Hey I landed on #4

[mfl]

How did "I vote that YOU to pay for everything I want" become defined as "the common good". I understand how it is "good" for you...I am just not seeing the "good" for me. Or is it like aiabx implies...that if I don't agree to pay for everything YOU want then YOU will riot in the streets and destroy everything I have...is that the part that is "good" for me?

Tater,
Do you understand how it is "good" for [me] as you say.....Curious, there are a whole lot of ways to define that. What do you think, can you name a few? BTW---I suspect few people vote for "everything they want" and rather what they think best. Perhaps for their own self interest, or not. Pperhaps one goes philosophical with that self interest, I don't know. Anyway why does everything have to be "good" for you, I think if you honestly examine some of your own philosphy and thoughts you will find some issues where it isn't solely about you, beyond say the philosphical good for you sense.
Mike

[Sparafucil3]

Jim,
Which is why in some points in history you might be praised for your independence, in others voted out of the colony...we have become much more liberal than we were in our initial days, and with this are far more accpeting of those who don't or do not want to conform to what is precieved as the common good. To a degree our successes have given us those options---which are good to have, and should be encouraged. But much as it is objectionable to draft a man to duty for his country (or even order a volenteer to a difficult mission), it is necessary to compel certain individuals to tax for the common good (a tax itself for common good is to me far less than ordering someone to a possible death however). Nothing new here, and nothing new to the division of each position. If you don't want to be taxed for the common good of the communty museum and for that mattercommunity college and library, don't move to my county or you will (like the rest of us who own property in Kalamazoo County) have to pay a tax to support others and the future through the past as is the museum--it is pretty cemented in the community and its support. Problem I see with many a big city is that people who could help move to the far corners, and inner cities lose their support/base, and fall into decay. Not like this isn't human nature or that we all haven't done it from time to time, but I recognize that it is necessary to fight some of this at times.
Mike

Common good implies I get something in return. What do I get in return for feeding and clothing the poor? What benefit do I derive? They don't mow my lawn. They don't clean the streets. They don't give me a special swimming pool. It has nothing to do with "common good" and everything to do with an entitlement to a special interest. -- jim

[mfl]

Common good implies I get something in return. What do I get in return for feeding and clothing the poor? What benefit do I derive? They don't mow my lawn. They don't clean the streets. They don't give me a special swimming pool. It has nothing to do with "common good" and everything to do with an entitlement to a special interest. -- jim

Jim,
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken in this. "Common good" implies at times a sacrafice by the individual for raising the "good" or standard of the maximum number of people. It has nothing necessarily to do with what is in it for the indivudual, such as yourself. It could be that providing for the children, poor, and elderly might not be for the well done, or for the common good (I would say it is, but one might very well make an argument that it is not). However, it has nothing to do with what is in it for any specific individual (although at times it might very well be that the specific individual derives some benefit from actions for the common good).
Mike

[Sparafucil3]

Jim,
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken in this. "Common good" implies at times a sacrafice by the individual for raising the "good" or standard of the maximum number of people. It has nothing necessarily to do with what is in it for the indivudual, such as yourself. It could be that providing for the children, poor, and elderly might not be for the well done, or for the common good (I would say it is, but one might very well make an argument that it is not). However, it has nothing to do with what is in it for any specific individual (although at times it might very well be that the specific individual derives some benefit from actions for the common good).
Mike

This is taken straight from Wikipedia.

The common good or common weal is a term that can refer to several different concepts. In the popular meaning, the common good describes a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. This is also how the common good is broadly defined in philosophy, ethics, and political science.

I would also refer you to Federalist Papers #10 and #57. I am relatively certain I am on firm ground with my definition of "common good". So again, what do I get for it? What's in it for me? How do I or my family benefit? The simple fact is you can't tell me how I benefit because I don't. Not one iota. -- jim

[Tater]

Tater,
Do you understand how it is "good" for [me] as you say.....Curious, there are a whole lot of ways to define that. What do you think, can you name a few? BTW---I suspect few people vote for "everything they want" and rather what they think best. Perhaps for their own self interest, or not. Pperhaps one goes philosophical with that self interest, I don't know.

There is at least 50% that keep voting for me to pay their way.

Anyway why does everything have to be "good" for you, I think if you honestly examine some of your own philosphy and thoughts you will find some issues where it isn't solely about you, beyond say the philosphical good for you sense.

If 50% of the voters vote to keep a minority paying all the bills...where/when does the "common" part come into play? Seems to me what we have is an application of "limited good".

[Sparafucil3]

Anyway why does everything have to be "good" for you, I think if you honestly examine some of your own philosphy and thoughts you will find some issues where it isn't solely about you, beyond say the philosphical good for you sense.

I missed this. It doesn't have to be "good" for me, it has to be fair. Taking from one to give to another is not fair. Providing goods and services to one and not another is not fair. Making sure we each have the same protections and freedoms is fair. Making sure we all pay the same thing is fair. When you say something is for the "common good"--a rightful role of government--then you have to tell me how everyone benefits. With defense spending, highway construction, police, etc that is easy to show. When its for Welfare, or WIC, or any of the other services provided to a very narrow majority at the expense of another larger minority, that's unfair and precisely what the government is supposed to protect against (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--principal among the Pursuit is the idea of acquisition of wealth and property). -- jim

[Dr Zaius]

I missed this. It doesn't have to be "good" for me, it has to be fair. Taking from one to give to another is not fair. Providing goods and services to one and not another is not fair. Making sure we each have the same protections and freedoms is fair. Making sure we all pay the same thing is fair. jim

Jim, in principle I agree with you. But in practice that's a difficult standard to meet with every program and piece of legislation.

[Sparafucil3]

Jim, in principle I agree with you. But in practice that's a difficult standard to meet with every program and piece of legislation.

Sure, it isn't easy. I would argue when it isn't met, it likely isn't an enumerated power. I would be interested in legislation which contradicts this argument. I admittedly haven't thought long about the position. -- jim

[Psycho]

I missed this. It doesn't have to be "good" for me, it has to be fair. Taking from one to give to another is not fair. Providing goods and services to one and not another is not fair. Making sure we each have the same protections and freedoms is fair. Making sure we all pay the same thing is fair. When you say something is for the "common good"--a rightful role of government--then you have to tell me how everyone benefits. With defense spending, highway construction, police, etc that is easy to show. When its for Welfare, or WIC, or any of the other services provided to a very narrow majority at the expense of another larger minority, that's unfair and precisely what the government is supposed to protect against (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--principal among the Pursuit is the idea of acquisition of wealth and property). -- jim

Shut up and send me a check, you stingy bastard!

[Mini-Me]

Shut up and send me a check, you stingy bastard!

A check? H*ll yeah, I'll send you a check. I thought you needed money.