Comments on: Corruption and the Political Process

By: Mura

Mura — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:24:46 +0000

Performace [url=http://members.lycos.co.uk/dustinkeller/performace.html]Performace[/url] Typhoon Bicycle Wheels [url=http://members.lycos.co.uk/dustinkeller/typhoon-bicycle-wheels.html]Typhoon Bicycle Wheels[/url] First Class Northwest Airline Lugano [url=http://members.lycos.co.uk/dustinkeller/first-class-northwest-airline-lugano.html]First Class Northwest Airline Lugano[/url] Mary Queen Of Scots Execution [url=http://members.lycos.co.uk/dustinkeller/mary-queen-of-scots-execution.html]Mary Queen Of Scots Execution[/url] N Scale Home Layouts [url=http://members.lycos.co.uk/dustinkeller/n-scale-home-layouts.html]N Scale Home Layouts[/url]

By: Mura

Mura — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:24:46 +0000

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:57:31 +0000

" ... because it is the one that truly recognizes how people will behave ..."

I could write a longer rebuttal, but I think that says it all.

Well, one hint: The fact that people will sell their internal organs rather than die outright is not a deep philosophical revelation. But thinking that's so, is a profound philosophical shallowness.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:57:31 +0000

" ... because it is the one that truly recognizes how people will behave ..."

I could write a longer rebuttal, but I think that says it all.

Well, one hint: The fact that people will sell their internal organs rather than die outright is not a deep philosophical revelation. But thinking that's so, is a profound philosophical shallowness.

By: Braden

Braden — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:22:16 +0000

Tim and Brian, great comments. Libertarianism is often (mis)understood to be pro-business and money-centric, which confuses the effect of public policies (less regulation of markets and businesses) with the underlying motivation (freedom, voluntary association, mechanisms for assigning value). And despite popular notions to the contrary, I view libertarianism to be the most pragmatic of all the political philosophies, because it is the one that truly recognizes how people will behave given institutional arrangements and incentives, no matter what the letter of the law. So we’ll have influence-buying despite campaign finance reform, it’ll just be less direct and transparent than if through dollar donations. Libertarians are also more pragmatic when it comes to recognizing the costs and failures of government. As Tim said, it’s hard to mobilize the millions of Americans who are only marginally negatively affected to fight legislation if it benefits a vocal and visible few. Multiply this affect many times over and you have our present day over-regulated society.

By: Braden

Braden — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:22:16 +0000

By: ATFlynn

ATFlynn — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:38:38 +0000

I understand the argument but the quality of the language is well above me.
If you look at my BBC, Website, I have suggested that once you remove the power to levy Taxation, from the government of the day, the government has to govern in the interers of all the people.
Today, with Information Technology, and a shift in the practice of employment and remuneration or wages, it is legally possible in the United Kingdom to receive your income beyond the jurisdiction of the Treasury and HMRC. From there it is only a short step to establish what I call a Parish Council Tax Collecton unit. But the rate of Taxation will remain with the Parishoners.
I am also sure that this concept will work for many other European Countries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G2287
The URL of, Sovereignty Politics Taxation. All things Bright and Beautiful.
Top of the Google Search Engine. (Very Primitive. My scribble.)
Regards, ATFlynn.

By: ATFlynn

ATFlynn — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:38:38 +0000

I understand the argument but the quality of the language is well above me. If you look at my BBC, Website, I have suggested that once you remove the power to levy Taxation, from the government of the day, the government has to govern in the interers of all the people. Today, with Information Technology, and a shift in the practice of employment and remuneration or wages, it is legally possible in the United Kingdom to receive your income beyond the jurisdiction of the Treasury and HMRC. From there it is only a short step to establish what I call a Parish Council Tax Collecton unit. But the rate of Taxation will remain with the Parishoners. I am also sure that this concept will work for many other European Countries. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G2287 The URL of, Sovereignty Politics Taxation. All things Bright and Beautiful. Top of the Google Search Engine. (Very Primitive. My scribble.) Regards, ATFlynn.

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:01:01 +0000

Seth, you don't understand libertarianism, or money.

"And holds that the best society is one which maximizes the powers of money versus any other value."

Yeah, you don't get it. Money isn't a thing. It's a subjective, conveniently collectively-understood expression of value "this truck is worth 10$ to me." So forget the word "money" -- so long as people have things worth value, they will attempt to trade them for things with a higher value to them. In many cases, you can trade things to politicians in order to get them to force other people to do things that get you even more things.

To stop this problem, you have to remove at least one of:
1. People wanting more than they have. (money, cars, goats, land, whatever)
2. The political power to grant those value increasing trades.

You can't remove "money" from the equation because it's not a thing. It's an expression of how much people value things, and you can't exactly remove that. If it weren't dollars it would be camels or pretty stones or back massages.

You say we ignore:

"Drive money out of politics ,and while you won't end corruption, you'll keep it at a lower level than otherwise".

So in societies that have abolished currency, has there been less corruption?

You say we're the ones obsessed with money, yet we're saying that you can bribe people in a lot more ways than with money.

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:01:01 +0000

Seth, you don't understand libertarianism, or money.

"And holds that the best society is one which maximizes the powers of money versus any other value."

Yeah, you don't get it. Money isn't a thing. It's a subjective, conveniently collectively-understood expression of value "this truck is worth 10$ to me." So forget the word "money" -- so long as people have things worth value, they will attempt to trade them for things with a higher value to them. In many cases, you can trade things to politicians in order to get them to force other people to do things that get you even more things.

To stop this problem, you have to remove at least one of: 1. People wanting more than they have. (money, cars, goats, land, whatever) 2. The political power to grant those value increasing trades.

You can't remove "money" from the equation because it's not a thing. It's an expression of how much people value things, and you can't exactly remove that. If it weren't dollars it would be camels or pretty stones or back massages.

You say we ignore:

"Drive money out of politics ,and while you won't end corruption, you'll keep it at a lower level than otherwise".

So in societies that have abolished currency, has there been less corruption?

You say we're the ones obsessed with money, yet we're saying that you can bribe people in a lot more ways than with money.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:51:49 +0000

(That personal post is now up.)

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:13:51 +0000

As I said, no personal offense intended. I used to read what you wrote a bit more regularly, but I’ve dropped down my TLF reading in general recently, since it’s probably not helpful all around. I came by today because Lessig’s post struck a chord in me.

I think you’re misreading what I mean by “worship business”, in that I mean it as an ideal, not any particular existing players (I sometimes say, busines as a verb, not a noun). That is, you’re not a Republican (1/2 ).

With that understanding, I hope the criticism is clearer. The point is that Libertarianism is an extraordinarily money-centric way of thinking (this is not debateable – anything that seriously talks about the virtues of selling your internal organs or your kids should not protest that characterization), so people who subscribe to it are going to have a hard time dealing with crticisms of money’s influence.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:51:49 +0000

(That personal post is now up.)

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:37:31 +0000

Seth, do you read what I write here on TLF, or do you just pop in occasionally to hector me? Because I don’t think anyone could plausibly characterize it as worshipping business.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:34:24 +0000

"But I think he gets it completely backwards when he suggests that money has corrupted the political process ..."

Yes, well, that's because you're a Libertarian, which, not to be harsh on you personally, worships business. And holds that the best society is one which maximizes the powers of money versus any other value.

Others, err, disagree.

One flaw in the post above is right here: "Drive money out of politics and you won’t end corruption; you’ll just shift ..."

This implicitly assumes all corruption is equivalent, and excludes a line of reasoning that runs "Drive money out of politics ,and while you won't end corruption, you'll keep it at a lower level than otherwise".

I'm not going to go into the rest of the flaws, life's too short. Suffice it to say that line of proselytizing has been heard many times.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:18:57 +0000

Doh. ‘so the announcement…’ has really been in the forefront of my mind all night, especially as I’ve occasionally of late questioned my own decision to focus my career on social production. If only I had a tenured position at Stanford to fall back on while I changed my focus, it might be easier to do

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:16:52 +0000

I think deliberately vague. Keep in mind that this isn’t completely selfless sacrifice on his part- being a professed amateur in a new field means that he can spend several years staying at home and raising his children, and his absence will allow his movements to grow a new generation of much-needed leadership in the resulting vacuum. If he explicitly linked the two right now, he’d still be chained to the old responsibilities and take up air from the new leaders who will replace him. Furthermore, if he said from day one ‘free culture is the solution to corruption’ he’d be stigmatized from day one as ‘the free culture guy’, rather than being ‘just’ a skilled public intellectual with a neutral approach to methods. Much more likely to get cooperation from entrenched interests that way. If he does anything well, it is shucking off the rhetorical shackles of those who have proceeded him (e.g., Stallman) and using the perceived clean slate to bring the same ideas to a broader audience. Here, ironically, the person who he is competing with (potentially) is himself- all the more reason for him to publicly disclaim his past and start fresh, even if in the long term he plans to return to the same roots as part of the solution.

Of course, this could all just be denial; check my blog in the morning for a deeply personal and emotional post on his announcement- I wouldn’t be who I am without Lessig, so the announcement

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:13:51 +0000

I think you’re misreading what I mean by “worship business”, in that I mean it as an ideal, not any particular existing players (I sometimes say, busines as a verb, not a noun). That is, you’re not a Republican (1/2 ).

With that understanding, I hope the criticism is clearer. The point is that Libertarianism is an extraordinarily money-centric way of thinking (this is not debateable – anything that seriously talks about the virtues of selling your internal organs or your kids should not protest that characterization), so people who subscribe to it are going to have a hard time dealing with crticisms of money’s influence.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:04:01 +0000

I can hope! It’s true that his post was vague enough that I don’t really have a clue what his specific research agenda will be. I guess I’ll have to wait and see.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:37:31 +0000

Seth, do you read what I write here on TLF, or do you just pop in occasionally to hector me? Because I don’t think anyone could plausibly characterize it as worshipping business.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:34:24 +0000

"But I think he gets it completely backwards when he suggests that money has corrupted the political process ..."

Yes, well, that's because you're a Libertarian, which, not to be harsh on you personally, worships business. And holds that the best society is one which maximizes the powers of money versus any other value.

Others, err, disagree.

One flaw in the post above is right here: "Drive money out of politics and you won’t end corruption; you’ll just shift ..."

This implicitly assumes all corruption is equivalent, and excludes a line of reasoning that runs "Drive money out of politics ,and while you won't end corruption, you'll keep it at a lower level than otherwise".

I'm not going to go into the rest of the flaws, life's too short. Suffice it to say that line of proselytizing has been heard many times.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:18:57 +0000

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:16:52 +0000

I think deliberately vague. Keep in mind that this isn't completely selfless sacrifice on his part- being a professed amateur in a new field means that he can spend several years staying at home and raising his children, and his absence will allow his movements to grow a new generation of much-needed leadership in the resulting vacuum. If he explicitly linked the two right now, he'd still be chained to the old responsibilities and take up air from the new leaders who will replace him. Furthermore, if he said from day one 'free culture is the solution to corruption' he'd be stigmatized from day one as 'the free culture guy', rather than being 'just' a skilled public intellectual with a neutral approach to methods. Much more likely to get cooperation from entrenched interests that way. If he does anything well, it is shucking off the rhetorical shackles of those who have proceeded him (e.g., Stallman) and using the perceived clean slate to bring the same ideas to a broader audience. Here, ironically, the person who he is competing with (potentially) is himself- all the more reason for him to publicly disclaim his past and start fresh, even if in the long term he plans to return to the same roots as part of the solution.

Of course, this could all just be denial; check my blog in the morning for a deeply personal and emotional post on his announcement- I wouldn't be who I am without Lessig, so the announcement

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:04:01 +0000

I can hope! It’s true that his post was vague enough that I don’t really have a clue what his specific research agenda will be. I guess I’ll have to wait and see.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:19:47 +0000

I think you may be jumping to conclusions in suggesting that he sees the core of the solution as more regulation, Tim. I’m sure regulation may be part of the solution (he hasn’t exactly shied from it in the past), but more generally I’d guess that the thrust of his focus will be in the direction he has been working in for years- free-er manipulation of core information, better forms of feedback, more competitive media, etc. The examples here would be the freeing of the debates and his incessant speaking and blogging rather than the suggestion that the FCC regulate network neutrality.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:19:47 +0000