When a group (whether it's citizens with a hobby, a union, a corporation, or a church) sees that government is throwing it's $3 Trillion/year bulk around in their neighborhood, they - rationally - try to buy off the government so that it does not destroy them or do them harm.
The solution is not to restrict speech - the solution is to get politics out of so many questions by getting the government out of those issues.
Once upon a time doctors did not feel the need to lobby the government ... because the government did not feel the need to regulate the prices and conditions under which doctors did their work.
Once upon a time target shooters did not feel the need to lobby the government ... because government did not feel the need to regulate every aspect of the hobby of shooting.
Lessig is way off base here. He's a big government statist, but he doesn't want folks who disagree with him to have the power to influence the government.
Lobbying the government is fine; lobbying is just asking the government to consider your point of view. This is what Lessig says in his essay; he never asks for restriction of speech.
Lessig isn't talking about speech, but money. Money paid directly to campaigns. Money paid to congressmen and their staff as soon as they leave congress, providing an incentive to support those interests that are most likely to hire them afterwards. This is not an issue of free speech; this is an issue of buying laws. Whether you believe in a large or a small government, if established interests can buy laws, they can control congress, and those laws that they buy aren't going to do do anything about making the government that they've paid for smaller and less effective.
How are you going to reduce the size of the government without getting rid of the influence of those who benefit directly from government largesse, or from government regulations increasing the cost of mounting effective competition?
Your analysis is spot on until your last sentence. Not only do you misuse the word statist in a structural sense (government statist is redundant in this context), you incorrectly apply it to Lessig's politics. You're points are valid without your last sentence and I hope you'll get rid of it.
I'd like you to explain how these political positions of Lessig are statist please:
* Reduced legal restrictions of copyright and patents
* Citizen funded campaign finance
* Increased government transparency and accountability
Clearly he believes the sovereignty of a nation lies with the people, not the government. So again I ask you, without agreeing or disagreeing with Lessig's politics, can you clearly explain why you believe politically Lessig is a statist.
Once upon a time people felt the need to lobby their government because they were being killed by their medicine.
It's easy to paint a rosy picture of our past. Do government regulations go too far some of the time? Definitely. But they do serve an important purpose in others.
Yes and the brilliance of the founders was creating a very limited federal government. The aristocratic senate and the house 'of the people' had to agree. The bill would get vetoed by default. One senator could stop any bill by filibustering. The bill of rights prevented state governments from gettting out of control...
Once upon a time, charlatans killed people right and left because no one regulated who could claim to be a doctor. Once upon a time, a mob could ransack your house and steal your belongings because there was no law. That's why we invented government. Government starts regulating behavior whenever enough people are adversely affected by that behavior that they demand the regulation.
Rather than simply giving in to anarchy as you suggest, let's try to improve democracy.
Don't be Naive!
Laws and regulation have never _not_ been up for sale to the highest bidder. So your fictional doctor is only lobbying to reverse the result of previous lobbying.
Your fictional "once upon a time" must have been the time when people rode unicorns to work, and nobody ever hungered because elves in trees fed everybody. In the real world money is what makes laws, and Lessig is the closest thing we have to a super-her.
Something of a broader response from Reason.com - "Stop the Car, Larry. I Want to Get Out", excerpt: "While the folks at Cato would respond to special-interest lobbying by reducing the size and scope of government so less of life is politicized and there is less to lobby about, Lessig would respond by amending the Constitution to restrict freedom of speech."
Although I agree that amending the constitution takes things too far, I also think that corporations already have too much influence on American lives and I disagree with the recent SCOTUS decision because it validates that influence to a degree.
I think the real solution (to corporate and government overreach) is to consume less, buy local, invest local, use community banks, etc (and also, to think about who we vote for, for a change). I think Lessig's ideals would be better served if he focused on the small but growing movement around these things. But, alas, as Lawyer, he's part of the system in many ways and, as such, a bit of a top-down problem solver.
I think the most disturbing part of the SCOTUS ruling on corporations' donating to campaigns is being missed.
Let's say I work a normal 9-5 job for a large company, like Ford. Let's further say I'm a Democrat, but Ford decides to donate a large sum of money to a Republican candidate. (Or, if you'd rather not consider party affiliation, just assume I disgree with the candidate's platform.) Essentially, my work is now directly going to fund policies that I disagree with. Does that mean I should quit my job and go work for a corporation that supports Democrats?
This can happen in a way without corporations being able to directly contribute, but at least the money is funneled through the compensation of the executives and it's their own personal decision. Although I might think the executive is overpaid, I have no right to tell anyone else how to spend their own money.
Similarly, what if I'm an average American and I have some of my IRA/401(k) invested in Ford, who then backs a political candidate I don't agree with. In a less direct way, my money (used to purchase stock in the company) is being used to fund political decisions I disagree with. Should I sell my stock?
The missing element that it seems no one is talking about is that the ruling essentially politicizes both the employer-employee relationship and the corporation-stockholder relationship.
I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding (I'm in the USA):
On bail - suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The idea is that someone accused of a crime can free themselves until trial, with the bond money used as an incentive to get them to return to face trial. Well, there's also the incentive that they will be hunted down by bounty hunters if they flee.
This has two benefits. The accused can mount their best defense, fee from the confines of jail. The other, which is probably most important, is that the government can't just jail someone for a long period by accusing them of a crime.
The use of money for bond is imperfect, but it seems to work. Bail is set with the amount varying with the severity of the crime. Severe crimes (such as murder) can be refused bond, forcing the accused to stay locked up.
For those who lack the means to post the full bond, there are people who sell bail bonds -- in other words, they will post the full bail, if you pay them a percentage and a fee. The understanding is that you show up for court, or they will use civil suits and bounty hunters to get the money from you and put you in front of a judge forcibly should you flee.
The "accepting money to mould policy" part? Wow. Our lobbying system in general in the US is a mess. I honestly have no defense for it. If I was in charge, I'd place much stricter limits on lobbyists.
more, smaller governments (competition forces better customer service) is an easy win for liberty. unfortunately smaller governments can't resist black swans as effectively (napolean running through the italian city states like butter).
I like Lessig and I like this article but does this really belong on Hacker News? Articles about technology are fine; articles about technology and business are okay; articles about technology and politics are okay, but this story ...?
A republic is a kind of democracy; it is a form of representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy. "Democracy. n. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
the founding fathers are often criticized for their preference for having only landowners (which meant wealthy white males in general) vote. painting the picture in such a simple way (it's undemocratic! sexist! racist!) is dangerous. all democracies restrict suffrage to varying degrees (we do not allow children, felons, or the mentally unstable to vote). the purpose of this is to concentrate power int he hands of the responsible. it is my belief that restricting suffrage to landowners was actually a rather clever hack. who has an interest in being well informed on issues that affect a community? its permanent citizens. the people who own land in an area have the most to lose from policies that are detrimental to that area's long term prosperity.
one of the major issues of democratic systems is that it is always in the interest of whomever is in the minority position to dilute suffrage.
Maybe all these "small government", "liberty" people responding can explain how it fits with their world view that the northern European countries, who are not known for the smallness of their governments, consistently manage to have the highest standard of living and the most well-functioning and democratic governments in the world?
> who are not known for the smallness of their governments, consistently manage to have the highest standard of living and the most well-functioning and democratic governments in the world?
Their standard of living is not the highest.
Moreover, they're basically monocultural. Minnesota works about as well as the Scandanavian countries.
And how do you intend to do objective comparison on standard of living? How do you weight the unemployment figure above, for example, in such a measure?
[+] [-] tjic|16 years ago|reply
The solution is not to restrict speech - the solution is to get politics out of so many questions by getting the government out of those issues.
Once upon a time doctors did not feel the need to lobby the government ... because the government did not feel the need to regulate the prices and conditions under which doctors did their work.
Once upon a time target shooters did not feel the need to lobby the government ... because government did not feel the need to regulate every aspect of the hobby of shooting.
Lessig is way off base here. He's a big government statist, but he doesn't want folks who disagree with him to have the power to influence the government.
[+] [-] lambda|16 years ago|reply
Lessig isn't talking about speech, but money. Money paid directly to campaigns. Money paid to congressmen and their staff as soon as they leave congress, providing an incentive to support those interests that are most likely to hire them afterwards. This is not an issue of free speech; this is an issue of buying laws. Whether you believe in a large or a small government, if established interests can buy laws, they can control congress, and those laws that they buy aren't going to do do anything about making the government that they've paid for smaller and less effective.
How are you going to reduce the size of the government without getting rid of the influence of those who benefit directly from government largesse, or from government regulations increasing the cost of mounting effective competition?
[+] [-] tsally|16 years ago|reply
I'd like you to explain how these political positions of Lessig are statist please:
* Reduced legal restrictions of copyright and patents
* Citizen funded campaign finance
* Increased government transparency and accountability
Clearly he believes the sovereignty of a nation lies with the people, not the government. So again I ask you, without agreeing or disagreeing with Lessig's politics, can you clearly explain why you believe politically Lessig is a statist.
[+] [-] samdk|16 years ago|reply
It's easy to paint a rosy picture of our past. Do government regulations go too far some of the time? Definitely. But they do serve an important purpose in others.
[+] [-] azgolfer|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vannevar|16 years ago|reply
Rather than simply giving in to anarchy as you suggest, let's try to improve democracy.
[+] [-] barnaby|16 years ago|reply
Your fictional "once upon a time" must have been the time when people rode unicorns to work, and nobody ever hungered because elves in trees fed everybody. In the real world money is what makes laws, and Lessig is the closest thing we have to a super-her.
[+] [-] fnid2|16 years ago|reply
If every employee of GM wants to donate $2k to Obama, great, let them. If GM wants to donate $2M to Obama -- no way!
[+] [-] cwan|16 years ago|reply
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/stop-the-car-larry-i-want-...
[+] [-] bballant|16 years ago|reply
I think the real solution (to corporate and government overreach) is to consume less, buy local, invest local, use community banks, etc (and also, to think about who we vote for, for a change). I think Lessig's ideals would be better served if he focused on the small but growing movement around these things. But, alas, as Lawyer, he's part of the system in many ways and, as such, a bit of a top-down problem solver.
[+] [-] nkohari|16 years ago|reply
Let's say I work a normal 9-5 job for a large company, like Ford. Let's further say I'm a Democrat, but Ford decides to donate a large sum of money to a Republican candidate. (Or, if you'd rather not consider party affiliation, just assume I disgree with the candidate's platform.) Essentially, my work is now directly going to fund policies that I disagree with. Does that mean I should quit my job and go work for a corporation that supports Democrats?
This can happen in a way without corporations being able to directly contribute, but at least the money is funneled through the compensation of the executives and it's their own personal decision. Although I might think the executive is overpaid, I have no right to tell anyone else how to spend their own money.
Similarly, what if I'm an average American and I have some of my IRA/401(k) invested in Ford, who then backs a political candidate I don't agree with. In a less direct way, my money (used to purchase stock in the company) is being used to fund political decisions I disagree with. Should I sell my stock?
The missing element that it seems no one is talking about is that the ruling essentially politicizes both the employer-employee relationship and the corporation-stockholder relationship.
[+] [-] anamax|16 years ago|reply
So what? You're an employee, not a shareholder.
Shareholders are free to vote out management. They're also free to choose which companies to own.
> Should I sell my stock?
Yes.
You're not obligted to buy/own their stock, they're not obligated to do as you'd like (unless enough of your fellow owners agree).
[+] [-] jokull|16 years ago|reply
Also slightly related - why is it acceptable to persuade a court to release suspects by simply paying them bail money in England and America?
Money walks all over morals.
[+] [-] dabent|16 years ago|reply
On bail - suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The idea is that someone accused of a crime can free themselves until trial, with the bond money used as an incentive to get them to return to face trial. Well, there's also the incentive that they will be hunted down by bounty hunters if they flee.
This has two benefits. The accused can mount their best defense, fee from the confines of jail. The other, which is probably most important, is that the government can't just jail someone for a long period by accusing them of a crime.
The use of money for bond is imperfect, but it seems to work. Bail is set with the amount varying with the severity of the crime. Severe crimes (such as murder) can be refused bond, forcing the accused to stay locked up.
For those who lack the means to post the full bond, there are people who sell bail bonds -- in other words, they will post the full bail, if you pay them a percentage and a fee. The understanding is that you show up for court, or they will use civil suits and bounty hunters to get the money from you and put you in front of a judge forcibly should you flee.
The "accepting money to mould policy" part? Wow. Our lobbying system in general in the US is a mess. I honestly have no defense for it. If I was in charge, I'd place much stricter limits on lobbyists.
[+] [-] jamesbritt|16 years ago|reply
You get it back if you make all of your court appearances. it's way to help ensure that people charged wth a crime don't flee.
"Money walks all over morals."
How so?
Would it be better to keep people in jail simply because they've been accused of a crime?
If everyone was trusted to show up for court after being charged I think we'd have a whole other set of issues.
[+] [-] Kilimanjaro|16 years ago|reply
Those in power want it to be corrupt to perpetuate themselves in power. Those aspiring for power become corrupted once they get there.
Small government, local voting and decision making. Direct democracy. No politician wants a reform for they will be left out.
We must burn down the government to save it.
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ratsbane|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] castis|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lambda|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingkongreveng_|16 years ago|reply
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." --Mencken
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|16 years ago|reply
one of the major issues of democratic systems is that it is always in the interest of whomever is in the minority position to dilute suffrage.
[+] [-] kiba|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lutorm|16 years ago|reply
Maybe all these "small government", "liberty" people responding can explain how it fits with their world view that the northern European countries, who are not known for the smallness of their governments, consistently manage to have the highest standard of living and the most well-functioning and democratic governments in the world?
[+] [-] anamax|16 years ago|reply
Their standard of living is not the highest.
Moreover, they're basically monocultural. Minnesota works about as well as the Scandanavian countries.
[+] [-] Empact|16 years ago|reply
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05...
And how do you intend to do objective comparison on standard of living? How do you weight the unemployment figure above, for example, in such a measure?