
America, Compromised: Lawrence Lessig Explains Corruption - pdkl95
https://boingboing.net/2018/10/22/structural-corruption.html
======
grecy
Anyone who thinks America doesn't have a lot of corruption doesn't understand
how the world works.

I've been driving around Africa for 2 years now, and at least here it's always
really blatant and clear.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _at least here it 's always really blatant and clear_

Because there is more of it.

~~~
grecy
No. It's because it happens face to face between regular people on the street.
i.e. me and a military man holding an AK 47.

In America, it happens behind closed doors in boardrooms and offices.

'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than _newspeak_ for
corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of
power to make a decision that is in your favor.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _' Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for
> corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of
> power to make a decision that is in your favor._

You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can
spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-
regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, _et
cetera_ , or less-regulated PACs.

Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and
the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is
another.

Claiming corruption in America even rivals most of the world is
unsubstantiated. The inverse is well substantiated.

~~~
Buldak
I don't see a meaningful difference between personal and political spending
here. If I can pay a politician to enact a policy I want, perhaps to the
detriment of his constituency or society at large, what do I care if he goes
on to spend that money on sports cars or his campaign to retain office? As far
as I'm concerned it's quid pro quo either way.

~~~
Green_man
This might be pedantic, but legally speaking, if you were to "pay a
politician" for voting a certain way, it would be highly illegal. "quid pro
quo", on a campaign contribution or a porsche or a briefcase of cash is all
illegal.

~~~
calgoo
IMO, lobbying is legalized bribing, so too me, lobbying is paying a politician
to vote or do as you ask.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _lobbying is legalized bribing_

So when I call my elected leaders to voice up about an issue, that's bribery?
Because what I'm doing is lobbying. Or, if I call my elected leader and patch
in a friend in another state who's more knowledgeable about the domain, is
that lobbying?

If it's not, then what if my friend and I both patch in an out-of-district
friend? What if we form a formal club? If we want (a) freedom of political
speech and (b) freedom of political assembly, it gets really hard to separate
a grassroots interest group from a destructive commercial one. (And should
civic interests _always_ trump commercial interests? That's a political
question, too!)

TL; DR Democracy can't exist without lobbying. With respect to _paid_
lobbying, I might agree, but the devil's in the details.

------
nraynaud
Yeah corruption is weird in the US, I live in Arizona, I see adverts paid by
the monopoly utility where police and fire fighters in uniform declare
themselves against some environmental measure.

Will they retaliate against the zones that don’t vote their way?

~~~
metalliqaz
Yes.

The recent tax bill was a good example. It was constructed to inflict the most
pain on blue states.

~~~
rrggrr
How much should the federal government subsidize the continued gentrification,
inequality and inflation in home prices? On the one hand liberals decry
inequality. On the other hand they rage against tax reform that made it MORE
costly for wealthy homeowners to create regions where housing is less
available and affordable. If you don't understand this, then you don't
understand the recent tax bill.

~~~
tdb7893
I know I don't really understand the most recent tax bill but I've heard that
red states will get more of the benefit from the changes in it. Is that not
true or is there a good reason for it?

~~~
metalliqaz
It's not so much benefit but less pain. There are many changes, but one of the
most significant is the removal of the deduction for state taxes paid.

Blue states tend to spend a lot more money on government services, especially
education. This makes the taxes higher, but it was evened out somewhat by a
reduction in federal tax burden. With that gone, it adds a lot more pressure
to tax payers in states with higher property taxes. Those states tend to be
blue. When evaluating the wisdom of this change, keep in mind that those
states also tend to be net payers into the federal system, while red states
tend to be net takers from the federal system. There are exceptions but the
trend is clear.

------
tenpoundhammer
> Lessig lays out the historic case for the Framers' understanding of
> corruption as a systemic phenomenon, in which the structure of institutions
> demand that even the best, most moral people sacrifice their principles to
> thrive (or just survive)

One of the most annoying aspects of social discourse right now is that
everyone is redefining words and very few people have a common meaning for
important words. Lessig's definition of corruption is different than my
definition and different than the legal definition. I see this happening all
over the place "hate speech" is also a good example every time I have a
conversation or read an article about "hate speech" the definition has
changed.

How are we supposed to have civil discourse when the meanings of words are
constantly shifting?

~~~
Pfhreak
The evolution of language has never not been a thing. Part of having a civil
discourse is keeping up with evolving societal definitions.

Maybe technology is speeding that evolution, given the rate at which we're
able to converse, you could convince me it's more difficult to keep up with
the evolution today than it has historically been.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
tenpoundhammer isn't talking about the normal evolution of language, but
rather about people trying to change the definitions of words to make their
positions seem more reasonable/acceptable. That also is not a new thing, but
it's different from "the evolution of language".

------
fosco
Ad for a book, albeit seems like it _could_ be a fun and even potentially a
good read. this is still an ad for a book.

a review would have been nicer rather then simply stating Chicago School is
evil and setting up for the foundation of his argument. If this is suppose to
read asd a review for some reason it feels like it is missing something that I
cannot put my finger on yet.

~~~
mbostleman
"...the Chicago School economists who used shitty math to prove that greed is
good and that corruption consists solely of direct quid-pro-quo bribery..."

Yea, I stopped there. Interested in other's reactions though.

~~~
weberc2
That one was a doozy, but this was the final straw for me:

> Lessig walks a fine line between academic and activist

Society doesn't need (and can't afford) more people conflating activism and
academy.

~~~
pc86
Conflating would be calling an activist an academic because they wrote a paper
once, or calling an academic an activist because they have opinions. Saying
that Lessig is right between the two without going full bore into one or the
other seems like a pretty apt description. And from his Wikipedia page:

> _Lester Lawrence Lessig III is an American academic, attorney, and political
> activist._

So it's pretty clear that he's both.

~~~
weberc2
I think my point was poorly phrased, so the replies all (understandably)
missed my point, which was roughly: there are lots of "academics" whose
"research" is purely political/ideological activism and they're eroding the
public trust in the academy generally. I'm specifically thinking of the folks
who push climate change denialism or basically anyone in the grievance studies
departments. In modern times, activist/academics more often than not seem to
be these sorts of imposters (maybe I'm biased by relatively few 'squeaky
wheels' and there are lots of legit academics/activists?).

Others have rightly pointed out that there have been many examples of
academics who were also activists, and you're pointing out that Lessig is an
academic on paper (as are the "academics" I referenced in the previous
paragraph, although Lessig may be legitimate). Both of these are valid,
correct observations, but they miss my point (which isn't to say that my point
is good; only that it survives these observations! :) ).

------
platz
Lessig's bid as a 2016 presidential candidate on the premise that he would
reform campaign finance and the immediately resign the presidency to VP was
charming, inspiring, and somewhat amusing.

~~~
Bartweiss
I wonder if you could swing a candidacy like that if you aimed lower than the
Presidency?

I can think of several states that might jump at a gubernatorial candidate who
said "I will take no political positions. I'll fix/repeal these faulty laws,
reform those finance and districting issues, then resign." And a few towns
have actually done it already when their budget issues got bad enough.

Obviously it's going to draw opposition from whoever thinks the finance or
districting problems are benefitting them, but some places do hit the point
where process issues look like a bigger deal than political ones.

------
SonnyWortzik
Most think that corruption is the problem when in fact corruption is just a
symptom.

In social change this is the only one that matters:

"(what is profitable)" all other "forces" are bound by this at systemic level.

> "(what is considered ethical)"

it can only function if you go back to "what is profitable" because if it is
not ethical and there is no law to prevent it then it will be done because it
is profitable.

If it is ethical, and it is not profitable, you can rest assure it will not be
pursued not matter how good you feel.

Example: Feed the hungry, it is a great ethical idea, but it is seldom
profitable so you do not see any company going out of their way to invest in
feeding the hungry.

> "(what is legal)"

this also runs only on what is profitable. If it is not legal, but it is
profitable then you can be sure that the laws will soon be changed to
accommodate. i.e. Cannabis movement.

> "(what is technically possible)"

also runs on what is profitable. We can technically do anything we want but is
it profitable?

Don't be fooled by these articles that find a "novel" way of looking at the
problem. It is just noise. If you can't fix the monetary policy in the world,
then "what is profitable" will always be what drives any social change

------
MarkLowenstein
Would this be a good example of the kind of corruption he's talking about?

[https://www.npr.org/2016/12/10/505079091/lawrence-lessig-
off...](https://www.npr.org/2016/12/10/505079091/lawrence-lessig-offers-free-
legal-aid-to-anti-trump-electors)

------
claydavisss
HN is slowly becoming a political message board in a world that already has
all of the political message boards it needs or wants.

HN even has brigaders now. Its really pathetic. dang you have let this go to
shit, I don't really care if you ban my account for saying so either.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
I would assume people of most political bents would be against corruption.

~~~
claydavisss
Lessig's views are political opinions and nothing more. His use of the term
"corruption" is conjecture, plain and simple.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
> His use of the term "corruption" is conjecture, plain and simple.

I suppose people in certain positions would have to be of this view, for their
internal sanity.

