3 ms·

Sure. But they have the right to run for office - so if none of the 100's - 1000's of people who do represent their views chose to run, isn't that a choice too?

Sure. But they have the right to run for office - so if none of the 100's - 1000's of people who do represent their views chose to run, isn't that a choice too? Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that the more popular choice won i.e. overall, the people of the city decided that the benefits outweighed the harm? And as more evidence of harm is accumulated, I'm sure their views on regulation will change. But I think it's unhealthy to imply that when "our side" loses, then the results are not legitimate, but when "our side" wins, only then is it "democracy in action", "will of the people" etc

adventured 8y ago
Of course that's exactly what happened. The anti views are the minority. Their complaint is actually that they're losing out to a more popular position in a Democracy. The oil industry jobs pay extraordinarily well compared to (non-existent) alternatives that were there before the oil boom. There was no economy in West Texas before the fracking output soared. There's nothing out there other than Midland and Odessa, and their populations hadn't changed much in 30 years. The choice is extraction economy or no economy. And if by some unexpected effort + resources the state decided to invest vast tax revenue to build up a non-extraction economy in the area, it will take decades anyway.
- sremani 8y ago
  As usual an unpopular yet sound argument from adventured. The real losers are people downvoting because of their shallow mental models. West Texas oil is making US more secure and access to cheap energy will not only make things better in Texas, but Mexico is going build on this supply of NG. West Texas is extraction colony, for America. The rest of the world is buying because it is sweet as hell and produced in most stable region on the planet.
zepto 8y ago
Nobody is implying that when ‘our side loses’ the results are not legitimate. That’s a weird thing to say. I’n not on a side on this issue. However it’s also obvious that running for office isn’t free and that often elections are decided on the basis of who can buy the most publicity. A random person standing against petrochemical interests is clearly at a massive disadvantage.

adventured 8y ago

Of course that's exactly what happened. The anti views are the minority. Their complaint is actually that they're losing out to a more popular position in a Democracy. The oil industry jobs pay extraordinarily well compared to (non-existent) alternatives that were there before the oil boom. There was no economy in West Texas before the fracking output soared. There's nothing out there other than Midland and Odessa, and their populations hadn't changed much in 30 years. The choice is extraction economy or no economy. And if by some unexpected effort + resources the state decided to invest vast tax revenue to build up a non-extraction economy in the area, it will take decades anyway.

sremani 8y ago
As usual an unpopular yet sound argument from adventured. The real losers are people downvoting because of their shallow mental models. West Texas oil is making US more secure and access to cheap energy will not only make things better in Texas, but Mexico is going build on this supply of NG. West Texas is extraction colony, for America. The rest of the world is buying because it is sweet as hell and produced in most stable region on the planet.

zepto 8y ago

Nobody is implying that when ‘our side loses’ the results are not legitimate. That’s a weird thing to say. I’n not on a side on this issue. However it’s also obvious that running for office isn’t free and that often elections are decided on the basis of who can buy the most publicity. A random person standing against petrochemical interests is clearly at a massive disadvantage.