What's Next for American Democracy | Lawrence Lessig | TEDxMarin
One of our nation’s most provocative thinkers on American Democracy shares his views on the state of our democracy and the original ideals for our Republic. Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. More info at lessig.org Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. (The Roy Furman chair is in honor of this extraordinary alumnus.)
Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, where he was the Berkman Professor of Law until 2000, Lessig was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school’s Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago.
Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. He serves on the Board of the AXA Research Fund, and is an Emeritus member of the board at Creative Commons.
Lessig is a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Association, and has received numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Award, Fastcase 50 Award. In 2002, he was named one of Scientific American’s Top 50 Visionaries.
Lessig holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge, and a JD from Yale. More info at lessig.org This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
Every now and then the videos suggested by the algorithm kick you a real gem; this is one of those times
This Ted talk was from the heart. It is also repressents what I feel in my heart. ❤🇺🇸
I AGREE with you these ideals ae great...............But it ain't coming back. Americans care more about "NASCAR, their Cell phone, the back-up camera they don't neeed on their car, in short how many PLEASURES AND GADGETS they can buy on CREDIT. It is GONE FOREVER.
I appreciate his closing remarks that this fight is still worth it despite a chance of losing. The fight for our ideals is more important than living in those ideals
Can you explain what you mean when you say that the fight is more important than living in the ideals? I'll just give a quick example of where I feel that living in the ideal is just as important, if not more important, than fighting for them. Free speech is one major ideal that it is very important that we live and breathe because it's the one that even allows us to fight for our ideals.
This is brilliant and comprehensive. I also salute your work in developing Creative Commons, which I see as the great alternative to monopolies founded on intellectual property.
This is a TED talk that every American should see, especially Congress
This is... amazing. I haven't felt the way this made me feel in a long, long time. I've pondered a lot of t hings over a lot of years, and I hear so many things I've concluded for myself echoed here. I do have to say, though, that I don't regard issue #1 as nearly so compelling and "obvious" as I do #2 and #3. I think the whole topic of military bases is much more of a gray area - it really depends on how we *use* those bases more than it does their mere presence. There could be plenty of positive effects of our presence around the world. This is not to say that I don't think we have "misbehaved overseas" - I think we definiitely have, and we should put an end to it. But that doesn't necessarily equate to closing the bases in my mind. On the surveillance and business size issues, though, I could not agree more strongly.
I generally agree with you, though I might suggest that military coalitions between nations are the solution. The US has a military spending problem because the world has ever-growing problems. Deferring a lot of our military's responsibilities to say NATO could help to demilitarize us.
@@JM-us3fr globalization is the ultimate autocracy and monopolization
@@jadenrieken4535 Okay well that’s your opinion. My opinion is (like it or not) globalization is inevitable, so we might as well try to work with it to better humanity. Whether it’s a global government or just a loose alliance to generally be better at cooperating; whatever the final form of globalization is, we have to work with it.
the bases support the big corporations and the surveillance state; can't have one without the others
Timeless knowledge & truth.......Thank You!
Thank you. Brutal truth. I supported your pres run.
This is important, how do we disseminate it? Lawrence Lessig is a jewel.
That was mind-blowing!
Every American should watch this. It’s alarming that this has so few views, especially compared to Lawrence’ many other talks, people have probably given up.
Bernie Sanders makes a historical argument against „doomerism“.
Thank you!
For a good review of FBI abuse of wiretap surveillance Tim Weiner's book Enemies is fascinating Enemies: A History of the FBI He has focus/biases but it is an eye opener and discusses the process by which it was pursued
He talked about the USA becoming imperialist as a betrayal of what it was, but Washington described the country in his time as the start of a new empire.
love this video
Great video.
Hear, hear!
First, without doubt, this talk is a fruit of passion and loyalty to the work, as well as to the ideas and beliefs. I admire the depth of this speech. Nonetheless, despite Dr. Lessing's arguments in favor of intelligent methods of disseminating democracy, I would like challenging such an approach. To make a long story short, please come over to Ukraine and look at the consequences of unarmed democracy's existence.
easy out
he didn't say unarmed just fewer foreign bases
Ukraine should have kept those nukes. Wish you had.
Well said.
The more populated and diverse a country the more difficult to maintain ideals, The powerful, worldwide, always control, forcing the weaker to do their bidding.
How does one join the fight?
This is amazing. Larry for president
It should be titled what’s next for our republic! Cause that’s what we are!
A republic is a representative democracy.
16:29 - for a microcosm view of this term's root, see Morgan Spurlock's "Supersize Me 2: Holy Chicken." I think "chickenization" is far better than the hack phrase "race to the bottom."
Right on right on right on! The original social system in the early days of the USA was basically a rehash of feudalism. The founding fathers of the USA were mini kings ruling mini kingdoms; vast land holdings and estates with slaves and servants. They owned everything, the land, the sawmills, grain mills, bridges and roads. The farmers and their families who were allowed to live on and work the land for a percentage of the crops were their serfs, some were slaves. In New England there were dynasties like the Van Rennselaers, Schulyers, in the mid Altlanitc Jefferson, Washington and others. We know what was going on in the south. The kings of these mini kingdoms eventually realized they were as serfs of the bigger kingdom, the British monarchy, and decided they wanted their mini kingdoms all to themselves and didn't want to give a share to the British monarch. That was the American revolution. The British monarchy was a mega version of feudalism that had been whittled down and curbed over centuries (The Magna Carta i.e.). The common farmers on the land owners estates were promised their own land if they fought in the revolutionary war against the British. After the war the American land owners renegged and there was a series of "mini-revolutions" against them. These mini revolutions against the founding fathers are where the real ideals of individual freedom came from.
The only thing more depressing than this video only getting 12,000 views is the fact that it only got 399 likes, including mine. And this is only the 50th comment. True democracy in America is dead and few seem to know or care.
No matter what your political persuasion,we need to reform for the worlds fututure.
american democracy will day in broad day light
The core problem with the populace really boils down to a ideological gridlock, not over issues or principals, but simply over tribalism. It's 2 bubbles of ideologically fueled group think where the majority doesn't even understand what their own ideology is, let alone the oppositional one, They just know what's in their tribe & what's in the enemy tribe. Most of Trump's fanbase are Trump fans, not because of his policies or legislation, but because they are conservative, team Republican is their tribe, & that was the leader of tribe Republican, so they ascribe an almost messianic adoration to him, because he's the messiah of their tribe. The left does this as well with the Democrats. That is the crux of all the erosion of democracy & is the gridlock that those in power utilize to keep their position. Want to restore power back to the people? Get rid of political parties. I don't just mean break up the D & R duopoly, I mean get rid of the parties entirely. When people run for office, All of them do so independently. "Well then how will I know which candidate aligns with my values as a liberal / conservative without the D/R next to their name to tell me?" That's the point. Instead of the majority of the voters saying "That's the guy that's in my tribe, he has my unquestioning support because tribe Democrat/Republican", they instead then actually have to dig in & research what the policies & principals of the candidate is, What they are proposing, what the legislation is, how it works & how it affects them. This creates a more engaged, informed & actively involved electorate that will actually vote based on principals & actual issues instead of tribalistic alignment.
^^^^^!!
That's also wrong. You are correct about tribalism being a force, but I would say it's actually a good idea. Where people go wrong is that they immediately start relating it to politics. No tribes are going to matter in politics because it's the politicians that utilize tribalism. But tribalism used outside of politics is in fact the best way to organize the country into self interest groups. Nothing wrong with groups looking out for their best interest as long as you don't think the government will look out for each group fairly. Tribalism in it's true form is the best thing for a country if we can just keep politics out of it. Don't try to influence the government and don't let them influence your tribe and you will be much better off for joining a tribe. Tribalism is what the government was hoping for in the beginning but it doesn't mix well with government. They wanted the tribes to govern themselves and gave them the power to do so. The big tribe wouldn't do so well if the other tribes knew how to distance themselves from influence. But it's apparent that no one knows how to have a tribe anymore. Tribalism isn't causing the division, it's the government disguised as tribalism that is causing the problem. Stop talking politics and you might get somewhere.
Don't forget about the ideals!
Yes to most he said, but US militarism didn't begin in 1890 with Hawaii and the Philippines. It was already present in the colonies. Our leaders were "sea to shining sea" guys, even when "America" was only an Atlantic coast thing.
This is a good point. The only flaw in this presentation is its lack of acknowledgement that Manifest Destiny was just as imperialist as any of the aspects that were mentioned.
I hope what's next for democracy is the end of it and the proclamation of the Holy Empire of Columbia. 😍
WHAT??? 😆😆😆😆
@@mariannerivera2720 You heard me, b*tch. Now make me a sandwich!
Missed an important point U.S. Supreme Court
This is NOT a TED talk (i.e., professional host), rather this is a TEDx talk (i.e., nonprofessional). And the premise of TEDx talks is to NOT be held on political subject matter. The rules of TED and TEDx dictate that fact.
It was an interesting talk but he didn't talk about what's next
Fight? Fight what?who?how?when?where?why?with what?@LawrenceLessig?
The erudition of the host notwithstanding, the title of this video -- What's Next for American Democracy -- is, at best, misleading, if not outright clickbait. It's a history lesson -- nothing more.
I'd like to think that even "MAGA" Republicans can agree that the breaking up of large Corporations is as American as it gets, but they seem to be preoccupied with lies and divisiveness. (as are some on the left) So as I wait and hope for affirmation on the subject I won't be holding my breath.
Our needs and wants depend on our values. If we value knowledge, kindness, science, art, then society moves forward. if we value money, materialism, power .... well, that's all we'll care about. Humans are "greedy" , we always want something and when we want the right things, it's all good and humanity progresses. is it possible that individualism has undermined ethics, values? Can you imagine a Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. in modern times? Corporations and politicians do seem to become worse and worse but is the average Joe also losing his values? Americans work more than others, spend more time driving, not much time left for a life. And then the money made is spent in a very inefficient way. it's as if from what is eaten at breakfast to how your house is supposed to look like, has been dictated by marketing/corporation and nothing else. To find a solution, the how we got here is not relevant anyway. The right question is what are the right values and how to maintain them. Communism doesn't work, at least not in the way it has been tried, extreme capitalism doesn't work, at least not when paired with individualism. I'll add that teams are stronger than individuals.
Have you heard of/looked at the political ideology of the third position? Wikipedia has a brief explanation if you are interested.
@@tinseltq5032 Actually, my current theory is that the core issue in the US is that the job and money define the social status. Then you got the current form of the American Dream, work hard and gain money and social status. Social status is not friends with equality and what the dream used to be but that aside, if you think about it, most likely you can trace all problems back to this. From, accepting long hours to urban sprawling, from neighbourhood segregation to the healthcare system or the education system that is focused on teaching kids how to get a job, instead of teaching them how to think and then providing a broad education.
@@realjx313 I see your comment is related to societal issues. Do you think there is a political solution to those? & if not, how do you propose achieving positive change within society?
@@tinseltq5032 I suppose an organic change in mentality comes form all levels, an idea gains traction and leads to a change but first we need to be certain we figured out the actual problem. We tend to try to solve individual problems and it just doesn't work right now. if anything, more problems pile up. Maybe it's all about values no matter what the political or economic or social form of organization is. Now, certain forms of organization might make it easier to maintain the right values but it's quite difficult to be all that certain about what form of organization is best for this purpose. So we might as well keep things more or less as they are and just shift away from how money is everything. How do you achieve that is a tough question, there are many options. You can just say, life is beautiful, let's enjoy it, we are wasting our lives working and not doing much else, we are focusing too much on money, let's change that. You don't want to pay for someone else's hospital bill, letting your team mate die is not patriotism, it's the opposite. We need to live more and struggle less. Or something more subtle, implement changes that achieve the goal without the need to be explicit about the goal. It's slower, takes more time and might not be doable but it's an option. How about worker rights as a start. life work balance. Or fight individualism, go with a team is stronger and then you can be more social and shift away from, if you are poor, you are dead reality. Yeah so i haven't really offered a great option yet, i suppose i don't have one yet.
The Tulsi Gabbard bit at the end did not age well…
I like this presentation, but Mr. Lessig overstates his first point. The founders fought imperialists with imperialism. The colonies employed European indentured servants, often imposing terrible work conditions on women and children. To monopolize land, the wealthy used African-slaves instead, more so in the South. The British promised freedom to rebelling slaves and southern states promised slaves to enlistees during the revolutionary war. They were all stealing from the natives. In the North, Americans trafficked natives to colonies in the Caribbean. Americans had stopped most slavery and trafficking by the end of the Civil War. But the acquisition of U.S. territory was all colonial imperialism. This presentation implies that, before Hawai'i, Native Americans voted to join the union, forming the first 48 states. Right... The debate about Hawai'i wasn't really about betraying the founders. As with slavery, child labor, limited suffrage, segregation, native genocide, etc., they debated whether to continue betraying America's founding commitments. They colonized Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Micronesia, Alaska, Japan (esp. Okinawa), Korea, etc., some with bases and treaties. American law, bent so long to accommodate slavery and colonialism, offers numerous obstacles to achieving equal protection.
Good point
Don't forget that Harvard profited from the cotton trade of slavery in the south.
Democracy: 2 Wolves and a Sheep voting on what's for dinner.
It's an interesting narrative that seems to explain so much of our history. But, I'm not so sure "we" fell very far with that #1 betrayal in the 1870's. After all, that was about the same time the "Indian Wars" or annihilations were winding down. "We" had been practicing colonialism here on this continent. When that was nearing fait accompli, we simply turned that same energy outward to Hawaii, the Philippines...and on and on. That shadow side has always been there. Perhaps it is part and parcel of being human? Why be such a wet blanket at this presentation of hopeful ideals? Because, we will continue to be fooled by our own denial if we never own the facts of history. If we're going to readjust our concept of how we got here, let's include the whole picture. Lessig's & as he says the originalist ideals, are worth working toward and perhaps they are the lifeboat we really need right now. That boat will float better on the whole truth. The #1 anti-colonial ideal was not something our ancestors had achieved for a glowing 100 years of early U.S. history. After the Revolution, European settlers became the colonial power rather than King George. Achieving all of these democratic ideals is something that possibly lies ahead for the U.S. So yes, let's give it all we've got. The alternative is not pretty.
Can't believe this doesn't have more views. I am so hearing confirmation bias here. I believe people can use the old saying "the end justifies the means". But I fully believe, that does NOT apply to our government.
Tulsi Gabbard, who was in my view the only candidate on the Democrat's debate stage that actually stood for honestly, peace, and stood for good, logic, and reason. She was cast aside by the establishment grifters in her own 'tribe' which further demonstrates just how far that tribe, that once stood for good and the betterment of society, has strayed away from the early core values of the founders. Whenever one of the pea brains (and there are many) says "we have to fight for our democracy" while actively doing the exact opposite I wan to throw up!
She also went off the rails
@@djrinpoche Why do you think Gabbard went off the rails? I'm not debating that she might have... maybe I'm just not up to date on her. Thanks.
Lots of betrayal going on..
The USA is NOT a democracy. That's what James Madison said, and he actually wrote the US Constitution! The USA is a constitutional republic. The word "democracy" doesn't appear anywhere in the US Constitution or Declaration of Independence.
you are equating colonialism to bases? So using bases to have knowledge abroad, to have a heads-up, as to what may occur and possible affect our interests is wrong? These bases are not to inflict our will upon other countries to become something we not. Colonialism's intent is to establish a foot hold in a region and to take it over.
White men of good character. ☺
The United States of America was founded by colonists. How does that make them anti-colonial? The anti colonials would have been the Iroquois Nation or the Seminoles. Their gripe with the British parliament was mostly over taxes-taxes that paid for the British navy and army that protected their enterprises from the Spanish and the indigenous population. Why not mention the Monroe doctrine or manifest destiny? Or the Mexican war? Or the gold rush of 1849 where California suddenly became part of the U.S.?
"The war in the Philippines was the most brutal in our history". Really? Has he never heard of what we call the Indian Wars? Holy cow. This sounds weak.
teachout was a fake for sure she lives around here
Sponsored by...
Nobody. Larry takes no money. He’s a scholar. You’d know that if you followed his presidential campaign in 2016.
This is NOT a TED talk (i.e., professional host), rather this is a TEDx talk (i.e., nonprofessional). And the premise of TEDx talks is to NOT be held on political subject matter. The rules of TED and TEDx dictate that fact.