> Mark M. ztech.com> 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.
>
> The problem with this mythological concept is that its proponents never
> bother to accurately define it, delineate it, enumerate how good the
> common good is, and who it is good for, etc. When challenged to
> specificy what this "common good" exactly is, it usually goes straight
> from appearently reasoned debate to screaming and mudslinging, and lots
> of accusations of egoism, anti-social mindset, indifference to suffering
> of others, etc and blah-blah-blah ad nauseam of the poor fool who had
> the indecency to challenge this exalted idea.
>
> Furthermore, 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". ...

> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:

>> Mark M. ztech.com> wrote:

>>> Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?

>>
>> No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man can...

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:21:18 -0700, tg wrote:

>> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:

>>> Mark M. ztech.com> 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.

>

>>> The problem with this mythological concept is that its proponents never
>>> bother to accurately define it, delineate it, enumerate how good the
>>> common good is, and who it is good for, etc. When challenged to
>>> specificy what this "common good" exactly is, it usually goes straight
>>> from appearently reasoned debate to screaming and mudslinging, and lots
>>> of accusations of egoism, anti-social mindset, indifference to suffering
>>> of others, etc and blah-blah-blah ad nauseam of the poor fool who had
>>> the indecency to challenge this exalted idea.

>

>>> Furthermore, it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and ...

> ...The "common good" is the good of the vast majority and not what is perceived as "good" by
> the minority idiot fringe.

> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:

>> Mark M. ztech.com> wrote:

>>> Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?

>>
>> No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man...

> On Jul 24, 11:07 am, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:21:18 -0700, tg wrote:

>>> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:

>>>> Mark M. ztech.com...

> tg earthlink.net> wrote:

>> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:

>>> Mark M. ztech.com> 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.

>

>>> The problem with this mythological concept is that its proponents never
>>> bother to accurately define it, delineate it, enumerate how good the
>>> common good is, and who it is good for, etc. When challenged to
>>> specificy what this "common good" exactly is, it usually goes straight
>>> from appearently reasoned debate to screaming and mudslinging, and lots
>>> of accusations of egoism, anti-social mindset, indifference to suffering
>>> of others, etc and blah-blah-blah ad nauseam of the poor fool who had
>>> the indecency to challenge this exalted idea.

>

>>> Furthermore, it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and ...

> On Jul 24, 11:07 am, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:
>

>> ...The "common good" is the good of the vast majority and not what is perceived as "good" by
>> the minority idiot fringe.

>
> The good as defined by whom?

> Is it what is "perceived" as "good" by
> that very same "vast majority"?

> Or more likely by those who claim to
> speak for it (which all tyrants do)?

> Now, some would say that it is the protection of the minority - even
> the (supposed) "idiots" among them - which is the mark of a truly
> civilized and free society.

> On Jul 24, 11:07 am, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:21:18 -0700, tg wrote:

>>> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:

>>>> Mark M. ztech.com> wrote...

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:21:18 -0700, tg wrote:

>> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:

>>> Mark M. ztech.com> wrote:

>>>> Is thecommongood 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.

>

>>> The problem with this mythological concept is that its proponents never
>>> bother to accurately define it, delineate it, enumerate how good the
>>>commongood is, and who it is good for, etc. When challenged to
>>> specificy what this "commongood" exactly is, it usually goes straight
>>> from appearently reasoned debate to screaming and mudslinging, and lots
>>> of accusations of egoism, anti-social mindset, indifference to suffering
>>> of others, etc and blah-blah-blah ad nauseam of the poor fool who had
>>> the indecency to challenge this exalted idea.

>

>>> Furthermore, it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and ...