To better phrase it: I feel that the problems being solved with software on this community, while valuable, are typically addressed at other geeks, upper-middle class consumers, entrepreneurs, and the startup community.
I think we can agree that nearly no discussions on this site center around using our technical expertise at solving the problems facing those who are impoverished, ill, unemployed, discriminated-against, and/or facing extreme difficulty accessing the sort of quality of life many of us enjoy. Much of the solutions here have either low relevance or high barriers of entry (be it cost, technology, or educational background) for that population.
I'm seeking a community, be it a hackerspace, online community, conference, or similar that focuses on solutions that are driven more by social impact than profit.
While I disagree with libertarians on many issues, I did not mean to say that they do not consider these problems. I apologize
Why geeks, upper-middle-class, etc? That's where the perception of easy money is, and you see a lot of it here because this is one of the target audiences.
Why startup community or fellow geeks? There is a mantra to solve a problem you have, which means there are a lot of geek- or startup-related apps.
I would also ask you to believe that there are many people who are working on products outside of the "consumer app" space that doesn't advertise, per se, on this site.
Libertarians, as much as most other political thinkers (of non-Machiavelli type) care about roughly the same thing: well-being of people. It just so happens that the libertarian discourse is usually concentrated around rather deep root causes: unjust property laws, the seizure of power and wealth by the elite, obstacles built by elites that prevent people from producing their own subsistence.
This is a bit different from, let's call it, philanthropic discourse that usually concentrates on more immediate problems, e.g. providing hunger relief or better education in affected regions. These problems can be very serious and long-term (like elimination of diseases that may take decades) but usually are not about principal changes in the structure of the society.
There are, of course, other schools of thought that offer deep social changes to help people live better. But a significant number of geeks is attracted by libertarian ideas because they are so minimalist (as compared to e.g. socialism, as seen in much of Europe) and so pro-freedom (as compared to e.g. corporate etatism as seen e.g. in Singapore or Russia).
On topic: unfortunately, I don't know about a philanthropic geek community hub. My philanthropic activity is limited to monetary donations. But you could ask IT people from philanthropic projects, e.g. watsi.com; probably they know where like-minded people congregate.
What are your opinions of the article's arguments?
What about comparing under-privileged from 1917 to 1988 in USA vs. Russia?
Do you have any counter-examples?
Edit: And until the collapse of European communism, the answer to your first example is North Korea.
For example, I’m about as socialist as it gets, but I think free markets are an enormously powerful and efficient tools and that, in the grand scheme of things, they have been a huge net-win for the world. I just don’t think they are perfect and can solve every problem (better than alternative solutions could). That’s all.
Similar arguments apply to other things that are near and dear to libertarians’ hearts.
To me libertarianism is lazy extrapolating.
Remember that Marx's "Socialism" was the utopian part that came after "Communism" where people would simply contribute what they could willingly, and take only what they needed gratefully.
Like other utopian fantasies this has never been accomplished on any large scale in any society anywhere.
While I certainly agree with you that free-market capitalism is much better macroeconomics, it's important to remember that just as the military is not the end-all/be-all of "winning wars" (just look at Iraq or Vietnam for proof), neither is capitalism the sole societal device needed for "the general welfare".
If nothing else, government has a big role to play in ensuring that vigorous competition actually is present in a free market (witness the disaster of having a few large banks "too big to fail" due to previous deregulation). They also ensure that "externalities" in operating a given business are not charged to the public at large. Government has also typically proven much better at helping to provide things the public needs that don't have short-term profit potential, yet eventually prove necessary for a stronger economy. Free public education, extensive infrastructure, etc. in the Western democracies is a very large reason why the entrepreneurs can rely on there even being available a workforce with the needed knowledge, skills and abilities (to use an HR term).
Just like anything else it's possible to have too much government, but that's essentially axiomatic.
Here's the thing, if Libertarians actually stayed true to the underlying principle of Libertarianism (the sovereignty of the individual over his own person, body and labor), and also stayed honest about what it means to have a free market (which follows from individual sovereignty over their person and labor), then I would become an ardent supporter. Unfortunately, as this article points out, most libertarians completely betray these principles when they argue for 100% sovereign rights over land and any other of the finite resources of this planet. If you understand the free-market, and you looked at it honestly, then you would realize that land ownership (defined as ownership in perpetuity) is completely antithetical to the free market, because you can essentially buy an infinite amount of something (perpetual ownership) for a finite cost.
In my opinion, a true Libertarian would realize that some things are part of The Commons, and by necessity we need to figure out a communal way for managing The Commons. If we want the free market to manage the commons, then we have to first treat it like the commons (e.g. we are all owners, and are all owed a share of the ground rent).