Comments on: Larry Lessig Takes on The World

By: Manfred Gabriel

Manfred Gabriel — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:34:49 +0000

Geoff, I think there is a lot of room between the privitatization of public policy and politics in a vacuum. Sure, there have always been special interest, corporate or not, and they have had varying degrees of influence of politics. (Weren’t burgeois revolutions fought about this?) One of the tenets of the liberal state was the control of the state over central infrastructure. There are good arguments against what you call the bloated political system, but we will also need to look carefully at what we consider infrastructure going forward (I would count information-distribution technology) and who we think should be in control of it: (1) no one, (2) the state, or (3) private special interest or corporations.

By: Hanno Kaiser

Hanno Kaiser — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:25:33 +0000

The question is whether governments are necessarily corrupt or not. If they are necessarily corrupt, because, after all, they are run by self-interested people, then I agree with you that we're better off with an ultra-minimal state a la Nozick or even with anarcho capitalism a la David Friedman. But if governments are not necessarily corrupt, because, given the right institutional framework (checks and balances, separation of power, public financing of elections, etc.) even self interested people have the capacity to act in the public interest, then we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of good government. (I know, the idea of good government is becoming increasinly hard to maintain, given present conditions. So maybe cynicism is indeed rational and any residual idealism is naive.) In my view, as you know, good government, honest government, government, in other words "of the people, by the people, for the people" is possibe and if achieved, even imperfectly, it can be a great promoter of societal good, and in that role it can achieve more than the market left to its own devices. I doubt that markets alone would protect the environment, would provide for sufficient education, would reach out to the poor, mantain shelters, would get you a lawyer if you're down and out and accused of a serious crime, etc. But, and that, I think is the baseline commitment to libertarianism, as soon as you show me that in any of these and other areas markets do a better job than the government (how hard can that be?), I'll be the first to insist that the government get out of the way.

By: geoff

geoff — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:22:05 +0000

Hanno, I’m surprised at you. Are you so naive to believe that politics could and would exist in a vacuum were it not for those evil private interests out to subvert it? Do you really think that, absent corporations, politicians would be pure-minded, noble souls, out to ensure nothing but the betterment of mankind? And do you really think that the problem is private influence instead of a political system that extends itself so fully and firmly into every facet of our lives that it creates a massive incentive for private interests to attempt to exert influence? Larry Lessig is not about to see political excess as the problem (no matter how many times he describes himself as a libertarian). I’m sorry he lost Eldred and became so bitter. I’m disappointed that he believes that the only reason a political system could oppose his view is that it is corrupt. I’m no great fan of our bloated political system, but I’m absolutely certain that Larry Lessig will do nothing useful to stymie the actual problem. Lessig consistently fails to distinguish the implications of government intrusions into our lives from those of private actors in his books, and anyone who believes that the real threat to life as we know it is George Lucas and not the likes of Ted Stevens, Ted Kennedy and, yes, his beloved Al Gore is a fool. Not to put too fine a point on it.