Least and most religious nations

[Thorne]

So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.

So what are you saying? We'd be better off with only one TV network? No choice at all? That hardly seems an improvement. As I said earlier, in this country you have the freedom to establish your own network if what's available doesn't suit you. Just get the money. And I agree, the non-commercial channels often have the better quality programming. Not necessarily the most enjoyable, but the better quality.

'Always'? How far back do we go?

At least as far back as the establishment of money.

Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.

Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.

But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?

No, freedom allows me to have the choices. Just because all the choices may be bad doesn't take away from the benefit of having choices. Better to choose among three or four (or 124) bad choices than to not have any choice at all.

[leo9]

Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.

Well, thank goodness for that. Where would we be if people had listened to that crazy Ghandi in his homespun loincloth, rather than the rich Indians (and Westerners) who were making a good thing out of the British Raj? And as for those Reds like Mao and Lenin, who talked like they were proud of not being rich... yes, it's a good thing it's a law of human nature that people listened to the rich folk instead of them.

(I'm not getting into religious figures because it's too easy, and because I don't want to annoy you too much )

[Thorne]

Well, thank goodness for that. Where would we be if people had listened to that crazy Ghandi in his homespun loincloth, rather than the rich Indians (and Westerners) who were making a good thing out of the British Raj? And as for those Reds like Mao and Lenin, who talked like they were proud of not being rich... yes, it's a good thing it's a law of human nature that people listened to the rich folk instead of them.

I didn't say EVERYONE will listen to the rich over the poor. Again, I feel it's a function of education. Those who are better educated tend to put more stock into another person's words and actions than in his wealth. But given a particular issue, I think most people will tend to listen to a wealthy person rather than a poor one. Until the wealthy person screws up one time too many. Plus, once you get the mob involved all bets are off.