Another example of why I don't trust large concentrations of power...

[koinegeek]

... whether it be big business or big government, I don't trust any large corporate entity to look after anything but it's own survival and accumulation of power and resources. I especially am suspicious when business and government seem to be in collusion

Comments

[snack_kun]

Gah! I thought less in the ground would drain their power (no pun intended :)

[koinegeek]

All it would take is for them to let everyone think there is less in the ground and viola, mo money (hence mo power).

Business and economics have always been topics which I find easy to be cynical towards...

[snack_kun]

You make it sound like that requires lessons :P

[koinegeek]

You mean you didn't take that class? Cynicism 101 - an Introduction to Anarchy and Giant Chickens

[jadenson]

On the other hand, in a 'free enterprise' society, there's only so long before the oil equivalent of Walmart or "Bob's Discount Furniture" shows up.

[koinegeek]

We can hope. There is a high barrier-to-entry to oil distribution (so it seems) and all the 7 65 "sister" oil companies seem to be in close collusion, though even they hold sway to OPEC, commodities market, etc.

The Wal-Mart effect will happen when there are alternative fuels and such, imho.

[mrkimi]

The trick is to organise things so that people with power can be replaced when the people who have to endure them get fed up. This is why you have elections.

Elected government is the correct curb on rampant free enterprise. It can and should interfere. It is not the job of free enterprise to do anything but follow the rules as profitably as possible (although there is no rule that says they cannot behave generously and kindly).

If your system of chosing a government is fair then whatever is happening is what the electorate wants to happen.

Sorry to sound preachy but I feel strongly about this.

[koinegeek]

For such a system to operate at peak efficiency, the electorate must be capable of making informed, educated decisions. As it stands, much of the US electorate knows more about TV sitcoms than even the basic workings of the government, thus can easily be swayed by whatever rhetoric sounds most convincing.

[mrkimi]

This is very true (the first bit anyway, I'm not commenting on the US 'cos I don't live there). A functioning democracy needs a well educated population and free acess to information (which go together anyway).

The function of the media is to offer critical analysis of government. Any reasonably self interested, educated population ought to demand this of it. So doesn't this happen? How come it doesn't seem to work? Complacency? Altruism? :-)

In NZ we have our share of apathy, but we do have a very high voter turnout, something over 90% in a general election. We have one this Saturday, we do it every three years. So we have a political campaign going on now.

The level of debate has been pretty good, but I only listen to public radio. I don't watch TV, I don't have one on the house, partly for the problems you refer to.

[koinegeek]

It seems that with the age of media, politicians have become adept at distracting the people with, as Cicero put it, "bread and circuses". If the people are distracted and uninformed (I would venture that less than half of public school graduates can explain the basic workings of our government, a public school system run by the government itself...). I also think that there is a sense of general apathy and mistrust of our elected officials. The small percentage that are politically vocal tend to follow the party-line without question or thought.

Or perhaps I'm just cynical when it comes to our politial situation :-)