A message from Lawrence Lessig [video](socallinuxexpo.org)
socallinuxexpo.org
A message from Lawrence Lessig [video]
http://www.socallinuxexpo.org/blog/message-lawrence-lessig
43 comments
> There's a conceit among technologists that Washington doesn't know how technology works. I don't think this is true.
As someone who has sat in the room with one of the highest ranking congressmen whilst explaining to him that one of his bills to support one of his big campaign contributors was going to stifle free speech, kill privacy as we know it, and undermine private property rights... I gotta say, no they really don't. Not surprising, as most people, even people who work in technology, don't know how technology works.
> Washington is full of nerds. They are often latin majors rather than computer science majors, but they are nerds nonetheless, and they are sharp and quick learners.
I think all of that is true, and concede that a lot of people in Washington are probably smarter than me. I have absolute confidence that they understand computer technology at least as well as I understand Latin.
Here's the dose of reality: how many of the non-Latin majors on Hacker News explain how Map Reduce works in Latin? ;-)
> Rather, it's people who share the values many technologists share.
Totally agree, and frankly it's a really big problem for engineers in particular. Engineers like tools, and they like the freedom to come up with ways to creatively use them. Most people prefer products. Just that difference alone creates a whole different set of values.
As someone who has sat in the room with one of the highest ranking congressmen whilst explaining to him that one of his bills to support one of his big campaign contributors was going to stifle free speech, kill privacy as we know it, and undermine private property rights... I gotta say, no they really don't. Not surprising, as most people, even people who work in technology, don't know how technology works.
> Washington is full of nerds. They are often latin majors rather than computer science majors, but they are nerds nonetheless, and they are sharp and quick learners.
I think all of that is true, and concede that a lot of people in Washington are probably smarter than me. I have absolute confidence that they understand computer technology at least as well as I understand Latin.
Here's the dose of reality: how many of the non-Latin majors on Hacker News explain how Map Reduce works in Latin? ;-)
> Rather, it's people who share the values many technologists share.
Totally agree, and frankly it's a really big problem for engineers in particular. Engineers like tools, and they like the freedom to come up with ways to creatively use them. Most people prefer products. Just that difference alone creates a whole different set of values.
Holy shit! How does this not have thousands of upvotes?
It's a masterful presentation -- the likes of which I haven't seen before. I reckon I got a similar feeling that so many did when they heard MLK speak. If you read about leadership, this is it folks. You tell very compelling stories that inspire you to action not because you want to follow the likes of Lawrence Lessig, but because you believe this cause is very important. For someone to kindle that passionate response is an art form.
And then there's the issue. It's a no-brainer: attack the root of countless legislative problems--campaign financing, the corruption.
I grew up the first part of my life in a country that is terribly corrupt and when I look at the US, the place I now call home, the only difference that I see, is that it's legal here. I was outraged at the Citizens United decision--in my mind, that was one of the worst decisions ever because it continues to legitimize a farce of democracy that we live under today.
tl;dw (ie, too long didn't watch): watch it for a lesson on leadership and get outraged at campaign financing!
edited: typos, toned down the hyperbole to avoid distracting from the message.
It's a masterful presentation -- the likes of which I haven't seen before. I reckon I got a similar feeling that so many did when they heard MLK speak. If you read about leadership, this is it folks. You tell very compelling stories that inspire you to action not because you want to follow the likes of Lawrence Lessig, but because you believe this cause is very important. For someone to kindle that passionate response is an art form.
And then there's the issue. It's a no-brainer: attack the root of countless legislative problems--campaign financing, the corruption.
I grew up the first part of my life in a country that is terribly corrupt and when I look at the US, the place I now call home, the only difference that I see, is that it's legal here. I was outraged at the Citizens United decision--in my mind, that was one of the worst decisions ever because it continues to legitimize a farce of democracy that we live under today.
tl;dw (ie, too long didn't watch): watch it for a lesson on leadership and get outraged at campaign financing!
edited: typos, toned down the hyperbole to avoid distracting from the message.
[comments don't always parse as intended, so let me first say that I mean this in the very best way possible, and intend to find ways to support Lessing and everybody else fighting corruption]
This may be the most powerful talk I've ever seen. Mr. Lessig has alway given a very interesting (and entertaining) talk. There have been some good talks recently, such as some of the 30c3 talks and Doctorow's caution for the future[1] a year earlier. There are, believe, there's two reasons this talk is so effective.
First, Mr. Lessig gave such a clear and simple goal. This prevents the problem from being immediately interpreted as one of those "big problems" that never get solved.
It doesn't even matter if campaign finance really is the "root" of the problem. It's still worthwhile, and even a small success has got to a lest help some when fighting for other causes in the future.
When dealing with other difficult situations such as addiction or depression, a common suggestion is to make small goals first, that are actually attainable, because trying to solve everything at once often ends up conditioning for apathy over the "impossible task". Those voting numbers shown at the end, however, suggests some victories are easily within reach.
That said...
I believe the key reason this talk was so powerful is that Mr. Lessig called on one of the original ways of rallying people to the cause. It works because it's a reminder that people matter, and some things cannot wait until later...
...because this fight already has a martyr.
Maybe we should make some progress before other are claimed as well.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
This may be the most powerful talk I've ever seen. Mr. Lessig has alway given a very interesting (and entertaining) talk. There have been some good talks recently, such as some of the 30c3 talks and Doctorow's caution for the future[1] a year earlier. There are, believe, there's two reasons this talk is so effective.
First, Mr. Lessig gave such a clear and simple goal. This prevents the problem from being immediately interpreted as one of those "big problems" that never get solved.
It doesn't even matter if campaign finance really is the "root" of the problem. It's still worthwhile, and even a small success has got to a lest help some when fighting for other causes in the future.
When dealing with other difficult situations such as addiction or depression, a common suggestion is to make small goals first, that are actually attainable, because trying to solve everything at once often ends up conditioning for apathy over the "impossible task". Those voting numbers shown at the end, however, suggests some victories are easily within reach.
That said...
I believe the key reason this talk was so powerful is that Mr. Lessig called on one of the original ways of rallying people to the cause. It works because it's a reminder that people matter, and some things cannot wait until later...
...because this fight already has a martyr.
Maybe we should make some progress before other are claimed as well.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
tl;dw. Yet I'm confident campaign financing is not the problem. It's just a symptom of something much deeper: the constitution itself.
It's very simple: in nearly all developed countries (the "West"), the rules of power (the constitutions) were written by men in power. There is a huge conflict of interest, so the constitutions suck. Or maybe they don't, but the people sure don't rule. We don't live in a democracy by any reasonable meaning of the word. (My current best guess is that our countries are plutocracies: money and businesses rule. Anecdotal evidence: Fractional Reserve Banking, which means private bank makes profit from printing money —they don't actually print money, but the effects are the same.)
Want to solve campaign financing? Don't support elections in the first place. Elections aren't democratic anyway: 2 candidates you can vote for? What a farce: that's 1 bit of decision thrown as a bone to the people. The pool of potentially worthy presidents is way bigger than 2. So many bits of decision power stripped from the people.
Want an _actually_ representative assembly? Do what any rational poll company does: select the citizens by random trial. That may not be enough though, so you may want to use the first assembly to bootstrap something better (typically by having them write a constitution, then leave politics forever).
It's very simple: in nearly all developed countries (the "West"), the rules of power (the constitutions) were written by men in power. There is a huge conflict of interest, so the constitutions suck. Or maybe they don't, but the people sure don't rule. We don't live in a democracy by any reasonable meaning of the word. (My current best guess is that our countries are plutocracies: money and businesses rule. Anecdotal evidence: Fractional Reserve Banking, which means private bank makes profit from printing money —they don't actually print money, but the effects are the same.)
Want to solve campaign financing? Don't support elections in the first place. Elections aren't democratic anyway: 2 candidates you can vote for? What a farce: that's 1 bit of decision thrown as a bone to the people. The pool of potentially worthy presidents is way bigger than 2. So many bits of decision power stripped from the people.
Want an _actually_ representative assembly? Do what any rational poll company does: select the citizens by random trial. That may not be enough though, so you may want to use the first assembly to bootstrap something better (typically by having them write a constitution, then leave politics forever).
What Mr. Lessig is doing, I believe, isn't about "campaign financing".
This is about waking people up to the idea that they can change things. There's a deep apathy an general defeatist attitude in most of the country because people have watched things spiral out of their control far too often.
It doesn't mater what the cause is; campaign finance is just one of problems that, at least in some areas. It'll help, but the goal is to remind people that you can fight back.
This is about giving the a victor, for moral sake, and we need a LOT more people pulling a Howard Beale on corruption in general.
/me walks over to window
(clears thought)
/me sticks head outside, and yells
I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MORE!!
This is about waking people up to the idea that they can change things. There's a deep apathy an general defeatist attitude in most of the country because people have watched things spiral out of their control far too often.
It doesn't mater what the cause is; campaign finance is just one of problems that, at least in some areas. It'll help, but the goal is to remind people that you can fight back.
This is about giving the a victor, for moral sake, and we need a LOT more people pulling a Howard Beale on corruption in general.
/me walks over to window
(clears thought)
/me sticks head outside, and yells
I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MORE!!
Yes and no. I've certainly reduced what Lessig states to what I found the most fitting way to summarize the problem he describes, but the corruption in the system really comes down to that as he so clearly explains towards the end of the video by marching in New Hampshire for campaign finance reform.
Many people don't participate because they don't feel represented until the issue affects them directly (NIMBY politics), yet there are countless issues in which we are affected as citizens because we let lobbyists and those that fund campaigns dictate legislation.
Many people here are always raging about patent law, copyright law, etc. Those were all Lessig's causes until Aaron Swartz made him realize that all the powerful interests have the legislators by the balls, so until that gets fixed, progress on any other front will be difficult.
Many people don't participate because they don't feel represented until the issue affects them directly (NIMBY politics), yet there are countless issues in which we are affected as citizens because we let lobbyists and those that fund campaigns dictate legislation.
Many people here are always raging about patent law, copyright law, etc. Those were all Lessig's causes until Aaron Swartz made him realize that all the powerful interests have the legislators by the balls, so until that gets fixed, progress on any other front will be difficult.
I think you should reconsider watching the video.
Don't support elections in the first place? So continue business as usual? I am not sure I understood correctly, but your solution IS the non-solution we're practicing today.
It's really difficult to summarize this video, just watch the first 5-10 minutes (that's what I tried) and you'll be hooked.
For added value: I'll buy you a beer for each filler/non-lexical sound (eg, "uhm", "eh", etc) you catch Lessig making whenever you're in the south bay.
Don't support elections in the first place? So continue business as usual? I am not sure I understood correctly, but your solution IS the non-solution we're practicing today.
It's really difficult to summarize this video, just watch the first 5-10 minutes (that's what I tried) and you'll be hooked.
For added value: I'll buy you a beer for each filler/non-lexical sound (eg, "uhm", "eh", etc) you catch Lessig making whenever you're in the south bay.
> Don't support elections in the first place? So continue business as usual?
Not quite.
Basically, I do not condone elections for anything bigger than a small city, and neither should you. They don't work. They don't empower the people. They're an illusion.
That was the problem. Now my solutions:
(1) Don't vote for elections that don't make any difference. This means most elections bigger than small cities. Or do vote, but put a blank entry.
(2) Spread the word.
(3) Think of alternatives, such as random trials. Some of those have already been tried. Look for instance at ancient Athens.
If we can get the majority of citizens to acknowledge the problem and know about the possible solutions, there will be a revolution. Hopefully this one won't be too violent.
Not quite.
Basically, I do not condone elections for anything bigger than a small city, and neither should you. They don't work. They don't empower the people. They're an illusion.
That was the problem. Now my solutions:
(1) Don't vote for elections that don't make any difference. This means most elections bigger than small cities. Or do vote, but put a blank entry.
(2) Spread the word.
(3) Think of alternatives, such as random trials. Some of those have already been tried. Look for instance at ancient Athens.
If we can get the majority of citizens to acknowledge the problem and know about the possible solutions, there will be a revolution. Hopefully this one won't be too violent.
> Basically, I do not condone elections for anything bigger than a small city, and neither should you. They don't work. They don't empower the people.
Since there are empirically measurable difference in how well different electoral systems work in empowering the people in nation-scale polities (see, e.g., Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy), I don't think it is at all the case that they don't work or are an illusion in general.
Its true that the electoral systems in certain large polities (the US among them, but not the only of them) work exceptionally poorly, which might lead to the faulty generalization that elections in large polities are fundamentally broken for those for whom the ones with exceptionally bad systems are the only referents, but that's a flawed generalization from limited information.
Since there are empirically measurable difference in how well different electoral systems work in empowering the people in nation-scale polities (see, e.g., Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy), I don't think it is at all the case that they don't work or are an illusion in general.
Its true that the electoral systems in certain large polities (the US among them, but not the only of them) work exceptionally poorly, which might lead to the faulty generalization that elections in large polities are fundamentally broken for those for whom the ones with exceptionally bad systems are the only referents, but that's a flawed generalization from limited information.
Okay, then, how effective is the high end? I expect not very.
And more importantly, are elections the best we can do? Handing over nearly unlimited power to a group of people we hope will not use it unwisely in the next few years?
No way. There's got to be a better system.
And more importantly, are elections the best we can do? Handing over nearly unlimited power to a group of people we hope will not use it unwisely in the next few years?
No way. There's got to be a better system.
> And more importantly, are elections the best we can do?
I would say elections are almost certainly an essential element of the best we can do; elections alone aren't a complete system of government.
> Handing over nearly unlimited power to a group of people we hope will not use it unwisely in the next few years?
Elections don't imply that. It sounds to me like your problem isn't actually with elections at all, but with the details of the powers given to officials who are elected.
I would say elections are almost certainly an essential element of the best we can do; elections alone aren't a complete system of government.
> Handing over nearly unlimited power to a group of people we hope will not use it unwisely in the next few years?
Elections don't imply that. It sounds to me like your problem isn't actually with elections at all, but with the details of the powers given to officials who are elected.
> It sounds to me like your problem isn't actually with elections at all, but with the details of the powers given to officials who are elected.
A bit of both. Elected officials have way too much power, and not enough ways to control them. Look for instance what it takes to revoke someone. But the way election themselves work suck too: by nature, elections will mostly select a narrow elite, which right now is mostly hereditary. And when we vote, we can hardly judge the wannabe official on his discourse: many are lying to gain the favour of the people.
If you get only one thing, get this: policy making shouldn't be in the hands of a few policy makers. The people should vote their own laws directly. The people should even write their laws directly, though I don't know how to do that technically (with computers networked together, we should find a way).
A bit of both. Elected officials have way too much power, and not enough ways to control them. Look for instance what it takes to revoke someone. But the way election themselves work suck too: by nature, elections will mostly select a narrow elite, which right now is mostly hereditary. And when we vote, we can hardly judge the wannabe official on his discourse: many are lying to gain the favour of the people.
If you get only one thing, get this: policy making shouldn't be in the hands of a few policy makers. The people should vote their own laws directly. The people should even write their laws directly, though I don't know how to do that technically (with computers networked together, we should find a way).
> A bit of both. Elected officials have way too much power, and not enough ways to control them. Look for instance what it takes to revoke someone.
Recall procedures (and whether they exist at all) vary considerably. There are lots of means of control available with elections -- the particular means implemented in particular places vary.
> But the way election themselves work suck too: by nature, elections will mostly select a narrow elite.
That is not true at all. Whether that is true depends both on the form of elections, the rules of eligibility for election, and what people are being elected to.
In a population of the same size, elections by STV in 5 member districts for a 2,000 member national legislature from which a government is formed by typical parliamentary-government rules are different than election of a strong President indirectly by elections of electors in multimember districts apportioned disproportionately to population by winner-take-all plurality who then elect the President by majority election where a failed majority goes to a different body to resolve coupled with election of a bicameral legislature by FPTP elections in single-member districts, where the house which has both legislative and quasi-executive functions isn't apportioned by population.
> which right now is mostly hereditary
Its clearly (and trivially) possible to avoid this in an electoral system itself (though, really, I don't think elections are the source of the problem, the problem is that the economic system favors hereditary wealth. And this has been generally true throughout all of history, even without elections, so blaming elections for it is way off point.)
> And when we vote, we can hardly judge the wannabe official on his discourse: many are lying to gain the favour of the people.
Its hardly as if discourse is the only thing available to judge by.
> If you get only one thing, get this: policy making shouldn't be in the hands of a few policy makers. The people should vote their own laws directly.
That still involves elections. And, more importantly, why do you think that people who can't successfully educate themselves sufficiently to elect good candidates every few years will do any better when they are called on to vote on every law?
And, even if the legislative function was in an assembly of the whole population this way, it wouldn't eliminate the need for executive and judicial officers, who still need to be selected somehow. Without elections, how do you propose we do that? Or do you imagine that the laws the people pass will magically implement and enforce themselves?
More importantly, I don't see how that does anything to address the problem of a hereditary elite exercising the most influence and power -- after all, in the present world, they do that through economic power and control of the means of communication; to the extent that there are hereditary electoral political dynasties, that's a symptom of the problem, not a root cause.
Recall procedures (and whether they exist at all) vary considerably. There are lots of means of control available with elections -- the particular means implemented in particular places vary.
> But the way election themselves work suck too: by nature, elections will mostly select a narrow elite.
That is not true at all. Whether that is true depends both on the form of elections, the rules of eligibility for election, and what people are being elected to.
In a population of the same size, elections by STV in 5 member districts for a 2,000 member national legislature from which a government is formed by typical parliamentary-government rules are different than election of a strong President indirectly by elections of electors in multimember districts apportioned disproportionately to population by winner-take-all plurality who then elect the President by majority election where a failed majority goes to a different body to resolve coupled with election of a bicameral legislature by FPTP elections in single-member districts, where the house which has both legislative and quasi-executive functions isn't apportioned by population.
> which right now is mostly hereditary
Its clearly (and trivially) possible to avoid this in an electoral system itself (though, really, I don't think elections are the source of the problem, the problem is that the economic system favors hereditary wealth. And this has been generally true throughout all of history, even without elections, so blaming elections for it is way off point.)
> And when we vote, we can hardly judge the wannabe official on his discourse: many are lying to gain the favour of the people.
Its hardly as if discourse is the only thing available to judge by.
> If you get only one thing, get this: policy making shouldn't be in the hands of a few policy makers. The people should vote their own laws directly.
That still involves elections. And, more importantly, why do you think that people who can't successfully educate themselves sufficiently to elect good candidates every few years will do any better when they are called on to vote on every law?
And, even if the legislative function was in an assembly of the whole population this way, it wouldn't eliminate the need for executive and judicial officers, who still need to be selected somehow. Without elections, how do you propose we do that? Or do you imagine that the laws the people pass will magically implement and enforce themselves?
More importantly, I don't see how that does anything to address the problem of a hereditary elite exercising the most influence and power -- after all, in the present world, they do that through economic power and control of the means of communication; to the extent that there are hereditary electoral political dynasties, that's a symptom of the problem, not a root cause.
If the problem is that hereditary wealth leads to hereditary elections, and I tend to agree, then we have a sufficient condition for plutocracy.
Elections could work better, but not much better. Your 2000 member national legislature will still be mostly made up of professional politicians. A given politician will still be way closer to another politician (even from an opposing party), than the people. A bit like 2 NBA players are closer to each other than they are to their respective fans.
Referendums are not elections. Citizens will do better on laws than they do on people, if the laws affect them directly. And it's not only laws. Some things are way more important than laws: budget policies, whether to build a hospital there, destroy a school here… More generally, if you need >110 IQ to understand a law, then there is a problem with the law itself. Like computer code, laws should be readable.
Some roles do need individuals in charge. How to select them? By random trial of course. Also make sure they are double and triple checked before, during, and after their mandate. The Athenians had such mechanisms that we can emulate. Here is an example: if the sheriff, randomly selected for a year, is mean to people, someone he has been mean to may well be sheriff later. That's a rather weak control mechanism, but you get the idea.
-----
Anyway, my central point isn't about elections. My central point is that people who are used to rule wrote the constitution themselves. People of power wrote the rules of power. Such a conflict of interest is unacceptable and can only lead to a broken system. The constitution therefore needs a complete rewrite, which probably means gathering a constituent assembly.
But.
Who do you think should be in this assembly? Certainly not people of power, or we will have the conflict of interest all over again. I'm not against elections as a mechanism, but do you see a way to have elections which does not select people who are used to rule?
Elections could work better, but not much better. Your 2000 member national legislature will still be mostly made up of professional politicians. A given politician will still be way closer to another politician (even from an opposing party), than the people. A bit like 2 NBA players are closer to each other than they are to their respective fans.
Referendums are not elections. Citizens will do better on laws than they do on people, if the laws affect them directly. And it's not only laws. Some things are way more important than laws: budget policies, whether to build a hospital there, destroy a school here… More generally, if you need >110 IQ to understand a law, then there is a problem with the law itself. Like computer code, laws should be readable.
Some roles do need individuals in charge. How to select them? By random trial of course. Also make sure they are double and triple checked before, during, and after their mandate. The Athenians had such mechanisms that we can emulate. Here is an example: if the sheriff, randomly selected for a year, is mean to people, someone he has been mean to may well be sheriff later. That's a rather weak control mechanism, but you get the idea.
-----
Anyway, my central point isn't about elections. My central point is that people who are used to rule wrote the constitution themselves. People of power wrote the rules of power. Such a conflict of interest is unacceptable and can only lead to a broken system. The constitution therefore needs a complete rewrite, which probably means gathering a constituent assembly.
But.
Who do you think should be in this assembly? Certainly not people of power, or we will have the conflict of interest all over again. I'm not against elections as a mechanism, but do you see a way to have elections which does not select people who are used to rule?
It's always interesting me to take the passion and fury of online discussions about politics and freedom and to reconcile that with the comparatively paltry amount of money donated to political organizations by people in silicon valley.
I think there's this feeling in Silicon Valley that "I'm changing the world through code" or "I believe the best ideas should win". And I wish that were the case. But in the meanwhile the Koch Brothers and hollywood quietly funnel bajillions of dollars into superpacs and get all the politicians in their pockets.
(I saw Lessig give this excellent talk at SCALE, and my take away from his talk is that we should remove the need for politicians to whore themselves out for money. And I strongly agree. But I guess I'm saying that in the meanwhile, if that's how the game is played, we need to put more skin in the game.)
I think there's this feeling in Silicon Valley that "I'm changing the world through code" or "I believe the best ideas should win". And I wish that were the case. But in the meanwhile the Koch Brothers and hollywood quietly funnel bajillions of dollars into superpacs and get all the politicians in their pockets.
(I saw Lessig give this excellent talk at SCALE, and my take away from his talk is that we should remove the need for politicians to whore themselves out for money. And I strongly agree. But I guess I'm saying that in the meanwhile, if that's how the game is played, we need to put more skin in the game.)
The refrain that politics is all about money is both destructive and counterproductive. If it were, that would be great, because Silicon Valley is rich. I don't know if you read the news, but Facebook is worth more than Halliburton and News Corp put together and Apple could buy both with cash on hand.
Lobbying is a big part of politics, but at the end of the day, the biggest aspect of lobbying is showing how proposals that benefit an industry: 1) fit in with politicians' ideological preconceptions; 2) create jobs. Silicon Valley punches beneath its weight in lobbying because its ideology doesn't fit neatly into either the left or the right, and because it employes relatively few people.
Lobbying is a big part of politics, but at the end of the day, the biggest aspect of lobbying is showing how proposals that benefit an industry: 1) fit in with politicians' ideological preconceptions; 2) create jobs. Silicon Valley punches beneath its weight in lobbying because its ideology doesn't fit neatly into either the left or the right, and because it employes relatively few people.
"meanwhile the Koch Brothers and hollywood quietly funnel bajillions of dollars into superpacs and get all the politicians in their pockets."
Here's the problem. You probably think the Koch Brothers is one of the biggest spenders. The joke of it is that they aren't. Their PAC network isn't in the top 10, but they are good targets for certain networks (in the same way Soros is for other networks). Heck, some of the stuff Koch is for horrify Republicans.
Hollywood, as a whole, is much more effective with money, but money is not their only weapon. The glamour of Hollywood and mingling with celebrities has always attracted politicians. Look at the celebrities testifying in front of Congressional Committees. Does anyone honestly believe they are the most qualified to testify? No, but the can surely attract the attention of politicians so it makes up for the lack of expertise and is one hell of a money equalizer.
The media is not a neutral observer and their pointing to "enemies" is a distraction for themselves and their friends. Go find the actual contributions and PAC spending to see what is real. Big Tech needs to deal with reality and the actual system.
Here's the problem. You probably think the Koch Brothers is one of the biggest spenders. The joke of it is that they aren't. Their PAC network isn't in the top 10, but they are good targets for certain networks (in the same way Soros is for other networks). Heck, some of the stuff Koch is for horrify Republicans.
Hollywood, as a whole, is much more effective with money, but money is not their only weapon. The glamour of Hollywood and mingling with celebrities has always attracted politicians. Look at the celebrities testifying in front of Congressional Committees. Does anyone honestly believe they are the most qualified to testify? No, but the can surely attract the attention of politicians so it makes up for the lack of expertise and is one hell of a money equalizer.
The media is not a neutral observer and their pointing to "enemies" is a distraction for themselves and their friends. Go find the actual contributions and PAC spending to see what is real. Big Tech needs to deal with reality and the actual system.
Really odd, it's my firm opinion that the media is not only not a neutral observer, they're actually very damaging, but not in the way you suggest. It's my perspective that the media no longer points out outright lies and other silliness as demonstrated by the talking heads and punditry that's presented as fact and news, when the reporters know very well that their guests are liars, avoiding the issue, or misleading the facts.
Though for some reason most of conservative "friends" will tout similar talking points, when in truth the real issues are blatant untruths and misrepresentations being presented to the people. Only in America can we have a negative, lame-duck narrative of a newly re-elected presented who's had consistent job growth for 47 months, lowered the deficit the most aggressively out of any President over the past 20+ years, an obvious economic recovery as defined by numerous measures, and I could go on and on, but yet, somehow the media narrative continue to present Republicans as stewards of the economy, despite facts to the otherwise over the past 13 years, not to mention an unnecessary and financially damaging shutdown, along with whatever talking point they wish to present on any given day.
The facts of the matter is that the media loves sensational soundbites and talking points, over actual facts regardless. Which for whatever reason Democrats have been absolutely terrible at combating and presenting the actual situation. Furthermore, the cable news/social media driven 24hr self-selected news cycle doesn't help things.
Heaven help us.
Though for some reason most of conservative "friends" will tout similar talking points, when in truth the real issues are blatant untruths and misrepresentations being presented to the people. Only in America can we have a negative, lame-duck narrative of a newly re-elected presented who's had consistent job growth for 47 months, lowered the deficit the most aggressively out of any President over the past 20+ years, an obvious economic recovery as defined by numerous measures, and I could go on and on, but yet, somehow the media narrative continue to present Republicans as stewards of the economy, despite facts to the otherwise over the past 13 years, not to mention an unnecessary and financially damaging shutdown, along with whatever talking point they wish to present on any given day.
The facts of the matter is that the media loves sensational soundbites and talking points, over actual facts regardless. Which for whatever reason Democrats have been absolutely terrible at combating and presenting the actual situation. Furthermore, the cable news/social media driven 24hr self-selected news cycle doesn't help things.
Heaven help us.
“lowered the deficit the most aggressively out of any President over the past 20+ years”
Clinton and a GOP Congress would have that title. This President is openning a large gap http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010
"who's had consistent job growth for 47 months"
If you go over to the http://data.bls.gov U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics you will see that is nothing special as far as Presidents go (President Bush had 46 months even with 9/11). What should be troubling is the unemployeement rate (same website) taking into account workers who have given up. This is troubling. Also, the part vesus full time employeement figures are not happy ones.
"Which for whatever reason Democrats have been absolutely terrible at combating and presenting the actual situation."
Given the slant of the NYT, MSNBC, and CNN, I have a hard time believing Democrats cannot get their talking points out. In fact, CNN losing market share with their turn to more punditry probably doesn’t help your points either. Of course their sensationalist reporting during the shutdown (They should be happy they weren’t around for Speaker Tip O’Neill’s 12 shutdowns) given the history of the shutdown http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/04/08/6432513-this-w... was pretty pathetic.
// late because responding to this took more time than a I had at a rest stop
Clinton and a GOP Congress would have that title. This President is openning a large gap http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010
"who's had consistent job growth for 47 months"
If you go over to the http://data.bls.gov U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics you will see that is nothing special as far as Presidents go (President Bush had 46 months even with 9/11). What should be troubling is the unemployeement rate (same website) taking into account workers who have given up. This is troubling. Also, the part vesus full time employeement figures are not happy ones.
"Which for whatever reason Democrats have been absolutely terrible at combating and presenting the actual situation."
Given the slant of the NYT, MSNBC, and CNN, I have a hard time believing Democrats cannot get their talking points out. In fact, CNN losing market share with their turn to more punditry probably doesn’t help your points either. Of course their sensationalist reporting during the shutdown (They should be happy they weren’t around for Speaker Tip O’Neill’s 12 shutdowns) given the history of the shutdown http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/04/08/6432513-this-w... was pretty pathetic.
// late because responding to this took more time than a I had at a rest stop
The deal with the Koch Brothers is that, for example, they are (or at least were) to a large degree bankrolling Tea Party in a huge way, but most Tea Party supporters saw the movement as a purely grass roots org. The other thing is that the specific agenda they are advocating seems like it'd cause quite a massive transformation on the country, yet that change doesn't seem to have a lot of currency with the general public.
Well, Occupy had quite a lot of money coming into it from different groups, and I would imagine the participants think the same of themselves.
The money coming into the Tea Party (or Occupy) didn't get people out to protest or spend all day at events. The general public is never political as a whole and the Tea Party did a pretty good job during the elections. It will be interesting to see if the establishment triumphs or the grass roots push back hard in 2014. I would imagine the 2012 RNC will probably be remembered.
The money coming into the Tea Party (or Occupy) didn't get people out to protest or spend all day at events. The general public is never political as a whole and the Tea Party did a pretty good job during the elections. It will be interesting to see if the establishment triumphs or the grass roots push back hard in 2014. I would imagine the 2012 RNC will probably be remembered.
30%-70% of our government representative's time is spent calling the 0.05% (150k people) of US citizens to raise money to get re-elected.
Our Republic is a Representative Democracy (not a true democracy) where there are 2 election cycles, the "Funders" and the voters. As a representative you can't get your name on the ballot in the voting cycle unless you pass the "Funders" cycle.
This is a closed source program where one has to "lean to the green", towards the 0.05% of people who have the money, to play.
NH is the KEY! Isolate 50,000 people in New Hampshire who say, "What will you do to end the system of corruption in Washington?" 50,000 people will swing the vote.
How can technology help isolate those 50k people? What apps can we build? What networks can we build?
Our Republic is a Representative Democracy (not a true democracy) where there are 2 election cycles, the "Funders" and the voters. As a representative you can't get your name on the ballot in the voting cycle unless you pass the "Funders" cycle.
This is a closed source program where one has to "lean to the green", towards the 0.05% of people who have the money, to play.
NH is the KEY! Isolate 50,000 people in New Hampshire who say, "What will you do to end the system of corruption in Washington?" 50,000 people will swing the vote.
How can technology help isolate those 50k people? What apps can we build? What networks can we build?
How are 50,000 people in New Hampshire going to change anything? That state has two representatives in the House of Representatives. What are two people in a corrupt legislature supposed to do?
What is the first stop in the presidential primary?
New Hampshire. Specifically Dixville Notch, NH[0]
It has massive media coverage because it is the first stop for both parties[1]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary
New Hampshire. Specifically Dixville Notch, NH[0]
It has massive media coverage because it is the first stop for both parties[1]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary
One of the reasons that politicians can "get away" with the current campaign finance model is that on a national stage it almost never gets talked about and is never part of "the conversation". If something is important in New Hampshire, then it has to be part of "the conversation" at least once every 4 years.
Even if we accept that this characterization is true, you would still need to show that it results in worse policy outcomes than whatever alternative system you my care to propose.
That is very difficult to do because policy outcomes are subjective. What you think is a worse policy outcome might be desired, or at least acceptable, to a majority of people.
It all comes down to policy, even for Larry Lessig. His turn toward reforming the entire system only happened after the system produced an outcome (on copyright extension) that he strongly disagreed with.
That is very difficult to do because policy outcomes are subjective. What you think is a worse policy outcome might be desired, or at least acceptable, to a majority of people.
It all comes down to policy, even for Larry Lessig. His turn toward reforming the entire system only happened after the system produced an outcome (on copyright extension) that he strongly disagreed with.
I disagree that worse policy outcomes are strictly necessary to propose a need to fix the system.
There are already demonstrable and massive distortions between what Congress debates and invests effort in vs. what the populace is preoccupied with vs. what these interests are preoccupied with. That means we've derailed the original intent of democracy/the Constitution.
Either you ratify a change to the constitution to make that okay, or you make whatever changes are needed to prevent this from continuing. You don't leave something this central to law & order in this country to be bypassed just for the fun of it.
> It all comes down to policy, even for Larry Lessig. His turn toward reforming the entire system only happened after the system produced an outcome (on copyright extension) that he strongly disagreed with.
You should watch the video. You are implying post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here, and that's not really how it went down. He was working on what he thought was his part of the problem until his definition of "his part of the problem" was changed, and it wasn't changed by his failure to get the outcome he wanted.
There are already demonstrable and massive distortions between what Congress debates and invests effort in vs. what the populace is preoccupied with vs. what these interests are preoccupied with. That means we've derailed the original intent of democracy/the Constitution.
Either you ratify a change to the constitution to make that okay, or you make whatever changes are needed to prevent this from continuing. You don't leave something this central to law & order in this country to be bypassed just for the fun of it.
> It all comes down to policy, even for Larry Lessig. His turn toward reforming the entire system only happened after the system produced an outcome (on copyright extension) that he strongly disagreed with.
You should watch the video. You are implying post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here, and that's not really how it went down. He was working on what he thought was his part of the problem until his definition of "his part of the problem" was changed, and it wasn't changed by his failure to get the outcome he wanted.
[deleted]
[deleted]
THANKS for sharing this. Wouldn't have discovered it otherwise and definitely a positive refresher with new points beyond his TED talk.
For anyone still sitting-on/queuing/water-latering Lessig's main TED talk on money in politics, as a vidder I created a remix of it to help improve engagement and intensity, using soundtracks by Zack Hemsey and a few video clips from other sources for support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB-vGYR8S58 I never really shared it beyond the organizers behind Lessig so I hope someone more useful than the avg youtuber can benefit from it here...
For anyone still sitting-on/queuing/water-latering Lessig's main TED talk on money in politics, as a vidder I created a remix of it to help improve engagement and intensity, using soundtracks by Zack Hemsey and a few video clips from other sources for support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB-vGYR8S58 I never really shared it beyond the organizers behind Lessig so I hope someone more useful than the avg youtuber can benefit from it here...
For the benefit of those who can't/don't want to watch the video, can someone summarize what Lessig's "cause" is?
EDIT: More specifically, I am wondering why he's calling for the help of "technically enabled" people. What is the relevance of technology here?
EDIT: More specifically, I am wondering why he's calling for the help of "technically enabled" people. What is the relevance of technology here?
His basic thesis can be summed up as:
The American political system (especially Congress) is very corrupt. This is due to the fact that it is almost impossible to be elected without raising a lot of money, and even harder to get reelected without doing so. This requires Congresspeople to spend a large fraction of their time contacting potential campaign contributors and convincing them to give money. It also makes them very very aware of which positions on which issues will bring in money. It also leads to large proportions of ex-Congresspeople and former Congressional staffers becoming (very well-paid) lobbyists.
And that because of this, nothing substantial to improve the current corporate/financial domination of American society can be done until the influence of money in politics is removed.
The poll statistics he quotes are worth noting:
1) 96 percent think that lessening the influence of money in politics is important.
2) 68 percent think that this is very important.
3) 91 percent think it's unlikely, and therefore not worth spending any effort on.
The American political system (especially Congress) is very corrupt. This is due to the fact that it is almost impossible to be elected without raising a lot of money, and even harder to get reelected without doing so. This requires Congresspeople to spend a large fraction of their time contacting potential campaign contributors and convincing them to give money. It also makes them very very aware of which positions on which issues will bring in money. It also leads to large proportions of ex-Congresspeople and former Congressional staffers becoming (very well-paid) lobbyists.
And that because of this, nothing substantial to improve the current corporate/financial domination of American society can be done until the influence of money in politics is removed.
The poll statistics he quotes are worth noting:
1) 96 percent think that lessening the influence of money in politics is important.
2) 68 percent think that this is very important.
3) 91 percent think it's unlikely, and therefore not worth spending any effort on.
The technology bit starts at 34:15. I'm paraphrasing here...
I'm here to recruit you. To help turn us from cows to ants, to build awareness, to save this republic.
This movement has enormous needs which you [tech] uniquely can provide. This movement will only succeed if we can find way to knit people together in a different model than tv / advertising model of politics today. This needs to be built and people with your skills can do this.
If you think you can help then email [email protected]
So he has an open ended problem, not a spec, that he believes technology can play a large role in solving.
He mentions Aaron Swartz as inspiration multiple times through the talk. I think he wants more people with Aaron's technical skills to contribute to the movement to politically empower the wider population.
I'm here to recruit you. To help turn us from cows to ants, to build awareness, to save this republic.
This movement has enormous needs which you [tech] uniquely can provide. This movement will only succeed if we can find way to knit people together in a different model than tv / advertising model of politics today. This needs to be built and people with your skills can do this.
If you think you can help then email [email protected]
So he has an open ended problem, not a spec, that he believes technology can play a large role in solving.
He mentions Aaron Swartz as inspiration multiple times through the talk. I think he wants more people with Aaron's technical skills to contribute to the movement to politically empower the wider population.
[deleted]
If you haven't seen Lawrence Lessig's other talk about campaign financing creating a second dependency within congress on their funders in addition to the people, it's worth watching.
www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
I believe his Google Talk is FAR BETTER.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc&noredirect=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc&noredirect=1
I had the privilege of attending this talk in person last weekend.
I'm generally very apathetic about politics in general, and have no interest in participating. By the end of this session, though, I think that may have changed. I'm not quite sure how I want to participate quite yet, but the seed's been planted.
I'm generally very apathetic about politics in general, and have no interest in participating. By the end of this session, though, I think that may have changed. I'm not quite sure how I want to participate quite yet, but the seed's been planted.
For those in the SF Bay Area, we are having a hackathon the weekend of March 29–30 in San Francisco. We will be working on tools to support Lawrence Lessig, the NH Rebellion organization, and their grassroots movement to end the system of corruption in DC. If you're interested in participating, hit us up at [email protected] and we'll send you the details.
So, is the question how can technology greatly reduce the costs of campaigning? Would this allow for campaign finance reform where more restrictions are placed on candidates in return for funds and publicly funded technology tools to enable far smarter campaigns (like what Obama's re-election team did with voter turnout)? Could technology change the costs of voter outreach to a point where the funders become irrelevant?
Most important question: if you won't watch the video which informs about all this and/or read the materials Lessig has posted explaining all this, why should anyone think you'd read their replies answering the same questions here on Hacker News?
Lawrence is by far one of the most important thought provokers of our century. This man is on his way into history.
What is missing is not people who are "technically enabled." Rather, it's people who share the values many technologists share. You can understand how TCP/IP works without buying into the philosophies pertaining to an open and neutral internet. And its those people that seem to shy away from participating in politics. Not people who can describe what happens when a packet gets dropped, but people who can articulate why its better to have an internet that doesn't drop packets based on who sent them.