I’ve noted before my dim view of the way many engineers tend to approach political theorizing. In The Trouble With Libertarian Activism, criticizing one author’s arguments against principle and anarchism, I observed “that many brash young libertarians of the activist flavor who are not all that interested in theory” are “often unfamiliar with the great body of libertarian literature and want to reinvent the wheel from a clean slate”–and that many engineers “take a similar pragmatic, isolated, almost anti-intellectual approach in their views on politics”. I previously suggested that this is because engineers think they are “best and brightest,” and because of the scientism that pervades engineering education, that they mistakenly believes that they can solve social problems by some kind of brute force empirical-practical engineering type solution.
What an excellent observation from Dvorak.
Re my comments about engineers: some have gotten their back up about it. I have pointed out to them that I am a (former) engineer as well, and know many of them; and while they are preferable to attorneys, and are good in their jobs, and while libertarian engineers are fine by me, I am not talking not about engineers doing engineering. I am talking about their m.o. when they try to develop political views. (and I speak here of non-libertarian engineers; they think you can do-it-yourself and concoct an entire philosophy by brute force; after all, they are smarter than the liberal arts majors, why do they need to waste time reading them?)
Gary Hunt perceptively commented, however:
Good article! I know what you mean about engineers. I am an architect so I work with them on a regular basis. Their thinking is what many architects describe as linear. In other words, “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line”. However, quite frequently the straight line is not the best solution.
I also disagree with Milsted’s contention that sometmes “the economies of scale” justifies the theft for defense, roads ect…. It appears he has not worked in the real world. My experience has been that public works projects cost significantly more than private ones. In fact I know a contractor who bids on many government projects. His method of bidding is to price it as if it were a private job then double the price. He gets a lot of government work.
Another perceptive comment about engineers from Max Schwing (Karlsruhe):
I understand your point of view and it tends to be coherent with mine about engineers in general, because we have been indoctrinated into approaching problems from a rational and planning point of view. Therefore we tend to think that we can solve anything by applying mechanical principles to them, especially when it comes to political problems or societies at large. I think it is best said that engineers would like to “engineer society” (Brave New World – style ?!). However, I also know engineers who are looking beyond this view on society and are also interested in the “human or social arts” (as they are called in Germany).
But to persuade an engineer of it, you have to take the economics way of doing it, because we are largely more open to such arguments, than we are to general philosophical ones. I am studying mechanical engineering, so I am closest to the future engineers in Germany and despite that Germany is a social-democratic country, those young bright students are divided between the two big socialist parties (CDU and SPD).
Somehow, engineers still think of the world and society as a mechanical device. So, we are somehow struck in the 19th century, when it comes to society. But still there is hope to get them to the liberal side.
LRC must be getting ever-more-popular, because I am seeing an increase in the number of replies to my latest LRC piece on libertarian activism.
Most of the replies have been favorable, e.g:
one of many:
As a recovering activist/do-gooder I whole-heartedly thank you for writing this fine article. The brevity and clarity of it will provide me with a far better tool than my normal rambling to explain to others why I now detest all activists, and the harm their unprincipled actions cause.
Thank you for your efforts to share the light of a principled existence.
However, some of the comments I’ve received from activists have been amusing–they illustrate the activist myopia I critique in my article.
Humorously, one lady, with the “VICFA Voice, the monthly publication of the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (vicfa.net), an all-volunteer grass-roots group,” wrote me “because of my perception of the lack of willingness of libertarians in general (not the ones in our group) to ACT to change what they oppose.” Ha–did she even read my article? Activists have such myopia they think even anti-activists are activists!One correspondent wrote, “My problem with Anarchocapitalist models is
that they offer no proof that if the proposed enforcement mechanisms actually work,”
My reply:
Again; you activist types can’t help but imposing “what works” as a standard to critique substantive normative assertions. It’s very exasperating that you don’t even seem to be aware there is a difference.
Another wrote me to argue how successful Milsted has been in Libertarian activism. My reply:
Any activist success does not gainsay my points. In fact, to point to them in this context, as you do here, seems to illustrate my point that activist types just can’t separate strategical concerns from questions of truth and right and wrong.
This guy also scolded me for “making blanket judgments” and said that Milsted’s effect has been positive, to which I said:
These are unconnected statements which are set forth as if they are related. First, I don’t know what a “blanket judgment” is or what you mean; or why you oppose them. I am not a California relativist hippie who “doesn’t like labeling, man.” And in any event, whether he is successful strategically, is wholly irrelevant and has nothing to do with your hortation to avoid “blanket judgments.” If you are trying to say some of my comments were too broad or inaccurate, go ahead and explain why.
In response to hims comment that I don’t “like” what I read in Milsted, I replied:
It’s not that I don’t like it; it’s that it is flawed and is arguing for socialistic measures (taxes).
I am a libertarian, not a socialist.
I am also not one of the starry-eyed activist types. that is not my gig. I have seen nothing to show that Milsted offers much on topics that intereset me–rights and legal theory, and the like. That is not to criticize him; we just have different interests. I’m glad he’s had political success; but in the realm of theory, which is what I was criticizing when he ventured, I disagree strongly with his reasoning and method and conclusions. Sorry to label this so plainly.
He told me Milstead is “about trying different things that move us in the right direction to see what works.” I replied:
That empiricist mindset is not surprising; I think it is correlated with the activist types. The principled types tend to have more of an apriori or deductive or normative framework. Anyway, I don’t think of people being “about” things. Not my way of communicating or conceptualizing things.
Then he said “We should move in the direction of privatizing all types of security, but we need to get that concept on the roadmap before we can get closer.” My response:
You activist types speak in terms of what is next; the “roadmap”; etc. Do you not even see how mired your (plural) thinking is in such concepts? There is nothing wrong with activism in general; but be aware of the difference between tactics employed to achieve political goals, and positions on truth and right and rights.
Yes, we need to have priorities and do “certain things first”–like have jobs and normal lives, and not believe there is some altruistic duty to delude oneself into thinking one is “making a diffrence” by devoting a large portion of one’s life, time, and resources to a futile attempt to ever-so-slightly increase the chance that we will have a very small and very temporary decrease in the rate of increase of tyranny, for the benefit largely of our socialist-advocating neighbors who don’t deserve it. If that’s your hobby, fine. In a way, it’s mine, but I realize I’m in it for the fight, for the process; not because I delude myself that liberty is just around the corner.
He also criticized my critique of Milsted because it is “widening the divide” instead of “bridging the gap between theorists and activists”; that I should not “excommunicate” Milsted; my response was:
You see, it is the activist mindset that leads you to judge my substantive comments on the grounds of whether it widens the gap, etc. Are you saying my substantive comments and reasoning are wrong? Or that I should not utter them in public?
BTW I did not excommunicate Milsted; I have no power to do so and I would not anyway. And let’s be clear here: if anyone did anything wrong, it was Milsted, for using his perch to call for institutionalized theft. If you want to get indignant, get indignant at him. He is advocating criminality; I am criticizing him for it. Think about what you are doing: you are blaming the victim; instead of criticizing the statist you are criticizing his libertarian critic!
Saying we “need everyone to man the oars” is such an activist mentality. I tend to think in terms of what I and my family “need”. I am not a sacrificial beast whose life is to be spent in a futile attempt to marginally benefit others. Have we libertarians turned into altruists? Do it if you want; but exhortations like this imply we libertarians have a duty to be activists. We do not. Our only libertarian duty is to avoid endorsing or employing aggression.
Re my comments about engineers: some have gotten their back up about it. I have pointed out to them that I am a (former) engineer as well, and know many of them; and while they are preferable to attorneys, and are good in their jobs, and while libertarian engineers are fine by me, I am not talking not about engineers doing engineering. I am talking about their m.o. when they try to develop political views. (and I speak here of non-libertarian engineers; they think you can do-it-yourself and concoct an entire philosophy by brute force; after all, they are smarter than the liberal arts majors, why do they need to waste time reading them?)
Gary Hunt perceptively commented, however:
Good article! I know what you mean about engineers. I am an architect so I work with them on a regular basis. Their thinking is what many architects describe as linear. In other words, “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line”. However, quite frequently the straight line is not the best solution.
I also disagree with Milsted’s contention that sometmes “the economies of scale” justifies the theft for defense, roads ect…. It appears he has not worked in the real world. My experience has been that public works projects cost significantly more than private ones. In fact I know a contractor who bids on many government projects. His method of bidding is to price it as if it were a private job then double the price. He gets a lot of government work.
Thanks again for the good article.
Another perceptive comment about engineers from Max Schwing (Karlsruhe):
Dear Mr. Kinsella,
I understand your point of view and it tends to be coherent with mine
about engineers in general, because we have been indoctrinated into approaching problems from a rational and planning point of view. Therefore we tend to think that we can solve anything by applying mechanical principles to them, especially when it comes to political problems or societies at large. I think it is best said that engineers would like to “engineer society” (Brave New World – style ?!). However, I also know engineers who are looking beyond this view on society and are also interested in the “human or social arts” (as they are called in Germany).
But to persuade an engineer of it, you have to take the economics way of doing it, because we are largely more open to such arguments, than we are to general philosophical ones. I am studying mechanical engineering, so I am closest to the future engineers in Germany and despite that Germany is a social-democratic country, those young bright students are divided between the two big socialist parties (CDU and SPD).
Somehow, engineers still think of the world and society as a mechanical device. So, we are somehow struck in the 19th century, when it comes to society. But still there is hope to get them to the liberal side.
My buddy Robert Capozzi also has a gadfly-ish blogpost about this here; your boy Milsted replies here.
***
Robert Kaercher replies to Milsted in a separate piece here.
***
Milsted’s further reply, Attack of the Hegelian Anarchists; and some blogposts: A Priori Anarchists; and Kevin Rollins’ post Theory and Consequences; and The Seen and the Unseen; and Capozzi’s You Can’t Get There from Here.
I’m an engineer, but I had not heard the term “engineer’s syndrome” before. I can’t believe I agree with John Dvorak on something, since he’s often so full of crap, but yeah, that quote from him sounds quite accurate. Since college, I could never reconcile how all my engineering classmates could lean so far to the left politically. I figured it was just that everyone’s young and stupid in college, but seriously, we’re supposed to be the logical type, I thought: it should be obvious that that all of these state-based solutions to everything don’t work on the logical basis that the state has no profit incentive to make them work.
Well, having been out in the real world for a few years in a senior position in a small engineering firm, I think I’ve noticed a few things. First and foremost, engineering school teaches you almost nothing. It doesn’t teach any practical engineering concepts, just complicated theory which you almost never use in the real world. But if you can get through engineering school, because they make it so difficult and obtuse, you feel this smug sense that you can do anything. My experience in hiring dozens of them is that they know nothing and expect everything from the world when they come out of school. They were good at school, and that has nothing to do with the real world. It’s nearly impossible to get young engineers to do anything useful nowadays, because they know nothing, but think they know everything and don’t need to learn any more. I’ve probably learned 100 times more stuff (useful stuff) since I got OUT of school, compared to when I was in it. Working closely in the business aspects of a small company has also helped to give that much bigger picture that engineers need to have but few do or even think they need to have.
Most of my classmates were going on to graduate school, so they could probably enter back into academia or something. Again, it’s avoidance (intentional or naive, it doesn’t matter) of the real world where engineering, which involves tough decisions, actually happens. Seriously, a Masters in Engineering has almost zero practical utility in a real engineering environment. It might get you a better salary (for no good reason), and it in all likelihood is a detriment to you because it keeps you out of real-world problem-solving situations for another two years.
The engineers I’ve met, however, who either own their own businesses or at least work some place where they have to consider costs (the essential other half of being an engineer that they don’t teach you in school) have universally been conservative, libertarian, right-leaning, anti-state, you get the point in their political beliefs. If you don’t come to quickly realize that you know very little in both engineering and life, despite your B.S., M.S., or Ph.D, you’re doing it wrong. And really, if you don’t have to actually look at the costs of things and realize that the only reason you have a job is that your company has made unique and difficult decisions for itself in order to try to turn a profit (something governments have no incentive to do), then, yeah you’ll be in a little wonderland where you think you think you and entities like the state can solve everything if you just “engineer” it enough. Experienced engineers should know that taking the simplest path to a solution is often the best one. In the real world in general, the simplest, most effective path to a solution virtually NEVER goes through a government office.
Great stuff, thanks. An analogous insecurity is NIH: Not Invented Here.
There are always shoulders beneath. Og made a pointed stick long before Atlas ever shrugged.