3 ms·
Their self interest is that they produce as much cattle as possible. There might be other reasons why wolves would be beneficial, if released into the wild in
by e40 7y ago
Their self interest is that they produce as much cattle as possible. There might be other reasons why wolves would be beneficial, if released into the wild in CO, though. Hence the conflict of interest, on the part of the cattle owners.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoThis does not fall within the normal range of meanings of "conflict of interest". Cattle owners are not in a position where their personal interests conflict with their official duties. Those are perfectly synched up. By your standards, voting is a conflict of interest.
- kevinmgranger 7y ago> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I don't think they meant the business-context "conflict of interest" rather the more general "conflicting interests".
- thaumasiotes 7y agoYour interpretation is not a strong or plausible one. It would make the parent comment completely content-free ("cattle ranchers have multiple priorities, and just like everybody else, sometimes they pick one over another one") rather than just wrong.
- e40 7y agoIf cattle ranchers know there there is a public good for having wolves, yet they argue against them, I'm saying that position is a conflict of interest between them and the public good. They will almost always choose their own self interest. Voting? Well, people often vote against their own self interest, but it is hoped (by me, at least) that people will vote for their self interest, within reason. That reason is that you aren't voting for something that benefits your group more than another group. That would be a bad use of self-interested voting. A good use would be voting for "medicare for all" because you think it will benefit you and others.