But they're wrong. The United States is, whether you like it or not, a democracy. Voters can be influenced, but they still decide the outcome. Everything backends to them.
If you disagree with that, there are legal avenues. This is an example of an extralegal avenue of political change.
The interview you link to points out numerous problems with that study, but beyond that, the very existence and success of activist groups disproves that premise. If the United States was truly an oligarchy, gay marriage or marijuana legalization would never have happened.
Lawrence Lessig is making serious progress with his Rootstrikers group, and the fact that he's doing so proves that ordinary citizens do have political influence. Battles aren't won overnight, but
>Are you seriously saying strong encryption is, or should be illegal?
Do you think I'm saying this? If so, where?
Or are you asking leading questions in order to put words in my mouth? In which case, are you seriously saying that democracy is an idea we should totally abandon in order to embrace the rule of whoever-can-summon-the-most-technological-power?
If you disagree with that, there are legal avenues. This is an example of an extralegal avenue of political change.