Larry Lessig: I'm All In • Hacker News Board

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#121

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:10 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #108

hga wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people should really be thinking twice about the consequences of suppressing core political speech from those they don't like, be it a single citizen publishing a book (in oral arguments the government admitted that fell into the McCain-Feingold ban), an arbitrary group of citizens producing and distributing a video about a public figure running for office, or the eeeeevil NRA with its five million members amplif…

I agree with your all of your concerns. But what if all campaigns for office were funded with public money instead of private money? Seems like it would solve some of the stated problems without arguing over what some would call a "loophole" but others would recognize as "free speech."

Public financing is totally orthogonal to Citizens United. Even if campaigns were publicly financed, you couldn't stop independent organizations from blasting the airwaves with advertising supporting their preferred candidate.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#122

Post by Gotadime » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:10 PM UTC

littletimmy wrote: post #104

Gotadime wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. Both parties have legitimate points and interests that need to be represented in our system. I have never understood individuals that buy in 100% to a single party and just can't fathom the idea of the opposing party having any good ideas that need to be heard. Radicalism of any kind is dangerous - conserv…

That's false, because the Democratic party today encapsulates both the old Republican and the old Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is essentially an Eisenhower Republican (if you place her into any European country she's in their conservative party), and Warren/Sanders are the left wing group. The republican party of today is essentially a business lobby masquerading as a party. Place it into any European country, a…

Why does Europe always come up in these conversations, as if it's the litmus test for good policy? You do realize that's an entirely separate continent, with a different culture, history, and set of issues, right? Are you so ignorant to believe that the United States should actually be run like Europe?

To say that the Republican Party of today is a business lobby is an absurd and I'll-willed attempt to deliberately oversimplify, misinterpret, misrepresent, discredit, and ultimately slilence a legitimate political party that represents the thoughts and viewpoints of millions of American Citizens. Real people. Tax payers. Born here or abroad. Educated or self made. People that help make this country what it is.

I'm a registered Democrat and even I can't put up with this radical loyalist bullshit that aims to silence an entire portion of our population.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#123

Post by hga » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:16 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #113

jacobolus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Campaign finance reform is dead in the water as long as the Republicans control Congress (and as long as, per Citizens United , unlimited corporate spending on political advertising is considered protected speech). So if we agree with Lessig that campaign finance reform is the most important national political priority, then electing a Democratic majority to the House is the necessary precondition. (I’m not saying yo…

If you want to keep corporations from giving money to politicians, the only effective way to do it is to stop politicians from giving corporations money. Limiting the scope of government is not ideological -- its pragmatic and practical.

Or shaking corporations down. A whole lot of "gridlock" is merely milking proposals that'll help or hurt various companies and sectors, and collecting contributions to continue preventing the bad or pushing for the good. Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets is (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544103343) a really good book on the subject, taught me things I didn't know despite watching this sort of thing closely starting around the time of Watergate, like how there's a type of PAC a Congresscritter can establish that can be legally converted to subsidize their lifestyle.

This is one of the reasons for the constant changes in the tax code, despite the great uncertainty this creates for businesses and people. The obsession with short term results makes more sense when you realize long term financial planning is literally impossible (yeah, technically you might get that widget into production in a few years, but you really don't know how much money you'll be allowed to make from selling it).

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#124

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:17 PM UTC

jensen123 wrote: post #39

AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

> Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. Why do they do this? Because the politicians who spend the most money on advertising generally win the elections, right? I'm wondering if what we're seeing here is the failure of democracy with universal suffrage. Most of the voters don't seem to be independent thinkers. They could have voted for politicians who haven't been "bought". But they don't. For ex…

People don't vote for those parties not because they aren't independent thinkers, but because they don't want what those parties are selling. They don't want some libertarian wonderland without consumer protection laws or Social Security. In broad strokes, they want what we already have, with small tweaks.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#125

Post by deckar01 » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:18 PM UTC

I first gained interest in Lessig when he offered a poll to vote for his vice president (who takes over when he steps down).

https://lessig2016.us/vote4vp/

I just love the idea of Neil deGrasse Tyson being president.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#126

Post by logn » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

Lessig is not thinking this through. If he wants to be taken seriously as a candidate he's going to need to address every single issue the others have. By the time he's done that, his message will be diluted and sidetracked, and he'll have groups of people who may support him on the corruption issue but disagree on other issues, e.g., how to handle Syria.

At this point he kind of reminds me of Donald Trump who also has not taken time to formulate many policy positions but just wants to the voters to trust him it'll all be great.

Additionally, a big part of being President is just the relentless work at championing your causes and causing your opponents to fail if they refuse to compromise. Lessig seems allergic to this type of work, politics, and campaigning in general. I don't know how he expects to get his legislation passed.

Even on the issue of corruption, I'm not sure he's effectively explained his solution. He's just laid out legislation to pass, but hasn't detailed how he'll get Congress to pass it without amendments that destroy it, how he'll keep the Supreme Court from eviscerating it, and how the rules could withstand attempts to game them.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#127

Post by Gotadime » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #75

humanrebar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. I'd argue it has been destructive to our country. Specifically with the way healthcare reform was passed. All democrats by the slimmest margin. Absolutely no wider support for one of the biggest changes in our country in a long time, as far as domestic policy goes. The result? More fighting than before.…

Huh? 60% support in Congress plus the support of the President plus the support of the Supreme Court (when the ACA was tested there) plus the overwhelming support of the American people wasn't good enough for you? Under what circumstances, then, WOULD you be able to accept that health care reform was a good idea and a good thing to pass? The constant infighting caused by Republicans is a result of their corporate mas…

All in one comment (never mind the absurdity this guy has posted in the rest of this thread):

- Citing ridiculous, unfounded, and irrelevant statistics that actually, when viewed objectively, support the opposing argument

- Completely neglecting to address any of the actual points made previously

- Straw manning the republican argument (which represents the thoughts of an entire portion of our population)

- Labeling an entire party racist

- Speaking in broad, absurd general strokes about statements that never were (and, for that matter, never could be) made

- And the classic....bashing Fox News, the easiest target ever and the fast way to a pseudo liberal's heart

Bud, you've got everything it takes to be a political shill. If you aren't already getting paid for this nonsense, you should be.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#128

Post by Riesling » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:31 PM UTC

onewaystreet wrote: post #52

AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

> This is why common sense laws that have majority support from the voters (gun control, marijuana legalization etc...) never get the traction they should. The funders don't want them, and they have the final say, not the voters. The idea that most politicians are just empty shells that do whatever their funders tell them is just wrong. The truth is that it's cheaper and much more effective for funders to give money…

Ok, even if this was the case, I fail to see the relevance of it?

The effect would be the same. Less money for candidates that vote against fixing the climate. Hence less chances for them winning in the elections.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#129

Post by parasubvert » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:35 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #12

parasubvert wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But every time he wades into electoral politics he does so in ways that are so desperately naïve that they'd be funny, if the stakes weren't so high." Same was said about a big-eared Senator from Chicago with a funny name, that gave a good political speech in 2004. Lessig is trying to find a mix between himself, the platform, and the process. You need to be naive if you ever hope to solve any seemingly intractable p…

Obama was a career politician with lots of support and credibility, a best-selling author, and a charismatic speaker, with an absolutely incredible campaign organization. He was running on an anti-war platform during a highly unpopular war. Lessig doesn’t have any of those things.

Obama released his first book to coincide with his first political campaign. And his second book 1 years prior to announcing his run for president.

Lessig is a reasonably charismatic speaker.

The rest I agree, Lessig is no Obama.

Look, I don't expect Lessig to make much of a dent in 2016. I wouldn't say he'll never make a dent. The only way TO make a dent is to naively keep trying, and learning, and being willing to look dumb in the process.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#130

Post by ddw » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

Lessig seems to be too in love with the idea to the point that he doesn't realize that the execution is what matters.

He would've been better off organizing people to get one or more of the legit Dem candidates to promise to work on this reform if elected.

This also assumes that the president has enough influence to get meaningful reform passed which isn't a reality with the current Congress.