4 ms·

I agree with the intent of what you said. But I'd like to point out that the phrase "special interest" is very loaded. If you're going to use the phrase, can y

I agree with the intent of what you said. But I'd like to point out that the phrase "special interest" is very loaded. If you're going to use the phrase, can you differentiate between a "special interest" versus just a plain old regular interest? It seems that people use "special interest" to denote interests with which they disagree. Those entities that they agree with are overlooked, despite the fact that all entities manifestly have their own interests. (I hesitate to cite specific examples for fear of forking out an off-topic thread for an OP that's already marginal)

olefoo 17y ago
It is in the nature of special interests that they will always declare themselves to be acting in the public interest. I would agree that getting too specific is best left to discussions on another site.
andreyf 17y ago
I think of "special" interest as the opposite (by some imaginary scale) of "public" interest. Public interest that which costs/benefits people equally - so things done "in the public interest" will benefit the majority of people. Democratic governments are good [1] because they tend to do things which are "in the public interest". Things done "for special interests" are those done for a minority at the expense of the majority - "special" because that minority has some sort of power (lobbying) that the majority of people don't have. 1. According to utilitarianism - the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism]
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  We are told that actions like Kelo and Didden are in the public interest -- that is, to the benefit and betterment of the entire community -- but this is clearly bunk. How can we discern which of policies being espoused are really net-beneficial to society? I claim that in all but the most obvious cases, you can't. It's a fool's errand, and thus the term "special interest" has no use but in propaganda.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    I claim that in all but the most obvious cases, you can't. It's a fool's errand, and thus the term "special interest" has no use but in propaganda. While used in propaganda, I meant to explain that "special interest" == "not in the public interest". I agree that the latter is clearer.
  - Retric 17y ago
    I think the problems are mostly centered on obvious ripoffs. EX: Massive corn subsidies, and high sugar tariffs.
jacoblyles 17y ago
I'm all for precision in language, but this one is easy. A "special interest" is an entity that is a beneficiary of public policy intended to benefit some small subsector of the population. The "general interest" is the utility of society as a whole. Interestingly, there are strong economic incentives for democracies to create policy that benefits special interests at the expense of the general interest.
- hyperbovine 17y ago
  Q: Who defines what "general interests" benefit society as a whole? A: Special interests.

olefoo 17y ago

It is in the nature of special interests that they will always declare themselves to be acting in the public interest. I would agree that getting too specific is best left to discussions on another site.

andreyf 17y ago

I think of "special" interest as the opposite (by some imaginary scale) of "public" interest. Public interest that which costs/benefits people equally - so things done "in the public interest" will benefit the majority of people. Democratic governments are good [1] because they tend to do things which are "in the public interest". Things done "for special interests" are those done for a minority at the expense of the majority - "special" because that minority has some sort of power (lobbying) that the majority of people don't have. 1. According to utilitarianism - the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism]

CWuestefeld 17y ago
We are told that actions like Kelo and Didden are in the public interest -- that is, to the benefit and betterment of the entire community -- but this is clearly bunk. How can we discern which of policies being espoused are really net-beneficial to society? I claim that in all but the most obvious cases, you can't. It's a fool's errand, and thus the term "special interest" has no use but in propaganda.
- andreyf 17y ago
  I claim that in all but the most obvious cases, you can't. It's a fool's errand, and thus the term "special interest" has no use but in propaganda. While used in propaganda, I meant to explain that "special interest" == "not in the public interest". I agree that the latter is clearer.
- Retric 17y ago
  I think the problems are mostly centered on obvious ripoffs. EX: Massive corn subsidies, and high sugar tariffs.

jacoblyles 17y ago

I'm all for precision in language, but this one is easy. A "special interest" is an entity that is a beneficiary of public policy intended to benefit some small subsector of the population. The "general interest" is the utility of society as a whole. Interestingly, there are strong economic incentives for democracies to create policy that benefits special interests at the expense of the general interest.

hyperbovine 17y ago
Q: Who defines what "general interests" benefit society as a whole? A: Special interests.