I don't mean to quote mine your very well written post, but this caught my eye:
Legend writes:
If only we lived in a democracy, eh?
"If only" is right. Because, frankly, we don't live in a
democracy, at least not in the US.
We live in a
Plutocracy.
quote:
A Plutocracy is a government controlled by a minuscule proportion of extremely wealthy individuals found in most societies. In many forms of government, those in power benefit financially, sometimes enough to belong to the aforementioned wealthy class.
Classically, a plutocracy was an oligarchy, which is to say a government controlled by the wealthy few. Usually this meant that these ‘plutocrats’ controlled the executive, legislative and judicial aspects of government, the armed forces, and most of the natural resources. To a certain degree, there are still some situations in which private corporations and wealthy individuals may exert such strong influence on governments, that the effect can be compared to a plutocracy.
Furthermore:
quote:
The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy are said to have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government.".
Positive influence includes campaign contributions; negative influence includes refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, bribes, and so on. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues. Recent examples include Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's alleged political agendas in Australia, the UK and the United States or the oil industry oligarchy, and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, which may back right-leaning political action committees (PACs), as well as billionaire George Soros' efforts to influence US politics by backing left-leaning PACs.
That's why "the people" aren't allowed to make their own choices. Because special interest groups control the decision making process. This is why in the US the pro-gun campaign is not a movement of the people, it's a movement pushed by those in power (NRA, Gun Industy, etc.).
It's not a movement to help reduce crime, or to provide home defense for citizens, it's a movement to help those with financial interests gain more profit. The less gun-control there is, the more money gun manufactuers can make. If there is too much restriction on buying guns, it will hurt their revenue.
We can sit here and argue whats right and wrong, but in the end it comes down to profit -vs- risk. It is currently believed that the profit outweighs the risk, when it comes to guns, so gun-control will be controlled and manipulated with the occasional "win" for the gun-control advocates to set them at ease for a while.
In the words of the Wu tang Clan:
Cash, Rules, Everything, Around, Me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y'all
- Oni
™ Version 4.2
