23 ms·

America, Compromised: Lawrence Lessig Explains Corruption

123 points by pdkl95 8y ago

fosco 8y ago
Ad for a book, albeit seems like it _could_ be a fun and even potentially a good read. this is still an ad for a book. a review would have been nicer rather then simply stating Chicago School is evil and setting up for the foundation of his argument. If this is suppose to read asd a review for some reason it feels like it is missing something that I cannot put my finger on yet.
- mbostleman 8y ago
  "...the Chicago School economists who used shitty math to prove that greed is good and that corruption consists solely of direct quid-pro-quo bribery..." Yea, I stopped there. Interested in other's reactions though.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    That one was a doozy, but this was the final straw for me: > Lessig walks a fine line between academic and activist Society doesn't need (and can't afford) more people conflating activism and academy.
    - chottocharaii 8y ago
      Many of the greatest minds of the academy of the last 3 centuries were active in politics. Montesquieu, Burke, etc... Academic ideas renew society.
      - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        Chomsky
        arethuza 8y ago
        Also Einstein and Szilárd.
    - pc86 8y ago
      Conflating would be calling an activist an academic because they wrote a paper once, or calling an academic an activist because they have opinions. Saying that Lessig is right between the two without going full bore into one or the other seems like a pretty apt description. And from his Wikipedia page: > Lester Lawrence Lessig III is an American academic, attorney, and political activist. So it's pretty clear that he's both.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        I think my point was poorly phrased, so the replies all (understandably) missed my point, which was roughly: there are lots of "academics" whose "research" is purely political/ideological activism and they're eroding the public trust in the academy generally. I'm specifically thinking of the folks who push climate change denialism or basically anyone in the grievance studies departments. In modern times, activist/academics more often than not seem to be these sorts of imposters (maybe I'm biased by relatively few 'squeaky wheels' and there are lots of legit academics/activists?). Others have rightly pointed out that there have been many examples of academics who were also activists, and you're pointing out that Lessig is an academic on paper (as are the "academics" I referenced in the previous paragraph, although Lessig may be legitimate). Both of these are valid, correct observations, but they miss my point (which isn't to say that my point is good; only that it survives these observations! :) ).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ionised 8y ago
    Funny, becaused that's when I knew it was worth continuing to read.
  - platz 8y ago
    it's boingboing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ take their snark in stride — focus on the big picture
- saturdaysaint 8y ago
  I agree - there's not much of a springboard for discussion here. A lot of fantastic articles are excerpts from books and a lot of fascinating interviews come from books, but this is just a very thin summary of an interesting sounding book.
- adamrezich 8y ago
  I grew up a huge fan of Mr. Lessig, his views, and his works... however, in the past few years, I've seen him repeatedly attack the concept of the Electoral College, and this has made me cautious of his views going forward. Mr. Lessig and I were both born in the same place: Rapid City, South Dakota. Mr. Lessig hasn't lived here in a long time to my understanding, but I've lived here for most of my life. If the Electoral College were to be "abolished," South Dakota and basically the rest of the nation would be entirely beholden to the whims of the most populous centers of the country: New York and California. The Electoral College system may not be perfect, yet it gives a voice to those outside of a few major metropolitan areas with incredibly dense populations, and for that I am grateful, as the United States is a Republic of States and not a single, homogeneous population. The fact that he's repeatedly made claims against the validity and importance of these aspects of the Electoral College system in recent years gives me pause when evaluating his political views going forward. In the past I would've purchased his book immediately upon hearing it existed but now I'm definitely hesitant. I am open to hearing alternative solutions for the Electoral College system that take into account the incredibly diverse Republic of States that our nation consists of, but his repeated claims of "a vote from a citizen of Montana is essentially worth [n]% that of a vote in California" seem disingenuous at best—even if literally true—as they ignore the reason for the Electoral College's existence to begin with, as well as how it fits into the rest of our system of government and elections. My South Dakotan vote for President may be "worth more" than that of someone in California, yet California gets fifty-three Representatives whereas South Dakota gets only one.
  - hexane360 8y ago
    >as they ignore the reason for the Electoral College's existence to begin with Yes, almost 90% of people debating the Electoral College neglect to mention it was originally created as an alternative to citizens directly electing the president. It was never about giving citizens in Montana more power, it was about giving Montana more power. Thinking otherwise is hugely anachronistic. It wasn't even technologically possible at the time to take a nationwide popular vote. In 1789, 1.8% of America voted. Four colonies didn't even hold a popular vote. [1] In 1800, 10 of 16 states had electors selected by state legislatures. In 1824, Andrew Jackson lost despite having a plurality of the popular vote and the vote as it would be assigned today (electors voting by the state majority). [2] BTW, California gets 55 electoral college votes while South Dakota gets 3. South Dakota gets exactly as many senators as a state over 45 times as large. Further, your argument that the rest of the nation would be helpless in a fair fight with New York and California just doesn't hold up. You have to include the 10 largest states to reach a majority of America. Ironically, while you claim opponents of the electoral college overlook the "incredibly diverse Republic of States", your argument only holds up if you ignore any diversity between those ten states, and the people inside them. Can you honestly say that California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, and Florida are significantly more homogenous than the rest of America? Furthermore, the electoral college does worse than nothing to protect local interests. America under the electoral college doesn't ensure every state gets counted. It ensures that swing states get counted. Are you really better off being counted as a member of a state that's gone red all but once since 1940, rather than as a person with an actual stake in the election? Opponents of the electoral college don't primarily take issue with the weighting of votes. We take issue with the incredibly toxic effect winner take all states has on politics and policies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1788%E2%80%9389#Popular_vote_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Appointment_by_state_legislature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...
grecy 8y ago
Anyone who thinks America doesn't have a lot of corruption doesn't understand how the world works. I've been driving around Africa for 2 years now, and at least here it's always really blatant and clear.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > at least here it's always really blatant and clear Because there is more of it.
  - grecy 8y ago
    No. It's because it happens face to face between regular people on the street. i.e. me and a military man holding an AK 47. In America, it happens behind closed doors in boardrooms and offices. 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor. You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs. Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another. Claiming corruption in America even rivals most of the world is unsubstantiated. The inverse is well substantiated.
      - rrggrr 8y ago
        Must disagree. If you have money it is easier to find equality/justice. My favorite example: If you can afford it, you can get a license plate expressing your support for the state police (or your state bird). You can add to that fraternal order decals further expressing your support for the police. Does your willingness and ability to purchase those things make you MORE or LESS likely to receive special treatment during a traffic stop than someone without the ability to do so. Think about this.
nraynaud 8y ago
Yeah corruption is weird in the US, I live in Arizona, I see adverts paid by the monopoly utility where police and fire fighters in uniform declare themselves against some environmental measure. Will they retaliate against the zones that don’t vote their way?
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  Yes. The recent tax bill was a good example. It was constructed to inflict the most pain on blue states.
  - rrggrr 8y ago
    How much should the federal government subsidize the continued gentrification, inequality and inflation in home prices? On the one hand liberals decry inequality. On the other hand they rage against tax reform that made it MORE costly for wealthy homeowners to create regions where housing is less available and affordable. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the recent tax bill.
    - metalliqaz 8y ago
      My post didn't say a whole hell of a lot, yet it seems to have triggered you quite a bit. Ask yourself why that is. In response, I would just say that, yes, I do understand the recent tax bill. At it's core, it's part of a long term plan to reduce government by starving it for money, at the same time it is a giveaway to large campaign donors. These are not speculation, but directly acknowledged by the spineless and craven Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan.
    - tdb7893 8y ago
      I know I don't really understand the most recent tax bill but I've heard that red states will get more of the benefit from the changes in it. Is that not true or is there a good reason for it?
      - metalliqaz 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
claydavisss 8y ago
HN is slowly becoming a political message board in a world that already has all of the political message boards it needs or wants. HN even has brigaders now. Its really pathetic. dang you have let this go to shit, I don't really care if you ban my account for saying so either.
- mberning 8y ago
  I agree, and the political items that managed to not be flagged to hell are highly biased. If I wanted to see this kind of stuff I could easily find it elsewhere. I really wish there was a "nothing even remotely political" policy on HN. At least then it would be fair.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  I would assume people of most political bents would be against corruption.
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    Lessig's views are political opinions and nothing more. His use of the term "corruption" is conjecture, plain and simple.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      > His use of the term "corruption" is conjecture, plain and simple. I suppose people in certain positions would have to be of this view, for their internal sanity.
  - FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
    That would be a logical assumption, wouldn't it.
- lemoncucumber 8y ago
  Unfortunately laws and regulations affect tech, so it seems unavoidable to discuss them here. Whether it’s net neutrality, IP law, GDPR, or what have you, there are worthwhile discussions to have about how laws affect tech and how they could be better. I’d much rather have those discussions with people who understand technology well. People who don’t understand tech well have demonstrated that they will pass deeply flawed laws like the DMCA thanks in part to their lack of understanding (in addition to corruption of the political process).
SonnyWortzik 8y ago
Most think that corruption is the problem when in fact corruption is just a symptom. In social change this is the only one that matters: "(what is profitable)" all other "forces" are bound by this at systemic level. > "(what is considered ethical)" it can only function if you go back to "what is profitable" because if it is not ethical and there is no law to prevent it then it will be done because it is profitable. If it is ethical, and it is not profitable, you can rest assure it will not be pursued not matter how good you feel. Example: Feed the hungry, it is a great ethical idea, but it is seldom profitable so you do not see any company going out of their way to invest in feeding the hungry. > "(what is legal)" this also runs only on what is profitable. If it is not legal, but it is profitable then you can be sure that the laws will soon be changed to accommodate. i.e. Cannabis movement. > "(what is technically possible)" also runs on what is profitable. We can technically do anything we want but is it profitable? Don't be fooled by these articles that find a "novel" way of looking at the problem. It is just noise. If you can't fix the monetary policy in the world, then "what is profitable" will always be what drives any social change
platz 8y ago
Lessig's bid as a 2016 presidential candidate on the premise that he would reform campaign finance and the immediately resign the presidency to VP was charming, inspiring, and somewhat amusing.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  I wonder if you could swing a candidacy like that if you aimed lower than the Presidency? I can think of several states that might jump at a gubernatorial candidate who said "I will take no political positions. I'll fix/repeal these faulty laws, reform those finance and districting issues, then resign." And a few towns have actually done it already when their budget issues got bad enough. Obviously it's going to draw opposition from whoever thinks the finance or districting problems are benefitting them, but some places do hit the point where process issues look like a bigger deal than political ones.
tenpoundhammer 8y ago
> Lessig lays out the historic case for the Framers' understanding of corruption as a systemic phenomenon, in which the structure of institutions demand that even the best, most moral people sacrifice their principles to thrive (or just survive) One of the most annoying aspects of social discourse right now is that everyone is redefining words and very few people have a common meaning for important words. Lessig's definition of corruption is different than my definition and different than the legal definition. I see this happening all over the place "hate speech" is also a good example every time I have a conversation or read an article about "hate speech" the definition has changed. How are we supposed to have civil discourse when the meanings of words are constantly shifting?
- Pfhreak 8y ago
  The evolution of language has never not been a thing. Part of having a civil discourse is keeping up with evolving societal definitions. Maybe technology is speeding that evolution, given the rate at which we're able to converse, you could convince me it's more difficult to keep up with the evolution today than it has historically been.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    tenpoundhammer isn't talking about the normal evolution of language, but rather about people trying to change the definitions of words to make their positions seem more reasonable/acceptable. That also is not a new thing, but it's different from "the evolution of language".
- kneel 8y ago
  Your comment and quote are almost completely unrelated. What on earth are you getting at?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I thought it was pretty obvious. tenpoundhammer's claim is that Lessig is using a nonstandard definition of "corruption" in order to make his argument work.
MarkLowenstein 8y ago
Would this be a good example of the kind of corruption he's talking about? https://www.npr.org/2016/12/10/505079091/lawrence-lessig-offers-free-legal-aid-to-anti-trump-electors https://www.npr.org/2016/12/10/505079091/lawrence-lessig-off...

123 points by pdkl95 8y ago

Ad for a book, albeit seems like it _could_ be a fun and even potentially a good read. this is still an ad for a book. a review would have been nicer rather then simply stating Chicago School is evil and setting up for the foundation of his argument. If this is suppose to read asd a review for some reason it feels like it is missing something that I cannot put my finger on yet.

mbostleman 8y ago
"...the Chicago School economists who used shitty math to prove that greed is good and that corruption consists solely of direct quid-pro-quo bribery..." Yea, I stopped there. Interested in other's reactions though.
- weberc2 8y ago
  That one was a doozy, but this was the final straw for me: > Lessig walks a fine line between academic and activist Society doesn't need (and can't afford) more people conflating activism and academy.
  - chottocharaii 8y ago
    Many of the greatest minds of the academy of the last 3 centuries were active in politics. Montesquieu, Burke, etc... Academic ideas renew society.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      Chomsky
      - arethuza 8y ago
        Also Einstein and Szilárd.
  - pc86 8y ago
    Conflating would be calling an activist an academic because they wrote a paper once, or calling an academic an activist because they have opinions. Saying that Lessig is right between the two without going full bore into one or the other seems like a pretty apt description. And from his Wikipedia page: > Lester Lawrence Lessig III is an American academic, attorney, and political activist. So it's pretty clear that he's both.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      I think my point was poorly phrased, so the replies all (understandably) missed my point, which was roughly: there are lots of "academics" whose "research" is purely political/ideological activism and they're eroding the public trust in the academy generally. I'm specifically thinking of the folks who push climate change denialism or basically anyone in the grievance studies departments. In modern times, activist/academics more often than not seem to be these sorts of imposters (maybe I'm biased by relatively few 'squeaky wheels' and there are lots of legit academics/activists?). Others have rightly pointed out that there have been many examples of academics who were also activists, and you're pointing out that Lessig is an academic on paper (as are the "academics" I referenced in the previous paragraph, although Lessig may be legitimate). Both of these are valid, correct observations, but they miss my point (which isn't to say that my point is good; only that it survives these observations! :) ).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ionised 8y ago
  Funny, becaused that's when I knew it was worth continuing to read.
- platz 8y ago
  it's boingboing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ take their snark in stride — focus on the big picture
saturdaysaint 8y ago
I agree - there's not much of a springboard for discussion here. A lot of fantastic articles are excerpts from books and a lot of fascinating interviews come from books, but this is just a very thin summary of an interesting sounding book.
adamrezich 8y ago
I grew up a huge fan of Mr. Lessig, his views, and his works... however, in the past few years, I've seen him repeatedly attack the concept of the Electoral College, and this has made me cautious of his views going forward. Mr. Lessig and I were both born in the same place: Rapid City, South Dakota. Mr. Lessig hasn't lived here in a long time to my understanding, but I've lived here for most of my life. If the Electoral College were to be "abolished," South Dakota and basically the rest of the nation would be entirely beholden to the whims of the most populous centers of the country: New York and California. The Electoral College system may not be perfect, yet it gives a voice to those outside of a few major metropolitan areas with incredibly dense populations, and for that I am grateful, as the United States is a Republic of States and not a single, homogeneous population. The fact that he's repeatedly made claims against the validity and importance of these aspects of the Electoral College system in recent years gives me pause when evaluating his political views going forward. In the past I would've purchased his book immediately upon hearing it existed but now I'm definitely hesitant. I am open to hearing alternative solutions for the Electoral College system that take into account the incredibly diverse Republic of States that our nation consists of, but his repeated claims of "a vote from a citizen of Montana is essentially worth [n]% that of a vote in California" seem disingenuous at best—even if literally true—as they ignore the reason for the Electoral College's existence to begin with, as well as how it fits into the rest of our system of government and elections. My South Dakotan vote for President may be "worth more" than that of someone in California, yet California gets fifty-three Representatives whereas South Dakota gets only one.
- hexane360 8y ago
  >as they ignore the reason for the Electoral College's existence to begin with Yes, almost 90% of people debating the Electoral College neglect to mention it was originally created as an alternative to citizens directly electing the president. It was never about giving citizens in Montana more power, it was about giving Montana more power. Thinking otherwise is hugely anachronistic. It wasn't even technologically possible at the time to take a nationwide popular vote. In 1789, 1.8% of America voted. Four colonies didn't even hold a popular vote. [1] In 1800, 10 of 16 states had electors selected by state legislatures. In 1824, Andrew Jackson lost despite having a plurality of the popular vote and the vote as it would be assigned today (electors voting by the state majority). [2] BTW, California gets 55 electoral college votes while South Dakota gets 3. South Dakota gets exactly as many senators as a state over 45 times as large. Further, your argument that the rest of the nation would be helpless in a fair fight with New York and California just doesn't hold up. You have to include the 10 largest states to reach a majority of America. Ironically, while you claim opponents of the electoral college overlook the "incredibly diverse Republic of States", your argument only holds up if you ignore any diversity between those ten states, and the people inside them. Can you honestly say that California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, and Florida are significantly more homogenous than the rest of America? Furthermore, the electoral college does worse than nothing to protect local interests. America under the electoral college doesn't ensure every state gets counted. It ensures that swing states get counted. Are you really better off being counted as a member of a state that's gone red all but once since 1940, rather than as a person with an actual stake in the election? Opponents of the electoral college don't primarily take issue with the weighting of votes. We take issue with the incredibly toxic effect winner take all states has on politics and policies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1788%E2%80%9389#Popular_vote_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Appointment_by_state_legislature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...

grecy 8y ago

Anyone who thinks America doesn't have a lot of corruption doesn't understand how the world works. I've been driving around Africa for 2 years now, and at least here it's always really blatant and clear.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> at least here it's always really blatant and clear Because there is more of it.
- grecy 8y ago
  No. It's because it happens face to face between regular people on the street. i.e. me and a military man holding an AK 47. In America, it happens behind closed doors in boardrooms and offices. 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor. You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs. Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another. Claiming corruption in America even rivals most of the world is unsubstantiated. The inverse is well substantiated.
    - rrggrr 8y ago
      Must disagree. If you have money it is easier to find equality/justice. My favorite example: If you can afford it, you can get a license plate expressing your support for the state police (or your state bird). You can add to that fraternal order decals further expressing your support for the police. Does your willingness and ability to purchase those things make you MORE or LESS likely to receive special treatment during a traffic stop than someone without the ability to do so. Think about this.

nraynaud 8y ago

Yeah corruption is weird in the US, I live in Arizona, I see adverts paid by the monopoly utility where police and fire fighters in uniform declare themselves against some environmental measure. Will they retaliate against the zones that don’t vote their way?

metalliqaz 8y ago
Yes. The recent tax bill was a good example. It was constructed to inflict the most pain on blue states.
- rrggrr 8y ago
  How much should the federal government subsidize the continued gentrification, inequality and inflation in home prices? On the one hand liberals decry inequality. On the other hand they rage against tax reform that made it MORE costly for wealthy homeowners to create regions where housing is less available and affordable. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the recent tax bill.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    My post didn't say a whole hell of a lot, yet it seems to have triggered you quite a bit. Ask yourself why that is. In response, I would just say that, yes, I do understand the recent tax bill. At it's core, it's part of a long term plan to reduce government by starving it for money, at the same time it is a giveaway to large campaign donors. These are not speculation, but directly acknowledged by the spineless and craven Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan.
  - tdb7893 8y ago
    I know I don't really understand the most recent tax bill but I've heard that red states will get more of the benefit from the changes in it. Is that not true or is there a good reason for it?
    - metalliqaz 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

claydavisss 8y ago

HN is slowly becoming a political message board in a world that already has all of the political message boards it needs or wants. HN even has brigaders now. Its really pathetic. dang you have let this go to shit, I don't really care if you ban my account for saying so either.

mberning 8y ago
I agree, and the political items that managed to not be flagged to hell are highly biased. If I wanted to see this kind of stuff I could easily find it elsewhere. I really wish there was a "nothing even remotely political" policy on HN. At least then it would be fair.
_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
I would assume people of most political bents would be against corruption.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  Lessig's views are political opinions and nothing more. His use of the term "corruption" is conjecture, plain and simple.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    > His use of the term "corruption" is conjecture, plain and simple. I suppose people in certain positions would have to be of this view, for their internal sanity.
- FlyMoreRockets 8y ago
  That would be a logical assumption, wouldn't it.
lemoncucumber 8y ago
Unfortunately laws and regulations affect tech, so it seems unavoidable to discuss them here. Whether it’s net neutrality, IP law, GDPR, or what have you, there are worthwhile discussions to have about how laws affect tech and how they could be better. I’d much rather have those discussions with people who understand technology well. People who don’t understand tech well have demonstrated that they will pass deeply flawed laws like the DMCA thanks in part to their lack of understanding (in addition to corruption of the political process).

SonnyWortzik 8y ago

Most think that corruption is the problem when in fact corruption is just a symptom. In social change this is the only one that matters: "(what is profitable)" all other "forces" are bound by this at systemic level. > "(what is considered ethical)" it can only function if you go back to "what is profitable" because if it is not ethical and there is no law to prevent it then it will be done because it is profitable. If it is ethical, and it is not profitable, you can rest assure it will not be pursued not matter how good you feel. Example: Feed the hungry, it is a great ethical idea, but it is seldom profitable so you do not see any company going out of their way to invest in feeding the hungry. > "(what is legal)" this also runs only on what is profitable. If it is not legal, but it is profitable then you can be sure that the laws will soon be changed to accommodate. i.e. Cannabis movement. > "(what is technically possible)" also runs on what is profitable. We can technically do anything we want but is it profitable? Don't be fooled by these articles that find a "novel" way of looking at the problem. It is just noise. If you can't fix the monetary policy in the world, then "what is profitable" will always be what drives any social change

platz 8y ago

Lessig's bid as a 2016 presidential candidate on the premise that he would reform campaign finance and the immediately resign the presidency to VP was charming, inspiring, and somewhat amusing.

Bartweiss 8y ago
I wonder if you could swing a candidacy like that if you aimed lower than the Presidency? I can think of several states that might jump at a gubernatorial candidate who said "I will take no political positions. I'll fix/repeal these faulty laws, reform those finance and districting issues, then resign." And a few towns have actually done it already when their budget issues got bad enough. Obviously it's going to draw opposition from whoever thinks the finance or districting problems are benefitting them, but some places do hit the point where process issues look like a bigger deal than political ones.

tenpoundhammer 8y ago

> Lessig lays out the historic case for the Framers' understanding of corruption as a systemic phenomenon, in which the structure of institutions demand that even the best, most moral people sacrifice their principles to thrive (or just survive) One of the most annoying aspects of social discourse right now is that everyone is redefining words and very few people have a common meaning for important words. Lessig's definition of corruption is different than my definition and different than the legal definition. I see this happening all over the place "hate speech" is also a good example every time I have a conversation or read an article about "hate speech" the definition has changed. How are we supposed to have civil discourse when the meanings of words are constantly shifting?

Pfhreak 8y ago
The evolution of language has never not been a thing. Part of having a civil discourse is keeping up with evolving societal definitions. Maybe technology is speeding that evolution, given the rate at which we're able to converse, you could convince me it's more difficult to keep up with the evolution today than it has historically been.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  tenpoundhammer isn't talking about the normal evolution of language, but rather about people trying to change the definitions of words to make their positions seem more reasonable/acceptable. That also is not a new thing, but it's different from "the evolution of language".
kneel 8y ago
Your comment and quote are almost completely unrelated. What on earth are you getting at?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I thought it was pretty obvious. tenpoundhammer's claim is that Lessig is using a nonstandard definition of "corruption" in order to make his argument work.

MarkLowenstein 8y ago

Would this be a good example of the kind of corruption he's talking about? https://www.npr.org/2016/12/10/505079091/lawrence-lessig-offers-free-legal-aid-to-anti-trump-electors https://www.npr.org/2016/12/10/505079091/lawrence-lessig-off...