5 ms·

> So, you might just have it backwards Not really. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, not causality. This is a problem that predates the concept of America. Monar

> So, you might just have it backwards Not really. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, not causality. This is a problem that predates the concept of America. Monarchies addressed it by having a three-way tug-of-war between the monarch, the entrenched interests, and the masses, and American politics have tried very hard to ape that with a very powerful central executive. With, you know. Predictable results. Changing the rules won't actually make a difference, much respect as I have for Lessig's Rootstrikers' efforts. That is, as Colbert put it, rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg. The fundamental problem isn't that no one gets elected without spending oodles of cash; the fundamental problem is that oodles of cash have to be spent at all. We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change. Not coincidentally, that's also the rule that makes free markets impossible.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Well, what I was trying to do was point out a bit of irony in the GP comment. Judging by your and eli's responses, obviously I wasn't successful. I'll give it another shot. At a time when our political process is broken, full of cronyism, regulatory capture, and co-opting by moneyed interests, we get this new position from the FCC. The position itself is about giving those with money (e.g. Netflix) advantages on the Net. The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force. So, what did the GP say in response? "Hey, money doesn't matter. Scrappy bootstrapped campaigns can overcome!" This, even while the very topic of this thread is moneyed interests' de-democratization of the single greatest potential tool for making scrappy, bootstrapped campaigns an actual possibility. I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning? >Changing the rules won't actually make a difference >We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change. You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate, nor should we want that. Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate. Here's where the Net can truly be a democratizing force, and even moreso when combined with other media. There's no need for candidates to spend money on marketing. They are the story, and the media clamors endlessly to get their messages out.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force. No, it wasn't. You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture who spoke loudly and had no clout. There is nothing democratizing or equalizing about the Internet. > I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning? Well, I would have put it somewhere in the 19th century, but that's just me. > You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate Why not? Why does this need exist? We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore. Let me ask you a different question: why do we need to have any candidates whatsoever? What are they for? Or the more important question: what is a public office for? What is the purpose of that concept? > Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate. If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch. Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture No. The promises were made by the technology and its potential. But, you're reading my statement out of context anyway. >We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore. Wait. So, you're now a representative of the powerless counterculture? You just said "there is nothing democratizing about the Internet. Now, you're hailing it as the solution to what is arguably the single biggest threat to democracy in U.S. politics today: money. Make up your mind, man. >what is a public office for? Direct democracy has its place, but you're not seriously suggesting rule by referendum, right? I mean, I'm having trouble seeing any implied alternatives in your question that don't lead to utter silliness, so please feel free to make your point. >If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch Says who? But, hey, color me seriously out of touch. If you put any stock in third party traffic analysis, I'm in good company (unfortunately). But, thanks for the pointer. >Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital. Awesome that you know me so well. I feel like we're old pals from way back. But, of course, your opinions of my capabilities in this area--even if accurate--have nothing to do with the merit of the statements to which you are responding. In fact, I'm trying to name all of the fallacies there: Appeal to authority? Red herring? False dilemma? Am I missing any?

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Well, what I was trying to do was point out a bit of irony in the GP comment. Judging by your and eli's responses, obviously I wasn't successful. I'll give it another shot. At a time when our political process is broken, full of cronyism, regulatory capture, and co-opting by moneyed interests, we get this new position from the FCC. The position itself is about giving those with money (e.g. Netflix) advantages on the Net. The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force. So, what did the GP say in response? "Hey, money doesn't matter. Scrappy bootstrapped campaigns can overcome!" This, even while the very topic of this thread is moneyed interests' de-democratization of the single greatest potential tool for making scrappy, bootstrapped campaigns an actual possibility. I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning? >Changing the rules won't actually make a difference >We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change. You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate, nor should we want that. Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate. Here's where the Net can truly be a democratizing force, and even moreso when combined with other media. There's no need for candidates to spend money on marketing. They are the story, and the media clamors endlessly to get their messages out.

saraid216 13y ago
> The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force. No, it wasn't. You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture who spoke loudly and had no clout. There is nothing democratizing or equalizing about the Internet. > I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning? Well, I would have put it somewhere in the 19th century, but that's just me. > You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate Why not? Why does this need exist? We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore. Let me ask you a different question: why do we need to have any candidates whatsoever? What are they for? Or the more important question: what is a public office for? What is the purpose of that concept? > Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate. If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch. Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture No. The promises were made by the technology and its potential. But, you're reading my statement out of context anyway. >We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore. Wait. So, you're now a representative of the powerless counterculture? You just said "there is nothing democratizing about the Internet. Now, you're hailing it as the solution to what is arguably the single biggest threat to democracy in U.S. politics today: money. Make up your mind, man. >what is a public office for? Direct democracy has its place, but you're not seriously suggesting rule by referendum, right? I mean, I'm having trouble seeing any implied alternatives in your question that don't lead to utter silliness, so please feel free to make your point. >If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch Says who? But, hey, color me seriously out of touch. If you put any stock in third party traffic analysis, I'm in good company (unfortunately). But, thanks for the pointer. >Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital. Awesome that you know me so well. I feel like we're old pals from way back. But, of course, your opinions of my capabilities in this area--even if accurate--have nothing to do with the merit of the statements to which you are responding. In fact, I'm trying to name all of the fallacies there: Appeal to authority? Red herring? False dilemma? Am I missing any?