Social Vision Statement
A world in which Government, Economics (Industry) and Religion are separate from each other and perform their own specific function in society, would be my “Happy Place”. The interdependence of these three aspects has led to a world that is divided not only on grounds of religion but also on how businesses should operate in terms of maximizing profit yet maintaining stakeholder interests.
Government and Politician’s role in society should be to make policies and decisions that target the social and economic well being of people and society as a whole. Decisions by people in office of power that impact only a very small section of the society in my view are not always the best decisions. A good example of such a decision was the proposal in 2004 to construct a bridge that was to connect Ketchikan, Alaska (pop. 14,500) to Gravina Island (pop. 50) at cost of $200 million. The proposal was put forth by Congressman Don Young who was the Republican member from Alaska and also the Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Sure, connecting a remote village in Alaska would help in economic growth and development of the village, but at what cost? $4 million per person! Could the $200 million not be utilized in other ways to promote tourism or trade in the area? Could the people be possibly relocated to the mainland at a lesser cost? Though answers to these questions may seem obvious at the surface, there is a convoluted relationship between the “Right thing to do” and what “Ends up being done”.
In most countries, states or even in small towns, decisions by politicians are made to appease people, so that they elect the same person or party for the next term. The approach of “you scratch my back and I scratch yours” often leads to selective participation in welfare of society. People who do not have as much influence on policy making or determining who comes to power, often end up being sidelined. A simple fact that most organizations - religious
Government and Politician’s role in society should be to make policies and decisions that target the social and economic well being of people and society as a whole. Decisions by people in office of power that impact only a very small section of the society in my view are not always the best decisions. A good example of such a decision was the proposal in 2004 to construct a bridge that was to connect Ketchikan, Alaska (pop. 14,500) to Gravina Island (pop. 50) at cost of $200 million. The proposal was put forth by Congressman Don Young who was the Republican member from Alaska and also the Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Sure, connecting a remote village in Alaska would help in economic growth and development of the village, but at what cost? $4 million per person! Could the $200 million not be utilized in other ways to promote tourism or trade in the area? Could the people be possibly relocated to the mainland at a lesser cost? Though answers to these questions may seem obvious at the surface, there is a convoluted relationship between the “Right thing to do” and what “Ends up being done”.
In most countries, states or even in small towns, decisions by politicians are made to appease people, so that they elect the same person or party for the next term. The approach of “you scratch my back and I scratch yours” often leads to selective participation in welfare of society. People who do not have as much influence on policy making or determining who comes to power, often end up being sidelined. A simple fact that most organizations - religious