Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings OFF-Topic Fans,

I was listening to the NPR shoe On The Media this weekend, and they had a subject about Gun Rights. That was all well and good, but tucked in the middle of the segment was this little nugget.

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/does-it-matter-what-you-think-about-gun-policy/

Here is the synopsis:

A recent study found no correlation between public opinion and what policies get enacted. Instead, it's the economic elite (and interest groups) who tend to get their way in American politics. Given the imbalance in influence, what does that mean for popular gun safety policies and the reach of the National Rifle Association? Northwestern University's Benjamin Page, who co-authored the study, explains why gun policy is an outlier and what hope there is for average Americans to reclaim their influence in the political process.

Basically, the jist of the story is that your political opinion as part of the public and even as part of an Interest Group doesn;t matter unless the followign elelment is at play:
1. You are part of a Business Interest Group
2. You are part of the top 10% of the economic population
3. Your opinion matches that of the top 10% and Business Interest Groups
4. Or you are part of the NRA

Do you agree? Does it matter if you agree? Then what form should political activism take in such a climate? Thoughts and Discussion please?

There's a reason the US is frequently regarded as a Plutocracy. Just goes back to there's too much money in politics, but solving that isn't as simple as reversing one Supreme Court Case or passing harsher regulations on PACs. We need real Campaign Finance and Lobbying reform. And of course, the typical voter has to pay actual attention which is hard when the Huxly Principle is in effect

Nothing is going to change as long as checks on capitalism is seen as the Devil's work.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Nothing is going to change as long as checks on capitalism is seen as the Devil's work.

So you're saying Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook should pay more than 2.4% in Taxes? Or that considering banks too big to fail includes banks that make the lion share of their profits from money launduring? And that corporations who make billions in profits should be fined more than $2 million for breaking the law and literally killing people?

You communist thug you

In an eerie portrayal of the saying "those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it" we are now in a parallel to late 1800s, early 1900s US. The money is concentrating increasingly at the top to the detriment of the majority.

I think eventually the wealth will get so focused on the top that the system will crumble, and we'll get something better in the end. But it'll get worse before it gets better.

People forget that if money can be funneled to the top in a given economic system, it will be. So capitalism is all well and good, but we need to make sure that money can't be centralized. Relying on people's good will (trickle down effect, etc) has no historical precedent for working.

People wonder why the US economy keeps struggling, at the same time we are shrinking the middle class. The tragedy of the commons is that if every major business paid their employees more they would all do better through increased consumer spending.

 Easy E wrote:


Do you agree? Does it matter if you agree? Then what form should political activism take in such a climate? Thoughts and Discussion please?

I think that this would be a prime and clear-cut example of Degenerative Policy Making.


As for some of the other comments already in this thread, I'd highly recommend some of the Ted Talks by guys like Nick Hanauer. He's a billionaire (read: self-described plutocrat) who is advocating for a major overhaul in the system in order to gear the US economy to be "middle-out"

I have seen consumer reactions change corporate behavior around political issues. Is that the "New Political Activism"?

It can work for single issues, like the pink and blue aisles at Toys R Us.

Many consumer facing corporations would crumble in a few weeks from lack of cash flow if there was a significant boycott.

Politics is of course different in a number of ways.

Yes, and Business Interests and Business Groups hold the power, so if you change their "corporate views" on topics, can they be swayed? I am confident it can happen for social issues, but am not sure about economic or international issues.

Pretty sure this has been the case globally since the industrial revolution (maybe even long before) to one extent or another depending on your exact location.

Capitalism will choke us if it runs unchecked and unchallenged. It's hard having a kid nowadays and thinking about the future, and the people that get to decide how they live. You know those people don't care at all about your child or any others, just their bottom line.

We should be doing things for the good of mankind, towards a common goal of exploring and understanding the universe as fully as possible.

That being said I think political opinion still matters. It just might not be politics entirely that fixes the problem. Enough people need to refuse to play the game. There's motivated individuals, but not an entire populous. They can't make money or run their machines without us just as much as we can't without them. It's just all so unpleasant and illogical.

As some will know, Degenerative policy making divides people into four basic groups. ALL policies will be designed to reward the behavior of one group to the exclusion of all others, or it is designed to "punish" or burden one group to the near exclusion of all others.


The way I personally see a lot of policies going, is that they simultaneously reward the rich for getting richer, while punishing the poor for being poor.

I do agree that communicating with most politicians is pointless unless you fall into one of the categories of people they do listen to (as Easy E alluded to in the OP), as most of them are bought in all but name by certain interests.

I think that this is why someone like Bernie Sanders is doing so well among certain demographics: he takes the time to listen to individual people, and really doesn't entertain corporate interests. I think he looks at the history of the middle 20th century and sees the economic policies which made the US great, and wants to bring the best ones back.

I agree that changing "corporate views" on social issues is very achievable by the populous, but with the way things are run right now, I think the only way to change economic/international issues, is by electing someone who refuses to take their money in their campaign, or significantly altering the election process itself; namely campaign finance.

I agree with you. It's a similar situation here in the UK.

The Conservative party only look after themselves (all rich boys from the same private schools like Eton) and their rich chums, selling the NHS, Schools, public land and council properties to their friends. They effectively use government to turn public assets into their private assets.

The disgust and resentment in the general population is building and is palpable.

There was a video about this study, by a group that is trying to change things.