The government and the nuclear lobby
yes on "the eve of the final battle" between nuclear power opponents and proponents. On the topic one can have different opinions - I will here allow a final opinion on whether nuclear power is a future technology or the bad. Downright disgusting I find another aspect: the behavior of
nuclear power plant operators.
We live in a democratic state and it is intended that decisions are not made out of nothing or a whim, but follow a political (and, ideally, society) debate. In the course of this debate is to of course always have the opportunity to comment on it, first right of any person concerned. However, I am not sure if this also applies to legal persons - after all, have no such right to vote. Alone, the process that the company XY is said to have an opinion, I find it strange enough, because this company is so in fact only a construction. One could assume that shape the interests of employees, the management and owners agree to the company. In this case, the company has no own opinion, but only adds all existing individual opinions together. At this point I would doubt again that all shareholders have a homogeneous E.on opinion about nuclear power. To what extent the views of foreign owners (Vattenfall Sweden) is considered is again debatable. Surely in a democracy should the interests of non-voters are considered. In this particular case, however, that foreign nationals are by far the most affected. While in Germany there is interest in yields and safety, environmental protection and a stable electricity supply, had foreign Shareholders (more or less) is primarily a (legitimate) interest in returns. A pure interest return would, in my opinion, therefore, secondary.
should the nuclear power plant operators are glad to know when they are allowed to voice their opinion on the fuel tax and life extension by these considerations. Finally, the state is a higher authority, who represents the sovereign and must consider many interests.
Instead, there is an increasingly harsh tone of voice. Since the policy does not seem satisfied with the proposals of the groups is there is the fear that they would submit to uncomfortable decisions. Obviously they have to threaten only the two reflections and demand. An entity may threaten the state? Of course not. This would yield to the threat, it would be clear that companies can significantly influence the state. That would be profoundly undemocratic because (see above) companies are not democratic units, they are not eligible to vote, they do not even necessarily represent the interests of individuals. Happy to be allowed as of (their managers, employees, shareholders, etc.) in the debate . Participate However, since it is not only an economic debate, but an embracing social debate, they should contact there represent their own personal opinion and act as individuals. I also do not threaten the government because they want to cut child benefit (fictitious example). Democracy can not work if a group exists that has a homogeneous and large enough interest is threatening to take effect. To get a good balance of interests out a democratic debate should consist mainly of individual utterances.
An interesting experiment: allow the management and the government behind Rawls connect " veil of ignorance". Represented the men actually their own opinion or the opinion represents a CEO of his company because he feels obligated as chief clerk to do so.
second objection: perhaps you are conscious of the environment ministry of the principal-agent problem, not quite. The new head of the Department of Nuclear Safety has negotiated as E.on managers on the part of the nuclear phase of the company. They want the Honourable Minister Röttgen Hennenhöfer and not just criticize lobbying and bias. A strange Connotation, the whole course, and I can only hope that Prime Minister Röttgen within the meaning of principal-agent problem also has the interests of his new department head questioned and explored.
0 comments:
Post a Comment