It's worth considering that there is some kind of political element to what this group has been doing. Perhaps if there were some viable avenues for young people across the world to meaningfully influence the political process and/or resist massive global corporations treating them as captured consumers they would be more willing and able to adopt alternative means of expression (or entertainment).
There is, but young people are lazy and preoccupied with playing video games. They like to pretend it's because "corporations are in bed with the government, etc, etc" but only because it's easier to rationalize it that way than to admit that the country's policy looks pretty much exactly how you'd expect it to look when all the voters are old people.
The one thing politicians are more about than campaign contributions are votes, and there are no votes in being in favor of open internet, etc. The people in that demographic are too busy considering themselves too good to participate in the system to be a source of votes.
However, it still sounds like a circular argument to me - ie. Youth: "No form of participation you are giving us amounts to representation." Old people: "You are not participating in this system the way the existing power base determines acceptable, therefore you deserve what you get".
Objectively, with regards to votes, it's well acknowledged that democracy only functions well with an educated populace. The reality is that the US promotes a two-tiered (have and have-not) education system and an extremely centralized, near-on centralized corporate stranglehold on the mass media.
While it is still possible for an individual citizen to make an informed vote, the effort (to say nothing of social isolation) required to properly research and voice an opinion on any given issue against the mass media line can be extreme, whilst accountability for political promises at campaign time versus actual behaviour of those in office is essentially zero. Now honestly, that's not very democratic, is it?
Of course, to be apathetic and disenchanted is easy: proposing an alternative and effecting a transition is the not insignificant challenge. Thus, I am quite interested to see what kinds of transparency policies the Wikileaks Party proposes in Australia, and how this is echoed in Europe through the Pirate Party.
There absolutely a way for people of all ages across the world to meaningfully influence the political process.
They could make a meaningful difference by forming an organization that collected names of interested parties and kept them informed of news and action events. Imagine how powerful a lobbying group you could be if you had hundreds of thousands of people on a mailing list who would be influenced by your recommendation on a vote.
I'm president of a non-profit and we've made meaningful changes in our city by organizing to influence our elected officials.
That's just one example but there are many others that a dedicated group of individuals can influence the system and counter special interest groups beyond their own single vote.
Look, I'm not saying your non-profit is useless or your position is that of a straw-man, but you have to view your local situation in context. It's tiny.
To clarify, I am not saying that political representation never happens, just that it's virtually impossible for young people to feel they have any impact in most western nations.
Let's take your example right there.
First of all, it's geographically localized. Local issues mostly affect people who have made a commitment to be in a given area for an extended part of their life, usually through property. In general, this makes them an older group, and by definition coming from a different sociological/cultural/financial/traditional axis than younger people. So on local issues, young people are at an immediate disadvantage in terms of participation, because they are not taken seriously. (I would argue that increasingly young people evade this tyranny of local affairs by seeking membership in the online communities that transcend such petty borders, but that's a tangent.)
Secondly, your idea is to influence voting. Great. Nonviolent change, etc. Captain obvious here: the rest of the world largely sees the US as an aggressor. Can you seriously, with all the information available today, see an end to US warmongering coming from votes? No. The two party system in to which most western societies have collapsed is a false dichotomy; it's a side-show from the real power which persists dynastically and 'contributes' (read: bribes) whomever or whatever they see fit to maintain that position. This is well documented. This is not unique to the US.
Coming back to local issues then, what is the wider effect of people forming issue-oriented groups in local areas? For one, it basically acts to lend credence to the objectively dead idea of representation under the current systems, rather than fostering meaningful debate in to how exactly things went wrong in the first place.
I could expand on this further but I'm just saying that young people who operate on a much shorter timeframe for most issues probably do not have the funds, geographic ties or energy to make the inefficient, long-haul battles required to influence anything at all, even to the level you are seeing in your local non-profit. You must be well aware of how much effort is involved to make minor changes. Consider then, that local issues are likely the last bastion of any nominally participative representation in the current system. Consider further, that the apathy felt by the young is global and not only of your nation.
Personally I have lived in quite a few countries. My observation is that there is an extreme feeling of political and socioeconomic disempowerment amongst the youth globally, and that there is systemic change coming. Given such an outlook, my own feeling is that limiting one's perspectives to that which is determined as acceptable under the current system of 'free world democracy' is tantamount to capitulation.
Much respect for doing something locally though. If the whole world did, we'd undoubtedly be in a better place, but at the macro level we'd still be being taken for a ride.
"So on local issues, young people are at an immediate disadvantage in terms of participation"
I disagree. If it's an issue they're passionate about, young people join the fight just as much as any other age demographic. I've seen a good mix of both young and old in our activism. If anything, it's the young people who protest and older people who fund them.
Here is video I created from the action our organization took on. Atheists United (the org I run) is represented by both young and old. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXShZ5ZyYPY
Yes, we're local, but we choose to be. There are organizations that take on national issues and rally people across the nation to change laws and elections.
Yes, the system is deeply flawed (agreed: bribes) but it's not outside our ability to change. We have power in numbers. The more we organize, the more we can change the system. If lulzsec spent time and publicity on organizing, they would be a major force for change.
Edit: by "fund them" I mean, fund the organization with donations. The funding of the organization allows for us to have the resources to organize and protest.
