TechCrunch: Obama & McCain

Posted on January 29, 2008 by Lessig

Read all about it.

This entry was posted in presidential politics. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to TechCrunch: Obama & McCain

  1. M. David Peterson says:
    January 29, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    While I certainly agree Barack Obama is the best overall candidate, I can’t think of a more dangerous candidate as it relates to our Internet freedoms than John McCain. See: http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2006/12/politicians_who_dont_get_web_2.html (and in particular my follow-up comment at the bottom of the page) to understand what I mean.

    Has John McCain since showcased a better understanding of what the Internet is all about? If no, how can he possibly be the best tech candidate on the Republican side? If for some unfortunate reason Obama doesn’t win the election, lets hope that the person who beats him isn’t someone who wants to fine people 300k and put them in jail for 10 years if they don’t police the comments on their blog, deleting those who’s email addresses matches that of a known sex offender. “But why would a known sex offender knowingly provide their ‘registered sex offender email address’ if they are attempting to ‘victimize’ someone in the comments section of their blog” you ask? *Exactly*!

    Here’s what I don’t get: You’ve got McCain on one side who wants to put otherwise law abiding citizens in jail if they don’t delete comments from people who voluntarily expose themselves as sex offenders and you’ve got Romney on the other side who, amongst other things, has made 100’s of millions investing in and leading tech companies, and yet McCain is somehow the more technical of the two?

    Obama is a no-brainer. But Arrington needs to do better homework. McCain would set the tech industry back 50 years if he made it into power.

  2. anon4rp says:
    January 29, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    Interesting that the TechCrunch Republican endorsement went for McCain, when the TechCrunch Republican primary went overwhelming for Ron Paul. I think we have a case of Mr. Arrington being blind-sided by his own personal preferences, as well as buying into the existing mainstream media narratives, and not investigating why his readers made the choices they made.

    It seems to me that Ron Paul has a point that any Net Neutrality legislation crafted by lobbyists will inevitably entomb existing market structure and business models, creating barrier-to-entry regulation that will prevent start-ups from innovating. True Net Neutrality involves dismantling the government sanctioned monopolies that make us have a need for so-called net neutrality in the first place. If people had a choice of more than one or two broadband companies, there’d be no need to try to impose “neutrality” on those companies. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

    An analogous situation is the entire fiasco with the RIAA, which lobbies Congress to produce atrocious legislation such as the DMCA. The only thing the DMCA protects is the existing business model of the recording industry.

    In short, any government regulation is liable to be corrupted by lobbyists, thus it’s generally better to have as little government meddling as possible, in the hopes that the smaller the government codebase, the easier it’ll be to find and fix the bugs brought about by corruption.

  3. Seth Finkelstein says:
    January 29, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    This whole thing is vastly amusing from many viewpoints, especially the screams of the “Paultards”, who are running into power vs. ideology in politics.

    Remember folks, what YOU think doesn’t matter, except in that you are fodder for deal-making – you’re only being given the illusion of having influence, to manipulate you.

    And this is again why, for “corruption”, anything based around “The Internet” as a fix will not work.

  4. paul says:
    January 29, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Did any one elce notice that Arrington picks Barack Obama and gets an ad from the Obama campaign?

  5. Nick Gonzalez says:
    January 29, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Paul,

    It’s a Google adsense ad. There was an article about Barak Obama today and AdSense did what it was supposed to do, serve an ad about Barak Obama.

  6. mike charlton says:
    January 29, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    It seems that the endorsement of McCain, if you can call it that, is simply an acknowledgement that he is the best of a bad lot. In other words, if you’re going to vote Republican, you could do a lot worse on tech issues.

    That is hardly a ringing endorsement. There’s a great deal to admire about John McCain, (though make no mistake, I have no intention of voting for him), and he does seem to at least avoid most of the reflexive positions taken by the other GOP candidates, but to call this an endorsement is a stretch. To me, it seems to be little more than a recognition that he might be better than say Romney or some of the others.

    Ron Paul? Talk about a nut case.

  7. gregory says:
    January 30, 2008 at 2:53 am

    i agree with seth finkelstein

    there is only one party, the desire to control doesn’t change, only the names that are the figureheads.

    when a = b, the choice between a and be is an illusion, ESPECIALLY if you want c or d or something else

    the two party system is just a way to maintain the status quo. don’t give it any merit.

  8. anon4rp says:
    January 30, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Mr. Charlton, how exactly is Ron Paul a nut case?

    He believes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the law… which, well, it is.

    He believes we should follow the Constitution… which, sadly, we don’t.

    Our currency has been dangerously inflated by the Federal Reserve.

    We are spending trillions of dollars maintaining over 700 military bases in over 130 countries.

    There’s a reason the mainstream media is doing its best to ignore him (have you heard mention of his 2nd place finish in Louisiana, for instance?); the reason is because he is the only candidate who would shatter the existing structure of corruption by removing so many of the unconstitutional levers of Federal power which have been introduced through lobbyists’ relentless, decade-long, lobbying of Congress.

    Look at Ron Paul’s policy positions. They are saner and closer to the views of the Founding Fathers with regard to the proper role of the Federal Government than the views of any other candidate in this race. Dr. Paul has been remarkably consistent in his thirty year long political career, with only one significant issue change: his views on the death penalty (from for to against).

    Even John McCain, for all his faults, once called Dr. Paul the “most honest man in Congress.”

  9. mike charlton says:
    January 31, 2008 at 2:02 am

    Actually, I’ve been around Ron Paul for a very long time from my days in
    Texas. It’s difficult to take seriously someone who contends that the
    Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional entity or that gun control has no
    constitutional basis or that the nation’s drug laws need to be completely
    suspended, or that the president has no authority to go to war etc, etc.
    The idea that our nation’s tax laws can be completely suspended or tossed
    out without any economic consequences seems delusional to me.

    It may well be that a lot of people agree with him. and perhaps you do as
    well. But I don’t look with nostalgia on yesteryear. I have no less fear
    of my government than you do but I doubt that most of our problems can be
    solved by ignoring or abolishing the role of government or even seriously
    limiting it. does anyone really believe that environmental issues can be
    solved without government intervention? does anyone believe that even if
    the Second Amendment does give one the right to bear arms, a claim we’ll
    know the answer to soon enough, but does that really mean government has no
    role in limiting access to guns for those who’ve been convicted or who are
    dangerous mentally ill? does it mean t hat we can prevent folks like John
    Hinkley from owning a gun? and do we want to live in a country where
    those folks can easily get access?

    Do we really honestly believe that government can’t insist on net
    neutrality or are we content to believe that corporate interests will
    really protect us? I don’t think so but maybe you do.

    In short, has our government acted irresponsibly? sure but that is no
    license for Ron Paul to argue that the constitution has somehow been
    violated. it is only an argument that we need to change the
    government.

  10. anon4rp says:
    January 31, 2008 at 2:59 am

    I agree that corporate interests won’t and can’t protect us in net neutrality, but at the same time I realize that the existing situation of only a few major broadband providers is a direct consequence of the current size and meddling of the Federal Government. Keep in mind that the FCC’s current definition of broadband is 200 Kbps, a pitiful sum, yet companies have gotten Federal government money — that is, mine and your tax dollars — to “enhance their broadband capabilities,” with broadband under that definition.

    Government regulation is the friend of oligarchic big business. Only big business can afford to lobby Congress, and only big business can hire the army of lawyers necessary to comply with the labyrinth of government regulations. This constitutes a barrier to entry, preventing new players from entering the market. This leaves consumers effectively screwed, with some major U.S. cities only having one or two broadband providers, and some rural areas with none or one. Quality of service on broadband is also predictably declining because a monopoly which has prudently assured itself a protected market via regulation has little to fear from competition.

    So, yes, I agree with Ron Paul that we need less of the FCC and more independent American businesses involved. I want to see it made easy to start up a broadband company, to foster competition, to reduce barriers to entry, to let consumers have actual choice when it comes to quality and cost. The alternative view is that somehow more government regulation will mandate quality and low cost, but there’s honestly little economic incentive for companies to comply, and there’s always the chance that their armies of lobbyists will subvert or pervert any legislation that attempts to control them.

    As for the Federal Reserve, under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8 reads: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Now, under a more permissive interpretation of the Constitution, one can argue that “coining” Money, and “regulating” value, can conjure up a Federal Reserve system by channeling things through implied powers… but Ron Paul doesn’t subscribe to more permissive interpretations of the Constitution.

    Similarly, the Second Amendment, under a strict interpretation, offers no alternative for the decisive words, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Once again, Ron Paul applies a strict interpretation, in a textualist manner.

    As for the nation’s drug laws, I point you at the 18th Amendment to the Constitution banning the manufacture, sale or transport of alcohol. Note that to ban alcohol, it was necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment. Yet our current drug laws ban a much wider variety of substances without any such Constitutional provision? Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, current drug laws are unconstitutional because there’s no amendment authorizing them. Under more permissive interpretations, one can massage the Commerce clause until it serves its intended purpose, but once again, Ron Paul subscribes to the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

    Pertaining to the President’s authority to go to war, we see that the Constitution says, once again in Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power . . . To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;” The Constitution makes no mention of any Presidential authority to declare war independent of Congress, and thus, under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, not the President. Now, you may point out that declaring war isn’t the same as going to war; in fact, this very argument is made in John Yoo’s Memo here: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm Needless to say, under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Mr. Yoo’s arguments don’t hold.

    As for our nation’s tax laws, Ron Paul doesn’t want to completely suspend them or toss them out the window. He only wants to eliminate the income tax. This only came into existence via the 16th Amendment in 1913. Notably, if you eliminate the revenue from the income tax today, you’d only need to cut back government spending to the levels it was at in 1997 to break even.

    Federal government has a few, well-defined proper roles. Most other roles are the responsibility of local and state governments, which are closer to the action, so to speak, and generally more responsive to the local populace. The problem with large, over-arching Federal structures is that most of them lack Constitutional authority (under a strict interpretation) and that they’re incredibly suspect to corruption. It’s far more efficient to corrupt one central authority than it is to try to corrupt each of the 50 states, and thus lobbyists like Federal solutions far more than they like State solutions, since it means less work for them.

    As for environmental issues, the problem here stems from our courts, in a holding decades ago, that pollution is not trespass. Technically, pollution is trespass, since it involves microscopic particles being left on or passing through someone else’s property who did not authorize it. Restoring private property rights against pollution would go a long way. As for any pollution uncovered under that scheme, I feel the best approach is to trust consumers to make the ecologically sound choice — if that is what the public wants, then that is what they will do. Anything else smacks of paternalistic tendencies in my view. If people want to go green, they’ll go green, there’s no need to coerce them into it so long as they have a property right against pollution. Furthermore, the massive amount of environmental regulation envisioned by some anti-global warming activists would be a goldmine for lobbyists, who no doubt would shortly make any environmental legal code look much like our existing tax code, replete with loopholes and kickbacks to interested parties. Why give them the chance to give themselves even more anti-competitive advantages via their manipulation of Congress?

    As for gun control, the Second Amendment is quite clear under a strict interpretation. A convict who has served his sentence has not lost his other rights — why should he lose this right? You may answer that “because he will buy a gun and commit a new crime,” but first, we do not know whether or not he will. It may be that he wishes to use the gun purely for self-defense, perhaps he fears that the testimony he gave long ago has antagonized his former accomplices who now seek revenge. We do not have pre-cogs to tell us who will be a criminal. Furthermore, even if he intended to commit a crime with a gun, it is very likely that he would be able to obtain a gun via the black market. The gain of a small measure of security is not worth the immense sacrifice of liberty by denying Second Amendment rights.

    Ron Paul says the Constitution has been violated, because, under his strict interpretation, it has been violated. He proposes reducing the Federal Government back to its Constitutionally-mandated size, making sure that no law passed violates the Constitution. He believes this would be the best way to change the government, because it would restrict its irresponsible acting to only the areas it is authorized to act in the first place, rather than the present situation of having it act irresponsibly in areas it ought not even be acting in.

  11. Seth Finkelstein says:
    January 31, 2008 at 3:12 am

    My line to the Paultards:

    We get it, we get it – you want to turn back the clock to a fantasy of the 18th century, where the Constitution permitted slavery and the restriction of voting to white property-owning males. Well, I don’t want to refight the Civil War of the 1860’s, nor the Civil Rights of the 1960’s. And I think people who want to do that are lunatic ideologues.

  12. Jardinero1 says:
    January 31, 2008 at 4:40 am

    My line to Seth, et al from a Paultard:

    Nobody wants to turn back the clock, just return the nation to the rule of law, not men.

  13. anon4rp says:
    January 31, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Dr. Paul doesn’t want to restore slavery nor repeal universal suffrage. This isn’t about turning back the clock, its about both restoring and upholding our Constitutional Republic in the 21st century. Defending our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights against all enemies, old and new, is Ron Paul’s fundamental purpose. Fiscal policy is intricately linked to foreign policy, as a government can’t easily fight a war if it can’t fund it, but our current system of financing enables the government to fund unlimited wars so long as the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, which ironically is enforced through nothing other than the United States’ fiat and projection of military power, ever since Nixon abrogated the Bretton Woods accords in 1971. Those who dare question the American dollar’s hegemony are intimidated or eliminated, such as Iraq (which moved to sell oil in Euros in 2000) and Iran (which continues efforts to setup a Iranian Oil Bourse, effectively side-stepping the dollar).

    I am curious, however, to know what you meant by “power v. ideology” in politics. Could you elaborate on this concept?

  14. Seth Finkelstein says:
    February 1, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    The original version of the Constitution permitted slavery and no women’s vote. This is not arguable. If you think that Constitution was the way to go, well, let’s say it’s not so appealing a proposition. If you’re going to pick and choose over the last two centuries, then it has no claim to any moral authority, and indeed, sounds like special pleading over pet issues.

    Anyway, my point is that events like the McCain endorsement show that while the audience might be fed a lot of ideology to motivate them, when it comes down to the deal-making, it’s power that matters. McCain looks like he’s going to win the Republican nomination. Ron Paul is going to go back to ranting about the Federal Reserve. It’s very clear who has more to offer in politics.

  15. Jardinero1 says:
    February 1, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Seth, nobody in this post or on the Ron Paul campaign has ever said they want to restore slavery or nullify the 19th Amendment so please give up on that hackneyed, straw man argument.

    You are probably right when you say, “it’s power that matters. McCain looks like he’s going to win the Republican nomination. ” That summarizes, very neatly, the problem with the federal government today. That’s why you should support Ron Paul. If you reduce the size of the federal government and the size of the pie it controls then you also diminish the impact that “power” has over ordinary citizens and the states.

  16. Seth Finkelstein says:
    February 1, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Actually, Ron Paul has been associated with some extremely outright racist statements made in his name, whatever his private, personal, own deep in his heart feelings (I really don’t care if he’s a racist himself or just plays to them for the demagoguery value).

    You keep missing the point – ending slavery and women’s votes were expansions of Federal power into the realms of the States. Big ones. You can’t say “Oh that expansion of Federal power, that’s good, I like that, but this one, that’s not”, AND claim to be following some sort of true-Constitution model with any logical consistency. That’s what I mean by special pleading. More so when these were very much the arguments used by forces for slavery and later against civil rights.

    Seen in this light, Ron Paul’s association with explicit racism is not an aberration.

    It’s a waste of time, but sometimes I try to remind people that:

    Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

  17. Jardinero1 says:
    February 2, 2008 at 12:13 am

    “ending slavery and women’s votes were expansions of Federal power into the realms of the States. Big ones.”

    Correct, but you are presenting another straw man. The Constitution was amended, according to a process spelled out within the Constitution. Nobody has said you shouldn’t be able to amend the Constitution. Don’t put words in other peoples mouths.

    I read your essay, libertarianism follows a continuum between extremes just like any other school of thought.

  18. assassin says:
    February 4, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    OBAMA IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    What’s up my homies?

  19. anon4rp says:
    February 4, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    “ending slavery and women’s votes were expansions of Federal power into the realms of the States. Big ones”

    Since the end of slavery and women’s suffrage were brought about via Constitutional amendment, they were and are Constitutional. That’s what amending the Constitution is for. Garner sufficient support to amend the Constitution, and whatever you’ve garnered support for becomes Constitutional.

    That is very much in tune with “following some sort of true-Constitution model with any logical consistency.” Indeed, it is the very expression of following the true Constitution model with logical consistency.

    The Constitution is still the law of land; our elected officials take an oath to uphold and defend it. Those words in that document, and in all its amendments, have meaning: they are the law.

    Or are suggesting that the Constitution is outmoded, outdated and a meaningless relic that ought be as ignored as it is presently? If that’s the case, then why do we keep up appearances and have politicians swear/affirm an oath to uphold and defend it? Why continue to have a Constitution if we’re not going to follow it?

    This isn’t so much a question about libertarianism as it is a question of whether we should follow the laws we write. We ought to have a government ruled by laws, not men.

  20. V says:
    April 18, 2008 at 1:46 am

    REASONS WHY MCCAIN WILL SURELY WIN (and also predictions on what will happen while McCain is in power and afterwards).

    I see Obama as the less of three evils..
    But MCCain will Definitely win.
    Only read this if you have a few hours (or days) to do your own research, otherwise you will surely dismiss this. If you can spend the time to research this it would be appreciated, as it’s important.

    First of all I have to explain a few things. Politics in America is a farce, elections do not respect real vote of Americans since a few years now (research in youtube diebold, “hacking the elections” etc). So this must be taken into account.
    Second the media are completely controlled in their general lines (not only fox news), the people who control them are the Rockefellers, Morgan, Warburgs etc (research cnr, trilateral commission, Bilderberg Group etc). They also control the general lines of a few secret societies amongst them the “skull and bones” in which all Bush’s family is and Kerry and most CIA are hand picked from these societies. (research in wikipedia Bush in “skull and bones”, IG Farben and Carlyle Group ).
    The bankers that took power by establishing the FED and lending money to the government need the government to run big deficits as this gets them more money, this deficit is counter balanced only by the fact that after WWII America imposed that petrol is traded in dollars (research Petrodollar, cfr, fed). Some research estimates the real value of the dollar to be now 2 cents (I don’t believe this but I believe is around 20cents).
    Iraq started trading petrol in euros (research oil for food program), and also Venezuela and Iran wanted to do this soon. This would mean crushing American dollar to its real value and the total collapse of America.
    America had to persuade Americans and the world opinion that a war against Iraq and iran is needed, also needed more control and power over citizens (patriot act).
    War is also good for CFR as the bankers will get the interest of all the money needed for the war.
    To change the world’s opinion on this war they bombed the twin towers and pentagon (watch documentary “9/11 Ripple Effect” should show enough evidence, if that is not enough look a few more and follow some of the truth movement).
    Don’t dismiss all of this please RESEARCH yourself.
    So after this introduction i can tell you what will happen in the future:
    1. Media in this moment is pushing for Obama to win against Hilary, and at the same time slowly dismissing both of them and praise McCain.(research the technique of FOX news of saying “some people says” to give judgments and not facts).
    2. So they can have an easier battle against Obama to make McCain win.
    3. With such control of the media McCain will most likely reach the needed support (he doesn’t need to fairly win the election but it’s always good to not hack the election by more than 5-10%, so he would need some real support). However, if the polls (the real polls not the ones they show you) show that McCain is losing they will do other attacks (not as big as 9/11 yet). People will be scared for home security and will vote for McCain.
    4. VeriChip RFID will start to be installed voluntarily on babies if their parents decide is good for them.
    5. Dollar will be replaced by AMERO the new currency, America will join Mexico and Canada (why do you think they allow all these illegal immigrants and build a motorway… research amero). (this move will be good for America but a disaster for Mexico and Canada when the dollar will crush to its real value)
    6. Another attack, this time of the size of 9/11 will happen, this will scare Americans again and more. Iranians will be the alleged cause (by the way see interview with Benazir Buttho 1 month before she was killed to learn Osama Bin Laden died in 2001. Interesting to see both Al Jazeera and BBC version).
    7. With this they will finally make the installation of verichip in every citizen compulsory. A weapon of mass destruction will be used against Iran (I don’t think it will be nuclear bomb but at the same time will not be full war because America seems not to have enough money.. unless they are insane enough to still print some more!?). (research “Iranian oil bourse” to see the reason).
    8. The last liberties of America will be abolished, people will forget what freedom is and complete control will be achieved in America (which now includes Canada and Mexico).
    9. CNR founder members will continue until they have their idea of “one world government” completely realized, they will succeed and they will silently rule the world by behind the scenes. (new world order)
    Thanks for your time, now start insulting the “loony” theories… or start doing some real research, pass the phase of being scared of such a reality, and give some constructive comment.
    I suggest you to move to another country if you live in America now.
    V

  21. David Dzidzikashvili says:
    June 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Obama is the answer to Bushism and the idiocracy of the Administration’s disastrous policies of past 8 years that governed America. He will be able to restore the true image, reputation once America enjoyed in the world as a champion of Democracy and Freedom. Obama is truly a visionary leader, a virtuous man who is able to deliver the promise and bring much needed change. We are fighting two wars, have not even captured Osama Bin Laden, economy is in crisis, gas prices are going up on a daily basis and only large oil corporations seem to be doing very well. Americans need a new start and re-think of foreign, domestic, economic and energy policies. Obama represents the change, the new force that will fight for every American and defend the small guy.

  22. Independent says:
    September 9, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    The Republicans have been lying about Obama raising taxes. Obama will cut taxes MORE than McCain for those earning under 112k/yr., and the VAST majority of Americans earn far less than that.

    http://ktracy.com/?p=1412

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/18/politics/main3272597.shtml

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

    http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccains-tax-plan.html

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5GFB

    Also, seniors earning under 50k/yr. will pay NO income tax.

Leave a Reply