Slashdot Mirror
Lessig: We Are Squandering Away The Future
Illissius writes "Lawrence Lessig has a new article up on Wired, with the title Our Kids Are in Big Trouble. I suck at summarizing, so here's a choice quote: 'Gone is the sense of duty that made so compelling Kennedy's demand "ask what you can do for your country." We don't even ask what we, as a nation, can do for our kids. The rhetoric of self-interest so deeply pervades politics that an ideal as fundamental as building a better future has been lost.'"
I believe that there are larger and ultimately more beneficial (personally and socially) virtues than some dogmatic worship of greed and belief that the market, left to its own devices, is perfect and holy, not to be touched by the Satanic hands of government bureaucrats. We *are* sacrificing the ability of future generations to succeed, to live on a planet that is substanaible for human life, and are moving towards a nation where our elders live our their final years in poverty.
The real problem, of course, is not in the politics of it. If it was, it would be easy. Just elect the right people and the problem is fixed. But no, these are real cultural and social issues that really need to be taken care of, and it's going to take time, effort and a whole lot of work.
The further problem, at least in America, has to do with the whole idea of patriotism, and what it means to be a patriot. Conservative types have had a LOT of success of changing the definition of patriotism to a very childish one, where you love your country for what it is. The problem with that, is that it makes change virtually impossible. Because you want America to change? You must hate it!
That's the big problem.
Fortunately, there's a growing number of patriots who are actually getting active in making change, with a more mature love of their country (We love it, so lets make it even better!). Maybe it's too late. Maybe we've let too much ground slip to the single-issue interest groups..let them do all the work..ignore the larger cultural issues.
The second part of it, is the idea that younger people are stupid and inexperienced, so therefore #1. Shouldn't vote and #2. Older people know what's good for them, so they should just shut up. You're seeing this is the media word war between Penn and Stone/Parker. The thing is...it doesn't really matter WHO young people vote for. But the idea is, by getting younger people out en masse to vote..period..it gets more of their issues out. It no longer becomes a government by the baby boomers and for the baby boomers. It has to become something more...substantive and long-reaching.
The third part, in my mind, is the economic problems of an economy based on fraud. The current investor economy for the overwhelming most part, is based upon a big ponzi scheme, where the actual invested in companies are paying very little back to the investors, and the money that's actually being made is coming from OTHER investors. The problem with that, is that it basically kills the insurance industry as their business model is made up in a large part in investments, forcing them to raise prices to keep with the..well..immature investor expectation of forever rising profits as far as the eye can see....
It's a system that's built for instability. And that needs to be fixed.
Something tells me that if we didn't go in to begin with, we'd be in a worse position after a generation or two of no consequences to committing terrorist acts.
But Iraq wasn't involved in any anti-US terrorist attacks. Wasn't that what the 9/11 commission wrote in their report?
Before you can assess the risks of any action (and taking no action is an action), you have to have the facts. Opinions and fantasies and nightmares don't count as facts.
And yet, argueably the golden age of the middle class was the Eisenhower years- when the top tax rate was 95%. The economy GREW under Eisenhower- which if you believe the Reaganites (including the President himself, when he was Presidnet of the Screen Actor's Guild he testified before Congress on the subject) should have been impossible. And yet it happened. The 1980s did NOT see an expansion of the middle class- and neither has any other time period since 1895 when trickle down economics has been tried.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Which views do you think they would object to? That free markets increase prosperity? That freedom of religion and expression are required in a just society?
I think they would disagree with the Libertarian notions of what constitutes "free markets", "freedom of religion", "property", "personal liberty", "voluntary behavior", and a "just society". For example, they would likely argue that the Libertarian approach to the economy would not lead to a free market and not increase prosperity. They would probably also point out that Libertarian notions of "individual freedom" are internally contradictory.
To me, US Libertarianism looks like just like a verbal front for Social Darwinism and corporatism.
I believe that a 2 or even 3 thousand dollar tax cut, is not nearly as good as a job that pays (on average) $9000 more than it does currently.
Telling me you are giving me a tax cut in this situation is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue of jobs not paying what they used to and the cost of living increasing just like always.
And to be quite frank, it is my opinion that NONE of us should be getting tax cuts at all while we are at WAR.
I believe that those that can afford it should be willing to pay more in a time of need and not be bitching that they want more back.
How are we supposed to pay for all this?
Are Iraq and Afghanistan gonna get a bill from the US for "Liberating" them? Probably not.
I hate my sig.
And do you think this boom had more to do with the tax structure? or the fact the rest of the worlds manufacturing capacity was devistated in ww2 while ours grew at an astounding rate?
Ours grew at an astounding rate because the government had the money to invest in buying up the output- which we gave away free to the countries we were trying to rebuild. We wouldn't have had the money to do that if it wasn't for the top tax rate- and the opportunity to get middle class jobs wouldn't have been there without our government doing the buying. Europe and Japan were devistated- but they were devistated economically as well (and what is this about the whole world? Southern Africa, Australia, and South America were barely touched- and thier industrial systems were quite robust- yet they didn't see the expansion we did).
The manufacturing (and not IT) base leaving has nothing to do with tax structure it has to do with lower prices and increasing capacity overseas.
Yes and no- the base leaving has to do with lower prices and increasing capacity overseas. But if our federal government had the extra money to invest into R&D by going back to the tax structure of the 1950s, we'd also have a slew of new technologies to move our workforce into. As the old saying goes: They copied everything they could, but they couldn't copy my mind- so I left them plotting and schemeing, a year and a half behind.
The real problem isn't that these jobs are going overseas; they were bound to eventually. The real problem is that our government is now the slave to short term business interests, instead of being the driver of long term research and development of the type that built the Internet.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
At least one more large-scale nuclear "meltdown" (my suspicion, given current trends)
What trends would those be? The only meltdown we've had was a reactor that was (a) a horribly unsafe design, (b) operated by people with egregiously inadequate training, (c) operating with what poor safety features it had turned off and (d) intentionally placed in a dangerous state for a 'test'.
Now, that's the starting point, so what are the trends? From what I can see, the trends are: Unsafe reactor designs are being (or have been) shut down. Reactor operators have had a chance to learn from the Chernobyl operators what not to do. New designs have been created, like the pebble bed design and the "sliding ring" design that can *not* melt down.
But all those are good things. What are the negative trends you see to counteract them and create another incident?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I don't think even now we understand the full relationship between Saddam, the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd mess, Al-Queda (sp?), and other volatile groups, people, and events in this part of the world.
t _8 969.html
If you don't know, then, by definition, you do not have the facts.
Without the facts, you will not be able to make a logical risk assessment.
If leaders had to wait until all the facts are available, we would never have any action.
Incorrect.
For one, those who oppose those leaders would simply conceal some facts, and render those leaders incapable of action.
Why do you believe that? We did not know everything Japan was doing, but that did not stop us from war with them after Pearl Harbor. That was only one fact.
Strong leaders take action on educated (as informed as possible) guesses.
This isn't about "strong leaders". This is about, as you had previously stated, the consequences of our actions or non-actions.
There have been lots of "strong leaders" in the world who have lead unwisely.
If you suspect your teenage daughter of having sex, do you wait to see her pregnant before having a chat with her, or do you try to keep her from those consequences by a "pre-emptive" strike and talking to her before (hopefully) she ends up pregnant?
Fact: people have sex.
Fact: sex can lead to pregnancy.
Fact: my daughter falls under the category of "people".
Conclusion: I need to speak to my daughter about sex.
Why would I have to wait? All of the facts indicate that I should have spoken to her about sex before she hit puberty.
Decisive leaders, like decisive fathers, act based on the preponderance of evidence, not on having all the facts.
Again, there have been lots of "decisive leaders" (and "decisive fathers") who have chosen unwisely.
Being "decisive" is not the same as being "correct". Remember that.
Once you have all the facts, it's too late. Once the first plane hit the tower, it was too late to stop the second plane!
http://www.fact-index.com/a/ai/air_france_fligh
1994. 10 years prior. Yet we took no action to prevent such an attack.
We had the facts, we could have taken action. We did not.
Again. Step #1. Know fact from fantasy/opinion.
You are operating under the fantasy/opinion that we did not know that there were risks or that we cannot take preventive actions until after an attack. Don't confuse your opinion with fact.
Reagan and the Bushes borrowed money while they were president. Clinton paid it back. It's that simple.
Table of U.S. Parties and Economics