The Common Good & Mixed Economies (Show 055)
On this show Mosley discusses three interrelated topics: the common good/public interest and mixed economies. To set the context for the discussion, he reads some relevant quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.
The Common Good & The Public Interest:
“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.
We are not a capitalist system any longer: we are a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of capitalism and statism, of freedom and controls. A mixed economy is a country in the process of disintegration, a civil war of pressure-groups looting and devouring one another.
Mosley then proceeds to the discussion the manifestations of these issues in the world today. Check it out!
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
OK, so I have no problem with the idea that the philosophical idea of “the common good” is undefined. My problem is when Mosley started bringing current politics into the discussion. Your definition of the common good as undefinable often fails to translate into the current political climate, in my opinion.
Politicians, both Republicans and Democrats use the term “the common good” or similar ones often, and much of the time I think that it makes sense.
1. What would you rather them call their constituents? “The individuals we serve?”
2. Isn’t it in your best interest that your neighbor doesn’t starve, even if you decide that he “deserves” it because he isn’t a productive member of society? If your neighbor has children, and is lazy and jobless, and the government says “oh well, get a job, no welfare from us”, a few things will happen.
For one, your neighbor’s innocent children will suffer and become just as crappy adults as there parents are. Some people don’t have a problem with this. I do. I feel that it is for the common public good that all children are fed and educated regardless of how screwed up their parents are.
Also, the neighbor is going to get desperate and rob you/hurt you/start selling drugs or themselves to make money/ destroy businesses in the community/beg outside in the streets/etc. Is it really beneficial to any individual in the community to have neighbors like these? Therefore, I feel that it is for the common good that individuals have access to some sort of aid. Not excessive aid, but sensible aid.
So, I know that you’ll probably say that there shouldn’t be government programs, there should be private charities to help these people. Also, that after a period of time people will shape up or whatever and learn to be productive, that things like food and education are privileges and not rights. I disagree, especially for children.
The problem I have is that in our nonobjectivist society there is a “common good”. It might not be specifically for YOU, but ultimately it benefits you. So, I contend that when politicians in the current election use phrases like “the common good”, they do so sensibly.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Hi Beth,
You asked: isn’t it in my best interest that my neighbor doesn’t starve? This question, as stated, asks about the value of an effect without a cause. In order to answer, I would need to know the cause of the situation, my relationship with that neighbor, and the means proposed to resolve his problem.
If my neighbor got himself in this situation because he lacks the will power to sustain his own life (or worse yet, he intends to sustain his life by means of others), then he is probably of little or no value to me. In that case, he must change his attitude and become productive, or expect nothing. What interest would I have in giving him money? If he has no intention of taking care of himself, he will have to continue leeching off of me without end. It would be altruistic, and therefore immoral, to finance him in such a scenario.
And I do not agree that one should finance others to avoid being harassed. That is appeasement and will only fuel more harassment. If someone violates your rights, you should call the police and they will deal with it. (Just as you should contact an adult rather than giving a bully your lunch money each day.)
If the neighbor is normally productive and self-sustaining, but has come into a financial crisis, then I would likely have no problem with lending him or giving him some money should he need it, given that I have the extra finances and value him as a person. One could say that this was for the “common good,†since it was for the good of both of us. But politicians often say that we have to sacrifice for the common good. They’re obviously not referring to the good of all of the individuals involved, or else there would be no (and could be no) sacrifice. They’re referring to “society,” not as a number of individuals, but as a conglomerate whole (which does not exist). This is what makes the “common good,†as it is generally used, an indefinable concept.
Now with regard to children: First of all, I think it’s an extreme improbability that parents could find absolutely no way to feed them (especially in a free society). These parents can find some work, or seek private charity until they do. They can have the children live with a relative or, if necessary, put them up for adoption. But they have no right to force others to provide for them (that would be enslavement) and no right to steal. Ends do not justify the means.
–Brandon