Irene Gilbert is a 76-year-old retired state employee on a mission, fighting energy projects like large wind farms in Oregon’s rural communities. Renewable energy advocates and lawmakers treat activists like her as gadflies who should be stopped.
I think your points are very agreeable. I don’t disagree with most of that.
I do think your thinking is flawed in presenting the government regulatory environment as simply a dial to turn between corporations and regular people.
Do you play any games? Either board games or video games? I wish more people took an interest in game design, because it’s a really complicated and fascinating field with a ton of relevance to social policy.
Instead of viewing the government as the decider between who gets to be the dominant force and who is the disadvantaged actor, we should try to design systems to counter balance effectively. A classic example is the division of powers between branches of government. That’s a great idea that has worked pretty well, and most people understand.
In this case, I would suggest that there should democratic mechanisms that allow small groups to challenge intuitional power (including both corporations and the state) but also for bigger groups of people to challenge small groups. This woman files a lot of legal challenges where she has no real stake. There should be mechanisms for local residents and environmental groups to restrain some of the legal tools she’s abusing. In other words, I don’t want to empower the corporations she’s fighting, I want to empower GOOD environmentalists (yes, she is an environmentalist, even if she sucks) to cut her off. Kind of like how many states are finally addressing the problem of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuits.
We should have mechanisms to allow limits to the number and duration of challenges. A lot of this is about filibustering projects. Let people challenge them, but require these challenges to be adjudicated quickly and then place limits on repeat challenges and delay tactics.
Again, she’s wrong and fuck her. But that’s not a political project, that’s just complaining. I’m proposing we put our energy where it makes a difference.
I think your points are very agreeable. I don’t disagree with most of that.
I do think your thinking is flawed in presenting the government regulatory environment as simply a dial to turn between corporations and regular people.
Do you play any games? Either board games or video games? I wish more people took an interest in game design, because it’s a really complicated and fascinating field with a ton of relevance to social policy.
Instead of viewing the government as the decider between who gets to be the dominant force and who is the disadvantaged actor, we should try to design systems to counter balance effectively. A classic example is the division of powers between branches of government. That’s a great idea that has worked pretty well, and most people understand.
In this case, I would suggest that there should democratic mechanisms that allow small groups to challenge intuitional power (including both corporations and the state) but also for bigger groups of people to challenge small groups. This woman files a lot of legal challenges where she has no real stake. There should be mechanisms for local residents and environmental groups to restrain some of the legal tools she’s abusing. In other words, I don’t want to empower the corporations she’s fighting, I want to empower GOOD environmentalists (yes, she is an environmentalist, even if she sucks) to cut her off. Kind of like how many states are finally addressing the problem of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuits.
We should have mechanisms to allow limits to the number and duration of challenges. A lot of this is about filibustering projects. Let people challenge them, but require these challenges to be adjudicated quickly and then place limits on repeat challenges and delay tactics.
Again, she’s wrong and fuck her. But that’s not a political project, that’s just complaining. I’m proposing we put our energy where it makes a difference.