7 ms·

What Larry Lessig Didn't Get

11 points by elidourado 17y ago

tc 17y ago
Summary: What Lessig wants is mostly right, but by refusing to trust the market to get there, Lessig is willing to give power to DC politicians at the expense of property rights and individual choice. Historically that seems like a bad recipe for both freedom and innovation. Lessig wants to believe that politicians could become "technocratic philosopher kings," while failing to appreciate the systemic factors that ensure that politicians will always be among the least noble and least qualified to make the required judgments.
- cduan 17y ago
  When you summarize the article this way (and I think this is a correct summary), it's pretty obvious that Declan is misrepresenting Lessig's current position. Declan is probably right that this was once Lessig's view. Larry saw the frightening possibility that software coders could use their powers to restrict our rights and freedoms, and saw protective legislation as the best remedy. As Declan points out, it is clear that legislators will not remedy this problem. What Declan omits, however, is that Lessig figured this out too, several years ago. His current view is that there is another force to counteract this encroachment on consumers' rights: the consumers themselves. Ultimately, like a good lawyer, Lessig still believes that the law is the solution to protecting rights. But rather than hoping for the law to come down from on high, he hopes to harness grassroots power to voice change from below. This is what prompted his recent shift in academic focus to fighting "corruption" in politics, through his "Change Congress" movement. His argument is that if Congress is too "corrupt" (he has a special definition of "corrupt," I won't get into that), then good laws will never come about. (Here's a link: http://change-congress.org/ http://change-congress.org/ )
  - tc 17y ago
    I would agree with that. So here's what Lessig doesn't get now: he thinks that the money going into politics is the problem. It's not, it's just a symptom. The immense centralized power that Congress has to pick winners and losers, and to grant special favors, is the problem. As long as that power exists, no law can stop the money from flowing to the politicians (and their families). The force at work here is that special interests get a positive return on investment by supplicating to those in power, because those in power can give them what they want at the expense of others.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Although I'm a classical liberal (as in, I believe in markets rather than command economies), McCullagh would have us believe that private companies are uninterested in monopolies or locking in their customers - and while he provides examples of where lock-in has failed, it's alive and well in other spaces, such as cellphones. McCullagh cites Hollywood lobbyists' influence on copyright law, while skating over the question of how a libertarian approach would help - indeed, I suspect it would wind up as a land grab on the public commons, with the first to digitize getting ownership rights, much as a copyright photograph of an old painting gains rights for the photograph (even if it has no original content). Though he's right about the weaknesses of slow-moving legislative supervision of fast-moving technology, his conviction that it'll just work itself out seems rather Pollyannaish. Michael Heller's tragedy of the anti-commons analyzes the problems of fragmented ownership from an economic rather than a philosophical perspective, and points up some flaws in libertarian theory; http://www.wdi.umich.edu/files/Publications/WorkingPapers/wp40.pdf http://www.wdi.umich.edu/files/Publications/WorkingPapers/wp...
- billswift 17y ago
  The problem with your criticism of "private companies" is that they lack enforcement power. Monopolies are nearly impossible without government backing. The only non-statist monopoly I can see would be a secure trade secret - like the formula for Coke or the Shipstones of Heinlein's novel "Friday", and even they are vulnerable to substitutes. As for the anti-commons, I can't see that it applies here, since the networks are already private as are all "creative works" (since automatic copyright has existed since the 1978 revision).
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    "Monopolies are nearly impossible without government backing." As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed".
    - elidourado 17y ago
      We can classify monopolies into three categories: 1. Natural monopoly - Returns to scale are large enough (or the market it small enough) that one firm can provide the product for a lower price than multiple firms. This is possible without government backing, but is basically harmless if entry into the industry is not blocked. The natural monopoly may be the only seller, but it still faces potential competition. 2. Artificial monopoly - Firms merge to monopoly, firms form a cartel, etc., in an industry without returns to scale. This is the kind of monopoly that people worry about, but in a free market, they are (or would be) very uncommon. There is always an incentive to cheat on a cartel agreement, and there is always an incentive to enter the industry if profits are above normal. 3. Government monopoly - Firms take advantage of government-created (whether intentional or unintentional) entry barriers to establish an artificial monopoly, or the government itself establishes a monopoly in the activity. Very common. For instance, heavy regulation might favor large firms that can more easily absorb the fixed cost of compliance. If you are interested in learning more about this, look into the branch of economics called "Industrial Organization." The best textbook is by Carlton and Perloff; it is the one I used when I taught IO this semester.
vozoscuro 17y ago
Now that we know for sure any stripe of pol will sell out for power; we know opensource is the only reasonable way to maintain the creative commons. Our government is broken (bought and paid for by the Goldman Sachs Mafia) and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. We should have no expectations for a system that empowers the stupid, ignorant and greedy; and given the failures of all other attempts to supplant this failed thing, there is hope and change only in individual action: like donating code to the pleroma.
JereCoh 17y ago
Sounds like someone is upset that Lessig is still smarter than him.

11 points by elidourado 17y ago

tc 17y ago

Summary: What Lessig wants is mostly right, but by refusing to trust the market to get there, Lessig is willing to give power to DC politicians at the expense of property rights and individual choice. Historically that seems like a bad recipe for both freedom and innovation. Lessig wants to believe that politicians could become "technocratic philosopher kings," while failing to appreciate the systemic factors that ensure that politicians will always be among the least noble and least qualified to make the required judgments.

cduan 17y ago
When you summarize the article this way (and I think this is a correct summary), it's pretty obvious that Declan is misrepresenting Lessig's current position. Declan is probably right that this was once Lessig's view. Larry saw the frightening possibility that software coders could use their powers to restrict our rights and freedoms, and saw protective legislation as the best remedy. As Declan points out, it is clear that legislators will not remedy this problem. What Declan omits, however, is that Lessig figured this out too, several years ago. His current view is that there is another force to counteract this encroachment on consumers' rights: the consumers themselves. Ultimately, like a good lawyer, Lessig still believes that the law is the solution to protecting rights. But rather than hoping for the law to come down from on high, he hopes to harness grassroots power to voice change from below. This is what prompted his recent shift in academic focus to fighting "corruption" in politics, through his "Change Congress" movement. His argument is that if Congress is too "corrupt" (he has a special definition of "corrupt," I won't get into that), then good laws will never come about. (Here's a link: http://change-congress.org/ http://change-congress.org/ )
- tc 17y ago
  I would agree with that. So here's what Lessig doesn't get now: he thinks that the money going into politics is the problem. It's not, it's just a symptom. The immense centralized power that Congress has to pick winners and losers, and to grant special favors, is the problem. As long as that power exists, no law can stop the money from flowing to the politicians (and their families). The force at work here is that special interests get a positive return on investment by supplicating to those in power, because those in power can give them what they want at the expense of others.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Although I'm a classical liberal (as in, I believe in markets rather than command economies), McCullagh would have us believe that private companies are uninterested in monopolies or locking in their customers - and while he provides examples of where lock-in has failed, it's alive and well in other spaces, such as cellphones. McCullagh cites Hollywood lobbyists' influence on copyright law, while skating over the question of how a libertarian approach would help - indeed, I suspect it would wind up as a land grab on the public commons, with the first to digitize getting ownership rights, much as a copyright photograph of an old painting gains rights for the photograph (even if it has no original content). Though he's right about the weaknesses of slow-moving legislative supervision of fast-moving technology, his conviction that it'll just work itself out seems rather Pollyannaish. Michael Heller's tragedy of the anti-commons analyzes the problems of fragmented ownership from an economic rather than a philosophical perspective, and points up some flaws in libertarian theory; http://www.wdi.umich.edu/files/Publications/WorkingPapers/wp40.pdf http://www.wdi.umich.edu/files/Publications/WorkingPapers/wp...

billswift 17y ago
The problem with your criticism of "private companies" is that they lack enforcement power. Monopolies are nearly impossible without government backing. The only non-statist monopoly I can see would be a secure trade secret - like the formula for Coke or the Shipstones of Heinlein's novel "Friday", and even they are vulnerable to substitutes. As for the anti-commons, I can't see that it applies here, since the networks are already private as are all "creative works" (since automatic copyright has existed since the 1978 revision).
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  "Monopolies are nearly impossible without government backing." As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed".
  - elidourado 17y ago
    We can classify monopolies into three categories: 1. Natural monopoly - Returns to scale are large enough (or the market it small enough) that one firm can provide the product for a lower price than multiple firms. This is possible without government backing, but is basically harmless if entry into the industry is not blocked. The natural monopoly may be the only seller, but it still faces potential competition. 2. Artificial monopoly - Firms merge to monopoly, firms form a cartel, etc., in an industry without returns to scale. This is the kind of monopoly that people worry about, but in a free market, they are (or would be) very uncommon. There is always an incentive to cheat on a cartel agreement, and there is always an incentive to enter the industry if profits are above normal. 3. Government monopoly - Firms take advantage of government-created (whether intentional or unintentional) entry barriers to establish an artificial monopoly, or the government itself establishes a monopoly in the activity. Very common. For instance, heavy regulation might favor large firms that can more easily absorb the fixed cost of compliance. If you are interested in learning more about this, look into the branch of economics called "Industrial Organization." The best textbook is by Carlton and Perloff; it is the one I used when I taught IO this semester.

vozoscuro 17y ago

Now that we know for sure any stripe of pol will sell out for power; we know opensource is the only reasonable way to maintain the creative commons. Our government is broken (bought and paid for by the Goldman Sachs Mafia) and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. We should have no expectations for a system that empowers the stupid, ignorant and greedy; and given the failures of all other attempts to supplant this failed thing, there is hope and change only in individual action: like donating code to the pleroma.

JereCoh 17y ago

Sounds like someone is upset that Lessig is still smarter than him.