3 ms·

> It's one aspect of a tech policy problem that has been plaguing us for at least 25 years: technologists and policymakers don't understand each other Policy m

> It's one aspect of a tech policy problem that has been plaguing us for at least 25 years: technologists and policymakers don't understand each other Policy makers do understand very well. This has not been going on for the last 25 years, this has been going on for hundreds of years. That is policy makers blocking new technologies to grant artificial monopolies to incumbents. The UK mercantilism from the 16th century comes to mind with the government trying to block cheaper wool and then new cotton tech to defend traditional wool merchants and justifying this with "a lack of license and legality" issues cheaper rural wood merchants and cotton merchants supposedly had. As the saying goes: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' As long as you will have governments with the power to shut down new technologies you will have incumbents willing to bribe those governments into doing so. Apart removing the government from the equation or at least its power, I don't think we will ever solve this issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Age_of_Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United... https://mises.org/library/mercantilism-england https://mises.org/library/mercantilism-england

avmich 11y ago
That's why ideas which Lawrence Lessig is explaining are perhaps most valuable in the current US political cycle. However, even without proposed decoupling of money and power we ought to consider alternatives. That could be at least faster - if not more achievable.
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  What Lawrence Lessig is proposing is not enough. As long as the government has the power to block new technologies and other legitimate new business ideas, there will be incumbents there to bribe them into doing so. Even if you make laws that totally forbid campaign financing. Look at what happened in Germany, the chancellor didn't get any money but when he retired, he got a great mysterious job at a Russian oil company: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/13/russia.germany http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/13/russia.germany Give the government unlimited/huge power to regulate the market and money will find its way to the politicians in order to influence them, one way or the other. The only way to stop this is not to forbid campaign financing, super PAC or else. No, the only way to stop this is to do something most of us are not willing to do: complete separation of the economy and the State, just like total separation of Church and State was the only way to stop religious persecution, nothing short of total separation of the State and the economy will stop unfair and corrupt driven anti-tech and anti-new businesses laws.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    What happens when, or if, the economy becomes dominated by a handful of actors who impose monopolistic economic inefficiencies just as damaging as any the state could have conjured, and with the additional injury that there is no democratic way to reverse them?
    - patrickaljord 11y ago
      The argument here is that monopolies can only exist when the State is protecting them. In a free market with no State intervention, if an actor misbehave by abusing its position, it creates a business opportunity for competing services to spring. See the taxi industry, they offered very bad services, refusing rides, mistreating customers etc so what happened? Uber, Lyft and others saw the business opportunity to offer cheaper, more efficient services. Only in cities where the government banned the competition is the taxi industry allowed to continue its monopolistic abuses.
  - EdwardDiego 11y ago
    How do you then regulate players in the economy to ensure that the harm to society caused by unfettered business is minimised?
    - patrickaljord 11y ago
      If a business initiates force against you or damages your property, you should have the legal right to attack them.

avmich 11y ago

That's why ideas which Lawrence Lessig is explaining are perhaps most valuable in the current US political cycle. However, even without proposed decoupling of money and power we ought to consider alternatives. That could be at least faster - if not more achievable.

patrickaljord 11y ago
What Lawrence Lessig is proposing is not enough. As long as the government has the power to block new technologies and other legitimate new business ideas, there will be incumbents there to bribe them into doing so. Even if you make laws that totally forbid campaign financing. Look at what happened in Germany, the chancellor didn't get any money but when he retired, he got a great mysterious job at a Russian oil company: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/13/russia.germany http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/13/russia.germany Give the government unlimited/huge power to regulate the market and money will find its way to the politicians in order to influence them, one way or the other. The only way to stop this is not to forbid campaign financing, super PAC or else. No, the only way to stop this is to do something most of us are not willing to do: complete separation of the economy and the State, just like total separation of Church and State was the only way to stop religious persecution, nothing short of total separation of the State and the economy will stop unfair and corrupt driven anti-tech and anti-new businesses laws.
- deciplex 11y ago
  What happens when, or if, the economy becomes dominated by a handful of actors who impose monopolistic economic inefficiencies just as damaging as any the state could have conjured, and with the additional injury that there is no democratic way to reverse them?
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    The argument here is that monopolies can only exist when the State is protecting them. In a free market with no State intervention, if an actor misbehave by abusing its position, it creates a business opportunity for competing services to spring. See the taxi industry, they offered very bad services, refusing rides, mistreating customers etc so what happened? Uber, Lyft and others saw the business opportunity to offer cheaper, more efficient services. Only in cities where the government banned the competition is the taxi industry allowed to continue its monopolistic abuses.
- EdwardDiego 11y ago
  How do you then regulate players in the economy to ensure that the harm to society caused by unfettered business is minimised?
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    If a business initiates force against you or damages your property, you should have the legal right to attack them.