Category: The Atlasphere

Wikipedia founder Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales (whose appreciation for Ayn Rand’s ideas is a matter of public record) has launched an initiative to “ramp up the intelligence of poltics.”
In his open letter to the political blogosphere, published yesterday, he writes:

I am launching today a new Wikia website aimed at being a central meeting ground for people on all sides of the political spectrum who think that it is time for politics to become more participatory, and more intelligent.
This website, Campaigns Wikia, has the goal of bringing together people from diverse political perspectives who may not share much else, but who share the idea that they would rather see democratic politics be about engaging with the serious ideas of intelligent opponents, about activating and motivating ordinary people to get involved and really care about politics beyond the television soundbites.
Together, we will start to work on educating and engaging the political campaigns about how to stop being broadcast politicians, and how to start being community and participatory politicians.
How will we do that? Is it possible? Jimbo, are you crazy?
Ok, I might be crazy. I founded Wikipedia, which is of course about as crazy an idea as anyone might imagine. And you know what? I was not and I still am not smart enough to figure out how to make Wikipedia work. The Wikipedians figured that out, my role has only been to listen and watch, and to guide us forward in a spirit of sincerity and love to do something useful.
So, I will frankly admit right up front: I don’t know how to make politics healthier. But, I believe that you do. I believe that together we can work, this very election season, to force campaigns to use wikis and blogs to organize, discuss, manage, lead and be led by their volunteers.
We can turn this into the first beginnings of what is to come. This can be the start of the era of net-driven participatory politics. And it does not matter if you are on the right, on the left, moderate or extreme, socialist or libertarian. Whoever you are, and whatever you believe, you can share with me my sincere desire that the process start to be about substance and thought, rather than style and image.

Keep reading to learn more…

Warren Buffett — not known as a particularly principled supporter of capitalism, though clearly talented at making money — has long planned to give away his fortunes when he died. But he’s decided to move up the timetable.
From the article “Warren Buffett gives away his fortune” published today in Fortune Magazine:

Buffett, 75, has for decades said his wealth would go to philanthropy but has just as steadily indicated the handoff would be made at his death. Now he was revising the timetable.
“I know what I want to do,” he said, “and it makes sense to get going.” On that spring day his plan was uncertain in some of its details; today it is essentially complete. And it is typical Buffett: rational, original, breaking the mold of how extremely rich people donate money.
Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett’s (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).
The Gateses credit Buffett, says Bill, with having “inspired” their thinking about giving money back to society. Their foundation’s activities, internationally famous, are focused on world health — fighting such diseases as malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis — and on improving U.S. libraries and high schools.

Giving money to charity can be a very good thing, if the money gets spent well, and infectious diseases are a great problem to address through private charity rather than government appropriations.
But when we hear Buffett and Gates claiming that this is their way of “giving back to society” (as though they were looters up to this point, rather than trading value-for-value with every day they worked) it all starts sounding like a scene from Atlas Shrugged — and not a good one.
If they really want to give to society, they should stop apologizing for their success and start promoting values like political freedom, private property, and free markets — values that not only allowed them to become wealthy, but will allow future generations to do the same.

Anyone following Google’s adventures (and misadventures) in China may be interested in Glenn Reynolds’s latest opinion editorial:

Google has been a huge deal â?? its founders have become rich, its name has become a verb, and its influence is international.
Lately, though, I’ve been wondering if Google has peaked. The reason is that, for lots of different groups of people, Google’s reputation as good guys has been stained. And I’m not sure what Google really has to bank on, besides a good reputation.
Google has come under criticism from people on the left â?? and right â?? for its cave-in to Chinese demands for censorship. From “don’t be evil,” Google’s motto has seemed to be “don’t be evil unless there’s a really big market at stake.”

Keep reading…