Lessig is a smart guy, but on this issue he's simply wrong. It's not money that determines who wins elections, it's incumbency and gerrymandering. Why? Because the incumbents already have name recognition, electoral advantage, access to fundraising machinery, and are known quantities to the rent-seekers - they are the safe bets. 95% of the House elections are won by the most money because incumbents have massive fundraising advantages. And they would love nothing more than to further restrict the money spent on elections, because then their other incumbency advantages would count for more. Taxpayer-supported elections would make the problem worse by virtually guaranteeing that any incumbent would stay elected until they die.
Further, public choice mechanics clearly explain why the only way to break that lock is to restrict the money and favors they can direct to their supporters - i.e., cutting at least the parts of government that are the most easily abused, like economic development grants and loans, and disbanding government crony organizations like the Import-Export Bank and the green energy loan programs. In short, you will not remove the corruption without removing the reason for the corruption - the vast power available to the members of Congress and the Executive to reward their supporters and hinder their detractors through government action.
This doesn't actually make the problem worse. The problem is that elected representatives are beholden to the people who fund their campaigns. So let's say I buy your argument that incumbency would become even more prevalent; I'm okay with it as long as the behavior starts to change.
Incumbency and gerrymandering are definite problems but I'm going Lessig on this one. Gerrymandering is something any politician or lawyer does, but when it's done in behest of solely the bottom dollar we've got a big problem...
Money is the problem, so we need to ensure that money continues to corrupt the election process. Great argument...
Every culture in history has eventually collapsed, all in the same general manner and for the same general reasons. It doesn't matter what form the government takes, or how clever the promises are, they all collapse. The only form of government that has made a good showing is no government, but people will only tolerate prosperity for about 200 years, and then they demand a central government to tell each other how to live.
This is a nice idea, but no country has ever avoided the slide into oblivion. Not one.
And which one was that? What civilization are you referring to that was had no form of government or hierarchy? Which civilization managed to thrive where every person had the same kind of autonomy, responsibility and "liberty"?
What are you referring to?
The Belgians seemed to do okay without a government for nearly 200 days and then more than 500 days during successive "political crises" since 2007....
I, uh, what?
FUCK YEAH, LESSIG
I'm going to invest some hope in this NH Rebellion. It seems well-named too; it reads like an old-time historical event, and what with the epic march, just might be well-judged and ambitious enough to actually be a notable historic event.
Surely it must be getting easier to foment public unrest in the US, despite the best efforts of Murdoch et al?
The period of Hebrew history known as Judges lasted about 250 years and they were unconquerable in war. Then they demanded a king, and after that they were conquered. The people known as Barbarians could not be conquered by Rome because they had no government to conquer. The Romans sent one third of their army into the woods and they never came out, except that the general's head was mailed to the senate. The Dutch Empire and the American colonies had no central government.
I'm pretty sure the optimum system of organisation for us is as simple and organic as possible. Something with minimal overhead and flat topology, relying on a robust culture instilled in each of us.
But everybody needs to be on pretty much the same page for such a thing, as far as I can see; pretty tough to achieve that these days. Although folks with their heads screwed on properly are certainly more into splitting hairs than arguing over basic fundamentals... I guess the way forward must include zero tolerance for mental malware like fundamentalism (except agnostic fundamentalism, of course).
Oh, you mean all of them except the ones that haven't collapsed?
Of about 240 countries in the world, just 21 have regimes older than a century. Libya did ok with a king for 2800 years, but switched to a president in 1975. FWIW 12 of those 21 are in South America or around the Gulf of Mexico.
Now you see, a regime is not a culture. Suddenly your claim is much narrower and I don't even think it is remarkable. Which is probably why you chose to exaggerate it in the first place. Everything else you said went right out the window for me because your first statement was preposterous.
I forgot that you're the guy who posts stuff from The Bible to make a point....
Those Barbarians that you speak of were organized societies with armies and kings. Romans (and so many others) referred to almost any peoples they hadn't conquered or come to know well as "barbarians". The rest is all just completely ahistorical. Yeah the colonies were "Galt's Gulch"....... That's why they felt necessary to rebel against their king/government and start their own government........
The Bible (interesting as it is) is NOT history etc. etc....
Cool, I didn't realize Belgium was a law and coercion free paradise....
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.