Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

Post by vannevar » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 3:58 PM UTC

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, charlatans killed people right and left because no one regulated who could claim to be a doctor. Once upon a time, a mob could ransack your house and steal your belongings because there was no law. That's why we invented government. Government starts regulating behavior whenever enough people are adversely affected by that behavior that they demand the regulation.

Rather than simply giving in to anarchy as you suggest, let's try to improve democracy.

Post by vannevar » Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 4:07 PM UTC

drags wrote: post #61

jbooth wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The abuse of the filibuster for one senator to stop a bill is actually a recent parliamentary invention. There's no constitutional mechanism for the filibuster, it's based on senate rules which are adopted every 2 years. Historically, 40 senators could prevent debate from being cut off but they would need to all occupy the chamber and actually be debating the whole time. See Strom Thurmond reading the phone book on t…

The tradition of unrestricted Senate debate has been a part of the Senate since the inception of the republic. In fact, prior to 1917, there was no mechanism for ending debate so long as any single senator desired to speak. And given that Congress used to meet much less frequently than it does at present, it was commonplace for bills to be "filibustered" simply because a single senator didn't like the bill, and other…

Far from being ludicrous, the original rules served a valid purpose: weighing the conviction of those participating in the debate. By forcing a speaker to hold the floor, the original rules allowed someone with deep conviction to stand against a majority in a test of will. Even if the speaker ultimately failed on the floor, he would have drawn public attention to his point of view and ensured that it was considered.

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

Re: Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back