|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Jul 24, 2008 06:40
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:46:02 +0200, PeterBP wrote:
>> Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?
>
> No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man can entertain an idea without
> believeing in it; the same goes for the "commong good" as it goes for
> Snoopy and The Buddy Birds.
> ... it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and
> powers of government, even for things that only a madman would claim to
> be "good", much less a "common good".
Concept as ideal no, concept as a design for action, yes. Like so many
other things. 'Good' itself being one, 'bad' another.
In the case of government the "senseless expansion of scope and
powers" isn't completely true. You may agree that 'power' makes up it's
own sense as a parasite feeding on the host of one necessity or another.
It is impossible for a interdependent society to not consider 'a common
good' if it is to survive. Since government has become, in fact, it's own
society almost it's own nation, it's common good may not be the same as
the host nation it feeds upon.
|
| |
|
| | 30 Comments |
|
|
Author: PeterBPPeterBP Date: Jul 24, 2008 15:07
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:46:02 +0200, PeterBP wrote:
>
>>> Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?
>>
>> No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man can entertain an idea without
>> believeing in it; the same goes for the "commong good" as it goes for
>> Snoopy and The Buddy Birds.
>
>> ... it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and
>> powers of government, even for things that only a madman would claim to
>> be "good", much less a "common good".
>
> Concept as ideal no, concept as a design for action, yes. Like so many
> other things. 'Good' itself being one, 'bad' another.
>
> In the case of government the "senseless expansion of scope and
> powers" isn't completely true.
|
| Show full article (2.07Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Jul 24, 2008 16:19
>> PeterBP wrote
>>>> Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?
>>> No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man can entertain an idea
>>> without believeing in it; the same goes for the "commong good" as
>>> it goes for Snoopy and The Buddy Birds.
>>> ... it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and
>>> powers of government, even for things that only a madman would
>>> claim to be "good", much less a "common good".
>> Concept as ideal no, concept as a design for action, yes.
>> Like so many other things. 'Good' itself being one, 'bad' another.
>> In the case of government the "senseless expansion
>> of scope and powers" isn't completely true.
> Little in real life is completely true in the way logical statements
> are, but this is beside my point, which is that government today
> has grown to point where it damages more than it mends,
Nope. Most obviously with the avoidence of full depressions.
|
| Show full article (2.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Jul 25, 2008 04:12
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:07:00 +0200, PeterBP wrote:
>> You may agree that 'power' makes up it's own sense as a parasite
>> feeding on the host of one necessity or another.
>
> Power is a human social mode, it has just as little will of its own as
> any other concept.
True. Power was personified here to make this concept singular and
removed from any one person or group of people. It is the central issue,
power, the power government claims.
>> It is impossible for a interdependent society to not consider 'a common
>> good' if it is to survive.
>
> Assuming that we agree on the definition of "society", indeed, and if
> this hypothetical society thinks up foolish ideas and labels them
> "goods" or "common goods", then it will die as well, likely even faster
> than without what can reasonably be said to be an actual, common good.
Are you saying then that the label is at fault or the act? Or is it that
when laws are made that directly address the concept of common good this
then is the 'killer'?
|
| Show full article (1.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Jul 25, 2008 10:25
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:07:00 +0200, PeterBP wrote:
>
>>> You may agree that 'power' makes up it's own sense as a parasite
>>> feeding on the host of one necessity or another.
>>
>> Power is a human social mode, it has just as little will of its own
>> as any other concept.
>
> True. Power was personified here to make this concept singular and
> removed from any one person or group of people. It is the central
> issue, power, the power government claims.
>
>>> It is impossible for a interdependent society to not consider 'a
>>> common good' if it is to survive.
>>
>> Assuming that we agree on the definition of "society", indeed, and if
>> this hypothetical society thinks up foolish ideas and labels them
>> "goods" or "common goods", then it will die as well, likely even
>> faster than without what can reasonably be said to be an actual, ...
|
| Show full article (1.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PeterBPPeterBP Date: Jul 25, 2008 15:45
Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote:
> PeterBP jose.com> wrote>>> PeterBP wrote
>
>>>>> Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?
>
>>>> No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man can entertain...
|
| Show full article (1.75Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PeterBPPeterBP Date: Jul 25, 2008 15:45
Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote:
sbip
>> Given that each society or group will operate for it's own common
>> good, there can be an operational difference guided by differing sets
>> of priorities. I am following your thought through on the federal
>> government in saying that it has become so large as to now form it's
>> own group or society or nation for that matter and, as such, it has a
>> sense of it's own common good that is not that of the larger society.
>
> Thats not the common good, thats a good for the subset.
Precisely touches on my core point - how many does it have to be good
for, for it to truly be a "common good"?
To answer this: it has to be good for all, no less.
--
- Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PeterBPPeterBP Date: Jul 25, 2008 15:45
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:07:00 +0200, PeterBP wrote:
>
>>> You may agree that 'power' makes up it's own sense as a parasite
>>> feeding on the host of one necessity or another.
>>
>> Power is a human...
|
| Show full article (3.29Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Jul 25, 2008 16:04
> Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote>> PeterBP jose.com> wrote>>>> PeterBP wrote
>>>>>> Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?
>>>>> No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man can entertain an idea
>>>>> without believeing in it; the same goes for the "commong good" as
>>>>> it goes for Snoopy and The Buddy Birds.
>>>>> ... it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and
>>>>> powers of government, even for things that only a madman
>>>>> would claim to be "good", much less a "common good".
>>>> Concept as ideal no, concept as a design for action, yes.
>>>> Like so many other things. 'Good' itself being one, 'bad' another.
>>>> In the case of government the "senseless expansion
>>>> of scope and powers" isn't completely true.
>>> Little in real life is completely true in the way logical statements
>>> are, but this is beside my point, which is that government today
>>> has grown to point where it damages more than it mends,
|
| Show full article (2.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Jul 25, 2008 16:06
> Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote>>> Given that each society or group will operate for it's own common
>>> good, there can be an operational difference guided by differing
>>> sets of priorities. I am following your thought through on the
>>> federal government in saying that it has become so large as to now
>>> form it's own group or society or nation for that matter and, as
>>> such, it has a sense of it's own common good that is not that of
>>> the larger society.
>> Thats not the common good, thats a good for the subset.
> Precisely touches on my core point
Nope.
> - how many does it have to be good for, for it to truly be a "common good"?
Mindlessly superficial.
> To answer this: it has to be good for all, no less.
Thats never the case.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
