When we speak of the idea of the common good, we need to also be open minded about the political and juridical institutions that are most likely to bring it about. The answer is not to be found in the "commonality of goods" but in the very institutions that the socialists worked so hard to discredit. Let me list them: private property in the means of production, stable money to serve as a means of exchange, the freedom of enterprise that allows people to start businesses to pursue their dream, the free association of workers that permits people to choose where they would like to work and under what conditions, the enforcement of contract that provides institutional support to the idea that people should keep their promises, and a vibrant trade within and among nations to permit the fullest possible flowering of the division of labor. These institutions must be supported by a cultural infrastructure that respects private property, regards the human person as possessing an inherent dignity, and confers first loyalties to transcendent authority over civil authority. This is the basis of what we call freedom and results in what we call the common good.
His conclusion is powerful, and worth noting, bold emphasis mine:
Let me close with a declaration that by the standards set forth in the first writings of the early socialists, we are all entitled to call ourselves socialist, if by the term we mean that we a devoted to the well being of all members of society. The means to achieve this ideal is the matter of dispute. It strikes me that the means to achieve this is not through the central planning by the state but through freedom itself. St. Thomas Aquinas had an axiom: bonum est diffusivum sui. The good pours itself out. The good of freedom has indeed poured itself out to the benefit of the whole of humanity.
Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage
Socialists cling to a fantasy of the 24-7 Free Lunch Counter. It just ain't there. Why they continue to believe that the political distribution of goods and services will provide some magical greater return of goods and services is more a matter of psychology (or perhaps theology) than one of any empirical evidence.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone can really make a case for me that greater good for the greatest number can be done with a "managed" economy, I'll sit up and listen. It's just that its never been done and IMHO never can be. Communes always fall apart because those who believe that thier mission is to do the work get tired of those who believe their mission is to think big thoughts.
If anyone can really make a case for me that greater good for the greatest number can be done with a "managed" economy, I'll sit up and listen.
ReplyDeleteDang forgot to comment before accidentally posting.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone can really make a case for me that greater good for the greatest number can be done with a "managed" economy, I'll sit up and listen.
The thing is, Steve, they've abandoned the attempt: modern socialists are now trying a new tactic by arguing that the prosperity the free market provides is something to be avoided. They argue that it destroys the environment and some even argue that, well, efficiency's overrated.
Shoulda read the commentary first, because Sirico also notices the tactic.
ReplyDelete"I’m particularly struck by the neo-socialist concern for the well being of plants, animals, lakes and rivers, rain forests and deserts—particularly when the concern for the environment appears far more intense than their concern for the well being of the human family."
particularly when the concern for the environment appears far more intense than their concern for the well being of the human family."
ReplyDeleteHeh. Whom does ThAT remind you of? ;)
Dianonymous
"modern socialists are now trying a new tactic by arguing that the prosperity the free market provides is something to be avoided. They argue that it destroys the environment and some even argue that, well, efficiency's overrated."
ReplyDeleteand some of these modern socialists even call themselves "conservative". COUGH COUGH COUGH
efficiency .... it's just so ... *mainstream*