Slashdot Mirror


Lessig On Corruption and Reform

Brian Stretch sends us to the National Review for an interview with Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig. Lessig talks about money, politics, money in politics, and his decision not to run for an open seat in Congress. From the interview: "Lessig hates corruption. He hates it so much, in fact, that last year he announced he'd be shifting away from his work on copyright and trademark law... to focus on it... 'One of the biggest targets of reform that we should be thinking about is how to blow up the FCC.'"

5 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Re:"Blow up" the FCC? by Bartab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's just you. You're a crazy conspiracy nutcase.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
  2. Re:FCC moves aim to curry favor of future employer by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Basically, FCC employees brown-nose prospective future employers by decreeing public policies that benefits those future employers. So it's just like Congress, or any number of other government agencies.
    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  3. Careful there Larry by eclectro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many a nerd who happens to read your blog got their ham license through the FCC and talked with the world *before* there was an internet. Or even computers. Many of us built computers from schematics that showed up in the early magazines and interfaced them to radios. We were making phone calls with radios *before* there was cell phones. Countless hams worked in the electronics industry, and worked in companies that brought forth many of the innovations we use today. A ham radio license, which was hard-eanred (most of us automatically decode all that mosrse code when it shows up on TV :D), is and continues to be a cherished part of many peoples lives. And was the beginning of many careers in technology and science.

    While the FCC has many flaws, be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. While I mention ham licenses, they do have a place in technical matters as well.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  4. Re:You won't get the money out of politics... by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More government control of the economy = more corruption.

    And yet, those Nordic countries were the state has great control over the economy are also marked by some of the lowest government corruption in the world.

  5. Re:You won't get the money out of politics... by jmv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More government control of the economy = more corruption.

    Sorry, I have to disagree on that one. Some of the least corrupt governments in the world happen to be the scandinavian countries, which also happen to be very much on the socialist side. You can also find plenty of the opposite case, i.e. banana republics where the government doesn't control the economy and is very corrupt. I wouldn't go as far as saying that more govt control means less corruption, but I definitely disagree on your simple "more control = more corruption" statement.

    This is why the scandals in the previous French government and the UN oil-for-food scandal dwarf anything that's ever gone on in America.

    I disagree on that one to. All the oil-for-food scandals around the world (not just French, there was AU and probably others) are just dwarfed by the US corruption involved in the Iraq invasion. Starting from Halliburton's ex-CEO supporting the was a vice-president, making up false "evidence" (and screwing up the career of the wife of the guy who exposed that in the process), turning a blind eye on over-billing (Halliburton and others), and all the stuff we haven't heard of yet.

    As Lord Acton noted, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    True, but there are ways to reduce the power of *individuals* while making sure the govt has control on the economy. Just because the US screwed up at that, doesn't mean you have to deregulate everything. What needs to be done is that the power must be distributed. That's the idea behind the US "checks and balance" principles. The only problem is that there's currently an individual who managed to mostly seize most of the powers. That's where the problem is.