6 ms·

Lawrence Lessig: How to Get Our Democracy Back

80 points by kriyative 17y ago

cwan 17y ago
Something of a broader response from Reason.com - "Stop the Car, Larry. I Want to Get Out", excerpt: "While the folks at Cato would respond to special-interest lobbying by reducing the size and scope of government so less of life is politicized and there is less to lobby about, Lessig would respond by amending the Constitution to restrict freedom of speech." http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/stop-the-car-larry-i-want-to-g http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/stop-the-car-larry-i-want-...
- bballant 17y ago
  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 for, for a change). I think Lessig's ideals would be better served if he focused on the small but growing movement around these things. But, alas, as Lawyer, he's part of the system in many ways and, as such, a bit of a top-down problem solver.
  - cwan 17y ago
    From a historical context, I do find it a bit odd this fear of "corporations". It's really difficult to argue that they function in any way as a cohesive group. Sure it can be argued that they're all profit seeking (some more than others) but the search of profits is done in such radically different ways. If anything, the power of corporations has been lessening simply because of the nature of the net/web (just think how difficult it's been for even politically authoritarian societies like China to maintain a control over what people hear/see/think). Fortune Magazine tracks the life of the average Fortune 500 company and it's been in steady decline. The dominance of any individual company is far from permanent and made even less so with continually falling barriers to entry. The perverse irony is that larger firms like regulation because they're the most able to adapt to them and can use them to keep upstarts out.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      in a market the search for profit is the search for more efficiently serving aggregate preferences of consumers. allowing corporations to assume disproportionate control of the political process is almost assuredly a net improvement.
      - AlisdairO 17y ago
        That's clearly false. A really simple example is antitrust legislation - if MS (or any other monopolistic organisation) were able to remove regulation on monopolies, you can be assured that they would, and that the effect on our society would be dramatically negative.
        cwan 17y ago
        I don't know if it's "clearly false". Anti-trust/anti-competitive business practices are an area that personally make me uncomfortable but again, here too, companies are having increasingly difficult control over maintaining dominance if they don't provide the best products/services and focus instead on trying to suppress competitors (e.g. browser wars, high end computers - apple v pcs). I'd also be pretty uncomfortable with governments making the determination of what's "good" and "bad" as there have been some bizarre anti-trust rulings over the past few decades. Here's Cato's take on anti-trust: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-39.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-39.html
      - lutorm 17y ago
        Even the Economist has clearly argued that being "pro-business' is not the same thing as being "pro-market". Besides, I don't agree with you, because it doesn't take into account externalities. When "efficiency" takes the form of polluting the river because someone else will clean it up, it most assuredly is not a net improvement.
    - gaius 17y ago
      Replace "corporations" with "witches" and you'll see it for the Mediaeval superstitious ranting that it is.
  - kiba 17y ago
    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. Trade is the stuff of civilization. We should encourage more of it.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      can never be overstated. TRADE IS CIVILIZATION! voluntary exchange for mutual benefit is the most powerful incentive against violent conflict. preventing powers from externalizing the costs of conflict onto others is the most important issue facing the world. it is holding back all other progress.
      - lollynoob 17y ago
        Not everyone thinks progress should be the ultimate goal, though.
        natrius 17y ago
        Progress is by definition a good thing. The problem arises when it comes to classifying things as progress.
    - bballant 17y ago
      When you invest and buy local, you support your community and the people around you which often improves your community. It's easier to see or find out how the thing is made or how the money gets used. So, it's less likely you'll find lead in your toys or find a 14 year old picking your fruit. You are also closer to where whatever it is you bought is made and the people/company in which you are investing, which can mean fewer transactions, less taxes, less regulation, and overall less government and corporate involvement. Locally produced food is the most obvious, practical thing to buy because it is fresher an tastes better which should be compelling enough on it's own. I'm not saying don't trade, I just think we should think about what we're buying a bit more. As Fugazi said, "Never mind what they're selling, it's what you're buying!" Heh.
kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
I want the restricted republic back. No interest in democracy. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." --Mencken
- kiba 17y ago
  What I want is true liberty, not this nonsense called "democracy".
  - lambda 17y ago
    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 with all of these problems without a government? Or do you have a proposal for selecting that government fairly, justly, and well without democratic elections?
    - kiba 17y ago
      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 an individual level, not through social engineering by a carefully selected technocract. Indeed, I don't have anything to answer for a "plan" nor do I know if it is realistic at all.
      - lambda 17y ago
        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.
tjic 17y ago
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 doctors did not feel the need to lobby the government ... because the government did not feel the need to regulate the prices and conditions under which doctors did their work. Once upon a time target shooters did not feel the need to lobby the government ... because government did not feel the need to regulate every aspect of the hobby of shooting. Lessig is way off base here. He's a big government statist, but he doesn't want folks who disagree with him to have the power to influence the government.
- azgolfer 17y ago
  Yes and the brilliance of the founders was creating a very limited federal government. The aristocratic senate and the house 'of the people' had to agree. The bill would get vetoed by default. One senator could stop any bill by filibustering. The bill of rights prevented state governments from gettting out of control...
  - jbooth 17y ago
    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 the senate floor during the civil rights filibusters, for example. But that took a bunch of time, time you could be at fundraisers or hanging out at home or whatever. So they made it easier over recent years, with the result that the current Senate filibusters more than twice as much as the last one, which itself filibustered more than historically, etc.
    - drags 17y ago
Kilimanjaro 17y ago
"our government is corrupt" Those in power want it to be corrupt to perpetuate themselves in power. Those aspiring for power become corrupted once they get there. Small government, local voting and decision making. Direct democracy. No politician wants a reform for they will be left out. We must burn down the government to save it.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  more, smaller governments (competition forces better customer service) is an easy win for liberty. unfortunately smaller governments can't resist black swans as effectively (napolean running through the italian city states like butter).
jokull 17y ago
As a non American: Is it not obvious that a politician accepting money to mould policy is bad for the bottom line? Also slightly related - why is it acceptable to persuade a court to release suspects by simply paying them bail money in England and America? Money walks all over morals.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "Also slightly related - why is it acceptable to persuade a court to release suspects by simply paying them bail money in England and America?" You get it back if you make all of your court appearances. it's way to help ensure that people charged wth a crime don't flee. "Money walks all over morals." How so? Would it be better to keep people in jail simply because they've been accused of a crime? If everyone was trusted to show up for court after being charged I think we'd have a whole other set of issues.
  - jokull 17y ago
    Aaaah. I didn't know you'd get the money back for showing up in court. Why not just fine people who don't show up then? I'm not suggesting you put all suspects in jail.
    - walkers 17y ago
      Because you can't fine someone once they have fled the state/country.
    - lambda 17y ago
      If they don't show up, how do you fine them? This isn't just about a person who misses a court date because they're lazy; it's also about people who may flee to a different country, or start working under an assumed name, or anything of the sort. If they've already paid, they have some incentive to come back and be able to reclaim their bail money. If they do skip town, sending cops after them to track them down and arrest them again is expensive. That's where the bounty hunter part comes in; if they skip their court date, their own bail money is used as incentive to encourage police officers, sheriffs, or private investigators to capture them. In many cases, this isn't the romantic image of a western cowboy hunting down dangerous criminals in caves, but just the equivalent of a debt-collection agency, that calls them, mails them, files information with credit agencies preventing them from receiving credit, and so on.
castis 17y ago
To my knowledge, our government was never meant to be a Democracy. Republic innit?
- lambda 17y ago
  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 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
  - astrec 17y ago
    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).
nkohari 17y ago
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.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Let's further say I'm a Democrat, but Ford decides to donate a large sum of money to a Republican candidate. So what? You're an employee, not a shareholder. Shareholders are free to vote out management. They're also free to choose which companies to own. > Should I sell my stock? Yes. You're not obligted to buy/own their stock, they're not obligated to do as you'd like (unless enough of your fellow owners agree).
lutorm 17y ago
I agree with Lessig. Maybe all these "small government", "liberty" people responding can explain how it fits with their world view that the northern European countries, who are not known for the smallness of their governments, consistently manage to have the highest standard of living and the most well-functioning and democratic governments in the world?
- Empact 17y ago
  It's a loaded question. What's high-functioning about persistent high unemployment, for example?: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/us-eu-ur-figure-2.png http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05... And how do you intend to do objective comparison on standard of living? How do you weight the unemployment figure above, for example, in such a measure?
  - bballant 17y ago
    Unemployment rates are counted differently in other countries. In the United States, you have to be looking for a job to be counted as unemployed, so our numbers tend to look lower than they actually are. Also, an American friend of mine who lives in France tells me that, because of French social programs, unemployment is not as scary or devastating there as it is in the states. On the other hand, I have a French friend who lives in the States and enjoys the American sense of innovation and competitive spirit which he feels is lacking in France. You're right, standard of living is hard to be objective about. One common measure is the Human Development Index. The US does pretty well in this compared to the rest of the world, but not compared to our more socialist sisters in Europe like France. I think one of the reasons for America's HDI lagging behind European countries is our lack of universal health care, but that's another topic.
- anamax 17y ago
  > who are not known for the smallness of their governments, consistently manage to have the highest standard of living and the most well-functioning and democratic governments in the world? Their standard of living is not the highest. Moreover, they're basically monocultural. Minnesota works about as well as the Scandanavian countries.
ratsbane 17y ago
I like Lessig and I like this article but does this really belong on Hacker News? Articles about technology are fine; articles about technology and business are okay; articles about technology and politics are okay, but this story ...?

80 points by kriyative 17y ago

cwan 17y ago

Something of a broader response from Reason.com - "Stop the Car, Larry. I Want to Get Out", excerpt: "While the folks at Cato would respond to special-interest lobbying by reducing the size and scope of government so less of life is politicized and there is less to lobby about, Lessig would respond by amending the Constitution to restrict freedom of speech." http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/stop-the-car-larry-i-want-to-g http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/stop-the-car-larry-i-want-...

bballant 17y ago
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 for, for a change). I think Lessig's ideals would be better served if he focused on the small but growing movement around these things. But, alas, as Lawyer, he's part of the system in many ways and, as such, a bit of a top-down problem solver.
- cwan 17y ago
  From a historical context, I do find it a bit odd this fear of "corporations". It's really difficult to argue that they function in any way as a cohesive group. Sure it can be argued that they're all profit seeking (some more than others) but the search of profits is done in such radically different ways. If anything, the power of corporations has been lessening simply because of the nature of the net/web (just think how difficult it's been for even politically authoritarian societies like China to maintain a control over what people hear/see/think). Fortune Magazine tracks the life of the average Fortune 500 company and it's been in steady decline. The dominance of any individual company is far from permanent and made even less so with continually falling barriers to entry. The perverse irony is that larger firms like regulation because they're the most able to adapt to them and can use them to keep upstarts out.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    in a market the search for profit is the search for more efficiently serving aggregate preferences of consumers. allowing corporations to assume disproportionate control of the political process is almost assuredly a net improvement.
    - AlisdairO 17y ago
      That's clearly false. A really simple example is antitrust legislation - if MS (or any other monopolistic organisation) were able to remove regulation on monopolies, you can be assured that they would, and that the effect on our society would be dramatically negative.
      - cwan 17y ago
        I don't know if it's "clearly false". Anti-trust/anti-competitive business practices are an area that personally make me uncomfortable but again, here too, companies are having increasingly difficult control over maintaining dominance if they don't provide the best products/services and focus instead on trying to suppress competitors (e.g. browser wars, high end computers - apple v pcs). I'd also be pretty uncomfortable with governments making the determination of what's "good" and "bad" as there have been some bizarre anti-trust rulings over the past few decades. Here's Cato's take on anti-trust: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-39.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-39.html
    - lutorm 17y ago
      Even the Economist has clearly argued that being "pro-business' is not the same thing as being "pro-market". Besides, I don't agree with you, because it doesn't take into account externalities. When "efficiency" takes the form of polluting the river because someone else will clean it up, it most assuredly is not a net improvement.
  - gaius 17y ago
    Replace "corporations" with "witches" and you'll see it for the Mediaeval superstitious ranting that it is.
- kiba 17y ago
  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. Trade is the stuff of civilization. We should encourage more of it.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    can never be overstated. TRADE IS CIVILIZATION! voluntary exchange for mutual benefit is the most powerful incentive against violent conflict. preventing powers from externalizing the costs of conflict onto others is the most important issue facing the world. it is holding back all other progress.
    - lollynoob 17y ago
      Not everyone thinks progress should be the ultimate goal, though.
      - natrius 17y ago
        Progress is by definition a good thing. The problem arises when it comes to classifying things as progress.
  - bballant 17y ago
    When you invest and buy local, you support your community and the people around you which often improves your community. It's easier to see or find out how the thing is made or how the money gets used. So, it's less likely you'll find lead in your toys or find a 14 year old picking your fruit. You are also closer to where whatever it is you bought is made and the people/company in which you are investing, which can mean fewer transactions, less taxes, less regulation, and overall less government and corporate involvement. Locally produced food is the most obvious, practical thing to buy because it is fresher an tastes better which should be compelling enough on it's own. I'm not saying don't trade, I just think we should think about what we're buying a bit more. As Fugazi said, "Never mind what they're selling, it's what you're buying!" Heh.

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago

I want the restricted republic back. No interest in democracy. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." --Mencken

kiba 17y ago
What I want is true liberty, not this nonsense called "democracy".
- lambda 17y ago
  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 with all of these problems without a government? Or do you have a proposal for selecting that government fairly, justly, and well without democratic elections?
  - kiba 17y ago
    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 an individual level, not through social engineering by a carefully selected technocract. Indeed, I don't have anything to answer for a "plan" nor do I know if it is realistic at all.
    - lambda 17y ago
      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.

tjic 17y ago

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 doctors did not feel the need to lobby the government ... because the government did not feel the need to regulate the prices and conditions under which doctors did their work. Once upon a time target shooters did not feel the need to lobby the government ... because government did not feel the need to regulate every aspect of the hobby of shooting. Lessig is way off base here. He's a big government statist, but he doesn't want folks who disagree with him to have the power to influence the government.

azgolfer 17y ago
Yes and the brilliance of the founders was creating a very limited federal government. The aristocratic senate and the house 'of the people' had to agree. The bill would get vetoed by default. One senator could stop any bill by filibustering. The bill of rights prevented state governments from gettting out of control...
- jbooth 17y ago
  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 the senate floor during the civil rights filibusters, for example. But that took a bunch of time, time you could be at fundraisers or hanging out at home or whatever. So they made it easier over recent years, with the result that the current Senate filibusters more than twice as much as the last one, which itself filibustered more than historically, etc.
  - drags 17y ago

Kilimanjaro 17y ago

"our government is corrupt" Those in power want it to be corrupt to perpetuate themselves in power. Those aspiring for power become corrupted once they get there. Small government, local voting and decision making. Direct democracy. No politician wants a reform for they will be left out. We must burn down the government to save it.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
more, smaller governments (competition forces better customer service) is an easy win for liberty. unfortunately smaller governments can't resist black swans as effectively (napolean running through the italian city states like butter).

jokull 17y ago

As a non American: Is it not obvious that a politician accepting money to mould policy is bad for the bottom line? Also slightly related - why is it acceptable to persuade a court to release suspects by simply paying them bail money in England and America? Money walks all over morals.

jamesbritt 17y ago
"Also slightly related - why is it acceptable to persuade a court to release suspects by simply paying them bail money in England and America?" You get it back if you make all of your court appearances. it's way to help ensure that people charged wth a crime don't flee. "Money walks all over morals." How so? Would it be better to keep people in jail simply because they've been accused of a crime? If everyone was trusted to show up for court after being charged I think we'd have a whole other set of issues.
- jokull 17y ago
  Aaaah. I didn't know you'd get the money back for showing up in court. Why not just fine people who don't show up then? I'm not suggesting you put all suspects in jail.
  - walkers 17y ago
    Because you can't fine someone once they have fled the state/country.
  - lambda 17y ago
    If they don't show up, how do you fine them? This isn't just about a person who misses a court date because they're lazy; it's also about people who may flee to a different country, or start working under an assumed name, or anything of the sort. If they've already paid, they have some incentive to come back and be able to reclaim their bail money. If they do skip town, sending cops after them to track them down and arrest them again is expensive. That's where the bounty hunter part comes in; if they skip their court date, their own bail money is used as incentive to encourage police officers, sheriffs, or private investigators to capture them. In many cases, this isn't the romantic image of a western cowboy hunting down dangerous criminals in caves, but just the equivalent of a debt-collection agency, that calls them, mails them, files information with credit agencies preventing them from receiving credit, and so on.

castis 17y ago

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

lambda 17y ago
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 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
- astrec 17y ago
  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).

nkohari 17y ago

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.

anamax 17y ago
> Let's further say I'm a Democrat, but Ford decides to donate a large sum of money to a Republican candidate. So what? You're an employee, not a shareholder. Shareholders are free to vote out management. They're also free to choose which companies to own. > Should I sell my stock? Yes. You're not obligted to buy/own their stock, they're not obligated to do as you'd like (unless enough of your fellow owners agree).

lutorm 17y ago

I agree with Lessig. Maybe all these "small government", "liberty" people responding can explain how it fits with their world view that the northern European countries, who are not known for the smallness of their governments, consistently manage to have the highest standard of living and the most well-functioning and democratic governments in the world?

Empact 17y ago
It's a loaded question. What's high-functioning about persistent high unemployment, for example?: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/us-eu-ur-figure-2.png http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05... And how do you intend to do objective comparison on standard of living? How do you weight the unemployment figure above, for example, in such a measure?
- bballant 17y ago
  Unemployment rates are counted differently in other countries. In the United States, you have to be looking for a job to be counted as unemployed, so our numbers tend to look lower than they actually are. Also, an American friend of mine who lives in France tells me that, because of French social programs, unemployment is not as scary or devastating there as it is in the states. On the other hand, I have a French friend who lives in the States and enjoys the American sense of innovation and competitive spirit which he feels is lacking in France. You're right, standard of living is hard to be objective about. One common measure is the Human Development Index. The US does pretty well in this compared to the rest of the world, but not compared to our more socialist sisters in Europe like France. I think one of the reasons for America's HDI lagging behind European countries is our lack of universal health care, but that's another topic.
anamax 17y ago
> who are not known for the smallness of their governments, consistently manage to have the highest standard of living and the most well-functioning and democratic governments in the world? Their standard of living is not the highest. Moreover, they're basically monocultural. Minnesota works about as well as the Scandanavian countries.

ratsbane 17y ago

I like Lessig and I like this article but does this really belong on Hacker News? Articles about technology are fine; articles about technology and business are okay; articles about technology and politics are okay, but this story ...?