I have a good understanding of what Lessig has been arguing; when I saw your comment, I figured that I must of missed something so I watched the video and it's exactly what I thought it would be. I'm a fan of his in a lot of ways, but I often disagree with him when it comes to specifics -- we both see the same problems but have different takes on their solutions.
He's not attacking the root, he's attacking the branches. If government did not have the power to dole out favors no one would spend money trying to influence it. That, however , is incompatible with his worldview. He wants a strong federal government intervening a wide variety of issues - so that his will can be imposed upon others (I say his, because it would be odd if he was fighting so that someone could impose their will on him).
I completely agree with him on all the "corruption" claims, and on how they get compensated when they leave - there is no disagreement there. Though he does conflate 2 funding issues: 1. campaign funding 2. personal wealth. His attack is only focused on #1, whereas #2 also exists and is mentioned in his talk about former congressmen ending up @ K street or in large corporations. Nothing in his proposal would address problem #2, for a congressman can pass all sorts of bullshit laws and then go and work at Disney or Monsanto.
As for being systems thinkers, I agree - and in fact I think that's why pushing power from the federal to state makes a lot of sense. It increases stability, allows for experimentation and reduces the effects of corruption. Personally, I abhor politics because it's all about violence and force and not about consensus and compromise. Right now, we are stuck with a winner takes all system with government when everywhere else in our lives we are seeing an abundance of choice, the book Declaration of Independents has some good ideas on this topic, if you're interested http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independents-Libertarian-P...
Here's a franklin quote: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
He's not attacking the root, he's attacking the branches. If government did not have the power to dole out favors no one would spend money trying to influence it. That, however , is incompatible with his worldview. He wants a strong federal government intervening a wide variety of issues - so that his will can be imposed upon others (I say his, because it would be odd if he was fighting so that someone could impose their will on him).
I completely agree with him on all the "corruption" claims, and on how they get compensated when they leave - there is no disagreement there. Though he does conflate 2 funding issues: 1. campaign funding 2. personal wealth. His attack is only focused on #1, whereas #2 also exists and is mentioned in his talk about former congressmen ending up @ K street or in large corporations. Nothing in his proposal would address problem #2, for a congressman can pass all sorts of bullshit laws and then go and work at Disney or Monsanto.
As for being systems thinkers, I agree - and in fact I think that's why pushing power from the federal to state makes a lot of sense. It increases stability, allows for experimentation and reduces the effects of corruption. Personally, I abhor politics because it's all about violence and force and not about consensus and compromise. Right now, we are stuck with a winner takes all system with government when everywhere else in our lives we are seeing an abundance of choice, the book Declaration of Independents has some good ideas on this topic, if you're interested http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independents-Libertarian-P...
Here's a franklin quote: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."