Thinking this then causes the question of the environments true protection coming up. The government can create laws to protect the environment, but unless there is some type of authority who can back up the law, even if the general mass of people are against it, then it cannot be upheld. I think this is a problem of sorts in most places. I love and support democracy, but I think that a lot of people in power forgot that they are not in power to please the people, but to do what's best for the people and the surrounding lands. Is there any way we can remind people of this? Is there any way that the democratic system could be changed someway where the judge wouldn't lose the support of the sheriff the instant the masses questioned a judge's ruling?
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Is Government Structure Preventing True Protection of the Environment?
During class, we had a discuss where the quote the was brought up when talking about the government is that, "you can't have a judge without a sheriff," and it was later talked about how the government, especially the American government is flimsy and weak, and based off of the whims and wants of the people, as opposed to what may necessarily be best for the state all together. This brought up the question, does the way our government is structured not allow real change take place? Furthermore, if the government doesn't have a way to enforce it's laws if the people are against it, does it mean that the government is then not able to do it's job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well then EPA is the largest government agency and throughout their history they have most definitely experienced some controversy in what is wanted by the people and what is best for the environment. I think that in respect to the EPA - there main goal in environmental protection and they go to great lengths to protect the environment, even if it is not a popular decisions. I think that your question is great,, but we need to narrow the focus a bit in regards to what departments of the government we are referring to.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a valid point, but at the same time I think you may be slightly misinterpreting what Matt meant by the example of "you can't have a judge without a sheriff". In most cases regarding very controversial issues, and anything in life, especially in philosophy there is a major difference between what one ought to do and what actually happens in reality. It is very easy to know what ought to happen, and what is the right decision, but most of the time very difficult to actually make happen. I think this is the main issue with not only our government, but most in the world. There are too many people and too many thoughts coming from those in power to make what ought to occur come to fruition, and in many cases it is nearly impossible. FOr example, the environment. It is very difficult to turn back what we have done, and stop it. How would the government implement a law that could force everyone to not drive anymore? That unfortunately is not possible.
ReplyDeleteNo, but the government could put a tax on carbon emissions, which would drive up the cost of gasoline, creating a strong incentive to drive less. The reason we haven't done this is that it is unpopular, both with ordinary drivers and with the hugely profitable fossil fuel corporations, who have enormous power to shape laws and policy.
ReplyDeleteHence Peter Barnes's proposal that we set up a commons trust, with elected trustees and a narrowly defined charter. Thus the process (once we got it set up) would be autonomous, and relatively insulated from the horsetrading and power plays of day-to-day government. It's work would be boringly routine -- tax polluters, abate their emissions, and redistribute the surplus to the commoners.
When did those companies start to gain so much power? Obviously that's not a good thing. Businesses shouldn't have that big of a hand in the government simply because of how powerful they are. I'm sure it was a transition over time, but it's something we need to be moving away from.
Delete