11–20 of 65 posts
I wonder if the original framers of Constitutions around the world thought that one day the lawyers would ultimately rule public policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a zero sum game. You can both grouse about those things AND contribute at the grassroots or whatever level you choose. It's entirely consistent to express dismay at the system as a whole in response to an article like this and do things to actual effect change. If we only took action and never groused publicly, man, HN would be a boring place.
Like I said, patent reform has already passed with huge bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. It's clear here that the problems aren't with 'American democracy' (or any other incredibly-broad and incredibly-hard-to-change system) but with a few ever-so-ejectable politicians. We can agree to disagree, but I believe that blaming the problem on structural issues encourages apathy and helplessness in a way…
Grousing about oligarchs, special interests, and the political system as a whole is unproductive and misguided. After all, patent reform has already passed with huge bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Instead, you should focus on the politician most responsible for blocking patent reform - Harry Reid, and the power he wields as Senate Majority Leader. He might not be up for re-election until 2016, bu…
That's a really broad spectrum of iconic American technology companies. These were joined by a number of research universities as well as groups representing small businesses that employ scientists and engineers.
It's easy to take an internet company-centric view of the world and dismiss the whole opposition as "oligarchs and special interests." But think of it from the perspective of a Congressman or Congresswoman. He or she doesn't know that "Twitter is in, while Microsoft is out," so to speak. What they know is that Microsoft is an American company that employs 100,000 people, more than Google, Twitter, Yahoo!, and Facebook combined. From their perspective, the opposition isn't "oligarchs and special interests." They're a broad swath of what they perceive as the relevant stakeholders: American companies and universities engaged in R&D that employ lots of scientists and engineers and create lots of "next-generation STEM jobs."
The whole political machinery of the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, is committed to the technology sector being an engine for job creation going forward. That doesn't just mean the internet sector, but also pharma, biotechnology, automotive, energy, etc. These are the sectors Washington is counting on to replace the jobs Silicon Valley is automating away. When a list of key companies in each of these sectors oppose reforms, and say that they will hamper job creation, then it will be very difficult to convince members of Congress that the reforms are a good thing overall.
The first set of reforms passed because there was broad buy-in from the technology sector as a whole. Any future reforms will require more buy-in from the broader industry than exists right now.
Every day, it becomes more apparent that our democracy has been thwarted and overrun with oligarchs and special interests. Each party is beholden to its own oligarchs and the best solution I see is term limits of some sort. Politics shouldn't be a career. Because it currently is a career, our politicians must cater to those who are their bosses. The people are no longer the boss and that is the core problem. Even if…
If the term limit is more than one term, they still need funding to run their re-election campaign. If a politician finds himself in his legally mandated final term, then he also has no reason to listen to the people - unless he's running for another office, in which case he still needs the funding from special interests and oligarchs. Even if he's not running for another office, whose opinion do you think he's going to care more about - John Q Public's or Special Interest ABC, which is prepared to offer him a cushy consulting/lobbying position or directorship after his public service ends?
Even if you limited congressional service to a single term, you still wouldn't solve the problem - they'd still need financial support to get elected in the first place, they'd still get cushy job offers for after they leave, etc. Additionally, history (and current events) show us that congressional inexperience matters: you end up with a much more partisan Congress that tends to more strongly toe the party line, and you rely more on outside "experts" (lobbyists) to write effective legislation. Partisanship tends to be a little more muted when you've eaten lunch with the guy on the other side of the aisle for the past 40 years, and when your voting district has known you their entire lives rather than voting for you solely because of the R or D on your name.
The US has been oligarchic from day one - indeed, much of the founders thought we had gone far too democratic as it was and would have preferred a king and parliament. And as it was, by and large, only propertied white men could vote - and senators were chosen by the state legislatures (who obviously chose people of power and/or wealth) rather than direct election, as it is now. In almost every way, we're better off now than we were to start with - though I do think we're on the downslope of a curve here lately. I just don't think you can reduce the problem to "it's the career politicians!" - there's a lot more to do it than that, and I'm not so sure being a career politician is even a problem. I'm sure most of these politicians don't even really think they're doing something wrong - they see Americans and American businesses and what they perceive as experts trying to "educate" them that we need things like software patents. I don't think simply replacing the politician is going to help at all there.
As a small business owner, I applied for a patent that could protect my startup's key innovation. I am actually glad that the patent "reform" as shelved. IMO, it is a far bigger threat to small business patent holders that a tech industry giant would ignore / steal their IP, than to fall victim to a patent troll. If the proposed legislation goes through, simply trying to protect your own property could end up destroy…
As a small business owner, I applied for a patent that could protect my startup's key innovation. I am actually glad that the patent "reform" as shelved. IMO, it is a far bigger threat to small business patent holders that a tech industry giant would ignore / steal their IP, than to fall victim to a patent troll. If the proposed legislation goes through, simply trying to protect your own property could end up destroy…
Grousing about oligarchs, special interests, and the political system as a whole is unproductive and misguided. After all, patent reform has already passed with huge bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Instead, you should focus on the politician most responsible for blocking patent reform - Harry Reid, and the power he wields as Senate Majority Leader. He might not be up for re-election until 2016, bu…
Complaining about oligarchs and special interests misses the mark, in my opinion. Last month, the following companies launched a group to oppose the proposed reforms: Apple, Microsoft, IBM, DuPont, Pfizer, Ford, and GE: http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org . That's a really broad spectrum of iconic American technology companies. These were joined by a number of research universities as well as groups represent…
This is a key point. Whatever arguments you can make about the economic efficiency of IP laws[1], favoring the industry that employs a lot more people isn't "un-democratic." It's democracy, good and hard. [2] Those 100,000 people can easily outvote all the other companies. It's exactly the opposite of favoring the oligarchs, which would be the sharehodlers of GOOG, TWIT, YHOO, FACE.
[1] Those latter companies indeed make more with less workers, which to a first order approximation is what you want to encourage in the long term. It's not the final answer and there are good arguments to make the other way, like GOOG needing other people's IP in order to have something to index and put ads on top of.
[2] As my allusion to Mencken suggests, I really don't like populist arguments. But when defending the populists' jobs becomes "defending the oligarchs" I know I'm in some kind of bizarro world.
I wonder if the original framers of Constitutions around the world thought that one day the lawyers would ultimately rule public policy.
I don't know about around the world, but about two-thirds of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were lawyers. The rest were businessmen of some sort (counting owning large-scale farms as a business). Doesn't seem like an appreciable change in who sets the tone for public policy, although I think if anything the power has shifted more towards businessmen.
Every day, it becomes more apparent that our democracy has been thwarted and overrun with oligarchs and special interests. Each party is beholden to its own oligarchs and the best solution I see is term limits of some sort. Politics shouldn't be a career. Because it currently is a career, our politicians must cater to those who are their bosses. The people are no longer the boss and that is the core problem. Even if…
The first is the cycle of government employees overseeing contracts and then going to work as lobbyists or employees for the people they were overseeing. Passing an amendment that says no government appointee or senior staff member can go work for any company they had contact with while holding the position for 5 or 10 years will end the first cycle.
The lobbyist / I need $ for reelection is harder. Some say only government funded campaigns, but I'm pretty sure I don't want the government's current parties making those rules and frankly it doesn't seem to help elsewhere. I am more for an amendment that says groups (corp or union) cannot contribute money to politicians / political parties. Both corporations and unions are gatherings of people and no more deserving of protection than the other. The biggest problem with all that is the news media is run by corporations and the ink is still going to be there. I'm afraid the second cycle is going to be with us for a long while.