|
Except when many groups spend money it is not necessarily in the express pursuit of the interests of the individuals.
Corporate interests and the individual interests of the owners do not necessarily align and the power of owners to direct corporate behavior (I'm saying corporate but it is true of many groups) is so attenuated as to frequently be meaningless. But this is particularly true of very large publicly owned corporations where frequently the major "owners" are themselves collectives with extremely attenuated power and are in turn "owned" in an extremely attenuated manner.
I put my retirement money in a 401k fund which is managed so that some of my money is put in a mutual fund which is managed so that some of my money goes into an index fund in which my ownership in Oracle is completely automatic and Larry Ellison could hardly give a flying fig what I think my interests are as an "owner" of the corporation. He then gives some of "my" money to a corporate PAC which is managed so as to give some of that money to an industry PAC which in turn donates money to a party's general re-election fund. At some point the collective as a special interest has lost all moorings with its constituent human beings as special interests.
Plus, collectives have been given the right of participation without necessarily having the same social obligations and concerns as an actual individual human being. They are theoretically immortal, can not be imprisoned, can change identities as well, can be reincarnated after death, and are intentionally designed as amoral actors.
|