Slashdot Mirror
Derek Khanna Answers Your Questions
Last week you had a chance to ask former Republican staffer Derek Khanna about his well publicized firing, copyright law, and the state of the government. Read below to see his answers to your questions.
Do You Still Identify Yourself as Republican?
by eldavojohn
I believe your paper would have been unpopular on both sides of the isle but did the Republican knee jerk reaction to it negatively affect your affinity with the Republican party and your efforts to further their cause? Setting aside your differences on Copyright Law with that party, are you still Republican?
Khanna: Absolutely still a Republican. In fact I actually quibble a bit with your premise. The conservative position is that our current system of copyright is not consistent with the Constitution and inhibits innovation by choosing winners and losers– and pretty much all conservative organizations have come out with that opinion. There is a difference between Republican and Conservative that I won’t get into here, but my opinions are conservative and the Republican Party reflects more of the conservative ideology.
Re:Do You Still Identify Yourself as Republican?
by alexander_686
Follow up question: If you had been a Democratic staffer, do you think you would have been fired or would have been treated differently?
That is, what is the interaction between the Republican party verses the general entrenched interests that influences both parties. I have seen many Democrats also advocate for strict IP laws.
Khanna: I’m not sure, I’m not really qualified to assess what happens on the other side of the aisle. But I would think that the memo would never have gotten written at all. The content industry traditionally supports Democrats. And the memo was written for a conservative audience based upon traditional conservative principles.
Law to guide vs. forbid
by Maximum Prophet
One complaint conservatives about liberals is that they tend to try to outlaw stuff reactively. The EPA comes to mind, forbidding property owners certain uses of their land. How can government encourage people to do the right thing without outlawing the wrong thing? How can the government "Speak Softly" but keep the "Big Stick" only when absolutely necessary? With respect to copyrights, could the government tell people it's wrong to let artists starve, while making it easy to justly compensate them for their work?
Khanna: I’m not going to go too off base here, but there are many solutions available other than regulation and forbidding conduct. Often times the market can sort it out, but if, and only if, you ensure that externalities are built in, and you ensure that the government hasn’t already messed with the incentive structures. I’m not really qualified to jump in on EPA issues. And I’m not entirely sure on the rest of your question, as a believer of the free market I don’t think that our copyright system should be built upon ensuring that ALL artists make lots of money and I think that generally the market will facilitate even easier methods of payments with newer technologies.
Re:Great minds think alike
by Tokolosh
My posting from nearly four years ago:
To quote the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." What does "limited Times" mean? We can agree that one day is insufficient to be an incentive. We can also agree that infinity is too long to promote progress. Therefore, it stands to reason that there is some optimal duration, which both maximizes the rewards for both the inventors, and society at large. Has any research been done to determine this optimum? Is current legislation based on anything other than what lobbyists can buy for their clients?
Khanna: Terrific question. First, limited times is a term left purposefully vague allowing for Congress to change how long copyright should be. This is a reason why I never said that copyright has to be 28 years – set in stone – as the Founders had (kind of it’s a bit more complicated). And my suggested terms are just suggestions – they were designed to be a starting point for hearings to bring in data.
But I think we have to make arguments for why longer than the Founder term is sound. Arguments like, “Our Founder system of 28 years was premised upon a market of x, and today the market is y, which requires a longer recoupment period for the content producer etc.” But of course that wouldn’t justify our current system of life + 70. In my Cato Unbound piece I go through some of the studies on this topic that pretty conclusively find that there is no incentive to content producers for such a long copyright period.
From the piece:
“Research further shows that our system of copyright is suboptimal at best and significantly counterproductive at worst. For much of our history, copyright required registration to receive the full benefit of the extension. If a longer copyright term were critical to provide sufficient incentive to content producers then we would expect, particularly when copyright terms were much shorter, that content producers would choose to extend their copyright. But during the era of registration, Congress found that only “a very small percentage of copyrights are ever renewed.”[2] They found that the rate of renewal in the 1880s was 15%, and less than half of all works were originally registered at all. If a much longer copyright term of life plus 70 years is so necessary, then why did all these content producers choose to only have 28 years of protection rather than the optional 42 years available at the time?
As William Patry argues in his book How to Fix Copyright,
Was there a single author in the world who said, ‘A term of copyright that only lasts for my life plus fifty years after I die is too short. I will not create a new work unless copyright is extent to last for my life plus seventy years’? There is no such person. (p 57)
Several studies have confirmed this as well. In 2009, a study on the production of movies in twenty-three countries that had extended the term of copyright(pdf) found no evidence that longer terms of copyright caused the creation of more works rather than the prior, shorter term. Another study from the University of Cambridge found that the optimal copyright term is 15 years(pdf), with a 99% confidence interval extending up to 38 years. Even the Congressional Research Service concluded that there was at most a small change in incentive in the extension of copyright term.
If there are no or only minimal benefits to this change, what are the costs?”
So in answer to your question there has been a lot of research. We have cross-country research so we know generally what works. And while the data may show slightly different things, it all shows that life + 70 offers us nothing and actually depresses available content. Current legislation is not based upon this discussion, I don’t recall that being the topic of discussion for the last extension, but it should be particularly when the industry comes knocking in 2019 to ask for life + 90 to keep Steamboat Willy from entering the public domain.
I got into some relevant detail in another more recent essay for Cato-Unbound:
“There are certainly legitimate arguments that copyright should be longer than that of our Founders because of certain market conditions that are different from their day – but there are not legitimate argument to say that a system of indefinite copyright abides by the Constitution or our the express intentions of our Founders.
Despite the American history on Copyright, some still argue that copyright should be or could be a perpetual right that exists forever. Many of them have lobbied successfully on a regular basis to ensure that certain highly-lucrative works never enter the public domain. Some against copyright reform hide behind the shadows of claiming that they are not for an indefinite copyright – but every twenty/thirty years they lobby to extend copyright from 56 years, to life + 50, to life +70. It’s very clear what their intentions are. They intend and have largely succeeded in destroying anything of value entering the public domain. Success in perverting the law should not be misinterpreted for constitutional fidelity despite their property law arguments using 18th century vernacular. These proponents are arguing for something very different from what the Founders believed.
Frankly they lost the argument 226 years ago. The Founders explicitly rejected this position.”
Down the Pipe
by CanHasDIY
Is there any future legislation that you know of / heard about during your time as a staffer that we, the People, should get a heads-up on? Specifically, anything nefarious regarding things like copyright, patents, digital property and/or privacy, et. al?
Khanna: Patents need to be fixed and we obviously need major privacy legislation such as ECPA reform etc. I talked about some of the upcoming privacy issues in my interview with Techdirt. I was always particularly concerned with drone strikes against US citizens so I’m happy that is finally receiving some real attention by MSM and the American people.
As I wrote in my piece in the National Review, I think we can do a much better job in allocating visas to high-skilled workers – and I think there is an actual way to accomplish that goal as outlined in the article or other ideas along a similar thought process (perhaps by providing greater help for small businesses acquiring H-1Bs).
But more on topic, we should keep an eye on the Transpacific Partnership Treaty (TPP) because it will be codifying provisions of the DMCA that are very problematic. The DMCA has been used to make some technology “contraband” and to stifle political speech. While we need to protect intellectual property, the DMCA has proved to be a terrible law. It should not be entirely surprising that the DMCA may need revisions and oversight. The DMCA was passed three years before the iPod, six years before Google Books and nine years before the Kindle. But now that it's clear that the DMCA is being interpreted in a way clearly contrary for which it was passed, it’s incumbent upon Congress to act.The idea of putting the DMCA into an international agreement is a very bad idea. If in the United States it has been used to justify censorship of political speech, imagine what other countries will do that don’t have the First Amendment and are looking for legal structure to justify censorship.
This is a big fight and as a Congressional staffer we weren’t allowed to read it – so very scary stuff and I think an unprecedented level of secrecy on this. I also touched upon this in the Cato Unbound piece:
“This treaty includes provisions on intellectual property that are above and beyond those in the Berne Convention. Setting controversial and contested copyright terms in stone through treaty was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. It’s an affront to the legislative process to try to “re-codify” legislative wins into treaty agreements. That would make it significantly more difficult to ever change course.
The length of copyright terms has always received significant debate and disagreement. This was likely the intention of the Founders in not specifying what a "limited time" meant within the Constitution itself. But current drafts of the TPP allegedly establish the law at life plus 70 years. Additionally, it would include or even expand portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) relating to anti-circumvention technologies. To be clear, I am strongly against unauthorized copyright infringement, but the DMCA outlawing of anti-circumvention technologies is extremely controversial—and rightfully so.
The DMCA created rules that until recently made it illegal to jailbreak your own iPhone or to develop a program to read a Kindle book aloud to someone who is blind. The DMCA still bars developing, selling, providing, or even linking to technologies that play legal DVDs purchased in a different region, or to convert a DVD you own to a playable file on your computer. Because no licensed DVD playing software is currently available for the Linux operating system, if a Linux user wishes to play a DVD that they have legally bought, they cannot legally play it on their own computer. The DMCA’s rules have also made legitimate fair uses of copyrighted material much harder. Using snippets of video for classrooms is legal fair use, but to do so, teachers have to use illegal technology to “rip” the DVD to a playable and editable file, or they must illegally download the file online.
Within the leaked details of the TPP Treaty there are many troubling features, but perhaps most troubling is the secrecy surrounding the negotiations. Members have been allowed to view documents, but most of their staff and the general public have been denied access. Outside of the national security realm, this type of secrecy in regard to a treaty is particularly troubling and perhaps unprecedented. Another troubling aspect is that despite this secrecy, there have been “stakeholder” presentations representing one particular side and vested interest, rather than the perspective of the general public or the requirements of our Constitution. One of the stakeholder presentations at the latest TPP negotiations was titled "The Walt-Disney Company: Creativity, Brought to you by Copyright.” At the same time, representatives from the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) were denied access and not allowed in the building for recent negotiations.”
But the recent decision by the Librarian of Congress really takes the cake, which made it illegal to unlock your own cellphone. In a recent article I stated that:
“Congress's inaction in the face of the decision by the Librarian of Congress represents a dereliction of duty. It should pass a new law codifying that adaptive technology for the blind, backing up DVD's to your computer, and unlocking and jail breaking your phone are lawful activities regardless of the decisions of the Librarian of Congress.” (article)
Our White House petition on this issue is currently at 75,000 but we have to get to 100,000 by February 23, 2013. This will be a big opportunity for advocates of sounds technology policy.
Hope?
by Hatta
How do we Americans manage to retain any hope for any sort of positive change when people who are paid to identify beneficial reforms get fired for upsetting special interests? Doesn't your case prove that it's impossible to effect reform through the system? Do you belive that Democracy in America still exists, and if so, why?
Khanna: Democracy is more than just people voting and it’s more than just activism for your candidate of choice. The people have immense power when they are united and coordinated. Unfortunately, most organizing up till now has required major organizations to set-up – but not anymore.
Members of Congress are particularly sensitive to interests from their constituents as expressed through letters, e-mail and phone calls to their office. This is why a united and coordinated movement can be so successful in stopping legislation. But activist movements, like the SOPA protest, cannot rest after stopping one bad piece of legislation. Instead, we must take the next step which is actually passing good legislation.
I imagine that ad-hoc groups of people who agree on some policy idea will form to both stop bad legislation but also to push good legislation. It will take a while to transition to that, but once that is done, then we will have much more of an effect and a substantive democracy. But that will require activism and involvement.
The cellphone unlocking issue is a perfect example of where the people could actually fix policy. The traditional players in DC are unlikely to do so on their own, the wireless industry likes the ruling, and many of the other technology companies may see this as an issue where they have little to gain– so it’s up to the people themselves to step up and say this ruling is crazy. The idea that average people can be arrested for unlocking their phones is insane. I hope that the people step up for their own property rights.
Lawmakers becoming Obsolete
by SinisterRainbow
The United States was founded as Republic, primarily (so it is said) because having individual voices was impossible with the technology of the time. However, we live in an age where the Internet has given us instant communication and access to vast information, where we can relatively securely pass information around, and where especially, we can have every voice heard to write our own bills and laws. Iceland may be small, but they have proven it's more than just a theory. We have open source books, open source software, open encyclopedia, with more 'open' type projects all the time - which have proved immensely successful and very efficient when it comes to money. However, the trend is in the opposite direction, with more power given to lawmakers and large corporations (in the de facto sense at least as contributions are now unlimited, it raises the bar of entry), and congress with it's two main parties, are in a huge poker match. What do you see as the pros and cons against an open-Bill type of system, where the power of the people get a more realistic voice, where the history can be saved for eternity, where the slightest changes can all be remembered using repositories, where anyone can contribute, where it would save multi-millions of dollars in taxes, where multiple types of Bills can be presented and the one the people wish for most receives the most votes? You have represented a party that claims they stand for smaller government, yet it's one that has increased government size as much and many times, more than democrats. Shouldn't such a system be at the forefront of Republican agenda? Or has big business lined the pockets so fat of every member in congress that this is not possible without some type of revolution..?
Khanna: You are correct that the Republican Party claims they are the party of smaller government, yet they have failed to deliver while they were in power – and conservatives are frustrated with the party for that reason. I think that Democrats have been worse in that regard, but clearly the Bush years were very bad ones for fiscal conservatism.
Your idea for a more open government and transparency is interesting, but while I want the people to be more involved in our process I do like the idea – in concept – of representative democracy (I’m not sure exactly what you are saying in that regard).
Would you do it the exact same way again?
by rmdingler
Hindsight being on the order of 20/15 or so, would you make the same bold statement, or, knowing the consequences and repercussions, would you be a bit more tactful and attempt to reform the system from within?
Khanna: I tried to reform the system from within – by doing my job. In this situation, discretion and tact was used as much as possible.
Now What?
by eldavojohn
You told other staffers when you left: Don't be discouraged by the potential consequences. You work for the American people. It's your job, your obligation to be challenging existing paradigms and put forward novel solutions to existing problems.
So now what? What's your plan? I mean, you can tell them not to be discouraged but that's a pretty hefty weight to put on your own shoulders. Anyone who gets a check from the content industry (and I think that's everyone in DC) is going to blacklist you. Do you see yourself taking a Ralph Nader-like approach to politics? How do you even get your foot back in the door? You do realize that if you don't return or rise to another kind of constituent-focused power that your above encouragement will fall upon deaf ears as you will become the example of what happens to an outspoken staffer?
Khanna: Yes, I stand by that statement. We need creative destruction of failed ideas and we need a thriving competition for promising new ideas. Not solving problems but “getting along” is not enough to fix our system at this point.
In normal times, the system can function by each of us playing a minimal role in its proper functioning – but when the system is like it is today, it requires those of us who are paying attention to be more active participants. Democracy is tough, it requires active engagement and participation.
As for me, I have a bunch of plans in the works. Right now I’m working on the cellphone unlocking issue that I mentioned because it’s outrageous and unacceptable. But it’s also a misstep by the other side and therefore it’s a strategic opportunity to restore property rights. Doing so will start to change the overall discussion on technology policy and it’s a winnable battle. I hope you will consider signing and promoting our White House petition and getting us over 100,000 by the end of the week.
I plan on continuing to write and research on sensible technology policies for our country through my fellowship with Yale Law and hopefully being a part in successful advocacy movements going forward.
Follow me on twitter to find out about my next steps. Or shoot me on twitter @Dkhanna11 and e-mail if you have ideas (Khannaderek@gmail.com).
by eldavojohn
I believe your paper would have been unpopular on both sides of the isle but did the Republican knee jerk reaction to it negatively affect your affinity with the Republican party and your efforts to further their cause? Setting aside your differences on Copyright Law with that party, are you still Republican?
Khanna: Absolutely still a Republican. In fact I actually quibble a bit with your premise. The conservative position is that our current system of copyright is not consistent with the Constitution and inhibits innovation by choosing winners and losers– and pretty much all conservative organizations have come out with that opinion. There is a difference between Republican and Conservative that I won’t get into here, but my opinions are conservative and the Republican Party reflects more of the conservative ideology.
Re:Do You Still Identify Yourself as Republican?
by alexander_686
Follow up question: If you had been a Democratic staffer, do you think you would have been fired or would have been treated differently?
That is, what is the interaction between the Republican party verses the general entrenched interests that influences both parties. I have seen many Democrats also advocate for strict IP laws.
Khanna: I’m not sure, I’m not really qualified to assess what happens on the other side of the aisle. But I would think that the memo would never have gotten written at all. The content industry traditionally supports Democrats. And the memo was written for a conservative audience based upon traditional conservative principles.
Law to guide vs. forbid
by Maximum Prophet
One complaint conservatives about liberals is that they tend to try to outlaw stuff reactively. The EPA comes to mind, forbidding property owners certain uses of their land. How can government encourage people to do the right thing without outlawing the wrong thing? How can the government "Speak Softly" but keep the "Big Stick" only when absolutely necessary? With respect to copyrights, could the government tell people it's wrong to let artists starve, while making it easy to justly compensate them for their work?
Khanna: I’m not going to go too off base here, but there are many solutions available other than regulation and forbidding conduct. Often times the market can sort it out, but if, and only if, you ensure that externalities are built in, and you ensure that the government hasn’t already messed with the incentive structures. I’m not really qualified to jump in on EPA issues. And I’m not entirely sure on the rest of your question, as a believer of the free market I don’t think that our copyright system should be built upon ensuring that ALL artists make lots of money and I think that generally the market will facilitate even easier methods of payments with newer technologies.
Re:Great minds think alike
by Tokolosh
My posting from nearly four years ago:
To quote the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." What does "limited Times" mean? We can agree that one day is insufficient to be an incentive. We can also agree that infinity is too long to promote progress. Therefore, it stands to reason that there is some optimal duration, which both maximizes the rewards for both the inventors, and society at large. Has any research been done to determine this optimum? Is current legislation based on anything other than what lobbyists can buy for their clients?
Khanna: Terrific question. First, limited times is a term left purposefully vague allowing for Congress to change how long copyright should be. This is a reason why I never said that copyright has to be 28 years – set in stone – as the Founders had (kind of it’s a bit more complicated). And my suggested terms are just suggestions – they were designed to be a starting point for hearings to bring in data.
But I think we have to make arguments for why longer than the Founder term is sound. Arguments like, “Our Founder system of 28 years was premised upon a market of x, and today the market is y, which requires a longer recoupment period for the content producer etc.” But of course that wouldn’t justify our current system of life + 70. In my Cato Unbound piece I go through some of the studies on this topic that pretty conclusively find that there is no incentive to content producers for such a long copyright period.
From the piece:
“Research further shows that our system of copyright is suboptimal at best and significantly counterproductive at worst. For much of our history, copyright required registration to receive the full benefit of the extension. If a longer copyright term were critical to provide sufficient incentive to content producers then we would expect, particularly when copyright terms were much shorter, that content producers would choose to extend their copyright. But during the era of registration, Congress found that only “a very small percentage of copyrights are ever renewed.”[2] They found that the rate of renewal in the 1880s was 15%, and less than half of all works were originally registered at all. If a much longer copyright term of life plus 70 years is so necessary, then why did all these content producers choose to only have 28 years of protection rather than the optional 42 years available at the time?
As William Patry argues in his book How to Fix Copyright,
Was there a single author in the world who said, ‘A term of copyright that only lasts for my life plus fifty years after I die is too short. I will not create a new work unless copyright is extent to last for my life plus seventy years’? There is no such person. (p 57)
Several studies have confirmed this as well. In 2009, a study on the production of movies in twenty-three countries that had extended the term of copyright(pdf) found no evidence that longer terms of copyright caused the creation of more works rather than the prior, shorter term. Another study from the University of Cambridge found that the optimal copyright term is 15 years(pdf), with a 99% confidence interval extending up to 38 years. Even the Congressional Research Service concluded that there was at most a small change in incentive in the extension of copyright term.
If there are no or only minimal benefits to this change, what are the costs?”
So in answer to your question there has been a lot of research. We have cross-country research so we know generally what works. And while the data may show slightly different things, it all shows that life + 70 offers us nothing and actually depresses available content. Current legislation is not based upon this discussion, I don’t recall that being the topic of discussion for the last extension, but it should be particularly when the industry comes knocking in 2019 to ask for life + 90 to keep Steamboat Willy from entering the public domain.
I got into some relevant detail in another more recent essay for Cato-Unbound:
“There are certainly legitimate arguments that copyright should be longer than that of our Founders because of certain market conditions that are different from their day – but there are not legitimate argument to say that a system of indefinite copyright abides by the Constitution or our the express intentions of our Founders.
Despite the American history on Copyright, some still argue that copyright should be or could be a perpetual right that exists forever. Many of them have lobbied successfully on a regular basis to ensure that certain highly-lucrative works never enter the public domain. Some against copyright reform hide behind the shadows of claiming that they are not for an indefinite copyright – but every twenty/thirty years they lobby to extend copyright from 56 years, to life + 50, to life +70. It’s very clear what their intentions are. They intend and have largely succeeded in destroying anything of value entering the public domain. Success in perverting the law should not be misinterpreted for constitutional fidelity despite their property law arguments using 18th century vernacular. These proponents are arguing for something very different from what the Founders believed.
Frankly they lost the argument 226 years ago. The Founders explicitly rejected this position.”
Down the Pipe
by CanHasDIY
Is there any future legislation that you know of / heard about during your time as a staffer that we, the People, should get a heads-up on? Specifically, anything nefarious regarding things like copyright, patents, digital property and/or privacy, et. al?
Khanna: Patents need to be fixed and we obviously need major privacy legislation such as ECPA reform etc. I talked about some of the upcoming privacy issues in my interview with Techdirt. I was always particularly concerned with drone strikes against US citizens so I’m happy that is finally receiving some real attention by MSM and the American people.
As I wrote in my piece in the National Review, I think we can do a much better job in allocating visas to high-skilled workers – and I think there is an actual way to accomplish that goal as outlined in the article or other ideas along a similar thought process (perhaps by providing greater help for small businesses acquiring H-1Bs).
But more on topic, we should keep an eye on the Transpacific Partnership Treaty (TPP) because it will be codifying provisions of the DMCA that are very problematic. The DMCA has been used to make some technology “contraband” and to stifle political speech. While we need to protect intellectual property, the DMCA has proved to be a terrible law. It should not be entirely surprising that the DMCA may need revisions and oversight. The DMCA was passed three years before the iPod, six years before Google Books and nine years before the Kindle. But now that it's clear that the DMCA is being interpreted in a way clearly contrary for which it was passed, it’s incumbent upon Congress to act.The idea of putting the DMCA into an international agreement is a very bad idea. If in the United States it has been used to justify censorship of political speech, imagine what other countries will do that don’t have the First Amendment and are looking for legal structure to justify censorship.
This is a big fight and as a Congressional staffer we weren’t allowed to read it – so very scary stuff and I think an unprecedented level of secrecy on this. I also touched upon this in the Cato Unbound piece:
“This treaty includes provisions on intellectual property that are above and beyond those in the Berne Convention. Setting controversial and contested copyright terms in stone through treaty was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. It’s an affront to the legislative process to try to “re-codify” legislative wins into treaty agreements. That would make it significantly more difficult to ever change course.
The length of copyright terms has always received significant debate and disagreement. This was likely the intention of the Founders in not specifying what a "limited time" meant within the Constitution itself. But current drafts of the TPP allegedly establish the law at life plus 70 years. Additionally, it would include or even expand portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) relating to anti-circumvention technologies. To be clear, I am strongly against unauthorized copyright infringement, but the DMCA outlawing of anti-circumvention technologies is extremely controversial—and rightfully so.
The DMCA created rules that until recently made it illegal to jailbreak your own iPhone or to develop a program to read a Kindle book aloud to someone who is blind. The DMCA still bars developing, selling, providing, or even linking to technologies that play legal DVDs purchased in a different region, or to convert a DVD you own to a playable file on your computer. Because no licensed DVD playing software is currently available for the Linux operating system, if a Linux user wishes to play a DVD that they have legally bought, they cannot legally play it on their own computer. The DMCA’s rules have also made legitimate fair uses of copyrighted material much harder. Using snippets of video for classrooms is legal fair use, but to do so, teachers have to use illegal technology to “rip” the DVD to a playable and editable file, or they must illegally download the file online.
Within the leaked details of the TPP Treaty there are many troubling features, but perhaps most troubling is the secrecy surrounding the negotiations. Members have been allowed to view documents, but most of their staff and the general public have been denied access. Outside of the national security realm, this type of secrecy in regard to a treaty is particularly troubling and perhaps unprecedented. Another troubling aspect is that despite this secrecy, there have been “stakeholder” presentations representing one particular side and vested interest, rather than the perspective of the general public or the requirements of our Constitution. One of the stakeholder presentations at the latest TPP negotiations was titled "The Walt-Disney Company: Creativity, Brought to you by Copyright.” At the same time, representatives from the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) were denied access and not allowed in the building for recent negotiations.”
But the recent decision by the Librarian of Congress really takes the cake, which made it illegal to unlock your own cellphone. In a recent article I stated that:
“Congress's inaction in the face of the decision by the Librarian of Congress represents a dereliction of duty. It should pass a new law codifying that adaptive technology for the blind, backing up DVD's to your computer, and unlocking and jail breaking your phone are lawful activities regardless of the decisions of the Librarian of Congress.” (article)
Our White House petition on this issue is currently at 75,000 but we have to get to 100,000 by February 23, 2013. This will be a big opportunity for advocates of sounds technology policy.
Hope?
by Hatta
How do we Americans manage to retain any hope for any sort of positive change when people who are paid to identify beneficial reforms get fired for upsetting special interests? Doesn't your case prove that it's impossible to effect reform through the system? Do you belive that Democracy in America still exists, and if so, why?
Khanna: Democracy is more than just people voting and it’s more than just activism for your candidate of choice. The people have immense power when they are united and coordinated. Unfortunately, most organizing up till now has required major organizations to set-up – but not anymore.
Members of Congress are particularly sensitive to interests from their constituents as expressed through letters, e-mail and phone calls to their office. This is why a united and coordinated movement can be so successful in stopping legislation. But activist movements, like the SOPA protest, cannot rest after stopping one bad piece of legislation. Instead, we must take the next step which is actually passing good legislation.
I imagine that ad-hoc groups of people who agree on some policy idea will form to both stop bad legislation but also to push good legislation. It will take a while to transition to that, but once that is done, then we will have much more of an effect and a substantive democracy. But that will require activism and involvement.
The cellphone unlocking issue is a perfect example of where the people could actually fix policy. The traditional players in DC are unlikely to do so on their own, the wireless industry likes the ruling, and many of the other technology companies may see this as an issue where they have little to gain– so it’s up to the people themselves to step up and say this ruling is crazy. The idea that average people can be arrested for unlocking their phones is insane. I hope that the people step up for their own property rights.
Lawmakers becoming Obsolete
by SinisterRainbow
The United States was founded as Republic, primarily (so it is said) because having individual voices was impossible with the technology of the time. However, we live in an age where the Internet has given us instant communication and access to vast information, where we can relatively securely pass information around, and where especially, we can have every voice heard to write our own bills and laws. Iceland may be small, but they have proven it's more than just a theory. We have open source books, open source software, open encyclopedia, with more 'open' type projects all the time - which have proved immensely successful and very efficient when it comes to money. However, the trend is in the opposite direction, with more power given to lawmakers and large corporations (in the de facto sense at least as contributions are now unlimited, it raises the bar of entry), and congress with it's two main parties, are in a huge poker match. What do you see as the pros and cons against an open-Bill type of system, where the power of the people get a more realistic voice, where the history can be saved for eternity, where the slightest changes can all be remembered using repositories, where anyone can contribute, where it would save multi-millions of dollars in taxes, where multiple types of Bills can be presented and the one the people wish for most receives the most votes? You have represented a party that claims they stand for smaller government, yet it's one that has increased government size as much and many times, more than democrats. Shouldn't such a system be at the forefront of Republican agenda? Or has big business lined the pockets so fat of every member in congress that this is not possible without some type of revolution..?
Khanna: You are correct that the Republican Party claims they are the party of smaller government, yet they have failed to deliver while they were in power – and conservatives are frustrated with the party for that reason. I think that Democrats have been worse in that regard, but clearly the Bush years were very bad ones for fiscal conservatism.
Your idea for a more open government and transparency is interesting, but while I want the people to be more involved in our process I do like the idea – in concept – of representative democracy (I’m not sure exactly what you are saying in that regard).
Would you do it the exact same way again?
by rmdingler
Hindsight being on the order of 20/15 or so, would you make the same bold statement, or, knowing the consequences and repercussions, would you be a bit more tactful and attempt to reform the system from within?
Khanna: I tried to reform the system from within – by doing my job. In this situation, discretion and tact was used as much as possible.
Now What?
by eldavojohn
You told other staffers when you left: Don't be discouraged by the potential consequences. You work for the American people. It's your job, your obligation to be challenging existing paradigms and put forward novel solutions to existing problems.
So now what? What's your plan? I mean, you can tell them not to be discouraged but that's a pretty hefty weight to put on your own shoulders. Anyone who gets a check from the content industry (and I think that's everyone in DC) is going to blacklist you. Do you see yourself taking a Ralph Nader-like approach to politics? How do you even get your foot back in the door? You do realize that if you don't return or rise to another kind of constituent-focused power that your above encouragement will fall upon deaf ears as you will become the example of what happens to an outspoken staffer?
Khanna: Yes, I stand by that statement. We need creative destruction of failed ideas and we need a thriving competition for promising new ideas. Not solving problems but “getting along” is not enough to fix our system at this point.
In normal times, the system can function by each of us playing a minimal role in its proper functioning – but when the system is like it is today, it requires those of us who are paying attention to be more active participants. Democracy is tough, it requires active engagement and participation.
As for me, I have a bunch of plans in the works. Right now I’m working on the cellphone unlocking issue that I mentioned because it’s outrageous and unacceptable. But it’s also a misstep by the other side and therefore it’s a strategic opportunity to restore property rights. Doing so will start to change the overall discussion on technology policy and it’s a winnable battle. I hope you will consider signing and promoting our White House petition and getting us over 100,000 by the end of the week.
I plan on continuing to write and research on sensible technology policies for our country through my fellowship with Yale Law and hopefully being a part in successful advocacy movements going forward.
Follow me on twitter to find out about my next steps. Or shoot me on twitter @Dkhanna11 and e-mail if you have ideas (Khannaderek@gmail.com).
Your loss. I'm not a fan of "the free market fixes everything" but that's not what he said (the key word here is "often") and despite my usually mdoerate position he had a lot of thoughtful and intelligent things to say.
I couldn't read past the first two. "I don't like the Republicans (for how they treated me, for how some of my beliefs align with them), but I guess, without ever really looking, that my conservative views are more closely aligned with Republican, so I'm a Republican for life, no matter how bad they treat me or the rest of the country."
Does nobody in politics have the ability to think? It's no better than fans beating each other up because someone is in a red shirt sitting in the Cowboys section, or wearing blue in the Redskins.
When the best defense he can come up with is that his party at least let him write the paper before firing him, and he thinks that it would never have been written on the other side of the isle, then we are truly screwed. Our values are all for sale, so long as we don't ever do anything that might help "the other side" Regardless of what's "best" for anyone.
Learn to love Alaska
"Often times the market can sort it out"
I stopped reading right there.
If you can't even take 10 minutes to read a different opinion you are obviously a moron.
I believe your paper would have been unpopular on both sides of the isle but did the Republican knee jerk reaction to it negatively affect your affinity with the Republican party and your efforts to further their cause? Setting aside your differences on Copyright Law with that party, are you still Republican?
Khanna: Absolutely still a Republican. In fact I actually quibble a bit with your premise. The conservative position is that our current system of copyright is not consistent with the Constitution and inhibits innovation by choosing winners and losers– and pretty much all conservative organizations have come out with that opinion. There is a difference between Republican and Conservative that I won’t get into here, but my opinions are conservative and the Republican Party reflects more of the conservative ideology.
Your response was very confusing to me. So if the Republican Party fired you for saying exactly what "all conservative organizations" opine on the topic of copyright ... then the Republican Party is not a conservative organization? But your opinions are conservative ... but you're still a Republican ... which is a party that has "more of the conservative ideology" but they still fire you for saying what all conservative organizations believe? Do you see where I'm having a hard time grasping how your three sentence response logically adds up? I sorta wish you would have gotten into the difference between Republican and Conservative. I guess that's the key to understanding how they fired you? My assumption is that money trumps ideology in politics.
Why retain the label of Republican when you could just call yourself Conservative and identify the problems with the Republicans or side with Libertarians or Tea Party? I mean, you sell your idea as core Conservatism and publish it for Republicans yet you're fired for it. And then you still continue to call yourself Republican? Why?
My work here is dung.
Would you rather:
It's better when the government does it?
"side of the isle" ... yeah... congress as an island... I'd float this idea.
I stopped reading right there.
As per your training.
If you take 10 minutes to read every opinion with a fundamentally flimsy premise, you'll be wasting decades.
I stopped reading right there.
As per your training.
How dare you speak in favor of double plus ungood thoughtcrime.
The problem with republicans, whom he himself STRONGLY sides with, is that they push market fixes for stuff that the market broke. Conservatives at some point need to decide if their loyalty is to the country or to the market.
Your loss. I'm not a fan of "the free market fixes everything" but that's not what he said (the key word here is "often") and despite my usually mdoerate position he had a lot of thoughtful and intelligent things to say.
Yeah, if you read the whole sentence he says:
Often times the market can sort it out, but if, and only if, you ensure that externalities are built in, and you ensure that the government hasn’t already messed with the incentive structures.
Which is one of the chestnuts I tire of when debating ultra Conservatives and Libertarians. Because "messed with the incentive structure" can mean a lot of things. For most Libertarians, any taxation at all is "messing with the incentive structure." One I'm fond of is when (anarcho?) Libertarians argue against police forces and propose that if we weren't taxed to pay for the budgetary mess that is the local police, we would all be swimming in so much cash we could have ten guns in each house and our own state of the art security systems and entire neighborhoods would be locked down so tight that criminals would all but disappear -- if there even were any criminals after they got all that tax money back!
So yeah, it sounded to me like his "if and only if" the government hasn't messed with "incentive structures" statement was to say that "well the government's charging you property tax so it's already not a free market and anything that goes wrong is clearly the fault of the government. Hell, you'd be knee deep in cash and that drinking water pollution problem would evaporate but instead the EPA is just wasting money."
My work here is dung.
The levers of Power are held by two competing teams.
And just like NFL franchises, changing the owners of the teams takes a lot of money.
If you want to play, then you have to pick a team (Republican or Democrat).
If you want to watch, then you can root for each team equally depending on their field position or which down they are on (independent).
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Often times the market can sort it out"
"but if, and only if, you ensure that externalities are built in, "
I don't really see how you can ensure that externalities are "built in" (or priced in) without regulation.
And even if you can, IMO, it's better to prevent negative externalities than to pay off the afflicted bystanders afterwards.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
speak in favor of double plus ungood thoughtcrime.
Except the OP was speaking against the free market...
I was tempted to, but if you keep reading pretty soon you get past the boilerplate Libertarian rhetoric and onto the interesting stuff.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"But I think we have to make arguments for why longer than the Founder term is sound. Arguments like, “Our Founder system of 28 years was premised upon a market of x, and today the market is y, which requires a longer recoupment period for the content producer etc.”"
I don't think you could ever argue that the term should be longer than the Founder term. In the Founder market of x, the fastest form of distributing works or even communicating was to write it down and then have someone on horseback or a boat transport it. In that era, where it took weeks or even months for people to correspond and even longer for works to be produced and distributed, the Founders still thought 28 years was enough.
So how can you possibly argue for a longer term when people on opposite sides of the world can correspond in real time and when works can be produced and distributed almost instantly.
At the time of the Founders, no musical performer could ever hope to perform a song for the entire world. Today, it's commonplace.
Many a travesty has been justified by the uttering that exact, hand-washing excuse 'The free market can fix it' and its ilk. It's like hearing 'I was just following orders' - we don't buy it anymore, take some personal responsibility for pitching a potentially awful idea.
It's a shame that people who have a lot of intriguing and thoughtful ideas still use this catch-phrase, since it just causes people to tune it out.
Skimming the interview, its clear that there is a LOT of thing wrong with the way the government is run, who pulls the strings, and what ideas get the airtime while others rot on the shelves. It's also clear that WE, the people, put them there and apparently approve of it since we KEEP electing them. In one way, at least, the government works like a large business - if you rock the boat, you get thrown to the sharks less you potentially tip the boat over.
Same AC here, but I'd like to apologize to all the sex workers who make an honest living sucking balls. I'd rather elect you than this cretin.
One I'm fond of is when (anarcho?) Libertarians argue against police forces and propose that if we weren't taxed to pay for the budgetary mess that is the local police, we would all be swimming in so much cash we could have ten guns in each house and our own state of the art security systems and entire neighborhoods would be locked down so tight that criminals would all but disappear -- if there even were any criminals after they got all that tax money back!
One thing I'm fond of is when Liberals(?) put words into other people's mouths and then beat them up for what comes out.
A market works best with a little regulation. For example, to break up monopolies.
Telling someone he can't do something restricts freedom more than telling him he can do it but he has to clean up the mess.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
One I'm fond of is when (anarcho?) Libertarians argue against police forces and propose that if we weren't taxed to pay for the budgetary mess that is the local police, we would all be swimming in so much cash we could have ten guns in each house and our own state of the art security systems and entire neighborhoods would be locked down so tight that criminals would all but disappear -- if there even were any criminals after they got all that tax money back!
One thing I'm fond of is when Liberals(?) put words into other people's mouths and then beat them up for what comes out.
Right this way, sir.
This is the republican conservative point of view. I got fired because I didn't want to toe the party line. The party is bad, but I still believe in the original definition of what I wanted to represent.
Its a shame this guy got fired and is exactly the reason we never get to vote on good politicians that actually represent the peoples ideals.
When in Rome, be Roman, but if our politicians follow this creed just for a job with nice cushy benefits we are screwed. It's akin to there being no good soldiers left in the military. There are, but their few and far between and there's more bad ones ascending the ranks then good ones.
sometimes the market breaks things, othertimes regulations do. The Dept of Ed for instance. American students are not better off since the creation of the Dept of Ed. It makes no sense for someone in say california to send their tax money to the federal government. for the government to send it back to them, along with stipulations on XX or YY. when the people of california could be better off if the money stayed in california, So While I get your point, the market cannot fix everything, but more often than not, it is regulations that stifle progress IMO
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The contrary (liberal) view is that "government is the only solution" is equally bad, for the exact same reason.
A truly free market CAN sort out a great deal. Keeping a market free is Government's role. However do-gooding people (both D and R), create all sorts of laws and policies that are contrary to a truly free marketplace. In these cases, Government interference is just as bad as a market that is not truly free. In fact, I would suggest that unnecessary government interference and not free are the exact same problem.
This is not to say that we should live in a anarchistic state, where there is no government oversight, because that doesn't work eitther. The correct balance is that we create laws to punish people who do bad things. We must also realize that we cannot prevent BAD THINGS (tm) from happening. This means we stop trying to protect people from themselves, because that affects people who don't need to be micro managed by tyranical governments.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
A guy who worked as a staffer for the Republican party gave answers that generally fell in line with Republican beliefs. What, you thought his entire worldview would've been overturned because of a single issue?
Everything is better with chainsaws.
As for the police, I think what many of us libertarians believe is that the FEDERAL government should not be involved in LOCAL police offices. The state and locality are more than ok taxing us to fund the police. The issue we have is when the federal government gives departments money for example, for hitting drug bust quotas.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Which is one of the chestnuts I tire of when debating ultra Conservatives and Libertarians. Because "messed with the incentive structure" can mean a lot of things. For most Libertarians, any taxation at all is "messing with the incentive structure."
In your opinion, what level of taxation is not "messing with the incentive structure"?
How complicated is your tax return? Is it complicated because it has to be for the gov't to collect enough money? Or is it complicated because there are hundreds of different tax rules to encourage certain economic behaviors?
So now that Obama is fucking up everything in sight, you'll be changing your support for him...ohh...wait, it doesn't really matter now, does it?
Here's an exercise for you. Get out a sheet a paper. Draw a two by two grid. On one side put "Wars Started" and "Wars Stopped." On the other side put "Bush" and "Obama." Fill it in. Discuss amongst yourselves.
"better to prevent negative externalities than to pay off the afflicted bystanders afterwards."
Do you even measure the cost of "prevent negative extenalities" vs "pay off afflicted bystanders"? If it cost $3 to prevent something and only $1 to pay off instead, would it not be better to charge the $1 than the $3?
I am of the opinion, that bad things are going to happen. Period. We cannot prevent all bad things from happening through laws, policies and regulations. And trying to, ends up being worse for everyone. We have to be able to accept that "shit happens" and deal with the shit that happens rather than trying to prevent all shit in the first place.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The contrary (liberal) view
Yes! It's the black and white, false dichotomy, my team vs other team, bi-partisan bickering!
*takes a sip*
I'll be plastered before I get home (just like every other night)!
Often times, the government makes it worse.
Except the OP was speaking against the free market...
Yes, he has successfully shut down his brain to avoid thoughtcrime. His dedication to the State has been noted.
You, on the other hand, have earned a trip to the re-education camps.
Taxation should be VERY simple.
You make $x, then you pay y% of it....no deductions, no loopholes, etc.
That way it would be fair, everyone would pay lower (for the most part), and taxation would be what it should be for, funding necessary govt. operations.
It should NOT be used to try to mold human behavior....I don't believe that is a constitutionally mandated role the govt (state or federal) is supposed to play, is it? I thought it was only there to ensure you had the freedom to live as you wished...?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
> I don't really see how you can ensure that externalities are "built in" (or priced in) without regulation.
He was discussing "regulation and forbidding conduct" and said nothing about total deregulation. Especially taken with the context of the question he was pretty clearly discussing regulation in terms of, say, 'no you can't do that unless you file the right paper work and we approve it *wink*' for the EPA case.
For the copyright case, he was probably interpreting the question along the lines of Canada's blank media tax which theoretically allows people to copy and ensures the artists get paid. That doesn't allow the market to sort it out, but instead has the government take money from people and give it to some select artists based on regulatory decisions rather than market forces.
> And even if you can, IMO, it's better to prevent negative externalities than to pay off the afflicted bystanders afterwards.
What's a negative externality, exactly? If I don't shower for a week and I stink, is that a negative externality of saving water and thus I should be mandated to shower? Or, is water usage a negative externality of cleanliness so I should be mandated to not shower? How does this change if I'm renting a place where water is a fixed cost included in the rent?
The point is, most things in this world require tradeoffs. "Negative externalizes" is just a buzzword for those tradeoffs where the cost is borne by a different party than receives the benefit. The thought of disallowing such things in general shows a complete understanding of the workings of a world with limited resources. Trying to implement such laws is an exercise in futility and is necessarily going to be over politicized and fundamentally unfair. By ensuring that the externalities are internalized than we can then let normal market forces dictate what tradeoffs are fair.
And keep in mind that's not to say that certain activities cannot be made illegal (e.g. you don't charge a hitman the cost of a life). "Negative externalities" pretty much by definition is referring to legal (and non-ideal) economic behavior. However, a free market solution _does_ mean that you don't have a regulatory agency saying that something is sort-of illegal depending on who you are or how much of it you are doing.
This is like when a car company discovers a flaw in their vehicle which affects 1/10,000 by causing a large, fiery explosion, but their bean counters tell them it is cheaper to pay off the families than recall all of the vehicles for a service. Just because it saves money doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, and often any form of monetary compensation isn't sufficient for the loss caused.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
>Libertarians argue against police forces
Libertarians want a free market in security services. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_Government_Services
"Pinkerton became famous when he claimed to have foiled a plot to assassinate president-elect Abraham Lincoln, who later hired Pinkerton agents for his personal security during the Civil War.[2] Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America"
Competing entrepeneurs are better than the government at providing every kind of service, except perhaps the "service" of shoving people into ovens.
Of course going the other way, many a travesty has been justified by uttering, "we need to Do Something, for the Children!!!"
In fact I think that's caused far more travesties to happen than the Free Market has.
What, you thought his entire worldview would've been overturned because of a single issue?
Exactly. Especially when those in the other party are even more firmly against the positions from his paper than the party that fired him.
One could hope...
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
The bean counters were wrong about how much it cost to pay off the families.
It would have been cheaper to recall the Pinto. They all know that now.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How much is death worth? Nothing, or priceless (basically the same thing). You make the payoff more expensive than the repairs and all of that goes away. BUT then you have a basis for giving a cost, which then gives Government the power to regulate should the car company negate to fix it.
There is a law firm out there right now, advertising Table saws that don't have a new "system" in place that can save thousands of lost fingers and other body damage. Do we mandate the new system be installed on ALL table saws because a few idiots don't know how to operate a table saw safely? I mean table saws have been around forever, do we change our liability laws simply because technology CAN make something safer than it was before?
Right now, people have the CHOICE of what kind of table saw to buy, whether they want the system or not, do we change that with a law?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"The Market" is as a force of nature. It does what it does in all human interactions whether you want it to or not. You'd might was well fight the tides. "The Market" isn't like the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission. It's not a group of people meeting in a swank hotel and plotting the course of great events. It's not an interest group. It's not political. It's the effect that people in the affairs of their daily affairs have on each other. Even the Soviet Union was not able to eliminate it, though they enslaved an entire empire. "The Market" doesn't need your loyalty, any more than gravity does.
It's really pathetic. People like the AC cannot see individuals. They simply can't. To them, Khanna was fired but "THE PARTY" and not one politician like actually happened. I think they are neurologically incapable of it, like how some people can't recognize faces.
The geekverse has become a complete intellectual wasteland riddled with batshit ideology and absolutely no critical thinking at all.
I think you are missing, a bit, the point about regulation verse incentive structure – and I think you should broaden your horizons. Take smoking as an example.
You can regulate it. You have to 18, limiting to where you can smoke, banning sports advertisements. etc. (I know somebody who’s job is to directly market chewing tobacco. They have to ask the person if they are over 18, chew, etc. – then offer coupons / sample. A very odd job.) Yes minors still sneak cigarettes.
Or you can incentivizes against it – that is – to lay a very large, heavy tax. This has been more effective then all of the other regulation combined.
My 2 cents – it would be cheaper and faster to reduce greenhouse gasses by leaving a carbon tax then by regulating industries.
It just makes him close minded, not necessarily a moron. Flinging ad hominems like 'you're obviously a moron' is more likely to identify a moron than just being close minded.
This is Slashdot!
Please cite your references showing that the Dept of Ed. as the root cause of America's decline in education. I speak from personal experience that the bulk of our educational problems stem from state and local governments. Infrastructure vs operating Budgets, redistribution of property taxes collected to other counties, borrowing from education rainy day fund to balance state general budget, and legislating educational content within science classes are but a few problems that education in my state suffer from and it is all self inflicted.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
>During the labor unrest of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, businessmen hired the Pinkerton Agency to infiltrate unions, to supply guards to keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories, and sometimes to recruit goon squads to intimidate workers.
Great example ...
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
Yes! It's the black and white, false dichotomy, my team vs other team, bi-partisan bickering!
Maybe you should read the rest of his post. Pointing out two extremes and advocating a balance between the two is not a "false dichotomy" in any meaningful sense.
You might call his characterization of the liberal position a strawman, but "false dichotomy" is so wrong that you need to take a refresher on Logical Fallacies 101.
That article is entirely supportive of AC's position that the original remark is made up BS:
" A libertarian society would certainly have police to protect citizens from gangs and criminals, they just wouldn't be tax-supported. ...
One way of providing this would be government provision, similar to today, but funded by donations, user fees, fee-based charges, or similar methods or combinations.
So we already have a mixed public-private police system, and the private sector part is the largest, and is growing."
Only at the very end does it throw out:
"Of course, some people might decide to go without such protection and rely on their trusty handguns."
As an option for people that decided to not involve themselves in a subscription based police service.
It makes clear arguments _for_ a police force, just not a tax funded one and makes no claim about money saved from lower taxes having anything to do with increased self-defense. If you don't think that would work, that's a valid opinion. Regardless, the original statement from the GP is indeed crap... Thanks for proving it.
(For completeness I will also point out that, being a third party, Libertarianism shows more ideological that the main stream liberalism and conservatism. Saying that libertarianism means no taxes and poliece is as reasonable as saying the same for conservatism or that liberalism means 100% taxes. It doesn't. In the real world it means both less taxation like conservatism and less social control like liberalism. The idealistic stuff is just as sane as you'll see from hardline liberal socialists or hardline conservative puritans, and riffing on it is just a productive:
Fantastic for shutting up people you disagree with.)
Khannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ;lsajduisyduiagsiudtu9sayfidfu898eyaruihkjsafoisyuifdk,jfiosyaudgjksdyuisad
Also, telling someone they can't do something will make even people of normal intelligence act like idiots, and refuse to comply even with good ideas because they don't like being told what to do.
Of course - "For the Children' basically is a ticket to disable logic and make decisions based solely on emotion, be damned the side-effects later on.
Decisions need to be made on logical analysis and observation, considering precedence and legality. Sometimes, you -do- need to reel in the free market though, else we'd be working ourselves to death for the glory of the company store. Framework helps businesses compete on a known playing field, where some behavior is recognized as being bad for civilized society in general, even if feasible according to private industry. No rules is as bad as too many rules, or stupid rules.
Maybe not. But it does make sense to force someone in South Dakota to send their tax money to the Fed and for the government to send it back to them, along with stipulations on XX or YY. At some point, education becomes a national security concern. Should the Fed not step in when the states fail?
Go to a market, a real one. Any kind, either one that has been going for centuries or a new one whatever the latest name is that it has gotten, swapmeet, farmers market, it is all the same.
Then stay a while if it is new. I guarentee you that by the time the 3rd market has been held, the rules WILL have been written down and by the end of the year it will be a booklet. Why?
Because people SUCK at working without rules. Just watch what happens when the traffic lights fail. And for every time when the community comes together when something unexpected happens like a flood or power failure, there are a dozen riots. The blitz is fondly remembered as a time when England came together but in reality it was a golden time for criminals who steal from bomb sites even from the dead and dying. That is to say nothing about clandestine trading.
Saying the "market" will fix things is the sure sign of a complete and utter waste of a human being. What is "the market"? Because I know how real markets operate, the got a commitee that decides on the rules and makes sure they are enforced. And the commitee is elected by the market people... so... how is this different from a government?
Or do you really want Apple, MS and Google to come together and among them decide how the Internet should be run?
Republicans are basically nuts. It is no wonder so many are Christians as well, you need a special kind of mind to see the real world every day and still believe in fairy tales.
If the markets could regulate themselves, they would have done so by now. They haven't.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
One complaint conservatives about liberals is that they tend to try to outlaw stuff reactively. The EPA comes to mind, forbidding property owners certain uses of their land.
Oh yeah, that wacky liberal who gave us the EPA. What was his name again, that pot smoking, Grateful Dead following hippie?
Richard Nixon.
That Nixon is now considered a liberal is all the proof I need that US politics are truely farked beyond all recognition.
Personal experience isn't peer reviewed. If you ask someone to cite, you should be willing to do the same. This is as anecdotal as the parent
but it should be particularly when the industry comes knocking in 2019 to ask for life + 90 to keep Steamboat Willy from entering the public domain.
I feel it's important to have a good copyright system. At the same time, this whole life + 70 nonsense is, as we've discussed, counterproductive. To that end, I propose a national day of piracy every year. Perhaps on April 1st, although I'm open to other ideas (September 19th?). The goal being to declare a specific day of civil disobediance where we openly pirate something that should be public domain and then declare what you pirated on a social network.
Would be good to have a designated target for copyright reform. 20 years, 30 years? 20 is adequate, I personally wouldn't support anything over 30.
Taxes have been used to influence behavior since Hammurabi's Code specified one on beer.
How about the nuanced view: Sometimes, government is the best solution. Sometimes, a free market is the best solution. There's a range of policies between free-for-all and complete-government-control, and the best solution will vary depending on what's being bought or sold and on the wider context the market is operating in (e.g. rationing rubber or gasoline might have been wise in 1942 and stupid in 1948).
Some sort of scale here might be in order, ranging from 0 (no government control) to 9 (complete government control):
0. A market with no rules at all is best demonstrated by the current markets for illegal drugs. Those markets function, sort of, but also have built into them murders, assaults, robberies, and other serious crimes.
1. You add some basic criminal rules that prevent murder, assaults, robberies, etc. This functions a bit better, but there's also no protection against a monopoly / monopsony that distorts the price in favor of the one company.
2. You outlaw monopoly or monopsony, at least on products that are critical to human life like water or food, this functions a bit better, but you still have the problem of a group of sellers or buyers getting together and controlling the prices that way at a cost to everyone else.
3. You now add a law against collusion between buyers and sellers. You still have the problem that sellers can falsely advertise their products or adulterate them in some way so that while they appear to be OK they're really quite dangerous.
4. You now add a law with either government inspections or civil penalties to prevent false advertising and adulteration. You still have the problem of the effects of the transaction on a third party. For example, if I contract with you to dump all my trash in your back yard, your next-door neighbor is effectively getting cheated, especially if the nasty stuff in that trash is seeping into his water supply.
5. You now add laws to require externalities (like the trash in your neighbor's water supply) either be stopped or be paid for (via contracts or civil penalties). But you still have a problem with price comparisons, because everyone's offering different wildly products to solve the same problem. So you might consider forcing everyone to offer similar or even identical products and differing only on price.
6. You now add laws that specify, in detail, what can be sold as a particular product. The price for the product is getting too high or too low for sellers and buyers.
7. You add price controls to your product, demanding that it can't get above or below a particular point. However, this is too unpredictable for some sellers or buyers.
8. You mandate a particular price for a product, and outlaw all attempts to sell higher or lower than that price. However, this means that people are adjusting the quantities sold due to the price, which may not be what the government wants or needs.
9. You mandate that buyers and sellers sell exactly a particular quantity of a product, at a particular price, to particular specifications, only transacting with particular parties. This is obviously the "complete government control" end of the spectrum.
Current policy in the US, EU, Canada, and other wealthy countries typically falls somewhere between 3 and 9, and varies a lot based on product. For instance, there are very few rules about selling word processing software, but the government can force you to sell particular parcels of land at what they decide is the prevailing market price.
I am officially gone from
Taxation should be VERY simple.
You make $x, then you pay y% of it....no deductions, no loopholes, etc.
That way it would be fair, everyone would pay lower (for the most part), and taxation would be what it should be for, funding necessary govt. operations.
The problem with such a simple model is that current pay structures aren't set up for it; the transition period will hurt a sufficiently large number of people that it is "politically difficult" to make the change. Another problem is that a lot of people don't earn very much either; the cost of taxing them is likely to exceed the income received. A relatively simple variation on it is to use a basic banded taxation system. For example, allow everyone to make some minimum without being taxed (which is set fairly low) and then pay y% on everything earned over that. Yes, the formula in the spreadsheet is slightly more complex, but it's still damn close to trivial.
What's really complex though is when you have different rates for different types of income. Want to really do tax reform? Work on that and you'll get ordinary people on all sides of the spectrum on your side.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
"Promote the general welfare.." If it is believed to do this, it is constitutional.
Talk about ideas and their merits or lack thereof!
The funny thing is that not that long ago the stereotypical liberal response to a problem was to directly mandate behavior through legislation, while the stereotypical conservative response was to steer market forces through incentives and disincentives.
Now the liberals have adopted the old conservative positions, and the conservatives have decided that in no case ever can government accomplish anything, evidence be damned, so it should stop trying (unless it's blowing people up). At the same time people complain on a regular basis that our country's heading in to looney lefty socialist territory.
US politics are fucking weird.
So yeah, it sounded to me like his "if and only if" the government hasn't messed with "incentive structures" statement was to say that "well the government's charging you property tax so it's already not a free market and anything that goes wrong is clearly the fault of the government. Hell, you'd be knee deep in cash and that drinking water pollution problem would evaporate but instead the EPA is just wasting money."
No, I don't think that's what a Republican staffer is saying at all with regards to incentive structures.
The first thing I thought of when I read that was the incentive structure in housing lending. In a "freer" market, when someone wants to get a home mortgage loan from a bank, the bank is incentivized make loans people have a reasonable chance of being able to pay back. However, poor people are upset they can't get home loans (because the bank thinks they wouldn't be able to pay them back) and so congress changes lending laws to incentivize banks to make bad loans anyway by promising that Fannie and Freddie will buy the shitty mortgages they write. Since there's no longer risk associated with giving loans to people who can afford to pay them back, banks lend money to anybody and everybody and we get a massive boom and massive bust. Government changed the incentive structure to something ultimately unworkable.
We're seeing the same thing now in student loans, where the cost of college has skyrocketed because of freely available government-backed student loans.
And this isn't caused by "under regulation" or "overregulation" but by "bad regulation." And while the opposite of "bad regulation" is not "no regulation," I think everyone could stand to have a little more respect for the law of unintended consequences.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
but it should be particularly when the industry comes knocking in 2019 to ask for life + 90 to keep Steamboat Willy from entering the public domain.
I feel it's important to have a good copyright system. At the same time, this whole life + 70 nonsense is, as we've discussed, counterproductive. To that end, I propose a national day of piracy every year. Perhaps on April 1st, although I'm open to other ideas (September 19th?). The goal being to declare a specific day of civil disobediance where we openly pirate something that should be public domain and then declare what you pirated on a social network.
And if you openly pirate, say, Steamboat Willie, on the grounds that it should have passed into the public domain, I think that's a reasonable and arguably justifiable protest. But if you openly pirate, say, Wreck-it Ralph, or Brave, or (shortly) Monsters University - movies that have been out for less than a year - then your alleged argument that copyright should have a shorter, 20-30 year term is unsupported by your actions.
And therein lies the problem... How many people are pirating Steamboat Willie, the Seven Year Itch, To Catch a Thief, etc., as opposed to recent movies, music, games, and software? The Top 10 most pirated movies chart for this week lists Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook, Skyfall, Django Unchained, Argo, The Hobbit, Here Comes the Boom, Flight, Zero Dark Thirty, and Robot and Frank, every one of which is less than a year old. Similarly, the top pirated games (for 2011, I can't find 2012 numbers) were all released that year.
Now, I get that people will claim that they pirate newly released (or not even released yet) movies and games "because they disagree with overly long copyright terms, and so think any copyright term under the current regime is invalid," but:
(i) they lack credibility, since they sure look like people who don't want to pay for entertainment and are trying to come up with a believable post hoc justification;
(ii) the ones who claim there should be a 20 or 30 year term look no different from the ones who claim that copyright should be abolished, since they're taking the exact same actions; and
(iii) because of i and ii, no legislator is going to consider them anything more than a greedy, selfish crackpot.
Your suggestion isn't bad, except that people shouldn't be pirating just anything, but specifically things that would have fallen into the public domain but-for the last extension. Things that are currently 60 years past the life of the author, say. That would be a meaningful, and credible, protest.
There may be a language issue here.
In common, everyday usage, “Regulation” means “do this, don’t do that.” - a hard hand telling you what to do. “Priced In” means behavior X is going to be subsidized / taxed – a soft hand encouraging “correct” behavior.
This is not to say that there would not be regulations around the “priced in”. Society needs to decide what is correct via government. Rules have to put in place to prevent fraud, etc.
Preamble != Constitution.
Many of the comments in response to this article are depressing, with the "la la la I can't hear you!" from posters who are..well crap, if I say "liberal" or "democrat" or any label they're going to start nitpicking over that, so I'll just say "are probably people who are used to not liking things Republicans say." The "us vs them" attitude is counterproductive towards actual change.
Here is a Republican whose ideas about copyrights, patents, and the DMCA seem to line up pretty darn well with the Slashdot groupthink. When you find someone on the other side of the political spectrum from you who agrees with you on a particular issue, do not insult and dismiss them because they don't agree with you on every other issue as well. Instead, consider saying something like, "Well good sir, while there are many issues on which we differ, we agree on the need for copyright reform. Let us reach across the aisle and work together to bring about these needed changes, and then eat ice cream."
We need more pragmatists and fewer ideologues. That was the saddest thing about the republican primaries for the last election: republicans demonizing Newt Gingrich because he had some pragmatic views, like not wanting to "round up and deport every illegal alien!" There was a smear commercial where the insidious voiceover slams him because he "worked with Nancy Pelosi." Really? That's a disqualification from being the republican candidate? Finding something he can agree about with a member of the other party?
Honestly, the last time I remember government working well was when we had Clinton and Newt in charge, because they could actually find things they agreed on like welfare reform and middle class tax cuts and then balance the budget together. They obviously didn't agree on everything and both had some good ideas and some bad ideas, just like everybody else. But it was nice for a few years when Republicans and Democrats could look past their differences to find the things they agreed on and pass those for the good of the country instead of just thinking about "us vs them."
So, case in point here: Mr. Khanna, I do not agree with your entire political ideology, but your views on copyright reform match up fairly well with my own, and I support your efforts to enact these changes. Let us work together towards that end, and then eat ice cream.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The tea party was an anti-tax, small government thing for about a second.
Then the bible thumpers noticed them and sent in their activists. They grabbed power, added the usual 'social conservative' boilerplate.
IMHO the main problem the Rs have is a quasi religious, well organized, insane, extremist wing.
What would happen to the Ds if the occupy/ELF/PETA/code pink/deadhead people were sober, had regular meetings and had spent years taking control of local D operations nationwide? The Ds would be FUBAR!
That is the current state of the Republican party. They think Palin is a serious candidate.
Quayle/Palin 2016: Keep Danny's dream alive.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Moral absolutes aren't.
You can't just say "Murder is wrong!" as an absolute statement and then quibble about what the definition of murder is. I mean, you can, if you want to tell yourself that you have some sort of superior moral character, but you're still engaged in moral relativism. Logically "Some killing is not murder" is equivalent to "Some killing is not wrong". You can feel free to take refuge in the tautological definition of murder ("wrongful killing") but otherwise you're pretty much hoist on your own petard here.
That is, sometimes it's okay to kill people, sometimes it isn't, and there's no reason to exclude broad categories of human knowledge (e.g. science, statistics, legal theory, ethics) when making decisions on the matter.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Close minded, wrong and proud of it.
I'd say that puts him firmly into moron territory. Even if he's not a moron, he's so well indoctrinated to not make a difference.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
having also had some experience in the school board. I can tell you that the majority of the issues in my town would be solved if we didnt have to ask the masters for permission to do XX anytime we want to do something different. It got way worse under bush when he implemented no child left behind, and it has gotten even worse in the past 5 years. kids cant play dodgeball, kids cant have frenchfries at lunch, i could go on and on, and none of this things are things we wanted to happen. So in conclusion, anecdotes are anecdotes. but the facts are that there has been a steady decline in the quality of education since the creation of the dept of ed. I know correlation != causation but its hard to ignore the simple facts.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
the lifestyle in washington, or cali, or NY or south dakota are totally different. I dont want "whats best" for washington to be the same for the entire country. I want whats best locally.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Less so then you think.
Since we have a First Past the Post system we tend to have 2 parties - one broad center left and one broad center right.
Parties don't blow up to be replaced by a new one - they slowly evolve - as the populations drifts one way or the other they adapt - steal ideas from the other.
Let me help:
libertarian
noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian ).
Nothing about levels of government there. You sound more like an Anti-Federalist.
The Preamble is right there at the top of the first page of the Constitution. It is as much a part of the Constitution as anything else. It is a general statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles and anything else in there should be interpreted in the light of those purposes and principles.
The problem I have with that is what if the mess includes dead or crippled for life people? You can't clean up a mess like that and money is poor compensation for irreversible damage. And what if the guy doesn't have the financial wherewithal? Who pays for cleaning it up then? The only answer I have is government. It's usually cheaper to prevent the mess in the first place.
to a degree. I am a firm believer in the constitution, But I also point out the 10th amendment, which says anything not explicitly written in the constitution is left to the states, and not even up for argument in the federal government without the passing of an amendment to the constitution. As such, i dont see me as an anti federalist, I would most specifically call myself a jeffersonian constitutionalist.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Drug revenue confiscation is all the incentive they need. Then they can spend that confiscated money on surplus military equipment that is only made avaliable for police departments.
Then they need to find something to do with these bad-ass military weapons, "Let's make a swat team!"
Cheap storage VM.
This molding of human behavior is less of a problem then the molding of tax structures to avoid taxing my rich friend or my rich friend's company. Sometimes they hide it as behavior policy, but there is usually some rich dude's investment that is pulling the strings.
Take off your blinders, look what happened to the tea party.
Cheap storage VM.
it would be cheaper and faster to reduce greenhouse gasses by leaving a carbon tax then by regulating industries.
But!!!???...My Money!!
Don't take my beautiful money!
Cheap storage VM.
That is kind of a straw man argument. This system has been around for a long time, maybe a decade and nobody has been stupid enough to mandate it.
Cheap storage VM.
Thank you for exposing your personal bias, but I think both are equal.
Cheap storage VM.
Yes because desegregation and having to educate the learning impaired had nothing to do with the test scores.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Those aren't all 'rich' things....I say do away with ALL deductions, none at all.
That should lower everyones tax bill overall, and everyone would have some skin in the game. I'll allow for maybe on deduction, to help the truly impoverished, but anyone making over $x...pays something and no deductions for anything.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If you think there is not a "green" company benefiting from those "green" tax credits you are naive. Home mortgages get deductions, not credits. These benefit Realtors, Banks, and people with very expensive homes more then they benefit your average American. On a $150k home the deduction is almost a wash, compared to the standard deduction, after afew years.
I'll give you child credits, but we are still 2 to 1. I would also posit that child credits are a bone to prevent paying things like maternity/paternity leave, something that is common in other countries. The US is not over populated despite the rhetoric. There are world problems, but kowtowing to "world overpopulation" will cause more local problems and after afew generations our society will be gone.
Cheap storage VM.
I realize I'm coming a bit late to the party with this question, but I wonder how Derek would edit the brief further if he had the opportunity, or if he is happy with the arguments and policy suggestions as is.
For me, while I agreed with virtually all of his arguments, I found his arguments for reform rather unpersuasive and some of his policy suggestions downright off-putting. DJ remixing as the lead argument? Ignoring copyright trolling? Even some of his strong arguments are weakly proffered. His proposal to create disincentives for renewing copyright was wildly convoluted and would've been a lightening rod for copyright holders to attack.
Maybe you should read the rest of his post.
I did, and it's because I did that I stand by what I said.
Pointing out two extremes and advocating a balance between the two is not a "false dichotomy" in any meaningful sense.
Pointing out two extremes in a NEUTRAL way would make it not a false dichotomy. But as I pointed out, and you agreed below, the GP was using a strawman to characterize the liberal position.
When you use strawmen, you invoke false dichotomy. You're limiting the options and choices of discussion.
The fact the rest of his post tries to sound neutral makes his liberal remark even more jarring.
A false dichotomy claims there are fewer options than there are in reality.
The OP claimed that an extreme was unworkable. He advocated looking for a solution in between two identified extremes - in short, he acknowledged the existence of a SPECTRUM between the extremes. There was no false limiting of available options, so there is no "false dichotomy" or "black-white" thinking - it was the very opposite of what you were criticizing.
I did not agree that he made a strawman, either. I said that it *could* be a valid criticism. False dichotomy, on the other hand, is a completely invalid criticism for the reason I've laid out.
Just because conservatives believe one thing, does not automatically mean that liberals believe the opposite. This confused idea that liberals believe that "government is the only solution" is a fantasy and has no basis in fact. Please try to keep discussion honest and productive by not misrepresenting the views of one side.