New Democrat Slogan....'Common Good'

[Universe Prince]

Good Post!

Thanks.

[Brassmask]

I don't understand why conservatives and "libertarians" have such a ridiculous kneejerk reaction to the phrase "common good".  America has always had an eye toward that philosophy.

There is no denying that as Americans, and more importantly humans, there are some goals that we all agree on and share, therefore, as a society or the largest of special interest groups, we can use the tool that represents us all to accomplish these shared goals.  If we all agree that there is an agreement that a certain goal that we all share, the use of government to accomplish these goals is the best way to reach that goal.

Examples of "common good" ideas that have been addressed by the government, for the most part, effectively.  Clean water, for instance, is a notion that we all share and desire.  The government can set rules to ensure that the populace can safely drink clean water with ease.  The nations highways, I believe are a result of "common good" thinking.  It was good for business, for vacationers, good for all.

"Common good" thinking can be exemplified by the our laws against murder and theft.

"Common good" thinking is responsible for the idea of public education.  Simply put, a more educated populace is a freer, more productive populace.

The military is the ultimate in "common good" thinking.  Protection works for everyone.  Attack works for a few and that's because it steps away from "common good" thinking and serves a special interest.   Those who support the war are in actuality trying to make people think that attacking Iraq pre-emptively was for the "common good".  (Though that has been proven a misconception over and over.)

Firefighters are a result of "common good" thinking.  Police forces, as well.

So, when you're whining about the Dems "new" slogan, remember America was founded on the idea of "common good".

[Amianthus]

The nations highways, I believe are a result of "common good" thinking.  It was good for business, for vacationers, good for all.

Actually, the Interstate System was designed by the military, for the military. They just let us use it when they don't need it.

[Universe Prince]

I don't understand why conservatives and "libertarians" have such a ridiculous kneejerk reaction to the phrase "common good".

They don't. People who object to the use of the term 'common good' usually are not objecting to the term itself but the fact that the person or group using it to justify some government action, proposed or otherwise, generally means "common good as I/we choose to define it for everyone else". As a libertarian, I'm all for the common good. As a libertarian, I am not, however, all for someone or some group getting to decide everyone else should accept and submit to what he/they want everyone else to do in the name of the 'common good'. That goes for "progressives" or Christians or whatever.

There is no denying that as Americans, and more importantly humans, there are some goals that we all agree on and share, therefore, as a society or the largest of special interest groups, we can use the tool that represents us all to accomplish these shared goals.  If we all agree that there is an agreement that a certain goal that we all share, the use of government to accomplish these goals is the best way to reach that goal.

If we all agreed on it, we wouldn't need the power of the government to get it done.

Examples of "common good" ideas that have been addressed by the government, for the most part, effectively.  Clean water, for instance, is a notion that we all share and desire.  The government can set rules to ensure that the populace can safely drink clean water with ease.

Is this the same government that recently needed to a scientific study to tell it that animals contribute more than half the bacteria that ends up in streams and rivers? But anyway, if clean water is something we all want, then why do we need government to set rules about it?

The nations highways, I believe are a result of "common good" thinking.  It was good for business, for vacationers, good for all.

I believe the interstate system was proposed as a matter of military importance, allowing the military to transport troops and equipment across the country with more ease than the highway system we had in place at the time. In fact, as I recall, something like every tenth mile of interstate was to be straight so that military planes could use it for landing. Whether they still have this requirement, I don't know. In any case, there is no reason to believe that we would not have some sort of highway/interstate system without government.

"Common good" thinking can be exemplified by the our laws against murder and theft.

I agree. Laws against the violation of individual rights serve the common good. I've said as much more than a few times.

"Common good" thinking is responsible for the idea of public education.  Simply put, a more educated populace is a freer, more productive populace.

That assumes that our public school system is contributing to a more educated populace and that private schools could not accomplish the same thing. The former I am increasingly doubtful of and the latter I am convinced is not the case at all.

The military is the ultimate in "common good" thinking.  Protection works for everyone.  Attack works for a few and that's because it steps away from "common good" thinking and serves a special interest.   Those who support the war are in actuality trying to make people think that attacking Iraq pre-emptively was for the "common good".  (Though that has been proven a misconception over and over.)

Thank you for providing an example of 'common good' thinking that illustrates why claiming this or that action is for the 'common good' is not a good enough excuse. And why the few should not be deciding for everyone else what is the 'common good'.

Firefighters are a result of "common good" thinking.  Police forces, as well.

Again, there is no reason to believe we must have government to have fire fighters or the equivalent of police forces.

So, when you're whining about the Dems "new" slogan, remember America was founded on the idea of "common good".

When you're busy gushing over how the "new" slogan describes what you want to see government accomplish, remember that for some people the 'common good' means the war in Iraq and and 'faith based initiatives' and laws against homosexual marriage. Saying that a desire to tell others what to do is really just a compassionate desire for the 'common good' doesn't make it so.

[_JS]

Highways and interstates aren't the same thing of course.

Our interstate system was modelled after the German Autobahn, which Hitler did not invent or even begin the effort, but he took it from a slow paced project, to an all out national push.

Also, I'd hardly say your definition for the interstate system is out of date for today. You'll notice when they build more interstates or ass on to existing ones, the traffic studies conducted by the government are completely concerned with civilian interests and have little or nothing at all to do with military concerns.

[_JS]

In any case, there is no reason to believe that we would not have some sort of highway/interstate system without government.

Specious reasoning. There's no reason to believe we would have a highway or interstate system without the government either.

That assumes that our public school system is contributing to a more educated populace and that private schools could not accomplish the same thing. The former I am increasingly doubtful of and the latter I am convinced is not the case at all.

All of our Nobel Prize winners this year came from the public school system. We have such a system to establish social equality that private schools would not have the impetus to provide (which there is ample proof of in other nations). Why should society have your beliefs in laissez-faire economics pushed upon their school system? Why are you above the Christians and Progressives in that respect that your ends somehow justify your means, where theirs do not?

You realize of course that Adam Smith discusses the "common good" in his writings? As does Jefferson and others who epoused democracy.

[Universe Prince]

There's no reason to believe we would have a highway or interstate system without the government either.

Okay, but this does not prove we need government to give us a highway/interstate system. In any case, it seems rather likely to me that we would have some sort of a highway or interstate system in place if only because people would want a solution for traffic and for getting from here to there, and someone would build it. No, it probably would not look like what we have today, but that doesn't mean we have no reason to believe it would exist.

All of our Nobel Prize winners this year came from the public school system.

So? I did not say no one ever came out the public school system with an ability to excel.

We have such a system to establish social equality that private schools would not have the impetus to provide (which there is ample proof of in other nations).

Hm. Here all this time I thought we had a public school system to educate the children. What sort of social equality do you think the public school systems of America establish?

Why should society have your beliefs in laissez-faire economics pushed upon their school system? Why are you above the Christians and Progressives in that respect that your ends somehow justify your means, where theirs do not?

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone pulled out this argument. For criticizing the system, I get asked why my way should forced on other people. I'm not asking for my way to be forced on other people. In this conversation, I'm merely suggesting that we not only don't absolutely have to have government to address issues of the common good, but also that government doing so does not always mean the results are the best we could have.

One problem with your questions is that it is not "their" school system. It is mine too, insofar as I went to public schools for a time and because my taxes help pay for it. So I am inclined to ask in turn, why should "their" school system be forced on me or anyone else not satisfied with the system? "Their" school system forces everyone to pay for it whether or not they have children in school and whether or not they even will send their children to public schools. Why is "their" school system above the Christians and "progressives" in that "they" get to justify "their" means by "their" supposed ends?

Frankly, that people endeavor to insist that I'm trying to force my views on other people is something I find rather silly. I'm not trying to tell other people how to educate their children or what to spend their money on. I'm not advocating having government take money from everyone to pay for what I want. I suppose you can argue that I'm trying to impose my views by my arguing that people should be free, but that's like saying I'm trying to control others by my arguing that people shouldn't be murdered or have their property stolen. I'm not trying to impose anything at all. I just want government to leave people alone to decide for themselves where and to spend their money or have their children educated, et cetera. How is that imposing anything on others? Let's take this to an extreme example. Which group of people was trying to impose their will on others, the slavers or the abolitionists? Were the abolitionists, by advocating for the end of slavery, trying to enslave the plantation owners? No, of course not. I'm not arguing that my will be imposed on others. I'm arguing that the social desires of some should not be imposed on everyone.

If you want a government run public school system, okay, but why does everyone have to pay for it? And if it is okay for "their" public school system to impose "their" will on everyone else, how can you complain that I'm somehow the bad guy if I want to "impose" my will by not having "their" will imposed on everyone else? If what I want is somehow the philosophically or ethically equal to what "they" want, why is it okay for "them" but not for me?

You realize of course that Adam Smith discusses the "common good" in his writings? As does Jefferson and others who epoused democracy.

Yeah. So... what's your point? Did I say anything against the concept of a 'common good'? I don't remember having done so. I have no problem whatever with the notion of there being a 'common good'. The problem is when people use the term 'common good' to sell what is not the 'common good' but a policy of imposing what they want on everyone else.

[Plane]

   How specific is the term "Common Good"?\



    If it is so loose that it can cover anything that could be conceved of as good for most people , there is not a politician in the world that couldn't use it.