Required Reading: the next 10 years
During my keynote at the iCommons iSummit 07, I made an announcement that surprised some, but which, from reports on the web at least, was also not fully understood by some. So here again is the announcement, with some reasoning behind it.
The bottom line: I have decided to shift my academic work, and soon, my activism, away from the issues that have consumed me for the last 10 years, towards a new set of issues. Why and what are explained in the extended entry below.
Three people I admire greatly are responsible for at least inspiring this decision.
The first is Obama. Six months ago, I was reading Obama's (really excellent) latest book. In the beginning of the book, he describes his decision to run for the United States Senate. At that point, Obama had been in politics for about 10 years. Ten years, he reflected, was enough. It was either "up or out" for him. He gambled on the the "up." We'll see how far he gets.
But for me, Obama's reflection triggered a different thought. It's been a decade since I have become active in the issues I'm known for. Over this decade, I've learned a great deal. There has been important progress on the issues -- not yet in Congress, but in the understanding of many about what's at stake, and what's important. Literally thousands have worked to change that understanding. When we began a decade ago, I would have said it was impossible to imagine the progress we've made. It is extraordinarily rewarding to recognize that my pessimism notwithstanding, we are going to prevail in these debates. Maybe not today, but soon.
That belief (some think, dream), then led me to wonder whether it wasn't time to find a new set of problems: I had learned everything I was going to learn about the issues I've been working on; there are many who would push them as well, or better, than I; perhaps therefore it was time to begin again.
That thought triggered a second, this one tied to Gore.
In one of the handful of opportunities I had to watch Gore deliver his global warming Keynote, I recognized a link in the problem that he was describing and the work that I have been doing during this past decade. After talking about the basic inability of our political system to reckon the truth about global warming, Gore observed that this was really just part of a much bigger problem. That the real problem here was (what I will call a "corruption" of) the political process. That our government can't understand basic facts when strong interests have an interest in its misunderstanding.
This is a thought I've often had in the debates I've been a part of, especially with respect to IP. Think, for example, about term extension. From a public policy perspective, the question of extending existing copyright terms is, as Milton Friedman put it, a "no brainer." As the Gowers Commission concluded in Britain, a government should never extend an existing copyright term. No public regarding justification could justify the extraordinary deadweight loss that such extensions impose.
Yet governments continue to push ahead with this idiot idea -- both Britain and Japan for example are considering extending existing terms. Why?
The answer is a kind of corruption of the political process. Or better, a "corruption" of the political process. I don't mean corruption in the simple sense of bribery. I mean "corruption" in the sense that the system is so queered by the influence of money that it can't even get an issue as simple and clear as term extension right. Politicians are starved for the resources concentrated interests can provide. In the US, listening to money is the only way to secure reelection. And so an economy of influence bends public policy away from sense, always to dollars.
The point of course is not new. Indeed, the fear of factions is as old as the Republic. There are thousands who are doing amazing work to make clear just how corrupt this system has become. There have been scores of solutions proposed. This is not a field lacking in good work, or in people who can do this work well.
But a third person -- this time anonymous -- made me realize that I wanted to be one of these many trying to find a solution to this "corruption." This man, a Republican of prominence in Washington, wrote me a reply to an email I had written to him about net neutrality. As he wrote, "And don't shill for the big guys protecting market share through neutrality REGULATION either."
"Shill."
If you've been reading these pages recently, you'll know my allergy to that word. But this friend's use of the term not to condemn me, but rather as play, made me recognize just how general this corruption is. Of course he would expect I was in the pay of those whose interests I advanced. Why else would I advance them? Both he and I were in a business in which such shilling was the norm. It was totally reasonable to thus expect that money explained my desire to argue with him about public policy.
I don't want to be a part of that business. And more importantly, I don't want this kind of business to be a part of public policy making. We've all been whining about the "corruption" of government forever. We all should be whining about the corruption of professions too. But rather than whining, I want to work on this problem that I've come to believe is the most important problem in making government work.
And so as I said at the top (in my "bottom line"), I have decided to shift my academic work, and soon, my activism, away from the issues that have consumed me for the last 10 years, towards a new set of issues: Namely, these. "Corruption" as I've defined it elsewhere will be the focus of my work. For at least the next 10 years, it is the problem I will try to help solve.
I do this with no illusions. I am 99.9% confident that the problem I turn to will continue exist when this 10 year term is over. But the certainty of failure is sometimes a reason to try. That's true in this case.
Nor do I believe I have any magic bullet. Indeed, I am beginner. A significant chunk of the next ten years will be spent reading and studying the work of others. My hope is to build upon their work; I don't pretend to come with a revolution pre-baked.
Instead, what I come with is a desire to devote as much energy to these issues of "corruption" as I've devoted to the issues of network and IP sanity. This is a shift not to an easier project, but a different project. It is a decision to give up my work in a place some consider me an expert to begin work in a place where I am nothing more than a beginner.
So what precisely does this mean for the work I am doing now?
First, and most importantly, I am not leaving Creative Commons, or the iCommons Project. I will remain on both boards, and continue to serve as CEO of Creative Commons. I will speak and promote both organizations whenever ever I can -- at least until the financial future of both organizations is secure. I will also continue to head the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.
But second, and over the next few months, I will remove myself from the other organizations on whose boards I now serve. Not immediately, but as I can, and as it makes sense.
Third, in general, I will no longer be lecturing about IP (whether as in TCP/IP or IPR) issues. No doubt there will be exceptions. In particular, I have a few (though because this decision has been in the works for months, very few) obligations through the balance of the year. There will be others in the future too. But in general, unless there are very strong reasons, I will not be accepting invitations to talk about the issues that have defined my work for the past decade.
Instead, as soon as I can locate some necessary technical help, I will be moving every presentation I have made (that I can) to a Mixter site (see, e.g., ccMixter) where others can freely download and remix what I've done, and use it however they like. I will continue to work to get all my books licensed freely. And I am currently finishing one last book about these issues that I hope will make at least some new contributions.
Fourth, these pages will change too. My focus here will shift. That will make some of you unhappy. I'm sorry for that. The blog is CC-BY licensed. You're free to fork and continue the (almost) exclusively IP-related conversation. But I will continue that conversation only rarely. New issues will appear here instead.
Fifth, some will think this resolution sounds familiar. In the beginning of the Free Culture talk I gave at OSCON 5 years ago, I said that talk was going to be my last. In fact, what I intended at the time was the last before the argument in the Eldred case. In my nervousness, I didn't make that intent clear then. The literally hundred of talks since (85 last year alone) should have made that obvious.
But again, this is not a resolution of silence. It is a decision to change channels. This new set of issues is, in my view, critically important. Indeed, I'm convinced we will not solve the IP related issues until these "corruption" related issues are resolved. So I hope at least some of you will follow to this new set of questions. For I expect this forum will be central to working out just what I believe, just as it has in the past.
Finally, I am not (as one friend wrote) "leaving the movement." "The movement" has my loyalty as much today as ever. But I have come to believe that until a more fundamental problem is fixed, "the movement" can't succeed either. Compare: Imagine someone devoted to free culture coming to believe that until free software supports free culture, free culture can't succeed. So he devotes himself to building software. I am someone who believes that a free society -- free of the "corruption" that defines our current society -- is necessary for free culture, and much more. For that reason, I turn my energy elsewhere for now.
So thank you to everyone who has helped in this work. Thanks especially to everyone who will continue it. And thanks the most to those who will take positions of leadership in this movement, to help guide it to its success. Just one favor I ask in return: when you get to the promised land, remember to send a postcard.
| technorati |
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (142)
Thanks for the clarification, Larry - and good luck in your new endeavor, one just as noble as your last. It was great to see you again in Croatia (I ran the artist residency the last two years).
I wonder: given the example of Gore (whose new book blew me away), might it be an interesting experiment to not only give away your presentations for re-mixing, but actually more emphatically encourage/train people to present them publicly, as he did with his?
Creative energy requires fertile ground to walk upon, no, to run through, to twirl and skip through. I feel strongly that you'll find great satisfaction in this shift in your pursuits, and the world will be a better place for your having put yourself to this new task. A mind is, indeed, a terrible thing to waste. Go where it leads you. You've been an incredible inspiration to me. I doubt that will change at all! Best of luck to you.
Congratulations on your decision. Your new project is a worthy target of your intellect. For the sake of our nation, I hope that you are as successful in these endeavors as you have been in your work that led to creative commons.
What really strucks me is that there are people like you, obviously clever people, who are unable to accept the possibility that this global warming thing is an invention of people who have their own agenda. It seems that Bush has an agenda, but Gore has not. Or that Bush have obscure motivations and Gore has bening ones.
I am just a layman, and I dont believe this global warming thing the ecologist are trying to impose upon us. Global warming is far from being demonstrated, let alone the fact that it is supposedly caused by humans. It is simply not demonstrated, no matter how many corrupted scientifics paid by the United Nations can tell u so.
I am with you in the corruption issue. But the problem is in the system itself. The most powerful people on earth now are not the "money" guys. The most powerful people are the politicians in power, who can regulate even the tiniest aspects of our existence. Keep power away from politicians, give freedom back to people, and corruption, as we know it, will be a thing of the past.
while i'll be sorry to see you move away from "intellectual property" issues, it'll be interesting to see where you go in this new direction, and i certainly won't be dropping my bloglines subscription.
and, when you get confused and overwhelmed with your newbieness, think of it like this:
you may be up to the challenge of making the problem -better-, but by yourself at least, you can't possibly fuck up so hard as to make it -worse.-
Thank you Larry for all you've done, created and inspired.
I think it's very courageous to switch your focus to a field you consider yourself a beginner in, though I don't think it's quite the case ;-)
Anyway, good luck for the next 10 years! I hope you'll achieve something even more important for all of us.
Big you up, sir. This is awesome news. The best of luck and rewards in this venture! There is probably some truth to the fact of diminishing returns to scale even in the IP (both as in TCP/IP and IPR) world, and you have already opened a host of new perspectives in the field. May other minds continue to build upon your work here. You will no doubt greatly enrich our understanding of public choice and the "corruption" you're on about, too. Again, this is good news, so all the best for you.
Good luck to you. I think you are right that these bigger "corruption" problems need to be addressed before real change can occur in other areas. Based on your success over the last ten years, I'm sure that your contributions to this field will be significant.
I'd like to echo the previous comments: good luck in your new focus. I hope you're as successful in it as you've been with Creative Commons. The world needs more people like you.
Thank you for everything you've done. Maybe you haven't "solved" the legal corruption as you say, but remember that your work has enriched society by facilitating the production, availability and consumption (that is, enjoyment) of creative and intellectual works. This place is better now than before you began- don't forget this.
I am a graduate student and you've inspired me as a student and in my undertakings as a musician. Thank you for that.
Best of luck and success with your future plans
Jacob -ambientgroove.net
Say it ain’t so!
As a computer scientist and current scholar of law I have followed your works with great interest. I think the path you have chosen will, no doubt, provide many great challenges ahead. I guess it may be a little premature, though I am intrigued as to where you will begin and do you intend to pursue a particular area of corruption?
In a sense much of your work already overlaps in corruption, particularly in setting the record straight – I guess it’s a pursuit in search for truth. Most often I find is that corruption propagates through a lack of transparency and a failure in those measures.
Great decision! I wish you the best. I'm wondering if publicly funded campaigns are one such way to fight corruption but then the corporations have the free speech/we are a person thing behind them.
Just to let you know, if we had 12 + 12 copyright law, I'd be redoing all of the curriculum from a certain very large company on to the internet 6 years ago. Our education system may well have looked VERY different with this instructional strategy in the mainstream.
Good luck Larry. You are exactly right, the fundamental problem must be fixed in order for the rest of the work to move forward.
If I may, I'd like to suggest a book/podcast that I think neatly illustrates a dimension of the corruption you describe: University of Pennsylvania Political Science Professor Ian S. Lustick's "Trapped in the War on Terror." A good intro to its thesis of a broken symbiotic system in which all of us are (for the moment) "trapped" is the University Channel podcast of his speech at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
I hope you might find it interesting. I have followed and appreciate the work you've done. I look forward to following all that you will do.
Good luck Lawrence, a very mighty journey awaits you.
Congratulations. A person should ask themselves what are the most important problems in their field and, moreover, why they aren't working on them. I'm glad you did.
However, your work will be frustrating and unrewarding because your enemy is not politicians or the political system. Your enemy is the man on the street; often your friends, your family. Every political system makes the crucial but erroneous assumption that the citizens are rational and strive for social justice. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."--Churchill. People constantly defer to authority instead of reason, to the status quo instead of amelioration. They don't want to think, it is stressful. They long to be ruled, they want to their lives directed for them, life is far easier that way. They want to believe that someone is watching over them and protecting them. They largely reject substantiative change, the familiar is comforting and history is their strongest evidence for ceaseless constancy ("It been like that as long as I remember, why change it?").
You can't save those that do not want to be saved. You can't help those who refuse to even acknowledge they have a problem.
The answer is vastly improved education. Not merely more money for education but a completely overhauled system that focuses on real independent thought and reasoning and which promotes life long learning. Sadly, I will be long dead before I would be able to see the results.
Great good luck, and thanks for all your hard work and creativity over the past decade.
My only suggestion is to try to conceptualize the challenge/goal in positive terms, as well. Perhaps "civic integrity" would be appropriate?
Very interesting reading. I will be following this blog very closely, more than ever.
Congratulations. If you can motivate and education people about "corruption" the same way you have done on IP issues then I think the world is going to be a much better place to live in 10 years. Give 'em hell Lawrence!!!
Dear Larry,
thank you for your inspiring work so far and the many things I've learned while reading it.
Last month I had a chat with George Greve from FSFE and we realized, that we had thought independently of the same idea: the next step in the Form of government. By now, the parliamentary system is recognized as the most modern kind of government.
I see mainly two reasons behind this form:
a) Due to the geographical distance of the central government to the main part of it's citizens, it would be impossible, for all interested citizens to take part in disputs.
b) A parliamentarian should represent the interests of those who sent them in a professional way and this way making governance more effective.
Today, the geographical distance is no reason anymore for not taking part in governance and the representation of people's interests through parliamentarians has failed.
So the next step would be, to use the methods practiced in free software development in the political world: Everybody can take part. All Informations are available. People take part in projects which are interesting for them...
Just to give you an idea to think about...
I applaud you for moving down the layer stack of bad government policy, and for having the courage to sacrifice the comforts and stability you have earned in your field. These are the advantages afforded to you as a member of high-standing in a nearly permanent institution, yet sadly only a few use them fully.
Your foray into low-threshold corruption will be a trip down the rabbit hole, to be sure, but I think the contributions of someone of your integrity and -- in the good sense -- naiveté is needed to fight this Goliath.
Good luck.
Wow!
Thank you for the clear explanation. I, like others, wish you the best in this new work.
I heard Gore talk at the Special Libraries Association Annual Conference (my blog post) and understand how he can spark the internal question of "where should my focus be."
It is interesting that I am reading your post a day after hearing CNN talk about the earmarked spending of our Congress. Are they being corrupt? I don't know. I do know that they -- and other politicians -- need someone like you to point out their inconsistencies while empowering people like us to help change the political environment.
Dr. Lessig -- Larry -- may luck be with you! (You've already got the skills!)
I think the term you want is "capture"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_(economics)
Good luck. You sure know how to pick your windmills! And I think some of the lessons and viewpoints you've learned from your contact with OSS and CC will stand you in good stead in trying to change the integrity assumption.
Most of all, thanks for all your hard work for the last 10 years.
Hi Larry,
I really can't believe you decide to say goodbye, here, now... because of what?? ...the 'corrumption of the system'... That's odd...
At first - let me say in my broken english - I think that your decision to dismiss your 10 years work it's quite insane. It looks so incredible to believe that you understand only too late that the system is corrupted from money interests. I see you like a sort of evangelist who could produce a spiritual revolution only after an entire generation. Don't mind if there are apparently no way to change things!
Internet needs you. Here. Now.
hoping to hear again and again your 'voice' soon
my best regards
Dario
Good luck! Tilting at windmills is a noble cause ...
Thank you, and good luck.
Congratulations, Larry; this is a very wise and reasonable decision. I wish you the best of luck in at least increasing the awareness of what I see as a thorough corruption (no scare quotes) of international political processes. opensecrets.org has the facts about the US political system; I think the challenge is to make people understand on an emotional level what the impact of this corruption is, and to punish (perhaps, for lack of resources, selectively) the worst offenders.
Yes but will it explode like the past years!
Thank you for all the work you have done in the past 10 years! As an admirer of your work (and your great talks!) I am sad to see you heading towards new endeavours, but your next cause is not any less important than your previous one. Good luck!
Beautiful news!
I love what you've done for intellectual property rights. But I'm with you: the bigger problem is the corruption of the US political process. It's the source of so many of our problems. It equates democracy with unaccountable capitalism.
I wish that more philanthropists would give their money to fixing the political process. This could have positive effects many times greater than direct donations in many cases.
I will be following closely what you do now. You're a great leader.
Larry,
I think you are 100% correct in making this move. Identifying this problem, and the feeling impotence in attempting to solve it, are things I have struggled with. By taking a strong stance and concrete steps, you have inspired me (and surely countless others) to keep hope alive.
Glad to be on board! Please try and come up with an outlet for activism so that normal guys like me can plug into and contribute.
there is a fine line between magnamity and an ego trip.
"it is easier to help 'humanity' than to help your neighbor".
Dr. Lessig,
I was instantly captured in the subject of IP since I first learned about it, and though I never had the opportunity to hear you speak about the subject, I have learned much more about the issue because you have brought others into the field. I thank you for the work you have done and will continue to do, and hope to join you sometime to help you in the fight for not just the issue of IP but this new (or perhaps old) problem of government inaction. I wish you the best of luck in the transition.
Has there ever been a state that is not corrupt? Built upon theft, there can be no good state.
By the way, you mite want to learn that global warming is caused by the sun. And CO2 emissions trail global temperatures by 800 years. Gore's truth is falsehood.
This is starting to look like a trend.
It's dawned on me, over the last couple of decades, that our political systems are seriously malfunctioning, with consequences banal and horrific. Wondering how they might be fixed I read up on electoral systems, politics, history, philosophy etc. searching for even the name of the problem: is it metapolitics, political science, constitutional engineering? "Sociology" sounds right but I haven't found anything of use there. It seems like the disipline that has the most to say about how to solve this problem might be economics, Public Choice theory etc.
So I'm dropping my career to study it, because it doesn't matter if I help discover a drug that saves thousands, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the deaths and waste arising from the stupid decisions our broken collective-decision making machines deliver.
Many of us, I'm sure, know of stupid laws in our own domains of interest - for LL it's IP law, for Al Gore it's climate change - never mind what my trigger was, it would take too long to explain here, but just realise that the stupidity you are aware of is probably dwarfed by the stupidity across domains you never think about and assume the government is getting mostly right, they are not, and the consequences are more tragic than you imagine.
Anyway, i'm just an anonymous lurker, not much chance I'll be changing the world.
But then Al Gore wrote "The Assault on Reason".
And then Lawrence Lessig wrote this post.
I wonder where it will all end.
Congratulations on this decision and good luck.
If I could offer one word at the beginning of this endeavor, it would be this: Be sure not to fall prey to partisanship. You've articulated the true problem, the generalized inability to determine value correctly. That's not Democratic, that's not Republican, that's not Right or Left, that's not Communist or Democratic or anything else. It's a general human problem.
Most people, if not all, whom I've seen set out on this path eventually themselves get captured by one side or the other and come to believe that corruption only lies with their enemies. At that point, they are simply one more partisan shill, and they can and should be ignored at that point.
I wish you good luck retaining your focus and perspective; somebody with your reputation would be very valuable in such a role.
The magic bullet is accountability. Chances are if someone is accountable for what they do, then they will consider whatever they do. This is good for everyone in most cases.
The wonderful gun for accountability is transparency. Can you really be transparent about how much of Government's money goes into Defence contracts. Sure you can. Can you really, really be transparent about how much of Government's defence contract money goes into which contracts, to whom and why? In a world where there are enemies to defend against, not practically without a serious disadvantage.
So there are you are, solve the accountability and transparency problems, and you are 80% done. Come to me again if you want to know the whole shebang.
Lots of work has been done in the area of Political Economy by Gordon Tullock and Nobel Laureate James Buchanan.
The simple fact is this: so long as you accept a system where the government can destroy entire industries with a stroke of a pen, create monopolies, and there is no limit to what regulation or influence they can exercise in the market, there will always be a strong desire to influence legislation and policy.
To expect the livelihoods of thousands of people to ride on legislative decisions and to expect people to NOT do anything is a bit absurd.
Buying influence is cheap in the big scheme of things. Getting influence on policy that can have multi-billion dollar ramifications for only a few thousand in campaign donations is one of the best deals around.
Banning or trying to regulate contributions wont do anything, because the economic consequence of not acting is too great. Like poking a balloon, everything will just shift to a different area. Look at the aftermath of McCain/Finegold.
I'm not an expert on corruption either, but it seems to me that 'public shame', as deployed by filmmakers like Michael Moore or your average Letter-to-the-Editor writer, is one of the most effective weapons in the fight. How to get the public at large to think of itself as an interest group, and to resist issue-balkanization, is a real Gordian knot. gl!
The Opposing mind -----that is how successful people thinks --according to Harvard Business Review. O well Dear Lessig great luck in what ever you do.
The Opposing mind -----that is how successful people thinks --according to Harvard Business Review. O well Dear Lessig great luck in what ever you do.
Larry,
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but the best way to address corruption is to continue doing EXACTLY what you've been doing for the past 10 years.
The corruption of politicians is right out in the open Larry. They don't hide it. It's just that public isn't paying attention because they are being relentlessly dumbed down by our stunningly stupid top-down media culture - a media that decides what we're allowed to know.
The free culture movement is a force growing in power and the only one that can directly challenge this sick, ongoing brainwashing and dumbassification of the public.
Stay with it.
Thanks for all you've given for the past 10 years, Professor. Good luck and godspeed, and enjoy the well-earned time with your family as you focus on preparing for this next great (and/or completely insane ;) challenge. (A much longer note on your influence in my life, and my hopes for your search for solutions, is on my blog. I'd be gobstoppingly honored if you read it :)
Dr. Lessig,
First of all congratulations on the changes. It will be sad to see you leave the shores of IP protection but I suspect you believe the fight is now in strong enough hands for you to be able to move on.
The problem of corruption within the system is definitely a different project, with a different set of complexities. I think it will be fascinating to see how you deploy your brain in that arena. But should we consider you a shill for the anti-corruption business :)
I recently read that the most brilliant discoveries or innovation have generally been made by people looking OUTSIDE of their field but applying some of their fields' rules and processes to those outside dimensions.
Wishes for great luck with your new effort,
TNL
I've learned so much from you. Thank you.
Please, keep us informed so that those of us that want to, can help.
Good. Often the output of the legislative process, especially around IT issues, makes me want to scream "are you lying, or are you stupid?" When contacted, Congressional staffers release form letters which when translated say, "I'm either lying or I'm stupid."
There is no penalty for this.
You have made a good decision. Corporate corruption of politics is at the root of many other problems besides IP and I'm sure you can help fix things.
Fascinating to hear of your up-coming change in direction. I think it's a highly worthy cause, and congratulate you on what must have been a tricky decision to move into such turbulent new waters.
I'm glad I got to attend one of your IP lectures, though, and now look forward to seeing one of the 'new batch' of lectures, too. Best of luck, and we'll all be following closely!
So does this shift indicate that you think the intellectual property right battle is more or less over? Are you a rifter, larry? :)
In any case, this is a great and exciting direction to be an activist in and I wish you a lot of luck.
As a strong opponent of many of your ideas, I should be happy today. In fact I am sorry for this decision. If You can`t realize Your ideas, it is not corruption, it is maybe because Your ideas don`t work.
If people don`t do what you think they should do, they are not dull, they are not undereducated, they are not blocked by corruption, they just have other ideas and wishes, their own will.
Communication and society needs that one accepts and respects the ideas and opinion of the other. To argue, that the ideas are right but you have to change the people is the core idea of any totalitarian system. Be aware of that on your new way.
Despite having tacked an extremely complex subject (that is considered both "impossible to solve" and "boring" by many), you created passionate advocates out of all of us. The movement you started has enough mass to not only sustain its relevance, but to grow and evolve.
I'm excited about your new direction and am sure you will be able to convince lots of people to work on reducing the influence of money on our political system. It sounds like a monster of a problem though -- maybe even "impossible to solve" ;)
Good luck.
Larry,
Thanks for the 10 years of unrelentless dedication and inspiration! I wish you and your family all the best in your new endeavours. I hope that your work on this "corruption" will have an effect not only in US politics, but also in the EU and its member states.
So long and thanks for all the fish :)
As one hypothesis - the behavior of government (corruption) reflects the behavior of the public (disengaged). Corruption will remain the rule until the public holds those in government accountable. Those in power appreciate this equation and actively seek to keep the public distracted and unaware of the realities. Your campaign against corruption must revolve around finding ways to get the public engaged in holding their representatives accountable...rather than trying to get those in power to do the right thing.
At last!
Has anyone worked out a better control mechanism to control government?. Can't a logical system be developed to make a better functioning government without too much paperwork?. A system where people are heard and where criminals in power are prosecuted for treason and locked away..
Two books to consider: Noonan on Bribes and S. Bok on Lying.
Congrats on your decision to take on what is probably the #1 barrier to social change in the US and the world. It appears you enjoy pushing big rocks up high hills, because it is truly a sysiphean task.
I look forward to your thoughts on what I see as the central conflict of this battle: free-speech rights and political speech being equated with corporate spending and quid-pro-quo votes by elected officials.
The problem is that you are a loser in terms of political activities. However, your failure to win is no sign of "political corruption" but of your inability to adapt to the political process.
The EU Software patents debate is a perfect counter-example. Your contribution here was more or less superficial. Of course no one won because of you.
We know how to win the struggles. Get educated. It is easy. The real problem is that all the busy critics are not there when and where real decisions are made. And then they speak of corruption, nonsense. A single trained activist is worth 20 industry lobbyists. It is very easy to win the "war". Yes, I noticed how your phrases radicalised. "War". So, all we need is a bit stormtrooper training.
For instance: x persons write in their weblogs why TPM sucks, but they don't submit the stuff when a public consultation on DRM is held. So only the four industry groups submit their boring garbage. And then the critics wonder why no one takes their views into consideration. Of course you cannot believe that you submit your views late into a process and things immidiately change, because you have the "proof" and an indisputable teaching. Politicians don't read mailing lists, don't read slashdot and don't get invited to community conferences.
Your chance for meaningful contributions e.g.
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/revision/index_en.htm
Very interesting. High opportunities. Who will participate? (*)
Desperados are dangerous, they fail and instead of reviewing themselves and their methods, they radicalize. You have been spreading a desperado teaching for long. It is cheap and it is wrong, believe me. We lack contributions where it matters.
(*) It is even de-facto constitutional and affects "content policies".
Bravo.
Hook up with Michael Geist in Canada, who's been exposing IP corruption (the bribery kind as well as the insidious kind) for a while now.
fighting the cuases of corruption may be more interesting. Here is a project, I am working on getting off the ground called property law wiki. a lot of corruption is caused by poor bureaucracy and lack of oversight, which then becomes and endemic cultural expectation. short video here http://nickgogerty.typepad.com/designing_better_futures/2007/06/framing_a_probl.html
powerpoint here:
http://nickgogerty.typepad.com/designing_better_futures/2007/06/making_property.html
Congrats and good luck. Please let me know how I can help. This is inspiring.
Sorry to see you (sorta) leave one noble endeavor, but happy to see you enter another. If you haven't already, check out The Sunlight Foundation, they're an awesome group and are right up your new alley.
One of today's greatest examples of corruption is illegal immigration.
We wouldn't have anywhere near as many illegal aliens here if politicians weren't corrupt for one reason or other: either they're being paid off with contributions or even directly, or they're expecting to get a good private sector job later, or they're looking for votes. And, the Feds are even trying to profit from illegal activity, as are thousands of businesses, including large ones such as banks and money transfer companies.
And, unfortunately, one of those corrupt politicians is Barack Obama, who marched at the May 1 2006 illegal immigration march in Chicago. The same march that was organized by those associated with Mexican political parties and those linked to the Mexican government.
If Prof. Lessig wants to do something about corruption, I urge him to look into illegal immigration, even if some of those he supports are on the wrong side.
The correct wikipedia link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
There seem to be two basic approaches:
a) Restructuring markets through regulation to ensure competition (for example, separation of backhaul and local-loop businesses from each other and from content and services), as well as other forms of reform aimed at making it more difficult to buy influence directly or indirectly (eg. sunshine laws and exposing astroturf operations).
b) The second approach is to make it radically easier and cheaper to 'do politics', so that large wads of cash are simply not very helpful anymore.
I think both are needed, but people have been advocating the former for a very long time without getting very far, so the latter may be a critical missing enabler. Most attempts I've seen at building this kind of infrastructure have been at the national level, making little headway except for gathering an opposing amount of cash. Perhaps focusing on local politics first (mayoral elections, judges, city councils, school boards) and scaling up will work better.
Well, dang it.
Thank you and much success to you, sir.
Only the ounce of prevention trumps the pound of cure needed in your new interest, as it does in even simpler matters like, "why do I need a bike lock?" "why do I need 100 passwords?" "why can't I hand a waiter/waitress my credit card anymore, without learning of thousands of dollars of fraudulent charges against it hundreds of miles away in another month?"
And that ounce of prevention is: "raise better human beings".
It's time to get serious about understanding the nature of "self" and "selfishness", and support those who do the real work of forming "self" (i.e. parents), with education on why one can do one's child (and others who will have to endure them) no greater disservice than to raise them to be habitually selfish.
PS: The reader would do well to do some homework on the nature of "self" and "selfishness" before hastily coming to conclusions about this based up on popular notions thereof.
Hey Larry,
Perhaps you are reaching the point of diminishing returns by focusing on IP reform. Everyone with an interest in the matter is familiar with your views and (excepting those with vested financial interests) everyone is agrees with you.
As to your new endeavor, the problem with good government types (goo-goos) is that they imagine what they want is naturally the best path for everyone. So if their system isn't explicitly a system of elites imposing their views on the public at large, implicitly their reforms mean elites get to overrule the yahoos. TLB's rant against immigration isn't far off base. The Rasmussen polls arre pretty clear cut that the elite opinion of immigration is in stark contrast to the public opinion of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
My point is, the path out of either elite rule or special interest rule is putting the "Wisdom of Crowds" in the political system. The most radical proposal is former Gov. Pete Dupont's suggestion that the House of Representatives be chosen randomly (like a jury pool). In terms of what could be achieved without a constitutional amendment, Ross Perot proposed an electronic referendum system (IIRC he meant as an advisory vote taken before Congress voted on issues) and Bruce Ackerman has proposed a Deliberation Day, when voters would be briefed and then hash out issues in groups two weeks before election day.
If you mash up the two: Before Congress votes on any issue, you could take a random sample of voters, have them go through a Deliberation Day and then take an advisory vote on the issue.
At the very least, Kevin Phillips idea that Members of Congress vote electronically from their home district office wouuld certainly confound the lobbyist class.
Can you help fight corruption in third world countries? Cause it is spoiling everything!
Please help create an anti corruption foundatin for Venezuela!
The keyword is "human". I´m from germany and perhaps it is the place, from where you can start your journey.
To understand the corruption you mean it could be helpful to understand money.
Try this:
http://www.humanwirtschaft-online.de
the post form June the 20th "Globalisation and Public Welfare with respect to the money and land order"
Larry,
I've read your books and have been an admirer. As you move forward regarding "corruption" you might consider a more balanced approach. All the "corruption" is not the resulte of big business running wild.
For example, the Democrat leadership in Congress changed not at all from the Republicans as it tries to use earmarks to bribe Democrat congressman to vote a particular way.
Union member dues are automatically used to support Democrat candidates and issues without individual union member consent.
We are still in Iraq despite the Democrat control of Congress and war funding.
Is it unreasonable that illegal aliens convicted of a crime should be deported? Why would Ted Kennedy be against this?
Is it reasonable that our state taxes continue to go up because state workers are gaming the pension system?
Finally, while there is no doubt about global warming, the cause is very much in doubt. Gore is entitled to his opinion, but it's just that - an opinion.
I could go on. As an original thinker, it behooves you to examine issues from all sides.
Thanks,
Bill
Maybe politicians shouldn't be allowed to serve for more than one term.
beowulf: here's a small step you and Lessig might consider:
http://petitiononline.com/debateit
As I've posted here before, making presidential debates open source is worthless if the questions they're asked are worthless. Much better to push for better questions. That would help reduce corruption by both politicians and the press.
From the link:
"Each [presidential] debate should be focused on just a few topics in order to avoid generalities. Debate moderators should consult with policy matter experts from across the entire spectrum, and ask them to craft questions designed to reveal flaws in the candidates' positions. Journalists are not policy experts, and there are some topics - such as immigration and globalization - where the mainstream media is aligned with most politicians despite what everyone else thinks. Moderators - together with experts from across the spectrum - should be allowed to ask a series of questions in order to hone in on a candidate's actual positions and in order to reveal flaws in their policies. "
Larry, you're the closest thing we have today to a Jefferson or Franklin. Thanks for taking up the most difficult fights, regardless of your chance of winning them.
Mr. Lessig,
Thanks for the shift, it's a good move; I think of IP problems and corruption of government/democracy by company money, the latter is the higher-level problem.
I've been trying to wake my friends for over five years now concerning this issue, and one thing is very clear: far to few people talk, or even think about the subject.
And neither the danger of this corruption to democracy, nor its recognition are new:
" "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That in its [sic] essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message proposing the "Standard Oil" Monopoly Investigation, 1938"
Cheers,
Martin
Thank you for your hard work over the years. You spent a lot of personal time on issues that matter to many of us, and it is appreciated greatly.
This is a tall an the mountain to climb.
Our money itself is corrupt. It was supposed to be either Silver or Gold.
The majority of our representatives don't actually write laws that obey the Constitution.
There is an argument that since the 14th Ammendment, we haven't actually been citizens of what we thought we were living in.
Why did WTC 7 fall?
Why did both towers fall like demolished towers when no other tower has ever fallen from fire? There has been a similar situation in Egypt that did not fall.
Why do our current Social Security cards look a lot like stock certificates?
When was the last time the US was not in a state of emergency?
Good Luck.
No complaints here, Larry. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is a problem that I have long despaired of, and I have seen no way for me, a typical middle-class guy, to effect change. It is a huge problem that I sincerely hope you can make a dent in, as I have all but written off my ability to do the same.
I will freely admit that there's a lot to the political process that I don't understand, but I've never understood the difference between political contributions and bribery. I mean, there *must* be a line somewhere, right? But darned if I can see a difference. Money changes hands, and it affects the process.
> until a more fundamental problem is fixed,
> "the movement" can't succeed
You get it. Thanks for your continued service in this crazy war of sanity vs. money.
Looking at corruption from 50,000 feet, two factors are:
1) persons without normal consciences, often referred to as sociopaths, who comprise perhaps 2% of the population.
2) complex social systems in which such persons can profitably engage in various unethical activities, including influencing the government for monetary gain.
I have a decent amount of