3 ms·
I think of "special" interest as the opposite (by some imaginary scale) of "public" interest. Public interest that which costs/benefits people equally - so thin
by 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 agoWe 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 agoI 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 agoI think the problems are mostly centered on obvious ripoffs. EX: Massive corn subsidies, and high sugar tariffs.