip service to reel in stupid religious voters.
Thursday:
I’ll give you those first two, but I always thought loose immigration policies and pornography/licentiousness were the province of, well, liberals.
Your opponents are right about one thing; you never argue against libertarianism but merely make circumstantial ad hominem assertions about libertarians.
You sometimes fail to evaluate things (e.g. libertarianism) on their merits but rather whether such things are indicative of “alpha” or “beta” behavior. (“Libertarians are nerdy betas.”)
Granted, some people overreact to any sort of criticism, even faulty ones like anecdotal observations, broad generalizations and the like. But that was the idea all along, right? Getting a rise out of libertarians the was the point, wasn’t it? Those who overreacted to the post were supposed to look self-refuting or whatever due to their being too emotionally attached to their views. This might make that handful of respondents look like idiots, but it still doesn’t address anything about libertarian views, per se.
If you have a post about why you aren’t a libertarian, let us see it. The alternative is that readers will think that discussion here is not about trying to arrive at a correct view on the topic at hand and is merely a vehicle for you to show off how “alpha” you are in rejecting this or that point of view. I say that in the kindest way-you are too smart to rely on what amounts to elaborate name calling in lieu of argument.
no one:
That’s because I’m NOT TRYING to argue against libertarianism.
Uh, that’s kind of the idea.
Actually, no, the point was to throw out an idea for consideration. The “rise” was incidental and merely provided material for another post.
You’ll see it when I’m motivated enough to write it – which isn’t happening any time soon.
Showing off is beta.
Happy New Year, btw.
I took a shot at a semi-famous libertarian (Kerry Howley) over the summer (“The Atlantic’s Fifteen Ideas to Fix the World”), noting that how politically tone-deaf as well as pointless her idea was.
I’m sympathetic to some of their positions in principal, but libertarians seem to be incredibly obtuse about the facts on the ground in the real world.
Doesn’t look like that link took, so here it is: http://thehackensack.blogspot.com/2009/06/atlantics-fifteen-ideas-to-fix-world.html
Ironically, when someone is too nerdy (Asperger’s), they often end up on welfare.
Thursday:
You are cherry-picking and exaggerating a lot here. For start, the example of Greenspan is an inaccurate cheap shot. Not that I have much sympathy for either Randroids or Greenspan, but the post-1960s Greenspan has been a Randroid about as much as the post-1960s Irving Kristol was a Trotskyist.
Some vaguely libertarian policies have indeed been enacted in recent decades, but this is true only to the extent that they are compatible with the reigning left liberalism. Think about fundamentally non-liberal libertarian standpoints such as sound money, repeal of all laws against private discrimination, principled rejection of environmentalist metaphysics and ethics, or opposition to anti-smoking and other paternalistic public health crusades. All these are completely dead and hopeless — certainly at least as hopeless as the conservative viewpoints you listed. Also, think about a hypothetical libertarian reform that would cause a real shrinking of regulatory bureaucracies and an actual decrease in the amount of paperwork and lawyering necessary to do business in general. How realistic is that prospect, even if feeble flashes of it seemed to appear at some point many years ago under Reagan and Thatcher?
You seem to be not only considering the Beltway libertarians and “liberaltarians” as representative of libertarianism in general, but also buying their own self-serving, self-important propaganda. These people are basically applying the neoconservative ideological strategy. They’ll ditch all fundamental principles and compromise on all essential matters in order to focus on a handful of issues where some tactical Pyrrhic victories can be won, and then congratulate themselves endlessly on their triumph and curse those paleo-nutcase losers who have the effrontery to point out that they’ve only created a minor nuisance for their still absolutely dominant liberal opponents — at the price of becoming virtually indistinguishable from them. Yes, there are plenty of such libertarians, but there are plenty of such conservatives too.
You say, “libertarian intellectuals are the sanctioned opposition.” This is mostly true for the mainstream and wannabe-mainstream outfits ranging from the Chicago School to the Cato Institute. (I used that exact same term in a comment on your blog once to describe the modern “liberaltarians.”) However, notice how you take care to make sure you’re talking about “actual conservatives” and to distance yourself from the pathetic, unprincipled, intellectually feeble conservative sanctioned opposition that the mass media are full of, and which forms the overwhelming majority of what passes for the public voice of conservatism nowadays. Thus, you should consider that there are also principled libertarians to whom this designation definitely doesn’t apply. Would you describe, say, Hans-Hermann Hoppe or the late Murray Rothbard as “sanctioned opposition”? However crazy their ideas may seem, you can’t possibly claim that their ideology has ever had any impact on the liberal mainstream. (In fact, the closest Rothbard ever got to mainstream politics was when he sought alliance with Pat Buchanan in 1992.)
Other than the fact that nerds tend to be borderline or outright fascists when they don’t get their way, eh, no problem at all.
You talk as though there isn’t a causal relationship between the people and the views…
Just FYI, I don’t know much game, but I’m a vocal hard-core libertarian, and I get laid. Libertarianism does correlate w/ nerdiness – and my hotness is a nerdy hotness – but it still gets the chicks.
Umm..wow. I just read the comment thread and one or two guys took exceptions to your post, but certainly not “the commentariat”. You seem pretty freaked out about this.
{ 4 trackbacks }