Laurence Lessing in his article "A Costly Addiction" talked about the framers of our republic were obsessed with dependency. He went on to define what he thought this meant to the framers, he thought that what we as Americans think of dependency is different. Dependency can be thought of in terms to addiction to alcohol, drugs, or anything that we are dependent upon. Laurence stated that framers claimed dependency to be when a citizen was considered dependent when he was not free to act in the public good because his own well-being depended on a particular result. What started this whole article was a n email he received from a colleague who wanted to discuss Network neutrality. However at the end of this colleagues email there was a lengthy disclaimer. "Let me say," he wrote, "that I am not representing … any company in this debate. I … have declined to represent [anyone] on anything to do with net neutrality ... I have also broken with a coalition with whom I was working on these issues [in part] because of … the corporate money I found to be behind the sponsors. I say this so you can be sure that I have no agenda other than a scholarly one."
Lessing likened the way our politicians run for government to rats in an experiment learning which lever delivers food. Politicians are spending the majority of their time trying to raise money for their election. By the time they are elected they are dependent to the contributors who have their own agendas and wishes for policy they want to see in place. In regards to the internet and the history of policymaking the winners have been the industry's most skilled in playing politics and the losers have been the ones focused on innovation instead of sucking up to Congress. He ended that this practice will not change until private interests are not the ones funding public elections.
I am in agreement with Lessing on this topic the more politicians spend on their elections the more other parties are able to influence their choices in congress. Our politicians were originally supposed to represent the people now it seems to be the ones who have the money get to be heard and we are not focusing on innovation. The internet is a free space however if certain groups get their way they will be able to control the laws in regards to the internet.
Publication Date: 2006-11-02
Format: Magazine Article
Bibliography: Lawrence Lessig, A Costly Addiction, Wired, November 2006
http://www.lessig.org/content/#
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Lessig (and you) completely. It seems, for a very long time now, that most of the winning politicians in our country are the ones that raise the most money. Alot of the campaign money does come from special interest groups. Some of these groups want to make changes that aren't always good for the U.S. people. Some of these groups will even influence the winning politicians to change aspects of the internet and web, such as who gets access in certain RL communities, and laws governing what can be shown on the web. We certainly need more innovative ideas from politicians in this day and age of U.S. downfall. Unfortunately, these innovative politicians don't always have the money and fame to get them elected. Politicians DO need money and funds to run their campaigns, but these private interest groups need to have vast limits set on them. Politicians, as stated in the beginning of your article summary, should not have their agenda set by special and private interest groups, but rather by a group of intelligent and scholarly people that will make rules and laws more for the good of the people of this country.
ReplyDeletegood post, nancy
ReplyDelete