Comments on: Getting political the right way: The Mark Shuttleworth example

Tim O'Reilly and Mark Shuttleworth both have political endorsements on their blogs, but only one manages to avoid getting political.

[royrusso]

Funny... looks to me like Smith and Rand were right. To Shuttleworth's point, centralized economies perpetuate inefficiencies. What we've witnessed recently is capitalism at work, a correction is occurring and removing the ineffeciencies. Is it painful? Yes. Can the next President fix it? No. He's the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces... not the economy. I'll side-step the mess the hand that one group had in the fueling of bad decision-making within Freddie/Fannie.

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. ;-)

[odubtaig]

I suppose it figures you'd think Rand was right given that you don't understand the role of the premiere elected representative of the people of the USA. Yes, he's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces but as President he is, get this, also supposed to run the country.

Of course, if you don't get that I don't suppose you would have the basest understanding of economics.

[Matt Asay]

Roy is right. While it's true that presidential powers have been expanded, he/she really is head of the armed forces and primarily should be concerned with defense. The legislature is supposed to be the one legislating. We've lost sight of that but it becomes clear every time the president tries to step out of his/her primary role: when was the last time that you remember a US president having a significant effect on the economy? Those who look to either McCain or Obama to fix the economy are chasing shadows.

[odubtaig]

OK, maybe it was a tad generalistic, but then the President can't really do anything without the backing of Congress anyway. Wasn't there some huge voting thing about the bailout or something? As far as I'm aware, the Pres has veto on any bill Congress puts forward but can't push anything through that Congress won't have.

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.

[markur69]

all well and good buy Mark Shuttleworth is not an American. So why do we care what he thinks... Stick with Ubuntu unless you are planning to rename it Obamtu.

Mark - Napa County

[DougInKY]

Whoa there. Just because Mr. Shuttleworth is not an American just means he cannot vote in our election. There is absolutely no reason that he cannot (or should not) have an opinion about our politics. I care very much about what goes on in the world around me and would expect others too care also. I also respect (and listen) when others tell me their opinions. I may not agree with them but in this way I can grow and understand the world about me better.

[::G]

DougInKY: In the U.S., one can only place a vote for the office of the President if one is a citizen. (In obtaining citizenship, one becomes an American via naturalization.) While rules for voting can vary by state, at the federal level that's the rule. I don't know if Shuttleworth is a citizen or not.

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....

[txgnu]

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.

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."