Meanwhile, back in Washington, the Administration continues to bloviate about other nations, and their "failures to respect intellectual property law".
At what point are those nations going to lose enough patience to point out the unbelievable corruption, cynicism, and mind-bending incompetence with which the law is administered in the first place?
There is nothing mysterious about it. This is what I call "legal corruption". Lobbying is fully within the law of the land. It may not be right but it is legal.
Unfortunately I don't see a way of changing this. Not within a republic with a representative government. And I don't see America switching to Swiss style direct democracy either.
(Americans seem to have a reflex to Goodwin any thread as soon as someone mentions "direct democracy", please don't today. And please do read up on how a certain someone actually got to power.)
The only hope I see is technology (Pirate Bay!) not to "fix" copyright and patent law, but simply to make their enforcement less effective.
The issue isn't lobbying per se. After all, you can't have a viable representative government if you're not allowed to talk to your representatives (or petition them, as the Constitution puts it).
At the same time, you can't expect those same lawmakers to govern effectively if they feel their re-election prospects hinge less on the will of the voters, and more on the value of campaign donations provided by the very industries they're supposed to govern.
A lot of people dislike the idea of public election finance, since they don't want 'their' tax dollars going towards 'candidates they don't like' (as if taxation depends on liking each and every thing the government does). But as sharper wits have observed, you pay no matter what.
Moreover, you pay a lot more for the corrupt alternative. Exhibit A is the bazillions of dollars spent bailing out the most politically influential banks, while protecting their shareholders from any major losses and shielding fraudulent managers from richly deserved criminal investigations.
In retrospect, a few publicly-financed elections for one-one thousandth the cost of 2008/09 would have been an exceptionally good value. Extra added bonus: not cratering the global economy. Extra extra bonus: Patent Reform that doesn't die every time it hits the Senate floor.
It's one thing for third-world kleptocracies to run themselves into the ground (see Tunisia). But when the largest, most consequential economy on the planet starts operating in the same way, it's a serious problem.
Even if it's legal, it can still be "corruption" without the modifier. If you are circumventing the limitations placed on your position of trust, regardless of adherance to the letter of the law, I would consider you "corrupt".
At what point are those nations going to lose enough patience to point out the unbelievable corruption, cynicism, and mind-bending incompetence with which the law is administered in the first place?