Who gets stuck with advocacy?

[Justin Wells]

Sorry to interrupt, but, since you pulled out the philosophy card, I 
couldn't help responding to this:

On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 01:44:53AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs.com>:
> > Frankly, perhaps what I object to is your self-characterization as
> > ``public advocate for the hacker tribe'' (from ``Take My Job,
> > Please!'').

  ...

> In particular, I
> can find no good alternative to advocating what I see as your interests
> even if I *know* I am not modeling the beliefs of some minority you are
> part of.
> 
> I say "I can find no good alternative" because the alternative is for me to be
> paralyzed in effectively representing the many by the objections of the few.
> 
> I am a libertarian anarchist -- I reject the theory that a majority
> vote can ever justify the use or threat of force.

  ...

> 
> It's simple.  Do I do the hacker culture more good by speaking, knowing
> that some hackers disagree with my portrait of it, than I would by keeping
> silent because somebody somewhere objects?

  ...

> Is what I do moving us towards a world of better software?  More freedom?
> More contexts in which hackers can pursue their art without starving?

As a "libertarian anarchist", how could you possible claim to want to be
the representative of others in order to do good? 

Can a good student of objectivism ever act altruistically, in order
to benefit the lot of starving hackers? Can a self-respecting
anarchist claim to be the public representative of a conforming
majority?

The libertarian-anarchist position would more likely be a self-interested
effort to increase one's own reputation, without regard to what anyone
else thinks. In other words, the reputation game.

Justin