3 ms·
Ironically I think smaller local issues are often harder for the wealthy to influence than bigger national issues. As a concerned resident I can probably actual
by lftl 11y ago
Ironically I think smaller local issues are often harder for the wealthy to influence than bigger national issues. As a concerned resident I can probably actually talk face to face with my city representative, and share my concerns about a project like this. I have pretty much no chance of meeting face to face with my state representative without cash or some other means of influence. The councilor probably also has significantly less need for campaign donations from rich benefactors than a national representative. And finally, local representative are most likely making decisions that affect them pretty directly as a resident, whereas national representatives may often be making decisions that have widely dispersed or no direct personal impact.
These are all reasons regularly brought forth by Libertarians and Republicans who prefer that centralized government entities defer to local entities as much as possible.
- barrkel 11y agoThe same things that make centralized government problematic - making decisions with widely dispersed impact with few personal consequences - are similar for very large organizations. In so far as large companies are permitted to exist by the people for the benefit of stakeholders rather than shareholders (i.e. employees and their communities, suppliers, customers, as well as actual shareholders and bondholders), the executive leadership of a corporation is much like a government, and in a large company, it's a distant one, subject to autocratic rule and upward redistribution of the value created by the whole.