My objectivist rant

[MaC]

Since nobody reads this board anymore, I doubt will get much criticism

Body:     Hello and thank you for taking time to read this (or at least open it). I'm not an objectivist, but my argument folows as one that an objectivist would make. And it is follows:

What is the "public good". Has anyone who's heard this term ever sat down to think about it. Let's dissect this term further. Both words 'public' and 'good' are to an extent subjective-to say that plenty of definitions can take their place. But let's delve further.

What is "public"? It's the polar opposite of private. In application to institutions and property, it means that no one person owns or is in charge of an institution or property-yet the government is, since the government speaks for the 'public'. Definitionally, public can only mean a collection of people-each of which is an individual. This is something that is often forgotten. This definition is in dismissal of "community rights". There's no such thing as community rights, or standards-they're simply arbitrary contracts that are enforced among all people, despite even a majority of the individuals may dissent against them. To make an 'every day' example of this-look at the 'community law' that applies to your locality's porn laws. Some areas you need to be 21. Why should an adult that's 18 and therefore old enough to be of his own person wait three years to watch pornographic material? Because some 'community good' says so. Okay...

Let's also take the word 'good' into account. 'Good' is as horrible of a definition as 'bad'. Good is a subjective term which applies to individuals as they see fit. The only 'good' that exists is by contrasting it to 'less than good' or 'not good' or bad. So we know both definitions are vague, vague terms.

So we have 'public good'. What's so horrible about this term? Everything under the sun is horrible about it! The concept is statist jargon that has made it's way into mainstream thought. This applies to collectivism, primarily. If I put the barrel of the gun to your head and politely ask you for $100-then I take the money and spend it on ice cream for an orphanage-have I not done wrong? Let's take this further-lets say that I drain you of your money and I help buy 2 dollar ice creams for 50 orphans. I have done a supposed 'public good', but it's not good. First, the use of force upon anybody with the exception of defense is a moral evil. Second-the children that recieved ice cream are 50 individuals, and you are one. So it's one person being harmed in the process of helping fifty. The main point is that somebody is harmed. Third, I'm infringing upon your right, as an individual. There is no real good if not all are benefitting from this. The means do not justify the ends.

Now the scary part is that this stuff happens every day. It's the movement of socialism and totalitarianism-which as it's public good, ironically hurts more people. Recently the Supreme Court made the decision in Kelo v. New London that property can be taken from an individual for commecial use as long as the individual gets 'just compensation'. First-America was founded on the right of private property. The earlier feudal systems and indentured servant systems broke down to where only the richest, most powerful could own land. Birthright was often a deciding factor in where you lived, worked and died. When America was founded it was the land of the free because individuals were able to, even if they were poor-work until they've acquired enough wealth. People could own property, and thus, be their own master-live how they wanted. I do realize that natives, blacks, and women weren't given those rights--but let's not divert the topic. Second of all, who is to say what 'just compensation' is? The compensation for a house may hold a real estate value and may be "worth" $100,000-but how can you put a price on the individual experienced in that house-memories of where Scruffy the dog hit his forehead on the screendoor, or grandma burnt the turkey... Third, it's downright communistic. Chinese villages were of a feudal system run by a landlord- and then taken by the Communist Party and made into communes. While it may seem like the people in poverty may have benefitted, they were shoved into tiny rooms in communes, set to work each day and suffered food shortages. As a result, Mao indirectly murdered 30 million of his own people. Fourth, this causes a great inconvience for those who like where they live to relocate.

~end

[Alcon]

Is this an essay you're turning in?  Because I'm way too tired to present a logical argument, but you have some serious structural issues, I'm afraid.  Very interesting topic, though.

[MaC]

not turning it in, and it is a rant, so there are structural problems by nature.

[Dr. Cynic]

Y'know, just for the record... On one of my blogs on another site, I've noticed how many people are critical of rants... Rants aren't to be critiqued, they're to be read, and either laughed at or the meaning of the ranter is to be understood.

That said, I hope I see more rants from other posters.

[Person Man]

Actually, I am going over civil republicanism and the realist refutation of it in law school right now. The public good was initially supposed to be a way that those who were virturous would work towards everyone's benefit and not for private and partial interest. The goal was to make the government an insturment to better and police society. However, over time, many tried to find the public, or common good.

They were robber barons in the 1875-1930 period who argued that economic expansion using their methods bettered society and that laws that were meant to burden them, and therefore everyone else were private and partial interests and not in the common good.

Then there were in the proto-religious right in the similar period who believed that their ideas of restricting people's behavior would make people more alturistic and productive and liberal laws on abortion, most forms of sexual behavior, prostitution, soft drug use, birth control, alcohol and certian casual public social events were private and partial interests that would corrupt society.

You can say that the religious right of today and especially the military industril complex make similiar arguments today. "America; love it or leave it" or "I am doing what is best for my country and the world, unlike you who simply is too cowardly to fight and you should accept what I say because I have proven myself better than you have" or "people like you only care about having fun and that this fun must be stopped because it causes people not to care for one another" or that "businesses provide jobs for the community and deserve our respect no matter what" or that "government is just a way for lazy, stupid and weak people to make a living" simply reek of these arguments.

Therefore, I have come to a relatively conservative or classically liberal idea on the public good. It can be anything to anyone and therefore could simply be another get-rich-quick way for a group of like-minded people to get rich off of the backs of the public.

Then again, there are certain things we can order, as voters, to be done to make life easier or to ensure access to the benefits that living in technologically advanced, infrastructure rich cities and towns have to offer.

Therefore, it all boils down to who do you trust to protect the public interest and then again, another question stems from the point that you are part of the public.