Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

matduggan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 418 posts

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#61

Post by vrganj »

slopinthebag wrote: post #55
vrganj wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course those people suck, but the solution isn't government. Why? That seems like a big assertion to make in a side sentence without any supporting argument.

Well, governments are coercive forces with a total monopoly on the legal system and the use of violence. Perhaps monopolies being bad is reason enough? There are the hundreds of millions (billions?) of people murdered by governments throughout history, including the many atrocities modern governments are committing today, which is almost surely reason enough. And then there are the philosophical arguments against pol…

In a democratic society, government is the representative of the people.

It is also the only entity powerful enough to stand up to other monopolies, businesses, which are dictatorships without any democratic control.

There will always be a power structure. I'd prefer one I can vote out.

The fundamental flaw in any type of libertarian / anarchist thinking is denying the reality that power will always be concentrated somehow. The libertarian fantasy would result in neofeudalism, if theres no state to stop it.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#62

Post by tempaccount5050 »

spinningslate wrote: post #40
tempaccount5050 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought that the hippie environmental types wanting data (music) stored as plastic was ironic. "I prefer my music to be made of petrochemicals and trees, the way it ought to be." I get it, but I still think it's funny.

Instead of what - vast data centres full of electronics, consuming huge quantities of electricity, controlled by techno-feudalistic megacorps who keep almost all of the money and supply a pittance to the artists? Everything has a cost but those records, CDs and cassettes look like a good deal from here. I still have LPs I inherited from my parents. They still play on my 20 year old turntable.

No, store it on your computer/phone/iPod. But honestly data centers are probably very efficient for this. I'm not going to do the math, but storing data on flash and serving it to billions of people probably is efficient if I had to guess.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#63

Post by igor47 »

slopinthebag wrote: post #55
vrganj wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course those people suck, but the solution isn't government. Why? That seems like a big assertion to make in a side sentence without any supporting argument.

Well, governments are coercive forces with a total monopoly on the legal system and the use of violence. Perhaps monopolies being bad is reason enough? There are the hundreds of millions (billions?) of people murdered by governments throughout history, including the many atrocities modern governments are committing today, which is almost surely reason enough. And then there are the philosophical arguments against pol…

But in a democracy, you at least have input! Google is also a coercive force with no real checks on its power, but it doesn't care about anything you have to say. That's the difference, that's it, right there. The answer to abuse of power is not to just unleash raw power, its to subordinate and restrict it. That's what government is for. When you find yourself arguing that power you participate in is bad and shouldn't restraint power you have 0 influence in, that's when it's time to wonder if they've gotten to you.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#64

Post by szvsw »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #21
wiseowise wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. I’ll gladly take CDs and DVDs over modern streaming platforms. Before all of this streaming crap music and taste had weight. You find people with the same interests and you share physical medium. No corporation in the world had a power to stop me from giving my copy to another person. Now you either like and pay forever like a good cattle or you hide like a rat from the watchful copyright gods on torrents.

I've always thought that the hippie environmental types wanting data (music) stored as plastic was ironic. "I prefer my music to be made of petrochemicals and trees, the way it ought to be." I get it, but I still think it's funny.

Not sure why petrochemicals and trees ie hydrocarbons are any more or less absurd than the silicon, metals, etc quarried and mined from around the world needed to store information digitally in data centers (or mobile devices).

Storing data of any kind in plastic as opposed to silicon metal seems like a meaningless distinction that only comes about from imagining that there is some disembodied, ethereal and platonic notion of digital “data” which is decoupled from any physical substrate. everything is always materialized and mediated through some complex, and probably vaguely arcane, geologically extractive process in some way.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#65

Post by slopinthebag »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #36

The problem with [conservative] libertarians is that they are half anarchists. They support "radical individualism" (anarchy) and "free market absolutism" (hierarchy). This is a blatant contradiction no matter how you talk your way out of it. If you are participating in a free market, then you are subject to corporations. The conclusion of libertarian ideals is that one must both allow corporations to rule over them,…

> They support "radical individualism" (anarchy) and "free market absolutism" (hierarchy). This is a blatant contradiction no matter how you talk your way out of it.

Not quite, they support property rights, which is something that social anarchists implicitly accept as well, they just have a different conception of how that would work. To a right anarchist or libertarian, "Free market absolution" is not an ideology or a goal, it's just the result of private property rights + freedom of association.

Most right-wing libertarians and right-wing anarchists (allow me this even if you disagree with the phrase) are against copyright because it's nonsensical in their conception of what property is and how property rights work. I would assume that left leaning libertarians and social anarchists would also similarly agree that copyright is nonsense but I'm not so sure - the time I spent in those communities have me wondering if they even hate authority and hierarchy, or if they simply desire their own forms of it. Many indeed defend copyright.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#66

Post by rini17 »

georgehotz wrote: post #29

Maybe it's just my contrarian nature, but this sells me on cyberlibertarianism. There's nothing preventing you from setting up a web server, downloading free software to run it, getting your friends to view it, building encrypted communication apps that no government can crack, pirating any piece of content in the world, etc... A libertarian society won't coddle you, and there's psychopaths like Meta who show up in t…

If you have friends with some shared meaning then anything is easy.

Everyone else can get get strip mined for attention and croak, you don't care.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#67

Post by mistrial9 »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #21
wiseowise wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. I’ll gladly take CDs and DVDs over modern streaming platforms. Before all of this streaming crap music and taste had weight. You find people with the same interests and you share physical medium. No corporation in the world had a power to stop me from giving my copy to another person. Now you either like and pay forever like a good cattle or you hide like a rat from the watchful copyright gods on torrents.

I've always thought that the hippie environmental types wanting data (music) stored as plastic was ironic. "I prefer my music to be made of petrochemicals and trees, the way it ought to be." I get it, but I still think it's funny.

[dead]

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#68

Post by arto »

vrganj wrote: post #61
slopinthebag wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, governments are coercive forces with a total monopoly on the legal system and the use of violence. Perhaps monopolies being bad is reason enough? There are the hundreds of millions (billions?) of people murdered by governments throughout history, including the many atrocities modern governments are committing today, which is almost surely reason enough. And then there are the philosophical arguments against pol…

In a democratic society, government is the representative of the people. It is also the only entity powerful enough to stand up to other monopolies, businesses, which are dictatorships without any democratic control. There will always be a power structure. I'd prefer one I can vote out. The fundamental flaw in any type of libertarian / anarchist thinking is denying the reality that power will always be concentrated s…

Corporations are state-created and state-protected entities. Remove limited liability and other special state privileges from businesses and you'll have a lot less to complain about.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#69

Post by rini17 »

slopinthebag wrote: post #55
vrganj wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course those people suck, but the solution isn't government. Why? That seems like a big assertion to make in a side sentence without any supporting argument.

Well, governments are coercive forces with a total monopoly on the legal system and the use of violence. Perhaps monopolies being bad is reason enough? There are the hundreds of millions (billions?) of people murdered by governments throughout history, including the many atrocities modern governments are committing today, which is almost surely reason enough. And then there are the philosophical arguments against pol…

Since monopolies make stuff scarce and expensive, you basically want free market for violence, it should be be cheap and abundant?

And all the DDoS and crytocurrency extortions and scams should extend to meatspace too, and you would be okay with it because it's supposedly still better than what govts do?

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#70

Post by slopinthebag »

igor47 wrote: post #63
slopinthebag wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, governments are coercive forces with a total monopoly on the legal system and the use of violence. Perhaps monopolies being bad is reason enough? There are the hundreds of millions (billions?) of people murdered by governments throughout history, including the many atrocities modern governments are committing today, which is almost surely reason enough. And then there are the philosophical arguments against pol…

But in a democracy, you at least have input! Google is also a coercive force with no real checks on its power, but it doesn't care about anything you have to say. That's the difference, that's it, right there. The answer to abuse of power is not to just unleash raw power, its to subordinate and restrict it. That's what government is for. When you find yourself arguing that power you participate in is bad and shouldn'…

The amount of input we have is virtually zero. I have never had a candidate I felt represented me, I have never had a candidate who I voted for win an election, and I have never had a a party who the candidate voted for win an election. Thus my minuscule "input" had absolutely zero impact, both in elections and on my life as a whole.

The reason democracy is better than other forms of governance is that it provides incentives for those in power which are better aligned with the upholding of human rights and protection against abuse. Myself casting a vote every few years is de facto meaningless.

Post reply on HN