5 ms·

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 t

by 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...

by fosco 8y ago

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...