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

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#161

Post by crdoconnor » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 3:47 PM UTC

qrendel wrote: post #139

crdoconnor wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Obama came into office with the same idea Obama's ideas were never made very clear during his campaign. It was all "hope" and "change" and not a whole lot on policy specifics. He then went and implemented the same neoliberal bullshit that George Bush pushed with a slightly different flavor.

And that's a big part of what makes me continue to support Lessig over Sanders. Remembering how great Obama sounded in 2008, and seeing how that turned out, I give it a very high chance Sanders would be exactly the same. Now we have a Nobel peace price winning president who regularly orders extrajudicial assassinations and prosecutes anyone blowing the whistle on the runaway national security/military-industrial comp…

>And that's a big part of what makes me continue to support Lessig over Sanders. Remembering how great Obama sounded in 2008, and seeing how that turned out, I give it a very high chance Sanders would be exactly the same.

They're not the same at all. Sanders has a long history in Congress. Obama was a junior first term senator. Sanders is very specific about what he'll do. Obama was deliberately vague.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#162

Post by hga » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #161

qrendel wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's a big part of what makes me continue to support Lessig over Sanders. Remembering how great Obama sounded in 2008, and seeing how that turned out, I give it a very high chance Sanders would be exactly the same. Now we have a Nobel peace price winning president who regularly orders extrajudicial assassinations and prosecutes anyone blowing the whistle on the runaway national security/military-industrial comp…

>And that's a big part of what makes me continue to support Lessig over Sanders. Remembering how great Obama sounded in 2008, and seeing how that turned out, I give it a very high chance Sanders would be exactly the same. They're not the same at all. Sanders has a long history in Congress. Obama was a junior first term senator. Sanders is very specific about what he'll do. Obama was deliberately vague.

Indeed. Look how Obama moved from a strong and repeated "if you like your guns, you can keep your guns", and previously as a Senator even voted for the bill putting heavy, direct penalties on Katrina style mass confiscations, to this month calling for ... mass nationwide confiscations of all handguns and semi-auto long guns, which Hillary! echoed in the debate.

Not sure if Sanders has changed here, he's not as viciously anti-gun, he's changed his language recently but, not, based on what I was just able to dig up, his real positions.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#163

Post by hownottowrite » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 1:21 AM UTC

jack9 wrote: post #159

hownottowrite wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hardly ironic. It's realistic, and your defense is simplistic at best. What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if war breaks out? What if a natural disaster strikes putting millions of Americans at risk? We have no idea because his Presidency is not about governing towards a better future but rather tearing down a system he doesn't like. Noble as his idea may sound on the surfac…

> your defense is simplistic at best. Defense of what? > What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if war breaks out? He does what EVERY President does. 100 days or not (how are the # of days relevant? howabout 3! sounds a lot like political hand waving). What happens is surely that he makes a statement and the executive branch provides function. He's not a general, but he can make ind…

Do you actually believe that this is the way the world works?

Super curious if you do or if... https://xkcd.com/6/

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#164

Post by _username » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 2:17 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #2

> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…

I registered just to reply to your comment.

I live in Europe, and from here, your comments sounds like the grumblings of someone born and raised in some far shore of the USA where creationism is still taught at school and who genuinely believes that more guns are required to prevent mass shootings.

> have no budget, no endorsements, a tiny donor base, no institutional support from the Democratic party, no grass-roots campaign organization

That's the very reason why the American system is fucked up : you shouldn't get a chance to get elected for the sole reason that you have any of these.

And I'm not pretending that European models are perfect, far from that. They are just less fucked up - North American elections look like a joke from here, almost as much as South African "democracies"/North Koea where they are president from father to son and get elected with scores approaching 90%. The only downside to the joke is that USA are far more powerful than NK.

> a billionaire with universal name-recognition like Trump

Outside of the US, nobody knows who he is.

I'm 27, engineer, speak four languages and have traveled around Europe, North Africa, "Middle-East", and South Asia.

The only things that I knew about him prior to the 2016 presidential campaign were that he is an eccentric billionaire and has/had alleged bounds to the mafia (and the only reason why I knew that is because I care about national North American politics - which most of the non-USA residents don't give a shit about). Since then, the only time he is referred to in the European media is to underline the stupidity of his statements/behavior.

On the other hand, I've learned about Lessig during highschool : his legal challenges ; his role at Harvard, Yale and Standford ; his role in the creation of Create Commons, etc. He is seen as a dedicated, brilliant, man who tries and tackles tough issues. Every educated person knows or at least have heard about Lessig and/or Creative Commons.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#165

Post by jack9 » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 4:36 PM UTC

hownottowrite wrote: post #163

jack9 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your defense is simplistic at best. Defense of what? > What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if war breaks out? He does what EVERY President does. 100 days or not (how are the # of days relevant? howabout 3! sounds a lot like political hand waving). What happens is surely that he makes a statement and the executive branch provides function. He's not a general, but he can make ind…

Do you actually believe that this is the way the world works? Super curious if you do or if... https://xkcd.com/6/

Of course I do. The idea that a single individual directs (generally through a number of cabinet positions, notably Secretary of State) is how the US presidency worked under a number of administrations, most notably Bush Jr and Reagan. Jimmy Carter was a micromanager, by contrast. The physical process of running the US presidency does not come in an orientation, just a transition process (handoff of key information and items). POTUS function is a matter of philosophy and personal style in dealing with the bureaucracy. It's how the station really works, if you're interested in the reality.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#166

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Oct 20, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

Zelphyr wrote: post #147

bsbechtel wrote: post #71

I realize I'll probably get downvoted in this thread for saying this, but allowing more money into politics is actually giving people more choice in elections, and Lessig is becoming a victim of the problems with the system before Citizens United. Between both parties, we have over 20 people running for President. We have more choice than ever. Why? Because these individuals can afford to do so, and don't need to rel…

Yes, letting the media decide was a problem. But is letting the ultra-wealthy decide any less of a problem?

The point is to maximize the avenues for differing points of view to be heard. Some are heard through traditional news media platforms like TV and newspapers. But now others can quickly construct their own platforms (which are expensive) to directly compete with the news media.

Ultimately it is the voters who decide. No matter how much money a billionaire puts into ads, when he or she goes to vote, their vote counts as much as mine. A greater diversity of platforms and opinions simply feeds more information to more voters. I don't see how that is a bad thing for democracy.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#167

Post by hownottowrite » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 1:48 PM UTC

jack9 wrote: post #165

hownottowrite wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually believe that this is the way the world works? Super curious if you do or if... https://xkcd.com/6/

Of course I do. The idea that a single individual directs (generally through a number of cabinet positions, notably Secretary of State) is how the US presidency worked under a number of administrations, most notably Bush Jr and Reagan. Jimmy Carter was a micromanager, by contrast. The physical process of running the US presidency does not come in an orientation, just a transition process (handoff of key information a…

Sure, just like any other high-level executive function which is basically my entire point.

If you ever find yourself in a position of executive authority, you'll realize pretty quick that direct action is usually a disaster in the making when dealing with internal matters. However, by using indirect methods through key designates, you can actually get quite a bit done even in the worst bureaucracies.

By contrast, direct action is often required when dealing with external issues. Executive heads tend to deal only with other executive heads. This is true in business, and doubly true in politics.