imported post
Rich B wrote:
HankT wrote:
Two words: opportunity cost.
In order to consider opportunity cost to be relevant there would have had to be a cost. What are you defining cost as in this scenario? Surely you don't think someone sat there manually voting 80,000+ times do you?
What was the other opportunity missed out on?
Whatever time and energy is spent on voting in such polls, talking about such polls, encouraging others to participate in the polls, worrying about the outcomes ("Hey we're only up to 98.638%--
we need to hit it harder!), posting about such polls and denouncing the antis for their participation in such polls (even though they are doing the same thing we are--
hitting the polls hard!) is the cost.
The opportunity cost is whatever
other activities we could to with that time and energy: thinking about pro-gun ideas, discussing pro-gun issues, posting about pro-gun issues, writing to media or political entitites, reading pro-gun literature, joining pro-gun advocacy orgs,understanding better the regulatory landscape, worrying about real threats to 2A and gun ownership and carry......the list goes on and on...
Effective advocacy or political activity cannot come from a Skinner box. And whether the mouse is an anti-gunner or a pro-gunner doesn't matter. He's still just pushing the lever because it is....simplistic and his little brain can understand it.