- Stay Connected
The Common Good
By Doron Tauber
There is no such thing as the “common good”; it is just a term used by politicians in order to gain control over our lives in the name of equality and “fairness”. When the government wants to control your life and bring you down to the life they think you should be living, they do it in the name of the “common good”. When a man makes “too much money” and wants to spend it, the government feels that it must step in to save society from the evils of his success. They feel that money is a sin, and thus must be taken from those who have it and given to the ones who do not. Today, our government lives by one simple code; from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. They believe that the only way to save people from poverty and hard times is by raising taxes on those who did well and handing the money out to those who did not, hoping that this will somehow incentivize people to work. What exactly is the incentive to work for your own betterment if you know that the government will just bail you out, should you choose not to? Men work because they want to gain something out of the exchange. If a man knows that the government will take his money should he succeed in life and give it to some bum on the street, why should he bother making any money at all? Contrary to what the Progressives and Liberals would have you believe, men will not work for love of their fellows. Humans depend on profit to get along in the world and if the government tries to steal that profit, then how can they be expected to make any money?
In reality, there is no such thing as the common good. it is simply a utopian idea, not supported by the real world. It is impossible to do something that benefits everyone, as the term claims to do. In that claim, it propagates the idea that the government has the solution to every problem the people might have, and they don’t even need to work for themselves because “Big Brother” will always be there to save him. In reality, President Ronald Reagan was quite correct when he said “Government is not the solution to the problem, Government is the problem.” The only possible way that people can gain a better life and the country can maintain a stable economy is by granting people as many freedoms as possible. When people are free in the economy to succeed and fail without the government stepping in, every man has the incentive to work hard, as he will be the only one to profit off the fruits of his labor. The poor will not be kept in poverty by cradle-to-grave social programs and government handouts. Redistribution of wealth achieves nothing but a sense of apathy towards hard work. One cannot eliminate poverty by making the poor richer and the rich poorer, the rich just won’t stand for it. This is evident in California, where even Oprah cannot afford the taxes. She is forced to live in her home only part-time to keep from having to pay the outrageous taxes in that state (which, by the way, is not doing so well for a Democrat’s paradise). When the rich are punished for success, they move to somewhere more accepting of their lifestyle. Once the rich have all gone away, where will the government get money to pay the poor to do nothing? Maybe then it will wake up and realize the way to spur economic growth is to lower taxes and stop spending money on useless social programs that just encourage the poor to stay poor.
“The greatest social program is a job” President Reagan used to say, and I believe that is the only way to keep moving forward in this country. In a competitive market, we need to encourage innovation in all areas of life so that we may continue to live healthier and more comfortably. Welfare programs should be reserved for only those who are incapable of working, such as those with physical or mental diseases. Those members of society, try as they might, are not able to produce for society. The social programs funded by the government for those not incapacitated should be dispensed with and replaced with private charity. Individuals have always found a way to stick together in hard times and help each other out. Individuals will band together and get through hard times no matter what. The government needs to back off and let us do our own jobs. We are not helpless children, we can get along just fine by ourselves, without “Big Brother” butting in and handing us money and telling us we don’t need to try because once we’re in poverty, there’s no way we can get out by ourselves.
The only thing that the government could do to help as many people as possible is to take its talons out of our backs and let us live our own lives and learn from our own mistakes. People need a free market economy in order to learn and improve our lives because of the will to succeed in life. Without the incentive of profit, people will not work for anything and nothing will end up getting done. As was shown in Animal Farm, in any system where the government forces all people to work for an equal paycheck, from the hardest working CEO making billion dollar deals to the laziest metro driver texting on the job, people will revolt or be crushed. When people are not forced to work, they will not, as is our nature. We cannot just allow people to coast by on the teat of society while others work hard to make the money they live off of. People must learn that if they are not willing to work hard, there will be no leniency on their part and we will not be responsible for their mistakes. When will the government learn that the only way to help people is with tough love?
Doron Tauber
April 1, 2010 at 3:07 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-42.htm
Devin Doherty
March 10, 2010 at 7:40 pm
MORE TROLLING
MORE RANTING
THIS WILL NEVER DIE!!!
LET THE FLAME WAR BEGIN!!!!
John Benson
March 9, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Ok, first of all: I love the picture you attached to this article. Very funny.
As for your political ideas, there are elements of truth to them, but they are way too extreme to actually be taken seriously.
There is one particular thing I have to address: “This is evident in California, where even Oprah cannot afford the taxes. She is forced to live in her home only part-time to keep from having to pay the outrageous taxes in that state.”
You have got to be joking. The reason she only lives there part time is because she owns MORE THAN 7 OTHER HOMES. Obviously there is going to be some hefty property tax on a 50 million dollar estate, but it’s not about to put her on the street.
dimitri halikias
March 4, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Doron, these notions that the government is always the problem and that spending is always bad have been disproved time and time again. You kept quoting and referencing Reagan, but interestingly enough did not include a single fact or statistic to back up your rhetoric, so let me try. Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest tax increase of the past 50 years. In fact, no peace-time president in American HISTORY has raised taxes as quickly and as dramatically as Reagan did. Following his 1981 tax cuts Reagan pushed through two MASSIVE tax hikes, one in 1982, and the other in 1983 under the auspices of the Social Security Reform Act, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by libertarian superstar Alan Greenspan. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
Now that the myth that Reagan dramatically cut taxes has been disproved, let us move on to your second argument Doron – that government is and always has been the problem, and that the individual should be allowed to fail and succeed within the capitalist market. Let me preface by stating that I am a great believer in the free market, and I am very watchful and skeptical of overly expansive and intrusive government handout programs. However, to assert as you did that all welfare has done is cause irreparable harm to the rights and power of the individual, is simply false. Every single major period of economic growth in the past 100 years has been accompanied by expanded protections of the individual’s economic well being. You were quick to quote Reagan and his very true argument that “The greatest social program is a job.” However, what you once again failed to mention was that the Social Security Reform Act I mentioned earlier. This act’s major provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. The President you praised for reducing government and valuing the economic achievements of the individual also bankrolled and supported the largest expansion of welfare since LBJ’s Great Society.
My final point is a criticism of your harsh attack on the tax system. You were quick to attack any form of increased taxation as “redistribution.” That is total crap. If used properly (as done by both Reagan and Clinton) taxes are an excellent tool to boost the strength of the national economy. In your criticism of the failure of taxation and its socialist undertones, you surprisingly failed to back up your rhetoric with facts. So once again, allow me the privilege of using facts to back up my argument. In your article you make it sound as if the economic prosperity under the Reagan administration was unparalleled because of his rabidly conservative rhetoric. This is simply not true. The economy grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family, adjusted for inflation, rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988. If Reagan is the model of a successful economic presidency, then why did President Clinton’s economic accomplishments far outshine his?
While, as you may have guessed, I am critical of your out-of-date and ignorant rhetoric backed up by no statistical evidence, I find myself having to agree with the original point of your article – the myth of the common good. Not because of the pseudo-economic principles you espoused, but because of my own views of America’s rugged individualist history and rise to power I find myself shuddering when people argue for collective sacrifice for the promotion of the common good. Throughout our history, the single most affective and powerful tool for expanding economic prowess and strength has been by valuing the rights, freedoms, and independence of the individual. This does not mean that the state does not have an obligation to the protection its citizens, but it does mean that individuals should be given every chance to succeed economically and politically in this nation. There is nothing more important than the continued value on the individual as the fundamental measure of America’s greatness.
dimitri halikias
March 4, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I forgot to submit my sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html?pagewanted=1
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1414.cfm
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10221/81doc19.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120
dimitri halikias
March 4, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Doron, these notions that the government is always the problem and that spending is always bad have been disproved time and time again. You kept quoting and referencing Reagan, but interestingly enough did not include a single fact or statistic to back up your rhetoric, so let me try. Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest tax increase of the past 50 years. In fact, no peace-time president in American HISTORY has raised taxes as quickly and as dramatically as Reagan did. Following his 1981 tax cuts Reagan pushed through two MASSIVE tax hikes, one in 1982, and the other in 1983 under the auspices of the Social Security Reform Act, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by libertarian superstar Alan Greenspan. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
Now that the myth that Reagan dramatically cut taxes has been disproved, let us move on to your second argument Doron – that government is and always has been the problem, and that the individual should be allowed to fail and succeed within the capitalist market. Let me preface by stating that I am a great believer in the free market, and I am very watchful and skeptical of overly expansive and intrusive government handout programs. However, to assert as you did that all welfare has done is cause irreparable harm to the rights and power of the individual, is simply false. Every single major period of economic growth in the past 100 years has been accompanied by expanded protections of the individual’s economic well being. You were quick to quote Reagan and his very true argument that “The greatest social program is a job.” However, what you once again failed to mention was that the Social Security Reform Act I mentioned earlier. This act’s major provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. The President you praised for reducing government and valuing the economic achievements of the individual also bankrolled and supported the largest expansion of welfare since LBJ’s Great Society.
My final point is a criticism of your harsh attack on the tax system. You were quick to attack any form of increased taxation as “redistribution.” That is total crap. If used properly (as done by both Reagan and Clinton) taxes are an excellent tool to boost the strength of the national economy. In your criticism of the failure of taxation and its socialist undertones, you surprisingly failed to back up your rhetoric with facts. So once again, allow me the privilege of using facts to back up my argument. In your article you make it sound as if the economic prosperity under the Reagan administration was unparalleled because of his rabidly conservative rhetoric. This is simply not true. The economy grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family, adjusted for inflation, rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988. If Reagan is the model of a successful economic presidency, then why did President Clinton’s economic accomplishments far outshine his?
While, as you may have guessed, I am critical of your out-of-date and ignorant rhetoric backed up by no statistical evidence, I find myself having to agree with the original point of your article – the myth of the common good. Not because of the pseudo-economic principles you espoused, but because of my own views of America’s rugged individualist history and rise to power I find myself shuddering when people argue for collective sacrifice for the promotion of the common good. Throughout our history, the single most affective and powerful tool for expanding economic prowess and strength has been by valuing the rights, freedoms, and independence of the individual. This does not mean that the state does not have an obligation to the protection its citizens, but it does mean that individuals should be given every chance to succeed economically and politically in this nation. There is nothing more important than the continued value on the individual as the fundamental measure of America’s greatness.
Aaron W.
March 4, 2010 at 5:56 pm
The common good is definitely misused and twisted around, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Doron Tauber
March 4, 2010 at 7:45 pm
the only thing good for everyone is freedom
Justin Skovholt
March 4, 2010 at 8:54 pm
>Giving an unattributed “fact” about Oprah
>Using Animal Farm as a case study for the United States
>Implying freedom in every case is good for everyone
>Ignoring the fact that our social programs keep many people off the street and in homes or at least with a steady supply of food.
Finally, you twist the meaning of the “common good” more than even the most ridiculous politicians. The “common good” does NOT in fact mean “good for everybody”, it just means “good for the majority” or alternatively “good for society”. Arguing that our social programs how we run them aren’t for the “common good” is valid enough, but you seem to lack the perspective of a middle or lower class person in America, for whom the government does good at the “expense” of a very small elite. Given that, social programs as a whole would seem to benefit the “common good” as they help many while drawing primarily on those who have excess to draw on.
Doron Tauber
March 4, 2010 at 10:46 pm
those who have “excess” don’t like being drawn from, and will eventually get fed up and leave, and then who will fund the social programs?
Justin Skovholt
March 4, 2010 at 11:08 pm
You addressed nearly none of my concerns.
But this rhetoric is really worthless and is an idle threat. The rich will stay in the US simply because it’s an advantageous place to be. The freedoms guaranteed along with the access to extremely high standards of living in the US are enough to ensure a major presence of rich elite. They are largely willing to put up with being taxed for social programs because of the tangible and intangible benefits of living here.
Doron Tauber
March 4, 2010 at 11:49 pm
the highest standard of living is in Ireland, not America. for the time being we pretend to be an advantageous place. in time, people will realize that China is more capitalist than we are
dimitri halikias
March 5, 2010 at 6:39 am
Once again, you manage to ignore the facts. China is not at all being capitalist, in fact they are engaging in 19th century mercantilist-esque economic policies, artificially deflating the value of their currency and thus boosting exports. I also have no idea where your idea of Ireland’s economic success came from, but actually the middle-upper classes in Ireland pay between 25-41 percent of income in taxes. Hows that for redistributionary?
Justin Skovholt
March 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Way to cite sources…again…
China has very tight economic and trade controls, which is a cornerstone of capitalism. Your view of the world is extremely twisted to fit your beliefs.
Furthermore, I said nothing about America having the highest average standards of living in the world. I said the highest standards of living are available in America. Big difference. That’s why so many rich and famous people live here.