The adage is perfectly reasonable when you recognize that influence in government comes not from popularity but from money. I always refer back to the Cambridge study that correlated money to legislation and that citizens will has no impact on what becomes law[1].
So yes, there are lambs being served up for dinner by wolves, but its not that there are more wolves than lambs - the lambs simply don't get to have a say.
THAT is why inequality is so detrimental to society. When money buys influence, and a few dozen men can wield as much as half of everyone else, only their desires matter. Everyone else is functionally unrepresented.
So yes, there are lambs being served up for dinner by wolves, but its not that there are more wolves than lambs - the lambs simply don't get to have a say.
THAT is why inequality is so detrimental to society. When money buys influence, and a few dozen men can wield as much as half of everyone else, only their desires matter. Everyone else is functionally unrepresented.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...