<DrumBeat: April 23, 2007The Oil DrumDrumBeat: April 24, 2007>

93 comments on Are Subsidies to Oil Companies Ever Justified?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Antoinetta III on April 23, 2007 - 4:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

“It seems to me that a proper (indeed a central) role for democratic Gov't is to act as an agent for the public (as opposed to private) interests.” Posted by John Milton

Except that well organized and funded private interests are much better at getting a democratic government to cater to their interests than is the generally apathetic, distracted and disorganized “public.” Any conversation within the halls of an elected government is constantly skewed and led off track by these private (usually corporate) interests. For any government to seriously address these problems, they have to be empowered to toss the lobbyists, admen and spin doctors off the table and focus on actual, workable solutions, without fearing a political backlash on the next election day. This is a large part of the reason that Cuba was able to survive the cutoff of Russian oil after the collapse of the Soviet Union relatively intact.

Trying to hang on to “our democracy” as we go farther post-peak is like trying to hang on to the private automobile, ultimately, neither are sustainable and both are part of the problem. Furthermore, it distracts us from addressing the actual situation and prevents our considering realistic solutions as these are deemed “politically impossible.”

Antoinetta III

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
john milton on April 23, 2007 - 5:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Antoinetta III:

"Except that well organized and funded private interests are much better..."

Pretty much agree with that paragraph, sad but true esp. in N. America.

But when you say:

"Trying to hang on to “our democracy” as we go farther post-peak is like trying to hang on to the private automobile, ultimately, neither are sustainable and both are part of the problem."

Do you mean to suggest that only some non-democratic form of Gov't can function post - peak? If so then I'd need a good argument for that position, or have I misunderstood you?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NZSanctuary on April 23, 2007 - 7:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I would suggest that the assumption is: what is called "our democracy" is not democratic.

Whoever people vote into power will continue to work more for the lobbying parties than for the people... perhaps the need is for a small (less complexity), democratic government that is truly independent of corporate lobbying and is easily held accountable.

As A. III noted: "...they have to be empowered to toss the lobbyists, admen and spin doctors off the table and focus on actual, workable solutions, without fearing a political backlash on the next election day."

That was how I read it, anyway...

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oregon7 on April 23, 2007 - 10:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I agree that that is what she meant, and in any case, it is what I mean. We don't have a democracy. We have a corporate kleptocracy, and it is hard to imagine that peak oil stress is going to cause a flourishing of a "power to the people" movement. The stakes will rise, the resources will shrink, and the corporate interests will ultimately take over completely.

In fact I'd argue that it is the oil age bubble that has allowed what little democracy we have in the U.S. to remain in operation these last 100 years. So great has been the abundance of American agriculture and energy that even the greediest private interests haven't been able to take everything or drive the "public interest" out of government entirely.

In the future, a future of scarcity and economic losers, it is easy to forsee that things could get less democratic, less open to the interests of the common person, less isolated from corporate interests.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Antoinetta III on April 23, 2007 - 11:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's a paradox. If a system is elected and "democratic", how do you prevent a few-well organized and financed special interests from out-organizing and out-spending the more or less inattentive "general population" to ensure that government prioritizes their agenda before the long-term interests of the overall society.

If a government has the authority to toss said special interests off the table, it's not democratic. And when the special interests take control, it ceases to be democratic.

Antoinetta III

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
john milton on April 23, 2007 - 11:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Ummm... o.k. I thought this would be "understood", but seems not.

You are not going to have a functional democracy if you have a 'more or less inattentive "general population"', by which I mean a population which does no more than vote at election time. (and yes I know many don't even do that).

That's sort of like calling yourself a cabinet maker because you bought an old hand plane at a garage sale.

This is actually understood much more widely in Europe and elsewhere than it is in North America.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.