An increasingly complex society = inevitably, more conflicts of interest. To what degree can we expect society to manage this? Say one person M owns shares in X where company X owns a stake in a fund that owns shares in Y and company Y’s CEO’s cousin is married to or in some economic partnership with M. Could that be called a conflict of interest? Ok, that's a little extreme, and nobody wants a new monolithic bureaucracy out there to monitor such things.
But the law seems so dodgy and uninterested in this respect.
I'd be interested to know from anyone out there what standards exist in what environments..I can't find anything on law sites. It seems there are so many other ways in which one's actions could be affected without being directly linked materially or socially to somebody else. What about the trail of nepotism in the suburbs, in company hiring policy...it would seem unfair to demand a business owner justifies a decision to hire his daughter over a million other more qualified people, but...but...argh. Idealism again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Perhaps increasing complexity, like greater size in the dinosaurs, is the trend that will ultimately bring our society down.
Every society begins, or perhaps likes to believe it began, with hardy, rugged, independent folk who "did for themselves" in a simpler world.
Then the progression always seems to be towards more and more reliance on a bigger and bigger government,which fosters litigation, corruption, oppression and dependence.
But maybe I totally misunderstood everything you wrote and am running off on a tangent.
I wasn't thinking so much about government, more just the complex system of interactions between private and public interests, and between persons, corporations etc.
Post a Comment