Slashdot Mirror
Lessig Campaign and the Change Congress Movement
GoldenShale wrote a follow up to last week's discussion about Lessig running for congress. He writes "Larry Lessig has created a Lessig08 website, and it looks like he is getting serious about running for congress. In his introduction video he proposes the creation of a national "Change Congress" movement which would try to limit the influence of money in the electoral and legislative processes. Having a technologically savvy representative and a clear intellectual leader to head this kind of movement is exactly what we need to counter the last 8 years of corporate dominance in government."
8 years? Corporations have been exhibiting control over the legislature for much more than the past 8 years... One only has to look at the copyright act extensions to see that.
I'm all for this, but as the old spam form response says, "Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical".
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Intellectuals make terrible politicians. You need a wheeling-dealing sort, not a thinker.
Anyway, the only way to change the game is to play it - if the congress is run by corporate types, then you need to become a corporate type to change congress. Revolution happens, but it's pretty rare - and frankly I don't think that Lessig has it in him.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Corporate influence over Congress has been way past acceptable levels for a lot longer than eight years, even in the sphere of intellectual property. Even the DMCA is ten years old.
I recognize the temptation to blame Bush, but this is too old and it runs too deep to pin on him alone.
Most lobbyists are working for companies who want tax laws changed in their favor.
Implement the FairTax and the power of the politicians goes back to where it should be.
I'd also favor a simpler flatter tax system THAT CAN'T BE TWEAKED once implemented.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The main point of my post was corporate control is not a liberal or a conservative problem, its an institutional problem.
It's not Walmart's fault that people shop there and buy so much Chinese stuff. It's not Toyota's fault that Americans would rather pay Toyota and get a nicer car than have a better standard of living for American auto workers. It's not just that a banker on wall street is greedy. It is that -every- American is greedy, and therefor, we got the institutions we asked for.
This is my sig.
... heh? Did Y2K reset your counter??????
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
I actually disagree here. I think Europeans have taken the high ground in this. The only reason we are in Iraq is oil. The President, intentionally, is a seat to make peace and forge trade agreements... not to make war. The only role the President plays in war is to lead the armies when Congress votes it necessary to go to war. Other than that, the President's job is to kiss as much ass as possible.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
This gets modded Insightful?
Well, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq A lot of European countries have troops in Afghanistan.
Sorry for not fighting all your ill-concieved wars.
Read, refresh, repeat.
I think it is fallacious to say money is the problem in the congress. It's not money, its the sheer greed of all involved. Congress has too much power and therefor people want it too much. If you take away the money for elected officials, there will be other, more secret levers that will be unaccountably manipulated. Decisions will be made in stealth, in secret, like the smoke filled back rooms of the old days.
No, it is better, really, to just have money go to whomever and without restriction. That way, we can at least see whom is owned by who, and vote accordingly. Better a billionaire writes a million dollar check to a senator than the same billionaire indirectly invests into a bevy of people to work some foul valve of power in the furnaces of Washington.
This is my sig.
Hello! We're there with you. Not that we want to be, damned Blair.
Bein allied with someone doesn't mean "invaeds the same places despite advice", it means mutual defence and giving consideration to any other military actions.
Frankly I've more respect for those that didn't go than those that did.
You can not "limit influence of money" without trampling the First Amendment-provided right to free speech. McCain-Feingold did just this, but it does not make it right (it is the primary grudge against McCain, in fact)...
Funny, how the same people, who complain about First Amendment violations almost all the time — right to sell porn, right to distribute copyrighted (by someone else) material, right to create/publish law-breaking software are all deemed protected by the same Amendment by these people — not only fail to see this trampling, but actually demand more of it... Or, rather, it would've been funny, if it weren't sad.
I thought more of Lessig...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I think you're confusing the concept of "allies" with the concept of "vassal states". Allies aren't there to help you start wars of aggression, they're to help defend you if you're aggressed against.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I actually disagree here. I think Europeans have taken the high ground in this... war is about oil snip
That's fine and dandy, and I think you were unfairly modded troll, by the way. All I'm saying is, if Europeans aren't fighting for us, why should we fight for them? Why does it matter to the USA if Poland or Germany are independent from Russia any more than Iraq is liberated from Saddam? There's no difference. I'm saying, let Europeans deal with their own security, the USA can trade with them, but lets end NATO now and move on with life.
Nothing to get mad about.
This is my sig.
2. If the dumbest thing you can think of is to appease the largest economic power outside of North America, then you clearly haven't watched American politics for the last 50 years.
3. Europeans ARE fighting with Americans in Iraq. United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Bulgaria, Latvia, Albania, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Estonia (in decreasing number of troops) all have troops in Iraq. Not all of these are EU members, but some are, and all are part of Europe. Europe is not France and Germany, no matter what France and Germany may say about that. That said, Germany is a staunch US ally, host to US bases that are key in moving troops and equipment around the world, and a key member of NATO that helped us during the cold war. Discount such an ally at your own peril....
4. All of the above nations are quite concerned that they've done quite the opposite of what they intended (bring instability to the region rather than stability).
Wheeler-dealer types are precisely why we are where we are now.
One compromise after another, until eventually we're in this mess. What we *need* are people who actually have some ideals and well thought out principles and are willing to stick to them or go down in flames trying. Then we might actually see some change, rather than continued appeasement of the entrenched interests.
You know why we were able to bail them out? Because we didn't have our military spread to the four corners of the Earth trying to police the world. We were able to mobilize a fairly nimble economy into producing TONS of goods and support. All that is vanishing increasingly with more and more Socialist policies and our stretched budget.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
As to what the difference to the USA is, in case you have forgotten you were involved in a cold war with the USSR. The USA and Europe provided a counterbalancing force to the USSR and China. How long do you think the USA would have lasted if the USSR, Europe and China had been allies? US involvement in Europe, as in South-East Asia in the last century was all about national security.
[1] Yes, unlikely, I know.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm sorry, but that's pretty arrogant. I understand the notion, but you have to look at it this way. We are considered the evil war monger superpower now. That's not a good thing. If we were to take a step back, let the world work it's magic and help them instead of inhibiting them, we might actually make it off this planet and on to better things. The whole idea behind living a cooperative existence is to NOT go to war unless absolutely necessary. This is why it should take a paramount shift in the popular vote of Congress to go to war. This allows time for minor skirmishes all over the globe to play out... good or bad. If it gets bad. We are there to help. Like your neighbor stepping in and calling the police when your house is broken into. (Or are you the same type of person that assumes that your house value will not depreciate because your neighbor was broken into?)
There was a reason that everyone wanted to live in America in the past. It was a goal (of sorts) for many people to aspire to. Today? We are "stupid ignorant Americans with our tanks and bombs." The reason people want to live here now? The Feds will pay for your health care, education and Social Security. I'm sorry, but that's not the America I feel my ancestors bled for.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
People like to talk a lot about changing politics, changing congress. But how? Things like McCain-Feingold are at best weak protections. If someone wants to get around them, there is always a way. From 'issue ads' paid for by PACs/Lobbyists to other even harder to track things.
For example, there is a 'donation cap' of $2300 per person for individual contributions to a campaign or party, I believe. I could think of ways to get around such a donation cap. Most people don't have $2300 to give to political campaigns or parties. So, if someone 'arranges' for the people without the money to get the money to give to the favored candidate, it could be used to funnel a lot of money from one person/corporation to the candidate. I mean, there's nothing stopping me from giving $2300 buck to the campaign, then giving you, my close friend, who just so happens to support the same candidate, a gift of $2300, or a job with a 'signing bonus' of $2300.
Also, besides human ingenuity at getting around any type of rule/law, there is the simple, fundamental fact that corporations are made up of people. Boards of directors, executives, employees. Those people have free speach rights, and they have money. You will never, ever, ever be able to eliminate the influence of people with money and power from politics. It cannot be done. The influence of the rich and powerful on politics goes back far beyond the American Revolution and the founding of the United States. The definition of 'powerful' is that you have influence that you can wield.
The best you can hope to do is either convince the people with money and power that it is in their so-called 'enlightened self-interest' to use their influence and powern in such a way that benefits everyone, and not just themeselves and their allies, or else try to accumulate more power, influence, and money than they do.
Might may not make Right, but Right without power is meaningless and useless. Don't get me wrong, this post is not a defense of the way government is currently being run. I'm disgusted by the way Republican majority governments under Reagan and Bush have expanded the Federal Governments spending outrageously, expand earmarks outrageously, and are generally running the country bankrupt. I'm disappointed with the 'leadership' of a government which has gotten us into an occupation which wasn't necessary, under false pretenses, ticking off the rest of the world, and dropping the ball in Afghanistan, a country we absolutly needed to invade and remove the current government from power because it was clearly aiding, abetting, and providing safe harbor for the enemies of the United States who had actively commited crimes against us. By the way the government is systematically attacking our constitutional freedoms and privacy, justifying torture on a scale and with a lack of transparency or accountability that is horrifying to me as a us Citizen. By the way they have been continuousy expanding patents and copyrights, in the name of trying to protect the economy, but which is most likely having the opposite effect.
But, it's just a statement of plain truth: If you want to change government, you must influence the people around you, and it certainly helps to become famous, or run a large company. So go out and start your own company, or your own political group or blog or news organization and start building your power and accumulating wealth. Find friends who can give you $2300 (if you don't have it yourself) to donate to campaigns and causes you believe in, and donate it.
I'm sorry, but that's pretty arrogant. I understand the notion, but you have to look at it this way. We are considered the evil war monger superpower now.
I don't disagree with any of that. That is why I am saying that the USA should not be military allies with anyone. We should bring all of our troops home from everywhere, cut down the size of our army, and focus on trade. We can sit fat and happy behind a mountain of nukes and a missile defense system for our own national security, plus with a sufficient navy to guard our waters and an air force for our air. But we don't need to be operating in 100 countries across the globe. Iraq is the least of our military perception problems.
This is my sig.
The influence of money on government is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the influence of government on money. If you want a corruption-free government, then you have to stop trying to regulate every business. I mean, for GOD'S SAKE, the ANGLE of the cut on green beans is REGULATED BY LEGISLATION.
The government has exactly one job: to monopolize violence to ensure that people can make arrangements free of violence. Everything else, people can arrange for themselves through voluntary peaceful means.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
In high school, back in the 90's, as I watched politics, I made a fundamental observation about politics. You have third party candidates and independent politicians try to make a run for the Presidency every couple of election cycles, and they never get anywhere. Why? Because they *have no base of support*. Even if the third party/independent candidate did manage to win the presidency, it would be, to a certain extent, meaningless, because the other parties would still control Congress, and a President can't do much without congress (which is as it ought to be; the Constitution sets out a government where the parliament is the primary branch, and the executive branch is fundamentally supposed to be the servant of Congress, carrying out the will of the People).
You won't overcome the republicans or democrats in one big presidential election. Never gonna happen. If you want to make any progress, you will have to build from the bottom up. Start getting candidates into local and state positions, and build on a track record of good governance at the local and state level to leverage your party into the House and the Senate. Once you have enough support in the House and Senate (at least 1/3rd of each), and are nationally known as a party people like and trust, then you are in an excellent position to run a Presidential candidate as a true, meaningful alternative to the two establisment parties.
Otherwise, your just a flash in the pan.
The problem is the voters. As long as people let their decisions be swayed by what they see in the mass media (a situation which may never change), it's going to be impossible to keep money out of politics, because the money that buys tropical vacations is a drop in the bucket compared to the money that buys mass media exposure.
If the First Amendment wasn't an obstacle, what would you want to do? Limit political contributions, and all you do is restrict the power of middle class individuals' money (which must be pooled to buy a single commercial) in favor of the rich (who can afford to advertise without going through campaign middlemen. We've seen some of that in these primaries, where the $2,300 cap on ordinary Americans' contributions obviously doesn't apply to wealthy candidates who can "loan" millions of dollars to their own campaigns. Limit political advertisements, and all you'll do is force some of those advertisements to call themselves "fair and balanced news", concentrating power still further into the hands of media owners. Limit news that doesn't pass "Fairness" laws, and that just moves the power into the hands of the incumbent politicians and judges who get to write and arbitrate such laws.
The best we can do is encourage the dissemination of less corrupted political information, to inoculate people against the misinformation that money can buy. By the time a voter is watching the commercials that have been pushed at him rather than trying to pull information on issues and candidates for himself, it's practically too late.
I think you're the twentieth person to point out the stupidity of the "8 years" statement, and so far I haven't seen a single comment defending it.
Slashdot != submitters;
Slashdot != article summaries;
Slashdot == user comments;
If there were really a bias, there would have been an outpouring of anti-Bush sentiments instead of people pointing out when DMCA was passed, the history of copyright extensions, and the joke about the submitter's counter being reset by Y2K.
And once the radioactive cloud drifts over your midwest and destroyes the agriculture there, you'll feel really stupid for doing so.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Europe is anti-america because it's the devil. It shows that, while lefty politics are failing all over the globe, policies to the extreme right, and extreme liberty amongst citizens largely holding the Christian faith is a working, stable state structure.
I think Europe is anti-American solely because of what they perceive to be American militarism. I think Europe is so scarred from the World Wars that anything that smacks of a risk of a war terrifies them. And, I think that is understandable. Everyone in Europe, especially Germany, has a family member that was killed on the Eastern Front. Everyone in Europe has families tales of occupation, the bombings, the postwar starvations, the homelessness. They have had enough war to last for generations and they see us as fools for seemingly seeking it out.
This is my sig.
I've never heard of such a country as Us. Do you mean the Mexican United States? Or are you referring to the former United States of Venezuala? You know, Brazil was a "United States" before 1968. 'Cause other folks use the word "United States", but only one country uses the word "America" in its official name (Dutch townships excepted), so doesn't it make more sense to use... you know... the correct term? The term "American" is not ambiguous, and it's not silly like "USian."
Hate for america is not based on hate for it's citizens, but on american symbols. The capitalism. The military-industrial complex. The space program. The huge cities. The freedom. It is NOT based on any foreign policy that the US implements. Yes Iraq didn't help, but to say it's the cause of anti-americanism anywhere (except perhaps amongst the baathists of iraq) is not just delusional but outright danguerous deception.
Sorry, but you really think they hate our "freedom" and not our meddling (i.e., causing wars and installing dictators when it suited the US)? Sorry, I don't think that's it. Its our foreign policy, which exploits other nations much like the corporations exploited people here in the 1900s before regulations stopped it.
The only reason we are in Iraq is oil.
Actually, the reason we are in Iraq is that for over a decade, Saddam Hussein flaunted and refused to comply with the terms of an armistice he himself had signed.
And then he added to that by doing far too good a job blustering and trying to convince people that he had an active WMD program - so good a job that the Russians, French, Germans, Spanish, Chinese, and even the Swiss thought he did still have it going. Why was he doing it? Because it was the only thing keeping Iran off his ass. Problem? He fooled everyone else too, and his history scared the crap out of people that he'd lob a nuke towards someone (Turkey, Israel, Kuwait, Iran) that he considered an "enemy" and touch off even more crap.
We're in Iraq today because the Middle East is ruled by a bunch of fucktards who use a 7th-century religion to justify barbarity and evil, towards each other just as much as towards the "dar al-harb" they profess to hate.
> The only reason we are in Iraq is oil.
I beg to differ. IMHO, the primary reason we're in Iraq is so we can have a "sufficiently major and long-lasting" war. After all, you can't be a "wartime President" without a war, and it's really hard to make executive power grabs without using war and national security as a pretext. So we're at war in Iraq, in order to be at war, in order to "enhance" executive power.
Beyond that, Iraq was just too attractive:
Afghanistan was (incorrectly) perceived as not being major enough or long-lasting enough.
Iraq has oil, always a selling point for Texans. (I didn't say oil wasn't A reason, just not THE reason.)
Iraq has been a thorn in various peoples' sides ever since Gulf War I.
An Iraq war redresses "sins of the father" - ie GHWB not finishing the job.
An Iraq war demonstrates "America Unbound", (As the book says, unbound by agreements with enemies and allies, alike.) willing and capable to go it alone, while pretending to head a coalition.
> the President's job is to kiss as much ass as possible.
Seems to me that this President's efforts have been to reverse that statement.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Last time I checked, it was the US government which tried to convince those countries that Iraq had WMD, and they used a significant amount of fake or exaggerated 'evidence' to do so. Look up Colin Powell's address to the UN, for example.
Europeans opposed the invasion of Iraq because they didn't let themselves be fooled by that. If the US had had a case, most Europeans would have supported the invasion.