Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

thenation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#51

Post by lutorm »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #11
cwan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

in a market the search for profit is the search for more efficiently serving aggregate preferences of consumers. allowing corporations to assume disproportionate control of the political process is almost assuredly a net improvement.

Even the Economist has clearly argued that being "pro-business' is not the same thing as being "pro-market".

Besides, I don't agree with you, because it doesn't take into account externalities. When "efficiency" takes the form of polluting the river because someone else will clean it up, it most assuredly is not a net improvement.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#52

Post by lutorm »

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?

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#53

Post by Empact »

lutorm wrote: post #52

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?

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?

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#54

Post by dantheman »

lambda wrote: post #47
dantheman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 har…

Money is not speech. That's ridiculous. Some people will always have an easier time of being heard than others. This is just about making sure that people can't directly buy their way to an easier time of being heard, buy buying off people in the government directly. They will instead have to be heard in a public forum, where public debate can occur. 1. Too much is controlled at the federal level. 2. The government h…

So your argument is that it's ridiculous?

Why can't people buy their way to be being hear, if I own a newspaper can I write editorials about the candidates and issues? If so, why do we only allow the extremely wealthy to do that? You're disenfranchising people who have some money, but not enough to own media from being able to be heard. How is buying advertising not a public forum?

Do you have problems with PACs?

If we can't trust our politicians to make small changes to reduce their power, how the hell can you trust them to make fundamental changes to the system?

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#55

Post by dantheman »

natep wrote: post #49
dantheman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It allows you to pay for pamphlets or tv advertisements so that others can here your message. It actually favors the unknown, those whose opinion won't be covered in the newspaper.

I don't see a problem with individuals or corporations sending out pamphlets or putting out ads (because trying to draw the line would be too hard), as long as the source is clearly indicated as not from the candidate . The problem is when a corporation or individual gives so much money to one candidate that he or she is disproportionately responsible for that candidate's victory. This is the reason why we have 1 vot…

There is a limit on how much people can donate to campaigns, all of the recent hubub has been about corporations acting on their own without coordinate with a campaign.

How do the wealthy vote with their money? They are not buying votes, they are merely trying to influence other voters -- hence it's a free speech issue.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#57

Post by Empact »

lambda wrote: post #47
dantheman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 har…

Money is not speech. That's ridiculous. Some people will always have an easier time of being heard than others. This is just about making sure that people can't directly buy their way to an easier time of being heard, buy buying off people in the government directly. They will instead have to be heard in a public forum, where public debate can occur. 1. Too much is controlled at the federal level. 2. The government h…

> So what's your solution?

To repeat myself from the other thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1102381):

The natural counterforce to corrupting influences, all of them rather than just campaign finance, is robust citizen accountability. Clearly this accountability has left something to be desired to date. I would argue this has largely to do with rational ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance) on behalf of voters, that they, having so much to do, aren't willing to wade through the maze of political discourse in order to really know who is worth voting for.

But what if it was dead-simple to know where your rep stood, on every issue, not just the obvious ones, and on every level, not just congress?

I'd argue that you could convert a substantial number who currently don't vote, or else default to simple heuristics in deciding who to vote for: e.g. party or incumbency.

To that end, I've started a site: http://votereports.org which aims to be something like the github of political accountability. A simple, decentralized group of folks generating, exchanging and refining politician report cards based on objective criteria such as votes.

The project is just 2 months old, and there's plenty to do, but it should be ready well before November.

For better governance, I'd stake my bet on this before I would on a constitutional amendment or change of heart for politicians. After all:

> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

Really, can we expect to do very much better, in a world where we collect, analyze, and share more data on baseball than on our own government? (http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/12/government-20-five-predicti...)

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#58

Post by bballant »

Empact wrote: post #53
lutorm wrote: post #52

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?

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?

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.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#59

Post by anamax »

nkohari wrote: post #45

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…

> 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).

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#60

Post by anamax »

lutorm wrote: post #52

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?

> 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.

Post reply on HN