3 ms·

> Lack of freedom would be wanting to enact changes with popular support but being unable to. You mean like how the correlation between public support for a po

> Lack of freedom would be wanting to enact changes with popular support but being unable to. You mean like how the correlation between public support for a policy and the probability of that policy becoming law is ≈0?[1][2] [1]: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/0...

_8j50 5y ago
How do you interpret that? How many people actually vote? When there are no better politicians, how many people attempt and fail at getting elected to replace them? Also, the changes taking effect may not have correlation but over time, the changes people want, they seem to happen (see drug legalization) Rich people will always run democracies because they can affect the lives of the people, therefore politicians must listen to them. #1 issue being jobs. On issues where rich people are in conflict with the majority, how much impact will the majority accept to affect the change? That is what politicians have to decide.
- throwaway684936 5y ago
  >Rich people will always run democracies because they can affect the lives of the people, therefore politicians must listen to them. You argue freedom includes freedom of the majority to restrict the freedom of the minority. What you're describing sounds like the minority restricting the freedom of the majority.
  - _8j50 5y ago
    It is the minority influencing the desire of the majority not coercing them. You can pass laws that will make them do business elsewhere and hurt jobs,economy,etc... if the popular sentiment for the law outweighs popular sentiment against rich people excercising their freedoms. In the end the majority are still free but that does not mean the rich are not allowed influence. Not just the rich, but the well connected and social groups or people in specific geographies like DC. Ultimately, the rich can do many things in retaliation but they cannot actually stop a person from running for office , restrict their speech or restrict others from voting for them. The rich and corporations, as terrible as they are, are not the root cause. "We the people" are.

_8j50 5y ago

How do you interpret that? How many people actually vote? When there are no better politicians, how many people attempt and fail at getting elected to replace them? Also, the changes taking effect may not have correlation but over time, the changes people want, they seem to happen (see drug legalization) Rich people will always run democracies because they can affect the lives of the people, therefore politicians must listen to them. #1 issue being jobs. On issues where rich people are in conflict with the majority, how much impact will the majority accept to affect the change? That is what politicians have to decide.

throwaway684936 5y ago
>Rich people will always run democracies because they can affect the lives of the people, therefore politicians must listen to them. You argue freedom includes freedom of the majority to restrict the freedom of the minority. What you're describing sounds like the minority restricting the freedom of the majority.
- _8j50 5y ago
  It is the minority influencing the desire of the majority not coercing them. You can pass laws that will make them do business elsewhere and hurt jobs,economy,etc... if the popular sentiment for the law outweighs popular sentiment against rich people excercising their freedoms. In the end the majority are still free but that does not mean the rich are not allowed influence. Not just the rich, but the well connected and social groups or people in specific geographies like DC. Ultimately, the rich can do many things in retaliation but they cannot actually stop a person from running for office , restrict their speech or restrict others from voting for them. The rich and corporations, as terrible as they are, are not the root cause. "We the people" are.