Technology Entrepreneurs & Statism

ChrisR — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:13:00 GMT

I just read Tim Swanson's latest post on LRC. It talks about Obama's proposal for a Chief Technology Officer, and how several key people in the tech industry are supporting it.

As someone who pays close attention to the technology industry, I've always been intrigued by the statist policies that Silicon Valley types seem to embrace.

What fascinates me is the fact that these are some of the finest capitalist entrepreneurs in our society. After all, the technology industry is (in relative terms) one of the least regulated sectors of the economy. If you know how to code (and anticipate future consumer demands) the sky's the limit.

So here we have some very smart individuals who: a) use their own minds, b) make their own decisions, and c) use their own private property...to create some of the finest, life-changing innovations. They then put their creations to the market test. There are no worries about licensing, or permits, or red tape.

Oftentimes, these individuals give their software away for free. They do so for various reasons, but no matter what the reason, they don't worry about anti-trust laws, or being hassled for "dumping", or "predatory pricing."

Since a relative free market has been the greatest blessing for these entrepreneurs, it has always fascinated me when I read their political and economic opinions. In my opinion, if there ever were a sector of entrepreneurs who desperately need exposure to Mises and Rothbard, this would be the one. They're already sitting on "acres of diamonds" and don't even know it.

Presidents & Technology

ChrisR — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:30:00 GMT

It appears John McCain has admitted to not being able to use a computer. I've seen several conversations on the Internet about this subject....on why it is (or isn't) important that he know how to use computers.

I personally could care less. My main concern with the President is that he follow the U.S. Constitution. Whether or not he can double-click a mouse, or operate an iPhone, is insignificant to me. After all, on innauguration day, the President swears to obey the Constitution. In my opinion, him keeping his word should be a major topic of conversation.

Lew Rockwell wrote a nice summary of what the President's job would look like, were he to actually follow the Constituion. I recommend that you to read the entire article, but here is a snippet:

"...the president is mostly a figurehead and a symbol, almost invisible to myself and my community. He has no public wealth at his disposal. He administers no regulatory departments. He cannot tax us, send our children into foreign wars, pass out welfare to the rich or the poor, appoint judges to take away our rights of self government, control a central bank that inflates the money supply and brings on the business cycle, or change the laws willy-nilly according to the special interests he likes or seeks to punish.

His job is simply to oversee a tiny government with virtually no power except to arbitrate disputes among the states, which are the primary governmental units. He is head of state, though never head of government. His position, in fact, is one of constant subordination to the office holders around him and the thousands of statesmen on the state and local level. He adheres to a strict rule of law and is always aware that anytime he transgresses by trying to expand his power, he will be impeached as a criminal."

If this is what the U.S. Constitution intended, shouldn't this be on everyone's mind instead?

Let's worry about getting the President an iMac after he proves he can keep his innauguration day promise.

Love of Liberty : technology

Technology Entrepreneurs & Statism

Presidents & Technology