It’s ideal for an elite to run things, with input and approval from below. That’s what elections are for and why generally most people should be allowed to vote (I favor a more restricted electorate than we have, though.)
Money isn’t synonymous with elite. A white trash girl from Louisiana can wear skimpy clothing and do a music video and become a multi-millionaire, but she’s no more a part of the elite than a homeless man eating out of a trash can in terms of being someone I want running society.
Elite is a nexus of personal reputation, education, occupational success, intelligence and ultimately personal wealth is in there too. Someone who is smart, has been successful in their career, who has a strong personal reputation, who is highly educated and who has amassed a decent bit of money to themselves seems a lot more competent to me as a top level decision maker than someone who fails at all of those marks.
I don’t want the guys I drink beer with to run the country.
The problem isn’t government, though. “Governments” arise naturally even in animal societies…there are pecking orders and established rules of behavior in many social species.
As far as academic elites go, that’s another straw man as well. Schools/colleges arise naturally in complex societies as well. They just happen, it’s no evil conspiracy on anyone’s part.
The problem is when any of those groups, government, business, or academia get too much power. Balance them against each other, and maybe they’ll learn to work together better.
Regulation isn’t automatically bad. Rules of the road like “stop on red, go on green” are NECESSARY regulation. There’s useful, useless, and downright harmful regulation. Pretending that regulation by nature is bad is lazy thinking.
It’s not bad at all. But regulation works best when everyone can understand it. When an industry is too complex, there are no other options to to let the industry make the rules and then use the government to make them abide by those rules. The most understandable concept of how this works is state medical boards. It would be absurd to have a state medical board with no doctors on it. The oil industry has to be regulated in much the same way. It would be absurd to regulate oil without the advice of current and former members of the oil industry. Poets and beekeepers aren’t very good regulators on subjects outside of poetry and beekeeping. The only industry Congress can truly be trusted to regulate is the legal industry, and we see how much they scratch that industry’s back.
So you’d keep scientists who teach at universities far away from situations where they could influence industry regulations, huh?
Are you intentionally or unintentionally advocating letting industries run amok? I ask you, in all seriousness, because…well, for obvious reasons, I’m asking.
Kicking doctors off medical boards actually sounds like a halfway-decent idea. There’s a little too much professional camaraderie there, IMHO.
Dude, if you think letting the fossil fuel industry have its way with the environment is a good idea, then I think you’re overly optimistic, and simultaneously actively shortsighted.
There are plenty of people who can light their own well water on fire, because of fracking for natural gas. I can provide links for that. Do you really think the same industry responsible for that needs LESS oversight?
And don’t give me any bullshit about “those homeowners were compensated, there’s no real danger”, etc. etc. Tap water that ignites is Not A Good Thing, and I have nothing but derision for anyone claiming otherwise.
These companies only get away with the fracking nonsense because they’re doing it in poor, rural areas, to people who haven’t the money or connections to fight back. That’s despicable, and points to the need for MORE 3rd-party oversight and regulation, not LESS.
Definitely, the drawbacks and advantages are well understood, which is why it makes for a great example. We’d like to have someone other than the industry regulate, but no one else has the expertise, so it is what it is.
The fossil fuel industry doesn’t have its way with the environment. The government has rules and regulations, and a lot of that is written by environmental lobbyists and scientists. But if you want to regulate the finer points of drill bit construction and use, good luck finding someone outside the oil industry.
And we have someone who didn’t actually read the study and who is now misrepresenting its conclusions and misusing terms showing ignorance of the industry. Drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) are not synonymous terms. When the first (and still probably most prominent) scientific study of fracking was released by scientists from Duke university it found that drilling can cause methane contamination of water wells but fracking was not linked to that.
Confused? That’s because you aren’t well informed on this issue. Drilling refers to drilling a hole in the ground, period. Fracking is when a liquid solution is then pumped at high pressure into that hole, ripping into shale deposits and causing them to break apart far below the surface. When the shale busts up, natural gas captured in the shale is released and comes to the surface where it is stored and transported away.
If you believe fracking is causing groundwater contamination then you’re saying that specifically the pumping of the liquid solution into the well has caused this contamination. No scientific study has found that, and that is why the Duke University study will not say anywhere that fracking causes well water contamination.
But the Duke University study did find well water contamination by methane, so what’s the deal? Well, the contamination was because of the drilling, which is not synonymous with fracking. All natural gas wells get drilled, not all of them get fracked. Improper well construction can result in methane (one of the largest constituent parts of natural gas) leaking into the water table and contaminating water wells. But that can happen at any natural gas well, whether fracking is being utilized or not.
The boogeyman of fracking is people insist that the chemical solution being injected into the earth can rise more than one mile up into the water supplies and contaminate them. So far, I don’t believe any evidence has ever been provided showing that this happens. Fracking has meant more wells are being drilled than ever before, which means there is greater risk than ever before of improper well construction leading to methane contamination of water supplies during the drilling process. But it has nothing to do with the fracking, but rather the drilling.
The New York times had an article on this subject, in which the Duke University professor who authored the study said:
Presumably to decide who and who cannot practice as a doctor, for the safety of the public. In reality, occupational boards are also used to control supply and limit competition to ensure everyone in the occupation makes good money.
My take on conservatives is that they want there to be no place to hide from the pecking order; that people ought to be born, live, succeed or fail, and die according to it. That, I assume, is their objection to the social role of govenrment. But maybe it’s just a cheap rationalization to avoid giving losers their tax money. (Conservatives do believe in losers. Many think a healthy society requires lots of them.)
I don’t think conservatives are all that interested in that balance anymore. I think they’re fine with business having all the power.
Part of bedrock conservatism is believing that altruism is always a sham. It follows that the more selfish an individual is, the more he can be trusted.
Greed is naturally-occurring. Selfishness is naturally-occurring. Liars are naturally-occurring. You can find all 3 in quite a few animal species.
Given that, it doesn’t make sense to let the fox make the rules about the regulating of the henhouse. SURE, the fox can have some INPUT…but to let him write all the rules? It’s like letting a 14-year-old decide whether or not they’re ready to drive cross-country on their own.
Either you want balance, or you want extremes. Fools gravitate toward extremes, and wise people gravitate toward balance, whenever it’s practical.
From what I can see, the biggest fools in most societies are the extremists. They hate balance like fire hates water.
Why don’t you decide, as an individual? That way your safety is 100% in your hands, and you don’t need to worry any more about the right person “running” a medical board.
Why don’t you simply decide to go see whomever you want, for medical treatment? You can see somebody who was certified by such-and-such board, or not. It’s up to you.
How many hours do you think there ARE in the day? People have to work, raise their kids, take care of their homes, etc., etc… I’m not saying you’re completely wrong, but at least in the health/medical area, there’s so much misinformation out there that expecting people to research it enough to become experts might be unrealistic.
Of course, I take more responsibility for my own health than anyone I know, but…I recognize that not everyone has the ability/inclination to spend the time and energy that I do on the subject, maybe.
A company operates in in t own best interest. Henry Ford didn’t offer great wages to be a nice guy, he wanted his employees to be able to buy his cars. He had an expensive item and wanted a world where more people could afford the luxury. Walmart is a VERY well run business. People like working there. I don’t think they either should or should not provide their employees with health insurance. If it helps them attract more and/or better employees, or keep good ones, it might make sense. If it doesn’t solve a problem they have, then it’s just an expense. And the more expenses they have, the fewer stores they can open. And that means fewer people with jobs. Now if I start a chain called Magmart and start attracting the Walmart employee (or prospective Walmart employee) to my company, in part by providing health insurance, then the cost of Walmart not providing it goes up. There is a point where they say, “Great news everyone, you now have health insurance.”
In a perfect world, no. The people who best know how to run things will run things.
A different question: Do i think it is possible to structure a government that isn’t affected by money? The answer is still no, as long as the government is the one making the rules.
I think, We the people, take things today that would have caused outrage 30 years ago. Things like “all politicians lie” should be the death knell of the political process but is it?
Yes in that it makes a profit by undercutting all those businesses around it by promoting sweatshops in China.
Sure if the alternative is to starve.
Although there would be fewer Walmart stores, the other stores Walmart might otherwise crowd out would remain in business, so it is not clear that overall the total number of jobs wold change that much, just that the jobs that existed might be better.
The problem is you can’t start a Magmart that allows for health care, or god forbid pays a living wage, because Walmart will undercut your price at every corner, and knock you out of business. In today’s business climate nice guys finish last. As a result, outside of small niche markets, we are left with nothing but amoral behemoths. It would be nice if it were possible to level the playing field so that those companies who treat their workers well and have a sense of moral responsibility to their community could survive, but those who are in charge like being on top and so resist such a change.
