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.'"

Comments

Squandering, or ...

[Tanktalus]

Obviously, this is an op-ed piece. Not really news. Then again, this is the politics section of /., so I suppose it fits.

The more politically-aware of us have ideologies which we believe are larger than ourselves. They dictate things like taxes, spending, abortion, stem-cell research, etc. So I won't even pretend to agree with TFA on all points.

To me, the only universal point was to ensure that we think about the consequences if we do something, but, unlike the article, we need to think also about the consequences if we don't. We endanger ourselves to years of extremists terrorising us if we stay in Iraq. 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.

Oh, and I always cringe when a political statement involves "think of the children" mentality. Of course we all care about our children. Too often, this cry is followed by an appeal to do things that otherwise really don't make sense, and are very, very shortsighted.

Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[revscat]

I know it's fashionable these days to claim to be a libertarian of one stripe or another, but the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism -- "greed is the ultimate good" -- is to share a large part of the blame here. The almost exclusive focus libertarianism gives to short-sighted individual gain has had grave consequences to the environment our descendants, and what almost all cultures throughout history have come to realize constitutes the "good". It is also, I believe, a large reason why so much of the planet considers Americans to be almost completely immoral.

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.

Re:Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[Golias]

but the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism -- "greed is the ultimate good"

Your entire argument is flawed because you are beginning with a false premise. That is not the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism. If you ever have read Adam Smith and Voltaire (the two most important writers on any libertarian's bookshelf), you clearly did not understand tehm correctly, and need to study them further.

Re:Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[Illissius]

Well, as I see it, the fundamental philosophy of Libertarianism isn't "greed is the ultimate good" as you say. Rather, it recognizes that people are fundamentally greedy, and attempts to design a functioning society with that in mind. That's what I like about Libertarianism -- in stark contrast to other 'idealist' philosophies like, for example, communism, it designs for the worst rather than the best case scenario; rather than assume that human nature will conveniently step aside, it specifically exploits it. It's as if it were designed to actually work in practice.
Now, so far I've just been trying to clear up a misconception; I'm not saying a Libertarian government/society would necessarily avoid the pitfalls mentioned in TFA. We don't have a Libertarian government, nor has there been one recently; there's no way to know. However, it's certainly possible that one of the reasons for the current situation is that people are fundamentally greedy, and we currently have a system that doesn't account for it.

Re:Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[revscat]

And how applicable are they to modern libertarian thought? Very little, I would argue. The primary motivator of libertarians and the libertarian party today is Ayn Rand, and her philosophy is indeed based upon the primary importance of selfish greed.

Re:Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[Golias]

We don't have a Libertarian government, nor has there been one recently; there's no way to know.

Actually, there has.

Prior to the hand-over to the Chinese government, the city of Hong Kong was managed (or more accurately, not managed) by Brittish appointees who left the people of Hong Kong largely to their own devices. Immigration policy was "if you get here, you can stay." Copyright protection was non-existant. There was no minimum wage, ultra-low taxes, no government-run welfare state, and almost no sign of official bureaucracy getting in the way of business decisions.

Hong Kong had many of the problems which critics of libertarianism fear, but it also justified a lot of what the most extreme tin-foil hat capital-L Libertarians have been saying all along: With almost no help from an almost non-present government, Hong Kong thrived and prospered in a way which is still serving as a "best case" model for many of the economic reforms which China has been making since absorbing the city back under Chinese rule.

Of course, Hong Kong had a terrific advantage over many countries, in that they had no need of military protection. The only country who could possibly be interested in conquering them was eventually going to be peacefully taking them over anyway.

Re:Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[Anonymous Coward]

As a libertarian, I don't base my politics on anything or anyone. My politics is as simple as this:

Grown adults can do whatever they want to themselves or other consenting adults and the government should be as minimal and non-invasive as possible. It's not that difficult and considering that's essentially the point of the entire constitutional and the federalist papers, I don't see how anyone can want anything different. Stop trying to push your agenda and just leave people alone.

Re:Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[Captain Rotundo]

oh and I looked it up, from the party platform:

"We should eliminate the entire social welfare system." ... "Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."

Which is pretty much exactly what I said. Libertarians expect people who have spent hundreds of years not giving a fuck about each other to pick up the slack.

Re:Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[HungWeiLo]

Hong Kong is just as much of, if not more than, a social welfare state as any other European welfare state.

In Hong Kong, people get free health care, almost-free education, etc. I can't think of more than 5 things which are not subsidized by the government there. You couldn't imagine how large and bloated the local government is. People in the states would not be able to imagine the things that go on. For example, some Hong Kong government agencies will provide free 3-course lunches daily. And some give employees who've been working for more than 10 years a 7-day all-expenses-paid European vacation! And this is considered a "right" and no one has a second thought about it.

Automobile ownership is taxed at 100% - buying a Honda Accord at $20,000 will ultimately cost $40,000 - hardly what one would call a libertarian utopia. Of course, this is mostly due to the lack of space for cars more than anything.

However, you are correct in stating that trade policies in the former territory is purely lassiez faire and without any major restrictions and barriers. The wealth that this generated, coupled with its unique circumstances (being for a long time the only major and stable entry port for goods destined for consumption in China) makes it viable for the government of Hong Kong to provide services to its citizens while requiring very little income taxation.

Note: I have lived in Hong Kong and have worked for the Hong Kong government.

Re:Libertarianism and the failure of selfishness

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

Grown adults can do whatever they want to themselves or other consenting adults and the government should be as minimal and non-invasive as possible. It's not that difficult and considering that's essentially the point of the entire constitutional and the federalist papers, I don't see how anyone can want anything different.

But you ignore effects on 3rd parties... for example, suppose I sell coffee with styrofoam cups instead of more expensive recycled ones. My decision to do so has now gone beyond my personal-adult-educated decision, and is now affecting other people. Therein lies the fault of Libertarianism... that some (not all - but some) of our decisions affect others, and that - just perhaps - maybe its ok to regulate these areas.

Attila the Hun wants equal time

[RealProgrammer]

Mr. Lessig is a noted voice in the FOSS movement, but his hysterical, sky-is-falling political rhetoric is truly breathtaking.

It almost made me run out and protest Nixon and his damned Viet Nam war.

Progressive Income Tax

[Marxist Hacker 42]

GMHowell's JE had a topic on this today- how our forefathers paid a larger top rate income tax and built the middle class. My generation, Generation X, however, saw this tax rate cut first just as we were being born, and again when we were in our teens, and again when we were in our twenties, and again now that we're in our thirties. Can anybody truthfully say that the middle class is better off for all of these tax cuts? The article asks, sort of, the following question: Was it always like this?

It may always have been like this. I don't believe in "golden age" histories; the past was not always better than the present. But somehow it seems that we have lost an ethic. When your grandfather spoke of building a better world for you than he knew himself, you believed him. And when you look into the eyes of any 1-year-old child, you may understand what he meant.

The reason we believed our grandfathers is because our parents had a better world than they did- but our parents did not return the favor, as the 7 generations of Americans before them did- and thus we've got the mess we have today.

Re:Progressive Income Tax

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Umm there was no federal income tax until the last century. So if by forfathers you mean the past 90 years then yes they paid a higher rate but government became too addicted to spending where it should not and thus rates for the lower and middle class raised. But the nation ran just fine for more than 100 years w/out a federal income tax..

My grandparents (note the quote from the article) were alive and economically active in the 1950s- and are no longer. As for the hundred years previous- sure it ran just fine if by just fine you mean a major run on the banks every 20 years and a collapse of the economy bringing major deflation every 5-10 years. The real boom time for the middle class, in all of the history of the United States, was from 1947-1965. My suggestion is that we return to the tax structure of that time.

Re:Progressive Income Tax

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

Re:Progressive Income Tax

[Edax Rarem]

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.

Re:Progressive Income Tax

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

How do you go from:

[N3WBI3]

"Ask not what your country can do for you" to complaining "We don't even ask what we, as a nation, can do for our kids."

Kennedy was talking about sacrifice in that speech. Sacrifice, it seems, few Americans can stomach. more than 8k per kid is not enough for school? what people might have to save for retirement? what unemployemnt only lasted a year? bulderdash! we need free health care, double the spending on education, unlimited terms on welfare, and G*d help us if we dont start giving money away on $cause, after all its for the children.

Democrat and Republican spending patterns

[Futurepower(R)]

Government data shows Democrat and Republican spending patterns.

Re:Democrat and Republican spending patterns

[RobertB-DC]

One thing to keep in mind is that the interest on that debt doesn't just disappear. It goes to the banks that loan the money to the country.

Don't think of it as building debt... think of it as a bailout for Citibank, Bank of America, and all those poor, suffering megabanks who would have lost their taxpayer-funded handouts if the Clinton-era trend had continued.

Not to mention the whole "starve the beast" strategy -- make debt service so expensive that those silly social programs will simply die from lack of funds.

The parent poster's graph link shows pretty conclusively who's really behind the national debt, doesn't it?

A New Worldview

[David Greene]

I am a memer of the ISAIAH organization, an interfaith coalition of churches in the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud, MN regions. We use faith-based organizing to work for social justice. We do this because our faith calls us to do it.

While not everyone is motivated by faith to work on these issues, most people share the common values that drive it. This past weekend, we got 4,000 people together to talk to our state and federal legislators about what matters to us.

Underneath all of this is an effort to change the current dominant worldview. We are constantly told to be afraid, that no one is there to help us -- we have to be self-reliant and go it alone and that there just isn't enough to go around.

We've been told this in many ways. Terrorists are going to attack us; we all need to take personal responsibility; individualism is supreme; taxes are an evil to be avoided at all costs; we can't afford to pay for schools.

4,000 people came together on Oct. 10 to reject this outlook. We put forth an alternate view: one of hope, community and shared abundance. We know there is enough to go around -- taxes are how we fund our society and we all have a responsibility to contribute. We know we are surrounded by community and by acting in community we have more power than acting alone. We have hope because we have put this vision into action with real results.

Some of our elected officials were "visibly shaken" according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. They did not expect ordinary citizens to declare such a radical vision and did not expect so many to support it.

I believe this new worldview is what Lessig is talking about. When we live and work in community, hope and abundance, we will provide for the future as well as the present.

It's time to define our own society and stop letting others define it for us.

To quote another president...

[Enzo the Baker]

We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Cultural and social issues..

[CashCarSTAR]

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.

Step #1. Know fact from fantasy/opinion.

[khasim]

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.

Re:Step #1. Know fact from fantasy/opinion.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the State Department's assessment, Iraq was one of the few Middle-Eastern countries which didn't have a significant al-Qaeda presence before we invaded. The only al-Qaeda associated terrorists that we know of in Iraq were in Kurd controlled territory, inside the Northern US No-Fly Zone. Three times the military presented plans to take out those terrorists before the invasion. Bush refused 3 times, because it would undermine the case for war. There are more terrorists being "harbored" in Iraq now than there were before we invaded.

If offering moral support to al-Queda is your bar for invading a country, there are a lot more countries we're going to have to invade.

The preponderance of evidence was that Iraq had no meaningful ties to al-Qaeda. The preponderance of evidence once the inspectors were in Iraq was that Iraq had no significant WMD program. The preponderance of evidence was that Iraq's conventional military capability had been signifcantly degraded since the end of the Persian Gulf War. The preponderance of evidence is that Iraq was no threat to its neighbors or the United States. The preponderance of evidence is the Bush Adminstration made one of the greatest strategic blunders in history by invading Iraq.

List of significant challenges for kids

[justanyone]

Significant challenges for our children's generation will include:

• loss of biodiversity, especially oceanic
• at least one more large-scale nuclear "meltdown" (my suspicion, given current trends);
• Complications of Global warming
• Shifting from petroleum-based energy to other sources (inevitable) causing (yet) more instability in arab socio-political structures
• U.S. Social Security baby-boom-bubble shifting demographics placing a very, very high tax burden;
• increasing speed and longevity of communications means a silly photo at a high-school or college party or an ill-thought-out possibly-anti-(insert-minority-group-here) comment posted on a newsgroup can last until your first senate candidacy;
• Inability or reduced ability to 'reinvent' oneself after a life change due to increasing availability of personal info;
• possible deflation in U.S./world due to U.S. trade imbalance and rise of EU and China as global powers;
• economic and geographic dislocation if a bioweapon or other epidemic causes mass evacuations near population centers;
• Rising pro-"American Empire" (neoconservatism) causing wars that kill them;
• Rising religious fundamentalism (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Seikh, etc.) again causing inter-religion and intra-religion wars as there were in the 1600's and 1700's;

Yah, this list is kind of scarey, but I'm sure you can think of others more and less likely.

Re:List of significant challenges for kids

[swillden]

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?

money

[pizza_milkshake]

there's simply too much money out there, who cares about accountability? history can say whatever it wants as long as i can live the rest of my life in luxury doing whatever i please

we've increasingly seen this in corporations and government. if i can make $20 million screwing people over, and eventually get caught and thrown out on my ass (whether i be a CEO or gov't official) what do i care what they think about me?

in the past there was usually was never enough potential monetary benefit that the corrupt individual could simply dissapear for the rest of their lives.

on another issue i make this prediction: the social security issue in the US will not be solved. politics is such a short-term game, there's no incentive to save money down the road when the money could be used for something with a more dramatic short-term gain. one president might manage to make some progress and then the next president could jump right in and waste that money.

Re:Smith, Voltaire, and Libertairanism

[jeif1k]

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.

A Canadian Perspective

[Txiasaeia]

For better or worse, I keep on hearing this up here in Canada: Americans are concerned with individual freedom, Canadians are concerned with the freedom/good of the whole society. This is reflected in our subsidised child care, free health care, social programs for the poor, etc. I'm not sure if I agree with this blanket statement, but this dialectic is *everywhere* - media, higher education, politics, etc. Anyway, my point is that we, as Canadians, give up certain things (i.e. our money, as we're taxed to death) so that those who are well-off don't have to suffer as much.

I was watching SpikeTV yesterday & saw that they were having a contest for men: go to the doctor, get a checkup, and try to win a trip to Carnival. Apparently some people haven't seen a doctor in 10 years! I'm not well off by any stretch of the imagination (student, young family), but I also happen to be sick quite a lot and see a doctor once every month or so. I cringe at the thought of paying $100 per visit to the doctor (this is how much my folks in the US pay - middle class, no health coverage).

I know that /. is US-centric, so forgive me for pointing out flaws in the US, but without free health care I don't know what I would do. From the perspective of an outsider, Lessig is absolutely right. I'm glad that my kids, when they're starting out on their own too, won't have to sacrifice their health because of the health care system in Canada (if the current system holds) - then again, the way that we're screwing up the air right now, they're probably going to need it.

Again. Step #1. Know fact from fantasy/opinion.

[khasim]

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.

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_flight _8 969.html

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.

Re:Smith, Voltaire, and Libertairanism

[AuMatar]

Actually, Adam Smith would disagree that free markets increase prosperity in many cases. There are chapters in Wealth of Nations that discuss the benefits of protectionism. Remember- he was NOT discussing a political philosophy of privatize everything and free markets are good. Wealth of Nations was a scientific discourse attempting to describe an emergent system, not an endorsement of it.

Republicans borrowed, a Democrat paid it back.

[Futurepower(R)]

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