I’ll ask you one more time…
June 23, 2005
What is a clear, objective definition of the “Public Good”? It’s cited all the time as the reason for laws, regulations, restrictions, etc. And as I’ve said before, it’s not a real idea. It cannot be. What is meant by “public good” is “aggreggate good,” by which they really mean “average quantifiable amounts of good.” Try that on for size.
I found a brief snip of this at dKos, and then at Cafe Hayek I found the linke to the article. It’s absolutely appalling, the idea that the government can seize your house and grant it then to another person (or corporate person, as the case may be) all while citing the “public good.” So how is the “public good” best served by displacing its constituents? Don’t they also comprise the public, for which this property seizure is to do so much good?
Marx and Lenin cite the “public good.” Hitler exterminated jews in the interest of the “public good.” The “public good” demands that we sacrafice our earnings, our abilities, our potential, in order that we may give something better to the less fortunate. Thus goes the theory of decreasing marginal utility…
The “public good,” what is it? I’ll tell you: It’s the subjugation of your lawful interest(s) in right(s) and/or property(ies) to the whimsical, unjustified, unrepresented desires and ideas of a larger and/or more influential citizen or group thereof.
Comments
5 Comments so far
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Archives
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
Categories
- Agora!
- American Politics
- Anarchy!
- Blog Reactions
- Bureaucracy
- Conspiracy Theory
- Democracy is Great!
- Dog Blogging
- Drug War Rants
- Economic Fallacies
- Economics Lessons
- Election ‘08
- environmentalism
- Food & Drink
- Fun Stuff
- Gay Rights
- gnar
- gold bugging
- Government is Slavery
- Gun Control
- Health Care
- immigration
- junk science
- Left Libertarian
- Legalese
- Literature
- localized
- MA Carnival
- memes
- metablogging
- order from chaos
- personal finance
- Personal Life
- Police State
- ponderings
- Pop Culture
- Potpourri
- Property Rights
- quotes
- Rants
- Religion
- Rent Seeking
- Seen and Unseen
- shredding gnar
- Strikebusting
- Subsidize This!
- Taxation is Theft
- Uncategorized
- Warfare State
- Women’s Studies 101
- World Politics
- world travel
I agree that this behavior is disgusting , unethical and example #9,911,911 of how when the government says its doing something in the public good, it’s probably screwing and/or fleecing the public.
But I disagree that this is evidence that there’s something inherently wrong with the concept public good. The problem is that we’re ruled by lunatics.
I would ask you then, if you disagree regarding the public good, under what circumstances is it alright to violate the rights of one person in favor of the desires of another person? Is it alright to take one man’s life so that a dozen more may not perish? If not a dozen, what about a hundred, or a hundred thousand?
We have to examine the vulgar use of force at play here, against law-abiding citizens, I might add, and the complete lack of the right to self-determination for which our forefathers fought and died.
doin: I would ask you then, if you disagree regarding the public good, under what circumstances is it alright to violate the rights of one person in favor of the desires of another person? Is it alright to take one man’s life so that a dozen more may not perish? If not a dozen, what about a hundred, or a hundred thousand?
Fortunately, most tradeoffs aren’t like this. Most are like, “Is it worth denying a sick subset of men the sexual pleasure associated with raping young girls ( boys, cows, etc.) in order to protect the well-being of the girl, boy, cow, pig, etc.
The vast majority of public good questions are no brainers. (See 10 commandments.)
You are comparing apples to cinderblocks. Someone’s sexual pleasure of raping a young girl (etc) in no way, ever, can be considered an inherent right of man. So to deny him this, is not to deny him his right.
You are asking me: Is it ok to deny someone’s pleasure in favor of someone else’s inalienable right (to be free from violence or the threat thereof)? And I would answer you: unequivocally, yes.
And in your reversal of my question, is that I don’t believe it is ever acceptable in a free, lawful society, to violate one man’s rights in favor of another man’s whims, desires, wishes, etc. Not ever.
“The problem is that we’re ruled by lunatics.”
Ding!
That has been true for all of human history. Things will not change by simply replacing the man on top or the majority in congress. Being ruled by lunatics is why we had a Constitution that (used to) sharply limit the powers of a federal government. The “Public Good” will always be twisted and bastardized by whomever happens to be on top at the time to benefit a few at the expense of others. That is definately not what the founding fathers where thinking of when they put the general welfare clause in the constitution.