Getting political the right way: The Mark Shuttleworth example
Tim O'Reilly recently defended his decision to put a political endorsement on his blog (spoiler for those who don't know how Sonoma County votes: He's for Obama), and did a reasonably good job of supporting the decision. Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu, however, does a much better job in a post of his own.
Mark's secret? Stick to principles, not parties.
Mark doesn't talk about politics at all, per se, though they're hiding just behind his words. Instead, he talks about the value of regulated capitalism, and gives testimony of his time living in post-Soviet Russia as a reason for believing in capitalism...but not unfettered capitalism:
The leaders and decision makers in a centrally planned economy are just as fallible as those in a capitalist one--they would probably be the same people! But state enterprises lack the forces of evolution that apply in a capitalist economy--state enterprises are rarely if ever allowed to fail. And hence bad ideas are perpetuated indefinitely, and an economy becomes dysfunctional to the point of systemic collapse. It is the fact that private enterprises fail which keeps industries vibrant. The tension between the imperative to innovate and the consequences of failure drives capitalist economies to evolve quickly. Despite all of the nasty consequences that we have seen, and those we have yet to see, of capitalism gone wrong, I am still firmly of the view that society must tap into its capitalist strengths if it wants to move forward.
But I chose my words carefully when I said "regulated capitalism". I used to be a fan of Adam Smith's invisible hand, and great admirer of Ayn Rand's vision. Now, I feel differently. Left to its own devices, the market will tend to reinforce the position of those who were successful in the past, at the exclusion of those who might create future successes. We see evidence of this all the time. The heavyweights that define an industry tend to do everything in their power to prevent innovation from changing the rules that enrich them.
Mark then goes on to explain the attributes of successful regulators. It's well worth reading, and serves as a poignant reminder of how to get involved in politics without getting political.
I don't fault Tim for wanting to get the vote out in behalf of his preferred candidate. But I think public figures like Tim and Mark have a duty to use their influence with caution and care, and I think Mark's promotion of right principles is a better way than Tim's declaration of right candidates.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Either way, tech leaders endorsing a candidate or another, is no different to me than Paris Hilton endorsing a candidate. They're people, like you and me, just with mountains of more cash. ;-)
Of course, if you don't get that I don't suppose you would have the basest understanding of economics.
So maybe the best thing the new President can do is get out of the way and not veto essential bills (as has been happening) but that's still something that would be anaethema to any hardened Randroid.
Mark - Napa County
Mark: Shuttleworth's entitled to his opinion, even if I don't agree with his conclusion, or his candidate. At least he has reasons, whereas most others couldn't articulate them if they tried.
The problem with outside commentary is that other countries are generally too far left-of-center so their viewpoint tends to be skewed too far to the socialist line of thinking. That doesn't really work for the U.S. Not yet, anyway....
- by txgnu November 4, 2008 7:21 PM PST
- Shuttleworth doesn't appear to have much understanding of Adam Smith (and doesn't appear to accept comments pointing this out on his blog). But that's the problem with Adam Smith--his thought has taken on ideological meanings for both the left and the right that bears little connection to what Smith actually wrote.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)Although people go on and on about the visible hand, Smith only mentions the invisible hand once in the Wealth of Nations and only once in his other major work. it's hardly a major concept. And in the few places he mentions it it isn't even used consistently. If Shuttleworth had bothered to read Smith he'd know that Smith never advocated unrestrained self-interest, he was very much against monopolies, and having some regulation is in fact central to his argument. For example, here's Smith discussing banking regulations in The Wealth of Nations:
"To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them, or to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical."