Lessig on corruption

A presentation by Lawrence Lessig on "corruption," which the observant among you may remember is the topic Lessig abandoned copyright reform for. Very, very much worth watching (although it will, of course, depress you).

Lessig is a very smart man. What I'm not sure I get is why it took him this long to realize that the influence of money on politics was always going to render copyright reform (and, indeed, most types of reform) basically moot? Isn't that fairly obvious to anyone that pays attention to these issues? Is it simply that you can't spend your life thinking about, studying, and putting your faith into the law if you're as cynical as I am?

I think that last point may be it. I've always thought that the idea of the "rule of law" was a comforting illusion. Lessig has, I think, touched on the _real_ lynch pin of our democratic institutions at the end of his talk, which is the concept of "norms." The rule of law itself is irrelevant; ironically, it's the belief in the rule of law that drives our society.

What's the difference? Well, think about it...in a world where everyone really is self-interested, our institutions fall apart, rule of law be damned. You need only look at what Bush has done to government to see that. The "impartiality" of governmental structures like the EPA, the FDA, hell even the federal attorneys, turned instantly to dust when infected with political figures. Point being, there weren't any objective procedures, rules, or regulations that protected those institutions. Hell, Bush has proved even the Constitution itself is malleable. Can't torture prisoners? Call them enemy combatants. Annoyed by habeas corpus? Move them outside the country. It's all fluid. The law can't save you. All those institutions work (i.e., maintain independence) solely..._solely_...because there are enough people who think that they (the institutions) _should_ work that the institutions do. The _instant_ that's no longer the case, or when political operatives infiltrate those institutions, they collapse.

How to you dedicate your life to something that is, at core, wishful thinking? Or, slightly less dramatically (and more confusingly), how do you dedicate your life to what amounts to a fundamentally _subjective_ political opinion when the crux of that political opinion is that it regards itself as being an _objective_ fact?!

If I'm being unclear, consider this: think of the society most plagued by institutionalized corruption, and try to figure out what differentiates them from us. Think about China, for instance, where bribery is a cost of doing business in government. The point I'm trying to make is that the answer is: very little. We'd like to believe we have a set of impartial institutions, rules, and regulations that support us, allowing us to float serenely above their plagued little fray. But we don't. Those rules could be changed or circumvented at the drop of the hat. The only difference is that, as yet, we don't tolerate that level of corruption. We have a collective, social belief that government officials should not be bribed. Period. End of story. We're acclimated to an environment where it doesn't happen. Grow up in a world where corruption is a part of life, and government will be corrupt. Doesn't matter what's on the books. That's what will happen.

Anyway, I digressed. I just wonder to what degree law is self-perpetuating. Almost like a cult is. What isn't important is the result of arguing about how laws should and should not be structured. It's utterly irrelevant who has the most well-reasoned, logical argument about the penal code. It's simply the underlying belief that law is important that makes it important. My point, I guess, is that it's a wikiality. Nothing grander or more substantial than that. The belief simply propagates itself.

(Maybe that's the strange loop that underpins all of civilization.)

I guess that just annoys me because science quintessentially _isn't_ wikiality. There is a ground truth in there. When you do a physics experiment, either you emitted a photon or you didn't. There's no arguing about it. It didn't emit a photon just because enough people decide that it should. It did. Or it didn't. (or it's in some weird quantum state, but let's not get into that). The only part us idiot members of humanity can play is observing which one it was and telling each other about it. The laws of physics don't collapse if we decide we don't like them, and yet, that's _exactly_ how the law works.