Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday April 17 2014, @10:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the Also:-Sky-is-Blue dept.

A study by Princeton and Northwestern universities shows that a small group of elite have control over the general population and the government only supports the rich and powerful while the masses have no say whatsoever. The 42 page report concludes "we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 17 2014, @12:45PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday April 17 2014, @12:45PM (#32610)

    mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence

    I don't believe that thesis is sufficient to explain:

    1. The Voting Rights Act of 1964
    2. The Americans with Disabilities Act
    3. The National Do Not Call registry
    4. The defeat of SOPA [wikipedia.org]

    The first example is irrelevant to business interests, though one could argue that in the segregated South white businesses perceived a financial interest in preserving segregation. The other three are all contrary to business interests.

    I'm not claiming business interests don't dominate policymaking. Only that the story is not as one-sided as that sentence seems to imply.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=2, Overrated=2, Underrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by SuddenOutbreak on Thursday April 17 2014, @01:51PM

    by SuddenOutbreak (3961) on Thursday April 17 2014, @01:51PM (#32646)

    I don't believe that thesis is sufficient to explain:

    1. The Voting Rights Act of 1964

    2. The Americans with Disabilities Act

    3. The National Do Not Call registry

    4. The defeat of SOPA

    You raise some good examples, and I'm not sure why you got a down-vote.

    To counter a couple, the VRA was quite a while ago, the Do Not Call registry largely affects small business and has loopholes bit enough to drive a truck through, and while SOPA disappeared, it's coming back piecemeal anyway.

    The actual paper is pretty well-organized, and while a handful of counter-examples are interesting, the paper points out a pretty strong trend with correlation. Recent news stories alone have been getting a pattern: "while over 70% of all Americans want 'x', no bill has ever entered Congress" - gun control, minimum wage, marijuana legalization, abortion rights,... the list is pretty long.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Crosscompiler on Thursday April 17 2014, @02:17PM

      by Crosscompiler (516) on Thursday April 17 2014, @02:17PM (#32657)

      They are not really counter-examples.

      1) Changes noting except pecking order among the serfs.
      2) / 3) Investigate exactly who made money off of each, who is excluded from compliance, and who is allowed to ignore with impunity. 911 and "internet to libraries and schools" were two examples I saw personally.
      4) Much of SOPA+ is in force. Informing the public what the laws are is so 1963.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Thursday April 17 2014, @02:02PM

    by M. Baranczak (1673) on Thursday April 17 2014, @02:02PM (#32650)

    If you have to go back 50 years for a contrary data point, that's not much of a refutation.

    Also, the defeat of SOPA was contrary to some business interests. Other businesses actively worked to defeat it.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 17 2014, @02:29PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday April 17 2014, @02:29PM (#32667)

      One data point is never a refutation. It wasn't meant to be; it was meant to be a counterpoint to stimulate discussion. I certainly don't disagree with the report's conclusion that "...if policymaking is dominated
      by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

      That politics have changed since 1964 is a valid point. Do you mean to imply the oligarchy has been established within the last 50 years? Maybe the full paper addresses this -- I haven't had time to read it.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.