If Obama and the gov actually listened to Zuck, the problem would be fixed. Heck at this point, it is not too farfetched to think that parts of the government don't listen to the President, even.

This seems naive. Zuck has enough money to buty privacy, and he made his fortune by enabling the type of surveilance that the NSA does. Frankly, his actions here are about as credible as the Ivy League's moves towards embracing "diversity". They are just ploys, and their biz model is at risk, so this is like "I'sorry"... only that we got caught.

He consequently simply may not be personally capable of having a freedom-oriented effect here. Said another say, he's a new-money kid, how much power can he really have?

Insert {Halliburton, Exxon, AT&T, Comcast, BP, etc} into those brackets and you'll get a much better idea of the nature of political influence and lobbying in the U.S.

This is why I think all the bluster around Citizens United and the influence of money in politics is overblown. Because at the end of the day, a post-card listing the number of employees Exxon has in a Congressman's district is just as effective as a check.

Its not that any of these large companies should not have some influence; the problem is that having shit-tons of money is the seemingly only requisite to have ANY influence in government currently.

The term "oligarchy" has real and important meaning.

Take, for example, the last debate between Obama and Romney, where they took turns trying to show who was more pro-coal. You think it was because of campaign donations? Or all the coal mining/fracking jobs in key states like Pennsylvania?

But that is called pandering. Do I think that they were concerned with any of the coal jobs? No, I think they were concerned with public perception at the time they were visible to said public.

Politicians have Schrodinger-Syndrome: They only appear to be working/accountable when you're staring at them through the lens of a national camera. All other times, they are fervently working on interests which are not yours.

Don't overlook the personal wealth aspect though because he was able to start that PAC fwd.us.

I'll take the "almost none" position, comparable to the season finale of "Friends."

Not that I disagree with the overall premise that FB doesn't really add anything of much value (or at least anything that couldn't be quickly and easily replaced).

By comparison, that sum is greater than their net income for the same period.

This system will collapse. It's too big, too mean, and too proud.

> I work with people who have been working policy for over 40 years.

And in the words of Thomas Jefferson:

> "Unless the mass [of people] retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression ..."

> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

> "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

> "A people always preserves the right to revise, reform and change its constitution. A generation is not entitled to subject future generations to its own laws."

And to recap the current Federal Government: 1) The masses do not sufficiently control it. The representation per population has decreased and most politicians do not reflect the mosaic of the people but are a class of people on their own. 2) Americans are generally ignorant. Of others and themselves. Whether this is by design or by accident is up for debate. 3) The FED wants to pass extremely personal laws. Whether its for health or for safety, they all take up some of your personal responsibility, and hand it over. The War on Terror and Drugs are examples of the State declaring the right to protect you even against yourself. 4) How many reforms or repeals of laws do we see? How many new laws do we see? We should be reviewing and reforming old laws more than making new ones. Again we see another example of the Federal Government going against it's constitutional framer's vision for a free society.

I don't know about you, but I think the US is already a tyrannical oligopoly. Only instead of the bludgeon, it's weapon of oppression is apathy and propaganda.

Do you listen to everyone equally? Can it even be done?

I think "listen" deals in influence where as yes, one vote per citizen deals with democracy.

The USA is not a democracy, it is a republic, a system where people vote for a small number of representatives who then decides policy in the name of the people.

Nowadays these two words have shifted in meaning in popular usage, what used to be democracy is now called direct democracy and what used to be a distinct republic is now indirect democracy or representative democracy a.k.a. democracy. This kind of slippery semantics is most probably a consequence of years of propaganda to persuade people they live in a democracy so they won't ask for one.

Then again, in the USA as many other places around the world, this small number of elected representatives holding the power of policy are subjected to the oligarchic / plutocratic power and influence of a few wealthy entities.

Or as better said in this quote:

«the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.»

If I'm remembering right, prior to James Madison's writings, there wasn't a real distinction between democracy and republic, besides the fact that democracy was Greek and republic was Latin.

Madison in the Federalist Papers made the distinction between democracy and republic that are your talking about, but it is pretty arbitrary.

Now you are right that we don't live in a direct democracy (though states have features), but we are still a democracy and a republic.

Now that I am being pedantic someone will probably point out where I am in error, but I just felt like posting some information for whoever may find it useful. :)

I had a feeling I was going of faulty memory myself. I will certainly find out about that book.

It's just clear that if you have money, and a lot of it, you have a voice in shaping the world. If you don't have money regardless of what position you are in, you don't have a voice (extreme popular outliers excluded).

Did you quit school because your name wasn't in the textbooks?

Also: Arguing by ad hominem.