Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100222/lessig

by kriyative • 16 years ago

80 71 16 years ago

cwan3• 16 years ago

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."

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/stop-the-car-larry-i-want-...

bballant4• 16 years ago

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.

cwan3• 16 years ago

From a historical context, I do find it a bit odd this fear of "corporations". It's really difficult to argue that they function in any way as a cohesive group. Sure it can be argued that they're all profit seeking (some more than others) but the search of profits is done in such radically different ways.

If anything, the power of corporations has been lessening simply because of the nature of the net/web (just think how difficult it's been for even politically authoritarian societies like China to maintain a control over what people hear/see/think). Fortune Magazine tracks the life of the average Fortune 500 company and it's been in steady decline. The dominance of any individual company is far from permanent and made even less so with continually falling barriers to entry.

The perverse irony is that larger firms like regulation because they're the most able to adapt to them and can use them to keep upstarts out.

kiba3• 16 years ago

What with the whole "buy local" and "invest local" idea?

Have you ever the of the word "trade" and "merchants"? Do you "buy"? There's a reason for "specialization" and "division of labor". It's why we're so wealthy, because of our economy's vast ability to make stuff and transport stuff. Utilize people's comparative advantage, we can produce more unit of goods than we would otherwise if we do not specialize and trade.

Trade is the stuff of civilization. We should encourage more of it.

kingkongreveng_2• 16 years ago

I want the restricted republic back. No interest in democracy.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." --Mencken

kiba3• 16 years ago

What I want is true liberty, not this nonsense called "democracy".

lambda7• 16 years ago

How do you achieve that, realistically?

Remember, there will always be thugs, and thieves, and swindlers out there. There will be hostile nations. And there will be freeloaders; people who try to take advantage of any sort of public or semi-public works or institutions, such as roads, schools, hospitals, and the like without paying.

Do you have a (realistic, please no Ayn Rand power fantasies) proposal for dealing with all of these problems without a government? Or do you have a proposal for selecting that government fairly, justly, and well without democratic elections?

nazgulnarsil4• 16 years ago

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.

kingkongreveng_2• 16 years ago

It's related to the arguments by Hans Herman Hoppe that monarchies throughout history have on net demonstrated better long term decision making and planning than democracies. A hereditary monarch has some level of incentive to optimize tax revenue over generations. An eight year politician has only incentive to ensure reelection.

tjic• 16 years ago

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.

azgolfer2• 16 years ago

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...

jbooth• 16 years ago

The abuse of the filibuster for one senator to stop a bill is actually a recent parliamentary invention. There's no constitutional mechanism for the filibuster, it's based on senate rules which are adopted every 2 years.

Historically, 40 senators could prevent debate from being cut off but they would need to all occupy the chamber and actually be debating the whole time. See Strom Thurmond reading the phone book on the senate floor during the civil rights filibusters, for example.

But that took a bunch of time, time you could be at fundraisers or hanging out at home or whatever. So they made it easier over recent years, with the result that the current Senate filibusters more than twice as much as the last one, which itself filibustered more than historically, etc.

balding_n_tired• 16 years ago

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments until the 14th Amendment was interpreted to so apply them. Thus you had established churches in several states during the early years of the republic.

ubernostrum• 16 years ago

The way you casually talk about this as if it were some sort of unanimous opinion at the time of the Constitution's drafting suggests that you should do a bit more actual research into the history. And, possibly, into the document itself, which was drafted as a reaction to the failures of a deliberately-crippled central government.

tsally2• 16 years ago

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.

dpatru2• 16 years ago

People spend money on politics because they want government to act in a certain way. The spending can be to support or defeat a particular candidate or to insure that existing politicians attach importance to the spenders' interests. In either way, spending is an attempt to exercise some control over government.

When a lot of money is spent on politics, a statist sees a restricted government. The statist wants to free government from spenders' influence. The statist wants to give the government more freedom to act.

When a lot of money is spent on politics, an anti-statist sees an oppressed people. The anti-statist wants to free the people from government power by decreasing the importance of government. The anti-statist wants to restrict government's freedom and power.

Under this framework Lessig is a statist. He sees political spending not as a sign that government is too powerful, but rather that government is not powerful enough to act against the big spenders' interests. Lessig advocates more restrictions on the spenders. He thinks that Citizens United (rebuffing government's attempt to silence corporations) was wrongly decided.

Massive political spending is of concern to both statists and anti-statists. For statists, it is a sign that government is not acting independently and disinterestedly in the people's interests. Money is corrupting government. For anti-statists, it is a sign that government is seen by the people as a large threat or a large opportunitiy, neither of which is good because it implies that government is important, which it shouldn't be.

Little political spending is viewed favorably by both statists and anti-statists. For statists, it is a sign that special interests see political spending as futile to stop a government from acting in the common interest. For anti-statists, it is a sign that government is too weak to matter very much or is acting so neutrally that no one is complaining.

fnid2• 16 years ago

what's wrong with allowing each member of that large group to petition congress, to "speak" so to speak independently.

If every employee of GM wants to donate $2k to Obama, great, let them. If GM wants to donate $2M to Obama -- no way!

lambda7• 16 years ago

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?

hack_edu• 16 years ago

This is a good platform to pose this question as well.

Can someone lay down some information about just how money equates speech. Its used so often by now that its meaning is lost, merely a talking point.

dantheman5• 16 years ago

Money is speach though.

Should an unemployed person have more influence on the government than an employed person? They have more time go and talk up their candidate, can an employed person pay to have people hired to spread their message?

Should a celebrity have more influence over our electoral process because their statements get covered in the press than a successful businessman who isn't well known but works hard to earn money?

This is a band aid solution and does not address they systemic problems.

1. Too much is controlled at the federal level. 2. The government has significantly overreached in its authority.

samdk• 16 years ago

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.

barnaby• 16 years ago

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.

vannevar2• 16 years ago

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.

Kilimanjaro• 16 years ago

"our government is corrupt"

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.

nazgulnarsil4• 16 years ago

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).

jokull3• 16 years ago

As a non American: Is it not obvious that a politician accepting money to mould policy is bad for the bottom line?

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.

jamesbritt• 16 years ago

"Also slightly related - why is it acceptable to persuade a court to release suspects by simply paying them bail money in England and America?"

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.

jokull3• 16 years ago

Aaaah. I didn't know you'd get the money back for showing up in court. Why not just fine people who don't show up then?

I'm not suggesting you put all suspects in jail.

dabent• 16 years ago

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.

castis• 16 years ago

To my knowledge, our government was never meant to be a Democracy. Republic innit?

lambda7• 16 years ago

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

astrec• 16 years ago

A republic is not necessarily a democracy, and the two terms are not strictly interchangable. A republic may take many forms, including but not limited to democratic, mercantile, classical, and religious republics.

Constitutionally the USA is a representative democracy defined as republican in modern political argot. If you have the time a reading of Federalist No. 10 is quite enlightening (although a little tough).

nkohari• 16 years ago

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.

anamax2• 16 years ago

> Let's further say I'm a Democrat, but Ford decides to donate a large sum of money to a Republican candidate.

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).

lutorm2• 16 years ago

I agree with Lessig.

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?

Empact2• 16 years ago

It's a loaded question. What's high-functioning about persistent high unemployment, for example?:

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?

bballant4• 16 years ago

Unemployment rates are counted differently in other countries. In the United States, you have to be looking for a job to be counted as unemployed, so our numbers tend to look lower than they actually are.

Also, an American friend of mine who lives in France tells me that, because of French social programs, unemployment is not as scary or devastating there as it is in the states.

On the other hand, I have a French friend who lives in the States and enjoys the American sense of innovation and competitive spirit which he feels is lacking in France.

You're right, standard of living is hard to be objective about. One common measure is the Human Development Index. The US does pretty well in this compared to the rest of the world, but not compared to our more socialist sisters in Europe like France. I think one of the reasons for America's HDI lagging behind European countries is our lack of universal health care, but that's another topic.

anamax2• 16 years ago

> 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.

ratsbane• 16 years ago

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 ...?

Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

Related Stories