Is there a "Common Good"?

Liberals/statists talk of having some responsibility to the “common good” (CG). Such talk suggests a lack of understanding and acceptance of moral principles. 

The objective approach to the principle of ‘the good’ is to evaluate facts of reality according to a rational standard of value; thus ‘good’ is that which is proper to one’s life from a rational, not emotional or unreal, perspective. The subjective approach considers only one’s feelings, desires or arbitrary needs. Which do you think is the proper method of evaluation? 

Where actions can be objectively evaluated, it is possible for rational individuals to agree to a CG. But since most people do not act rationally, it is meaningless to speak of any CG (or public interest). To impose a CG on individuals is to use force to give preference for the good of some at the expense of others - which is immoral and collectivist. Only by defining ‘good’ for individuals vs. the collective can rights be retained.  

In discussing our recent fiscal crises and federal debt, such reasoning has been lost on most politicians/liberals. Many people do not support higher taxes on the relatively wealthy to support the non-productive and looters in society; they do not support increased spending and the resulting higher debt in the deceptive name of ‘fairness’ and at great economic cost. Thus, re-distribution of income and unsustainable government debt/deficits are clearly not for the CG. It is hypocritical to expect the wealthy to be productive, buoy the economy and provide jobs for the poor and middle classes, while raising their taxes as if they don’t already pay much more than their ‘fair share’. 

Likewise, many do not see it in their best interest to remain defenseless against criminals; therefore gun control is not for the CG. It is hypocritical for politicians to pretend to support the 2^nd amendment as they attempt to restrict guns and ammunition; to expect armed security protection while asking the populace to publicly announce their gun ownership and to give up any guns.  

Many do not support environmentalists who simply want to shut down existing technology and hopelessly pursue inefficient and unnecessary ‘green’ energies at great cost to our economy; thus subjective favoritism toward ‘green’ companies is not for the CG. It is hypocritical to depend on successful oil and gas companies that efficiently provide energy with minimal effect on the environment, while fighting them through regulations/executive orders and subsidizing ‘green’ companies that cannot otherwise sustain themselves.  

Essentially, everything liberals push as being for the CG has hypocrisy written all over it. And hypocrisy results from the lack of moral principles. It reveals the fact that the hypocrites are acting contrary to their nature; they hold ideals they have to accept as their highest ambition despite being hateful and repulsive toward them. Consider, for example, how they must view America vis a vis the world: a country with exceptional virtues, wealth, success and power; yet they show distaste for the term “capitalism”, apologize for its virtues and demonstrate great hypocrisy and evasiveness in international affairs.  

Again I must note that Obama and his followers hold the wrong moral standard. They place the collective good over individual good, government force over support of individual rights. They are willing to sacrifice our happiness for the sake of the allusive CG. Don’t accept this.

State of the Union

If I was to address Obama’s SOTU speech, I would be nearly speechless. How does one respond to a fully statist/collectivist speech which contains many talking points but no real solutions to our financial woes? Redistribution of wealth, punishments for corporations and universities that don’t conform to his wishes, unsound reforms, tax increases, global equality, worthless international diplomacy and financial aid to our enemies is all so un-American that it should scare all of us.  

How can anyone buy-in to this President’s proposals and actions? FDR provides a real clue. Until recent history, liberal historians (and the broad media) have evaluated FDR as near-saintly. Some believes that his election represented a great revolution in American history. But more recent analyses reveal a different picture.  

He was essentially an unproductive man throughout his life; his only success was as a politician. He had low aptitude for economics, business and the law. He was said to have a 2^nd class intellect; however, he had first class charm and guile. In areas where he lacked confidence, he viewed his superiors as having achieved success unfairly. He was financially supported by others on his way to the Presidency.  

He spoke frequently of the virtues of a free market but seldom acted to support it. He blamed his predecessors for the prolonged depression, yet his policies were precisely what depressed the economy throughout the ‘30s. His Smoot-Hawley tariff was clearly one of the primary causes of the depression. He strongly supported the redistribution of wealth, attacked industries (while supporting those who could serve him best – cronyism), and promised a 25% reduction in spending and a balanced budget when campaigning (never his real intentions). He had no business person on his economic team capable of showing him a better path to recovery. 

Obama fits that profile perfectly. Liberals love him for the same reasons and with the same faults. Unfortunately, they blindly accept him despite two enormous flaws that FDR never had: he is a thorough egalitarian and a narcissist. He is indifferent to our economic welfare and is willing to destroy it in the process of taking down the most productive among us. He and his followers are showing either an amazing ignorance or evasion of economics, the Constitution and morality. 

The true SOTU is depressing and there is little hope that Obama – with his ideology – will enable robust growth in the economy. His despicable lies re the supposed disaster to be caused by sequestration (forcing a miniscule reduction in planned growth in spending over a decade) show that he has no intent to truly cut spending. Do you realize that our total national debt in 1931 was equal to our current debt growth in just 5+ days! Do you really believe this trend is sustainable? 

His altruistic morality dictates his statist politics. “Altruism” means sacrificing one’s higher values to lower values, ability to inability, achievement and wealth to need; it is not mere “humanitarianism” as often believed. And being “humanitarian” is caring to help others without sacrifice, not forcing individuals to care for others out of duty, envy or in the name of economic equality as Obama and liberals wish. The Right and the Left both preach altruism (albeit for different reasons), and that moral code is destroying our culture as well as our economy.