3 ms·

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

by 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.

by tc 17y ago

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.