This is the opening and conclusion of my argument elsewhere about public colleges and welfare, socialism, and the common good. However, I think they stand fairly well on their own:

First, about the "common good." I believe 100% in the concept of the individual over the society. I believe that the actual common good is not what leaders think is good for everybody, but what everybody thinks is good for themselves individually. To use an example: if you don't like guns, don't own them. However, don't prevent the right of others to defend themselves by banning them. As another example, if you don't like SUVs, don't drive them, but don't prevent people who like them from owning them. The government has no obligation to take care of us. The government has but two obligations: To defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, and to ensure that people who harm other people are no longer allowed to do so. The government should not and can not take care of us from cradle to grave in its own inefficient way.

Looks good to me. I love the second half.

Depending on what you are writing this for, you sometimes need to be careful about the term "Common Good" since it can also be used to describe a particular type of social dilemmas, also called commons dilemmas.  In economics and game theory it is quite a common term (haha - pun intended).


Even if you are NOT talking about commons dilemmas, you can still get into a grey area, once you ACCEPT that the government does have a role in YOUR welfare - which you open the door to by acknowledging that the government has the OBLIGATION to protect you from enemies (both foreign and domestic) and to protect you from other people.  Now that you've allowed the army, national guard, police, FBI, CIA, ATF, CDC, NOAA, etc. etc - WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?

Should social service agencies exist?  They are ultiamtely designed (in part) to protect children from abusive and neglectful parents.  That seems to fall under your "government obligation"

Who builds the roads?

Do the VA hospitals still get to exist?

The arguments can be made that some government programs - like afterschool stuff for inner citiy kids - are designed to PROTECT society - because the intent is to keep kids out of gangs and lives of crime, thus indirectly protecting you.




Those are just the thoughts off the top of my head.

absolutely right couldn't come up with a better way to say it

I like that... Very good premise for a paper. Any chance you can publish it here for those who might want to read over the rest of it?

Edit: BTW, what class are you writing it for?

Quoted: I like that... Very good premise for a paper. Any chance you can publish it here for those who might want to read over the rest of it? Edit: BTW, what class are you writing it for?

It's an online argument... the full text of my response is

__________________________________________________________________________________

First, about the "common good." I believe 100% in the concept of the individual over the society. I believe that the actual common good is not what leaders think is good for everybody, but what everybody thinks is good for themselves individually. To use an example that WE WILL NOT GET INTO DISCUSSION ABOUT SINCE IT IS A BANNED TOPIC AND IS JUST BEING USED AS AN EXAMPLE: if you don't like guns, don't own them. However, don't prevent the right of others to defend themselves by banning them. As another example, if you don't like SUVs, don't drive them, but don't prevent people who like them from owning them.

If you wish to pay poor people, donate to charities that do that, but don't make people who want to keep their money pay. Sure, I'll give somebody five bucks for a meal, but I won't give them five hundred bucks a month because they don't want to get a job, at least not voluntarily. Which is why I oppose welfare. It is saying, "hey, you know what, Mr. Taxpayer, as your leader, I've decided that you want to help people. So you're going to pay an extra few percent of your income every year to poor people, out of the goodness of your heart. Oh, and if you don't, we're going to forcibly take that and more and then relocate you to a lovely new home in Cell Block C where Bubba will be happy to make the acquaintance of you and your sphincter."

I would be happy to give money to poor people, but I want to give the amount I want, when I want to, how I want, and I d**n sure don't want to give extra to people who can't be bothered to make their boyfriend use a prophylactic before he runs off, nor to people who have decided it's easier and thus better to live off the public teat than to get a job.

Even if you belive that primary and secondary school is a right, I don't see how higher education is anything but a privelege, nor how it should be. If a person truly wants to go to college, they will. They can work their way through. They can get student loans. There are private financial aid organizations. They can often get parents to pay for it. If they can't afford to go to Princeton or Yale in any way, they can go to a state school. UVA, for example, is considered one of the top schools in the nation. It costs on the order of $10,000 per year for residents. That's including room and meals. William and Mary is cheaper at $6,000 per year. George Mason is a little cheaper still, and though it is not as prestigious, it is one of the better schools, and they'll accept you with a pretty poor GPA. Even UC Berkely is about $4000 plus living expenses for in-state residents.

So, why should anybody have to pay extra taxes so Joe or Jane Student doesn't have to walk into one of at least ten Starbucks in any college town and ask for a job?

Anyway, look at where current public schools have got us. So many people complain about how terrible the quality of education is in this country. Why? Monopolization of the school system. A lack of competitiveness. Private schools have to be good to earn money. If they suck, why would any parent send a student there? Public schools have no such restriction. No matter what, they get the tax dollars. They could teach our kids that france is the capitol of England, and they'd still get the money.

The government has no obligation to take care of us. The government has but two obligations: To defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, and to ensure that people who harm other people are no longer allowed to do so. The government should not and can not take care of us from cradle to grave in its own inefficient way.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas Paine stated that government, even in its most pure forum, is a necessary evil. That comment was made to contrast the institutions needed because of man's inability to consort with one another devoid of vice. I think that the governments job is to protect the welfare of the people. However, the welfare of the people in America is the welfare of the person due to our constitutions emphasis on the individual's rights. If the government establishes a law rebuking a right of the individual, they have damaged the welfare of the people.