Public vs Private interests...

P

PaladinX13

New member
Politics Final Take Home Essay Question:

The apparent conflict between the public good and private interests pervades political theory and the nature of politics. How these terms are treated and the meanings that they are ascribed to them have profound implications. When does the public good overwhelm private interests? When do private interests mask themselves as the public good? Can anyone tell the difference or resolve the conflict?

(the it goes on about our sources, including The Social Contract, The Federalist, Handmaid's Tale, and a film about loggers vs environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest Old Growth Forests)

Your thoughts? I'm not asking you to write the essay for me, obviously, but I'm curious on your takes. I was quick to say that the only public good that trumps private interests are those that maximize private interests... but that's paternal and ill defined (and easily twisted, IMO). What do you think?
 
If it were me, I'd try to argue that there is no such thing as the public good, only the private interests of one group or another. What politicans often call "the public good" is simply another name for advancing the interests of the state.

I'd scour the local papers for quotes from pols about taking some action "for the public good," and logically prove how said actions would serve only the interests of those in power.

Man, this could be fun!

Later,
Chris
 
I agree with Chris, this could be fun. :)

I would address the fact that "the public good" cannot be defined. It is an ever changing concept. Ask HCI about the "public good" and you are liable to get a very different answer than you will get from GOA. Each of them has their idea of "public good" and each of them is convinced that they are correct.

Also, what could be agreed upon many years ago as "public good" could be nothing but a burden now. For example, look at all the "useless" laws that we still have on our books from years gone by. Things like, "It is against the law for a man to knit during the fishing season." in New Jersey, and "It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing." in Texas.

These are real laws, and, presumably, were once considered necessary for the public good. Now they are useless and ridiculed.

I think that you should come up with a scenario in which the public good should be put before private interests, aka personal liberty. Post it here and let us argue about it.

That's all. I can't think straight since researching those dumb laws above.
 
I agree with Christopher - the "public good" is just one of many rationalizations, that make it easier for beginner bureaucrats to live with themselves while hurting others. Or a vehicle for wanton deception, for the more advanced whose consciences have already been cauterized. Either way, it's just a logical distraction from the "real" game -- power and control over others, through the glorification of bigger government.

I believe THIS has been human nature since Joseph was a carpenter. Nowadays, we wrap it up in many technical-sounding names, suitable for offering upon the altar of science (or pseudo science). Our government has grown strong, and vibrant under the "public good" ethos, now to the point many folks depend on it for their sustenance and survival. In my view, that's the consumer side of the "power corrupts" warning. May not be absolute yet, but we're getting there.

The founders knew this. Tried to promote "best" government through "least" government. Wove personal liberties tightly into the constitutional fabric. Lesser "public servants", have been kept busy unravelling it ever since. "Public good" is just one of their tools.

[Edited by hammer4nc on 12-15-2000 at 10:29 AM]
 
Paladin, since you are doing this for a grade, I will give you the correct answer and the politically correct answer.

The correct answer can be found in the writings of Ayn Rand. If you are pressed for time go to the library and find Capitalism the Unknown Ideal and For the New Intellectual. Use the index in the first book, and read the speeches of Howard Roark and Henry Reardon in the second. Basically they explain how any supposed good that demands the sacrifice of another is not one. The public doesn't really exist, there are only all the individuals, and there interest never completely coincide. If a large group of people decide that they will all benefit from something, they should voluntarily cooperate to accomplish their goal. They should not use the power to seize property, imprison, or execute to force anyone else to go along with their scheme. Ayn Rand is excellent reading for anyone going through college and trying to retain a logical, individualistic, freedom-loving perspective--considering all the commie drivel most profs advocate.

The politically correct answer is something along the lines of, "people havbe a duty to serve their fellow man, as Kant has shown. As member of society, they are subject to the whims of the general will, as Rousseau has proven, etc...." Basically whatever the professor wants to hear. If you are lucky to be taking a class with one of the few college educators who actuallly believes in a free exchange of ideas, and who is looking for a well reasoned answer, not a reiteration of their own philosophy, I would suggest you take all the classes you can from this person. You might actually learn something. Good Luck. Drew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top