4 ms·

Lessig is a bit of a crackpot. Extreme wealth, and the political power it bestows is so obvious and corrosive to the whole world. The capitalist system enslaves

Lessig is a bit of a crackpot. Extreme wealth, and the political power it bestows is so obvious and corrosive to the whole world. The capitalist system enslaves almost everyone on the planet, and Larry's out here theorizing about how we're going to live together on the internet.

zehaeva 3y ago
You are correct, he is a bit of a crackpot. A crackpot who ran in the 2016 presidential race to get money out of politics. A crackpot who, in 2014, created the Mayday PAC to fund and push candidates that support campaign finance reform. A crackpot who, in 2011, published a book entitled Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It Yeah, he's just a dude out there theorizing how we're going to live together on the internet.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  Along with the CC, this is IMO Lessig's greatest efforts.
- Zaskoda 3y ago
  I bought a shirt from his presidential campaign and frequently wear it when traveling through airports. Not once has anyone recognized it and I think that's a shame.
  - jackmoore 3y ago
    I think he correctly diagnosed that getting money out of politics is foundational to being able to make any sort of other lasting progress. I don't know why Democrat voters don't see that as the obvious direction that needs to be pursued to the exclusion of all else.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > I think he correctly diagnosed that getting money out of politics is foundational to being able to make any sort of other lasting progress. No, its intermediary. Electoral reform (which doesn't require federal Constitutional reform and can be done by voter initiative in many states) foundational, because the breadth and depth of support by politicians for Cobstitutional reform necessary to deal with money in Congress is intractable otherwise. > I don't know why Democrat voters don't see that as the obvious direction that needs to be pursued to the exclusion of all else. Because enough Democratic voters understand why it is politically intractable currently (even if they don't always understand or live in states where they can do much about the steps for changing that), and because “to the exclusion of all else" is dumb, as there are lots of less intractable important problems and lots of irremediable harms that will be inflicted if other issues are neglected in a quixotic effort at finance reform.
      - Zaskoda 3y ago
        Believing something is intractable is the first step in it becoming intractable. Meanwhile, campaign finance reform is a prerequisite to actually solving any of those "less intractable" problems that never ever get solved because those issues are more financially valuable to the Democratic party leaders when left unresolved. Example: the right to choose an abortion could have been codified into law for decades, but the risk of losing the right to an abortion was more valuable to Democratic leadership. Source: Andrew Yang
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Believing something is intractable is the first step in it becoming intractable. Not understanding that and why a thing is temporarily intractable is the first step in making it permanently intractable. > Example: the right to choose an abortion could have been codified into law for decades, but the risk of losing the right to an abortion was more valuable to Democratic leadership. Source: Andrew Yang Andrew Yang is an idiot and/or liar on politics. Codifying the right ti abortion is a feelgood measure some Democrats wave around, but its never been a serious priority because it only slightly improves things while the Constitutional right itself stands (by providing wehatever additional recourse or sanction is in the statute), but fails as soon as the Constitutional right fails, because the only plausible argument for a federal power to protect the right to abortion is the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment, which fails as soon as abortion is not within the scope of 14th Amendment rights already Constitutionally protected against state encroachment. Its not even a little bit of protection against a Supreme Court that would strike down abortion as a Constitutional right.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > A crackpot who ran in the 2016 presidential race to get money out of politics. I mean, that's one of the least effective means available of working toward that goal (even for someone with the combination of skills and background to be a viable candidate), so I’m not sure why you'd raise it as if it undermined the crackpot claim.
  - zehaeva 3y ago
    Oh, sorry, my intent wasn't to claim he's not really a crackpot, just the the grandparent was making the claim that the reason why Lessig is a crackpot is because Lessig can not see the real issue here, which is campaign finance reform. Anyone who has been slightly paying attention to American politics in the last decade or so would know that Lessig, of all people, is deeply aware of this issue. Lessig has been fighting and trying to make the issue of money in politics a thing for quite a long while. If one has been actually following Lessig's career they'd know that Lessig has taken to the issue of money in politics because of his first great crusade, that of fixing Copyright for all net-denizens, and honestly the world. I personally believe Lessig to be a smart, driven, and naive, man who has been fighting for the right things, even if no one will actually listen to him and take action on his suggestions.
shortrounddev2 3y ago
Capitalism, over the last 50 years, has brought more people out of poverty globally than ever before. Since 1970, the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen in both absolute numbers (total number of people) and relatively (% of people). In the 1970s, for the first time in human history, most people on the planet were not living in extreme poverty. This number accelerated in 1990, after the fall of Communism and the expansion of liberal economic policies. Capitalism is the most positive economic force in human history and has saved billions of people from a low quality of life and dying in poverty https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...
- Zaskoda 3y ago
  Capitalism is all of about 200 years old. It's a revolutionary idea. Previously, if a group of people wanted to pool capital for a venture, they had to have the support of the state or the church, usually one in the same. The US allowed for the pooling of capital for ventures that were purely for profit. The result was the rapid expansion of the country. But that's the initial effect of a system that's relatively brand new. Now we're facing the constant conglomeration of ownership of capital, resources, and production. We used to push back against the monopolization of industry but we're losing that battle. And as anyone who's played a lot of Monopoly knows, it never ends well. Capitalism results in many improvements, such as funding for research towards medicines that impact millions of people around the globe. However, capitalism overlooks many improvments such as funding research of medicines that only effect a few people - because that's not profitable enough. The biggest failure of our model of capitalism thus far is that we have allowed the corporate takeover of our political system. Laws are now crafted by corporate lawyers and politicians spend all of their time raising more campaign funds for the next election cycle. Anyone we would actually want to vote into positions of leadership are overshadowed by corporate-sponsored puppets. A democracy can not function without an informed populous. Our populous is informed by one of few corporate owned and controlled media channels. Since the telecommunications act of 1996, the quality of news reporting has plummeted and now pushes one of 2 available narratives, both equally fabricated. Yes, capitalism was an amazing evolutionary step in society. But if we don't take the next step forward soon, we'll be taking a step backwards.
hugetim 3y ago
I'm guessing you're not very familiar with Lessig's work: https://perma.cc/5XQ8-MBWA?type=image https://perma.cc/5XQ8-MBWA?type=image Or maybe you just have a different theory of change? His seems to be that our best shot is to use whatever levers remain available in our nominal democracy to reduce the political power accruing to extreme wealth. What's yours?

zehaeva 3y ago

You are correct, he is a bit of a crackpot. A crackpot who ran in the 2016 presidential race to get money out of politics. A crackpot who, in 2014, created the Mayday PAC to fund and push candidates that support campaign finance reform. A crackpot who, in 2011, published a book entitled Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It Yeah, he's just a dude out there theorizing how we're going to live together on the internet.

brodouevencode 3y ago
Along with the CC, this is IMO Lessig's greatest efforts.
Zaskoda 3y ago
I bought a shirt from his presidential campaign and frequently wear it when traveling through airports. Not once has anyone recognized it and I think that's a shame.
- jackmoore 3y ago
  I think he correctly diagnosed that getting money out of politics is foundational to being able to make any sort of other lasting progress. I don't know why Democrat voters don't see that as the obvious direction that needs to be pursued to the exclusion of all else.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I think he correctly diagnosed that getting money out of politics is foundational to being able to make any sort of other lasting progress. No, its intermediary. Electoral reform (which doesn't require federal Constitutional reform and can be done by voter initiative in many states) foundational, because the breadth and depth of support by politicians for Cobstitutional reform necessary to deal with money in Congress is intractable otherwise. > I don't know why Democrat voters don't see that as the obvious direction that needs to be pursued to the exclusion of all else. Because enough Democratic voters understand why it is politically intractable currently (even if they don't always understand or live in states where they can do much about the steps for changing that), and because “to the exclusion of all else" is dumb, as there are lots of less intractable important problems and lots of irremediable harms that will be inflicted if other issues are neglected in a quixotic effort at finance reform.
    - Zaskoda 3y ago
      Believing something is intractable is the first step in it becoming intractable. Meanwhile, campaign finance reform is a prerequisite to actually solving any of those "less intractable" problems that never ever get solved because those issues are more financially valuable to the Democratic party leaders when left unresolved. Example: the right to choose an abortion could have been codified into law for decades, but the risk of losing the right to an abortion was more valuable to Democratic leadership. Source: Andrew Yang
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Believing something is intractable is the first step in it becoming intractable. Not understanding that and why a thing is temporarily intractable is the first step in making it permanently intractable. > Example: the right to choose an abortion could have been codified into law for decades, but the risk of losing the right to an abortion was more valuable to Democratic leadership. Source: Andrew Yang Andrew Yang is an idiot and/or liar on politics. Codifying the right ti abortion is a feelgood measure some Democrats wave around, but its never been a serious priority because it only slightly improves things while the Constitutional right itself stands (by providing wehatever additional recourse or sanction is in the statute), but fails as soon as the Constitutional right fails, because the only plausible argument for a federal power to protect the right to abortion is the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment, which fails as soon as abortion is not within the scope of 14th Amendment rights already Constitutionally protected against state encroachment. Its not even a little bit of protection against a Supreme Court that would strike down abortion as a Constitutional right.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> A crackpot who ran in the 2016 presidential race to get money out of politics. I mean, that's one of the least effective means available of working toward that goal (even for someone with the combination of skills and background to be a viable candidate), so I’m not sure why you'd raise it as if it undermined the crackpot claim.
- zehaeva 3y ago
  Oh, sorry, my intent wasn't to claim he's not really a crackpot, just the the grandparent was making the claim that the reason why Lessig is a crackpot is because Lessig can not see the real issue here, which is campaign finance reform. Anyone who has been slightly paying attention to American politics in the last decade or so would know that Lessig, of all people, is deeply aware of this issue. Lessig has been fighting and trying to make the issue of money in politics a thing for quite a long while. If one has been actually following Lessig's career they'd know that Lessig has taken to the issue of money in politics because of his first great crusade, that of fixing Copyright for all net-denizens, and honestly the world. I personally believe Lessig to be a smart, driven, and naive, man who has been fighting for the right things, even if no one will actually listen to him and take action on his suggestions.

shortrounddev2 3y ago

Capitalism, over the last 50 years, has brought more people out of poverty globally than ever before. Since 1970, the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen in both absolute numbers (total number of people) and relatively (% of people). In the 1970s, for the first time in human history, most people on the planet were not living in extreme poverty. This number accelerated in 1990, after the fall of Communism and the expansion of liberal economic policies. Capitalism is the most positive economic force in human history and has saved billions of people from a low quality of life and dying in poverty https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...

Zaskoda 3y ago
Capitalism is all of about 200 years old. It's a revolutionary idea. Previously, if a group of people wanted to pool capital for a venture, they had to have the support of the state or the church, usually one in the same. The US allowed for the pooling of capital for ventures that were purely for profit. The result was the rapid expansion of the country. But that's the initial effect of a system that's relatively brand new. Now we're facing the constant conglomeration of ownership of capital, resources, and production. We used to push back against the monopolization of industry but we're losing that battle. And as anyone who's played a lot of Monopoly knows, it never ends well. Capitalism results in many improvements, such as funding for research towards medicines that impact millions of people around the globe. However, capitalism overlooks many improvments such as funding research of medicines that only effect a few people - because that's not profitable enough. The biggest failure of our model of capitalism thus far is that we have allowed the corporate takeover of our political system. Laws are now crafted by corporate lawyers and politicians spend all of their time raising more campaign funds for the next election cycle. Anyone we would actually want to vote into positions of leadership are overshadowed by corporate-sponsored puppets. A democracy can not function without an informed populous. Our populous is informed by one of few corporate owned and controlled media channels. Since the telecommunications act of 1996, the quality of news reporting has plummeted and now pushes one of 2 available narratives, both equally fabricated. Yes, capitalism was an amazing evolutionary step in society. But if we don't take the next step forward soon, we'll be taking a step backwards.

hugetim 3y ago

I'm guessing you're not very familiar with Lessig's work: https://perma.cc/5XQ8-MBWA?type=image https://perma.cc/5XQ8-MBWA?type=image Or maybe you just have a different theory of change? His seems to be that our best shot is to use whatever levers remain available in our nominal democracy to reduce the political power accruing to extreme wealth. What's yours?