Steve Jobs and Barney Frank are very different men: Jobs is a tech-savvy entrepreneur; Frank is a stodgy politician. Jobs is West coast; Frank is East coast. Jobs is easy to like; Frank is easy to loathe. But the differences go beyond the obvious.
Steve Jobs creates delightful products that 
consumers willingly and eagerly buy. Barney Frank issues edicts and demands that individuals must grudgingly obey. Jobs offers products that make our lives better. Frank “offers” rules that make our lives more difficult. Jobs allows us to buy his products voluntarily. Frank forces us to accept his “products.”
Steve Jobs and Barney Frank represent two different views of America. Jobs does not acquire his customers by force, but by offering them something that they want or need. Those who do not want his products do not have to buy them. In contrast, Frank imposes his edicts by force. Those who believe that his “products” will cause them harm have no choice in the matter. Those who do not like what Jobs offers can simply refuse to buy his products. Those who do not like what Frank offers can go to jail.
These are the two alternatives facing America: a nation “ruled” by entrepreneurs or a nation ruled by politicians. We face the choice between being able to choose what is best for our own lives, or being compelled to live as an elite group of curmudgeons deem best for us. This is the choice facing America: voluntary trade to mutual benefit, or being forced to live as others dictate. The choice is freedom or government control of our lives.
Steve Jobs leaves you free to live and act as you judge best for your life. Certainly, he does everything he can to get you to give your money to him–voluntarily. Barney Frank also wants your money, but he is willing to use coercion to obtain it. Jobs offers value; Frank offers fear and threats. If you don’t believe me, consider this: What happens when you don’t act as Steve Jobs would like you to? And what happens when you don’t act as Barney Frank would like you to?
This is a wonderful and important comparison, very illuminating. Have to point out a typo that takes away from the power of the piece: “Barney Frank also wants your money, but he is willingly to use coercion…” Hope you can fix it and make the article even more eloquent!
Thanks Graig. I made the correction.
You miss the main point. You focus on government and politics instead of whether the product itself is good or bad. Lack of forced regulations does not make things good. Jobs is mostly good because he and his company are integral in making and selling an easy to use complex product, particularly with iTunes being a stable program that is reliable as a central hub for your music, and the iTunes Music Store which offers cheap downloads that pay more to artists than most other digital offerings (I’ve read that something like 70% of the customer charge goes to the artist/label.)
Also, the important personal decisions that guide the way Jobs has operated his company–i.e., the way he works–are very liberal and non-traditional, and completely counter to conservative philosophy. For example, he has for some time had something resembling a vegetarian diet, which although it is a poor nutritional choice, it does represent an honest effort to be principled, independent-minded, and benevolent. Whether or not to eat animals is a difficult moral question, and it takes guts to commit to not doing it if you think there’s enough protein and nutrients to get from non-animal foods. My point is, Steve Jobs is the rare example of successful liberalism in practice.
Jason–To say that I miss “the main point” is a curious statement, given that I chose “the main point” for the post. My “the main point” is the voluntary versus the coercive, and that is a moral/political issue. My “the main point” has nothing to do with whether the product is good or bad, what Jobs charges, or what he eats.
My “the main point” is to contrast two individuals who interact with others in vastly different ways.
“My ‘the main point’ has nothing to do with whether the product is good or bad, what Jobs charges, or what he eats.”
It should. How could whether or not something is good or bad not be the main/primary/fundamental issue?
-Jason
Good or bad to whom? That is a decision that each person has to make, based on his own values. Jobs recognizes the right of each individual to make such decisions and act accordingly–that is good for everyone. Frank does not–that is bad for everyone.
That sounds quite subjectivist. Yes, each person has the legal right to make his own decision as long as he does not harm others, but that doesn’t make him correct. Legality and morality are not synonymous. Jobs’s main virtue is recognizing what a good product is and making and offering it. His lack of forcing people to buy Apple products is necessary for productivity to exist, but his lack of criminality here is hardly on on the same level of greatness as the quality of the iPod, iTunes, Mac laptops, and other Apple products.
You clearly don’ t understand my point. You claim that “each person has the legal right to make his own decision as long as he does not harm others.” That is simply not true. Try disobeying one of Barney Frank’s edicts. Frank operates on the premise that he and his ilk can determine what decisions you may legally make. Jobs serves as a contrast to that premise. The quality of a product is irrelevant to that point. Freedom of choice is the issue.
It is also clear that you do not understand basic principles of writing. On any topic, there are a myriad of aspects that can be addressed. A writer must necessarily delimit what he addresses, and that determination is guided by his theme (main point). My theme has nothing to do with the quality of Apple products.