6 ms·

This is a good point, one that I myself make in this type of situations. But… there is a difference in that democratically elected government officials or admin

by HSO 12y ago

This is a good point, one that I myself make in this type of situations. But… there is a difference in that democratically elected government officials or administrations are, at least in theory, obliged and answerable to the electorate. I think that is a good argument for keeping certain things in the public hand.

clarkmoody 12y ago
You hit on an interesting angle: > democratically elected government officials ... answerable to the electorate The heads of the government agencies are appointed by the administration, and most (all?) other employees of the agencies are not. Thus, the only accountability of, say, the research funding administrators at NIH or NSF is to their immediate superiors. That is, they are far removed from the scrutiny of the electorate.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- specialist 12y ago
  As a rule, government is more transparent and accountable than even publicly traded corporations. FOIA requests, meetings, hearings, transcripts, budgets, expenditures, rosters, etc. Of course, we should never stop criticizing government (aka democracy). But don't take it for granted either.
- hammock 12y ago
  >As a rule, government is more transparent and accountable than even publicly traded corporations. FOIA requests, meetings, hearings, transcripts, budgets, expenditures, rosters, etc. What might make governments even more accountable are the threats of loss of tax revenue (people and companies doing business elsewhere) and loss of campaign contributions. This is similar to how corporations are held accountable by shareholders (CEO compensation), employees (take their talents elsewhere) and customers
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  At some point or on some level, there's someone whose immediate superior Congress ... who controls the purse strings, I believe. Thus, in a very indirect way, accountable to the electorate (or, keeping appearances when they succeed at avoiding any accountability).

by HSO 12y ago

clarkmoody 12y ago

You hit on an interesting angle: > democratically elected government officials ... answerable to the electorate The heads of the government agencies are appointed by the administration, and most (all?) other employees of the agencies are not. Thus, the only accountability of, say, the research funding administrators at NIH or NSF is to their immediate superiors. That is, they are far removed from the scrutiny of the electorate.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
specialist 12y ago
As a rule, government is more transparent and accountable than even publicly traded corporations. FOIA requests, meetings, hearings, transcripts, budgets, expenditures, rosters, etc. Of course, we should never stop criticizing government (aka democracy). But don't take it for granted either.
hammock 12y ago
>As a rule, government is more transparent and accountable than even publicly traded corporations. FOIA requests, meetings, hearings, transcripts, budgets, expenditures, rosters, etc. What might make governments even more accountable are the threats of loss of tax revenue (people and companies doing business elsewhere) and loss of campaign contributions. This is similar to how corporations are held accountable by shareholders (CEO compensation), employees (take their talents elsewhere) and customers
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
BrandonMarc 12y ago
At some point or on some level, there's someone whose immediate superior Congress ... who controls the purse strings, I believe. Thus, in a very indirect way, accountable to the electorate (or, keeping appearances when they succeed at avoiding any accountability).