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

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#41

Post by dantheman »

lambda wrote: post #36
tjic wrote: post #8

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…

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 the…

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.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#42

Post by dwiel »

kiba wrote: post #7
bballant wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

The two aren't mutually exclusive (specialization/trade and buying/investing local). Buying local food from farmers is still specialization and division of labor.

if "Trade is the stuff of civilization" as you say, is it not critical that our trade reflects our personal beliefs?

If you don't like what certain large corporations are doing, don't give them your money. In many cases, as with food, an easy way to do this is to buy from local farmers directly or through local coops.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#43

Post by dantheman »

hack_edu wrote: post #38
lambda wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

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.

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.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#44

Post by astrec »

lambda wrote: post #37
castis wrote: post #16

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

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

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).

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#45

Post by nkohari »

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.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#46

Post by lambda »

kiba wrote: post #39
lambda wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

While it is presumptuous to think that I would support a government, public roads, public hospital, of any kind, but alas, I have no real "plan" to speak of. However, I could describe in details how might an anarchistic free market society would work. If there are any plans, it would be mostly be about trying seasteading, counter-economic black market activities, among other things. Liberty to me, can only occurs on…

Did I presume anything? I asked how you would solve these problems without a government, or provide a fair government without democracy.

And I said public or semi-public. It's pretty hard to prevent anyone unauthorized from getting onto a road; by definition they are big, and need easy access to be valuable. That's what I mean by "semi-public." If you have private roads, how do you prevent freeloaders without some sort of de-facto government? Likewise with hospitals; you can't distinguish between someone covered by your insurance and someone not when they come in from an automobile wreck, nor can you negotiate prices with them.

Liberty to me, can only occurs on an individual level, not through social engineering by a carefully selected technocract.

So you would prefer to be a lone hunter-gather than take advantage of the benefits that modern society has to offer you? Because beyond the lone, solitary hunter-gatherer, someone else's needs are always going to affect what options are available to you.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#47

Post by lambda »

dantheman wrote: post #41
lambda wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

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 has significantly overreached in its authority.

So what's your solution? When was the last time a president or congress made the government smaller? Is it possible for this to happen when monied interests can buy the ear of a congressman and get a great return on their investment because the government is so large and powerful?

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#48

Post by samdk »

tjic wrote: post #8

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 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.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#49

Post by natep »

dantheman wrote: post #43
hack_edu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 vote/person. As it is, the wealthy are able to vote with their money, while the poor can only vote at the polls (with limited choices and high risk of disenfranchisement).

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

#50

Post by barnaby »

tjic wrote: post #8

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…

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.

Post reply on HN