DISQUS

ReACTIONary · 11 months ago

One aspect of this issue you don't seem to get... the American people want, and expect, and demand, that the government regulate commercial activity. And that includes commercial as well as consumer interests. All for very good reason.

So the progressive vision of a "scientific" or "professional" bureaucracy is hopelessly idealistic and utopian? And what is it that you propose to fill the demand? The hopelessly idealistic and utopian ideology of "free markets"? On the reality index, Lessig is way ahead of you.

eee_eff · 11 months ago

Now, I certainly realize how unpopular this will be to some, but if you believe in the plain text of the Constitution then you should respect the right of citizens (including corporate entities) to petition (i.e., “lobby”)

Silly.

First, citizens do not equal corporations.
See:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1010954

Second, lobbying is very different from petitioning.

Seth Finkelstein · 11 months ago

Adam, as I commented on Lessig's post, I thought his argument was particularly interesting for being aimed in a Libertarian direction, as an intellectual construct.

What I didn't say, was that I thought it wouldn't work. Same problem as his _Eldred_ argument. The law professor arguing from abstraction, neglecting that in reality the theory is just in the service of the practice of business-worship. He'd likely just get mad at me then, for being too cynical.

Thanks for providing me with proof. 1/2 :-)

Your industry informationguide · 11 months ago

With so many things going wrong, there is a need for better governance and bureaucrats. But then, it again depends on people coming together to voice their opinions and form string bonds for the betterment of the world.

Brett Glass · 11 months ago

Hmmm. Isn't the assertion that "you can't fix DNA" a racist remark?

In any event, it's interesting that Lessig first calls for an end to unnecessary regulation and then, almost immediately, calls for "network neutrality" legislation. I guess Google is paying him well.

MikeRT · 11 months ago

Lessig is essentially calling for the same sort of “scientific” or “professional” bureaucracy that his progressive forefathers advocated a century ago when the modern regulatory leviathan was being envisioned and erected. But what has changed since then? Nothing. Special interests were able to gain influence then just as they do now.

A government of technocrats is not likely to do much good, even when you look at it on paper. It's not enough that they be gifted in their field, but they must also be good administrators and be able to play politics. Usually, those characteristics cancel each other out which is no small part of the reason why these proposals have never worked when implemented. Let's not forget that despite being an engineer by profession, Herbert Hoover didn't have the administrative skills to streamline government regulation and spending in any ways that limited the damage of the stock market crash or the recession-turned-depression.

bradencox · 11 months ago

Wayne Crews and I proposed a pragmatic plan to strip most functions from the FCC in a paper we wrote a few years ago. In Communications without Commissions, we say the FCC of the near future should focus solely on spectrum, getting spectrum into the marketplace and resolving interference disputes. Three steps for reform:

1. Restrict FCC jurisdiction so that it can't regulate IP-based services
2. Eliminate economic regulation and divest social policy goals
3. Restructure the FCC and Reform Spectrum

We're at a pivotal time now, and policymakers should not perpetuate and generate new rationalizations for FCC oversight of communications. It's time for a true reformer.

JimLakely · 11 months ago

Great post, as usual, Adam. I must say that I was intrigued to see numerous links and attention paid to Lessig call to "blow up" the FCC. The quick summaries of Lessig's thesis seemed to hint at a healthy libertarian viewpoint (after all, what is more libertarian than blowing up a federal agency.)

Alas, Lessig's idea is to blow up the FCC and replace it with an even more focused and aggressive government bureaucracy. I'd prefer a status-quo incompetent FCC to a new regulatory regime. And I'm continually tickled by the "progressive" assumption that only government bureaucrats are objective and competent enough to know what's best for the public. By default, that is, anyone with "industry ties" works against the public interest -- and the public (the market) is powerless to affect the technology world.

Rubbish. If Lessig is genuinely interested in improving the Net experience for the public, he ought to be in favor of blowing up the FCC and using his influence to push the market to adopt his preferred policies. It's certainly a more honest, and probably quicker, road.

Jim Harper · 12 months ago

What kind of insane person posts at TLF on Christmas eve? And what kind of jackass comments on Ch- nevermind.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Jim Harper · 12 months ago

Nice post, Adam. There seems to be a theme around here lately - whether the Progressive-era ideal of "scientific government" actually began to die when Stephen Breyer admitted its failure, or whether it just went into hiding for a while.

cordblomquist · 11 months ago

Is there any way to get Professor Lessig to respond to this sort of critique? I'd love to read a dialogue between Lee/Thierer and Lessig.