the greater good vs. the common good

[Anarchist420]

what may be the common good changes (more on that later), but the greater good is where there are more people more conciously happy... the state cannot make everyone happy and it makes many people especially miserable.

of course, a problem with the greater good is that using the State will sometimes be attempted to meet it. and the common good (that is, the majority feel secure and prosperous) can be and was met in a quasi- libertarian society, like America was during the articles of confederation and during the jacksonian era until the coup that installed lincoln to power.

lincoln's war to preserve govt revenue and the subsequent destruction era made it so many blacks were just as, if not more miserable than they were before in addition to making all of the conquered white people miserable. so there has really been no common good that's anywhere close to the greater good since james buchanan left office.

to illustrate my point... people here are still poor and still cant contribute, so the State should make no attempt whatsoever for the common good, whatever it may be, because it will be the equal misery of all. it can be an illusion if it does work because then everyone is contributing and shit is getting recycled for no good reason. and that may be the reason so many in sweden have committed suicide. are blacks really all that much happier after the CRA of 1964? are the average white people happier? are govt-caused white lies good? do blacks appreciate the difference or what? do hud apartments look like something you or anyone else would really want to live in? anyway, i think the answer to all those questions is no. look at the black murder and rape rate today vs. in the 50s and early 60s but let me know if you think otherwise and why.

i conclude that the greater good is better if it is not lead by a central figure or by the established elite group of people. and i dont want to be more of a leech than i already am, so it's better for me to get second degree murdered in the correction that will come. i may not be able to handle the change and if i don't then im dead and it will be no net negative to society. that's why libertarian anarchy is good.

 

[Moonbeam]

Once I dropped a penny in my sock drawer and I spent hours and hours looking for it. I never did find it. But I did do about 600 pages detailing my search. Lately, I have been thinking about going fishing. I don't much like getting fish on my hands and really really hate organic things for bate. I just can't bring myself to personally kill anything either. But the thought of being out on the water fishing, with nothing to do but be there in all that beauty of nature is a fantasy I like to have. Making it real, I don't know, maybe not so much. But right here where I'm typing right now, I can look into my garden. Yeah, I can see some other houses and hear some dog's bark, but all in all it does make me happy. Do you have a garden into which you can look?

 

[momeNt]

Governments are incapable of acting towards the proper moral good. Authority is simply not designed for that.

Since governments are incapable of acting towards the moral good of the individual, the government creates classes in order to establish a common/greater good.

I'm not sure how you are using the terms common vs greater. I'd like for you to elaborate on that before I can discuss this further. All I have written so far is just establishing how I view good and what government can do.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Often I think my personal freedoms and their unsustainable consequences (in waste and consumption) will make me and every other westerner a monster in some future era like we look at slave traders today.

That thought gets me to recycle more.

I couldn't give up my freedoms, I am trained to expect more. But maybe people conditioned to expect 1984 is the only way to save the planet.

 

[Attic]

The real danger is allowing centralized power to determine these things without realizing their implicit role in corrupting the common good should they take on too much power. Centralization is efficient in taking power from the masses, it is horribly inefficient (due to it being the antithesis of it's lifeblood) in granting power to the masses.

Politicians ought to at least acknowledge they are stepping into the danger zone of corrupting power when taking the reigns. Most of them seem to ignore that critical aspect of what they are engaged in and therefore are ill prepared to combat its influence over them. Most simply don't recognize their own corruption because they rationalize it away, a tactic many good looking and powerful evil doers excel at.

The greater good is simply freedom and liberty. Achieving those things effectively is difficult, more so if it's not a primary goal at all. Most people are not altruistic, particularly those who are driven to power are rarely altruistic. This axiom makes freedom and liberty very difficult for power centers to deliver. The founding fathers recognized this, but their wisdom has slowly eroded due to rationalization of our evil empires tactics (imperialism, excessive taxation, spying on citizens, monies influence over politics,...)

 

[Attic]

Often I think my personal freedoms and their unsustainable consequences (in waste and consumption) will make me and every other westerner a monster in some future era like we look at slave traders today.

That thought gets me to recycle more.

I couldn't give up my freedoms, I am trained to expect more. But maybe people conditioned to expect 1984 is the only way to save the planet.

Peoples personal freedoms are not really for others to infringe on. You can be wasteful or not. The choice is important, not your specific decision, but you're ability to choose freely what to do. A lot of people choose to recycle after they are aware of some things. Bringing awareness to more folks is important, not infringing on the choice of the individual.

What our government is on the verge on (and over the edge in some cases) is saying they offer a choice when in fact they don't. Loose example would be you can recycle or not, but if you don't we are going to only allow you to have one child. It could be argued it's a choice, but there's an arbitrary penalty to not doing what the government says which is dangerous as far as true freedoms go.

This is part of what upsets a lot of folks about the ACA, you don't really have a choice whether to sign up or not. If you don't you are penalized/taxed. This opens the gateway for a lot of troubling policy from the government who decides it will offer a "choice" to citizens over what they do or don't do. It's fairly evident how other choices in ones life could be manipulated to serve government interests and not personal freedoms. If anyone still is clinging to car insurance as the same thing as ACA just consider where the real choice is in that equation is, whether to drive or not. Whether to drive or not is still a personal choice based on pluses and minus to the individual, free of government punishment if the individual chooses against a government mandate. If government forced people to drive or pay a penalty that would be closer to what the ACA does.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Peoples personal freedoms are not really for others to infringe on. You can be wasteful or not. The choice is important, not your specific decision, but you're ability to choose freely what to do. A lot of people choose to recycle after they are aware of some things. Bringing awareness to more folks is important, not infringing on the choice of the individual.

Having choice is a luxury really. Or at least it will seem that way when the planet has to hold 10 billion people.

If everyone was free to live like Americans, we would need multiple planets due to our consumption levels:

http://www.popsci.com/environment/a...-lived-american-how-many-earths-would-we-need

The freedom to consume and waste freely will eventually be too expensive for humanity, and we will have to either live in a police state or have a huge epidemic to make this sustainable.

Its not a pleasant thought but its reality. In truth, the cost of human freedom might be too great. Or at least that is what future generations might think looking back at today's world.

 

[Anarchist420]

I'm not sure how you are using the terms common vs greater. I'd like for you to elaborate on that before I can discuss this further. All I have written so far is just establishing how I view good and what government can do.

it was a dumb op sorry about that... there is no common good, just the State can attempt it and they immorally create common neutrality. recycling waste is what the State does.

i hope you've been doing well. i've missed seeing you post a lot but i am sure you're being productive. pm me to know where i can find you.

 

[momeNt]

it was a dumb op sorry about that... there is no common good, just the State can attempt it and they immorally create common neutrality. recycling waste is what the State does.

i hope you've been doing well. i've missed seeing you post a lot but i am sure you're being productive. pm me to know where i can find you.

ygpm

I don't think it was a dumb OP, just a little confusing on the terminology.

Government promotes immorality. By immorality I mean more Kantian getting what you deserve.

The largest handouts to date in my opinion by the government in terms of value were probably the granting of large amounts of real estate to the various railroads to promote the "common good" beginning in the 1860s. The owners and stockholders that received the land for the railroad as well 5 miles on either side. They did not earn this land through labor, they were given the land because of an idea, and they immorally benefited from it.

Now we move to today. People are unable to see the immoral benefit the wealthy receive from the Federal Reserve system, and instead focus solely on entitlement benefits like EBT, unemployment, social security, etc. We take for granted all the benefits we don't earn if we are employed if its a function of a distorted money system, but the outrage is really at the people who receive benefits because they are collateral damage of an immoral economic system. The irony!

Be well.

 

[piasabird]

How does getting charged more for insurance increase the greater good? You pay much more right now and you have to starve to death or live on the street in a cardboard box.