You are correct in your asseveration that the FedCath has struck again with his typical flourishes of sophistry that would make a freshman polysci major cringe. The root of his inability to articulate stems from his determination to work within the confines of the Constitution as it was written. And he's an inveterate papist.
If Adams were to visit America today there would be a number of things that would send him walking back to his grave plot. I would imagine his chief concern would be the absence of virtue (in the Aristotelian sense). I quote Adams in his letter to Mercy Otis Warren, "“Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” Based upon this premise alone our foundation has long since been absorbed by the sinking sands of postmodernism. It is time to begin again. I quote Jefferson to Madison "The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force (tyranny), and not of right.” *checks calendar* yes, we are 264 years past the Constitution's efficacy and *scrolls WaPo and checks paystub* we are indeed under the heel of Oligarchical tyrants.
To your point common good is only applicable as long as there is commonality. With nearly 330m people, 13 different categories of religious belief (or non belief), 5 identifiable racial categories, *counts on fingers* at least 8 different gender categories (50+ if you include sub-categories), and FORTY SIX terms within the taxonomy of sexual orientation how could anyone imagine forming a government of passing laws on the basis of "common good"? FedCath is either certifiable insane or working for the Derp State, probably both. Common good is a meme unless applied in some very high level framework, as in "just don't physically hurt me." If everyone can agree on that then we can ostensibly form a "common good" government Although, now we're leaving out the BDSM crowd. I give up.
The root issue is not how we should be governed. The root issue is the spirit of the people from whom government is derived. The current government has been formed by denatured men who are completely incalcitrant in observing Natural Law, thus they elect rulers who reflect their "will to live" spirit. These elected Bugmen desire nothing more than to sycophantically lick the boots of the Oligarchial class in hopes of favor vis-a-vis K street lucre.
Your powerful essay should be posted on the bulletin board of Vermeule's brothel. Perhaps he can provide a scholarly rationalization for evading the 400-year change from Christianity's illusory individuals to the Enlightenment's celebration of the reality of individuals.
Our collective greatest good is that we are each free to pursue our own individual greatest good, with minimal interference from authorities. Good government ensures that this happens.
This has to be coupled with a skeptical attitude toward authority and independence of mind, which should be taught in our schools. But even if it isn't, see my first sentence, above.
This is a beautiful post. It got me running back to - Hobbes’ Leviathan and it’s reprise in the Brothers Karamazov.
Humankind is trying to get its governance right for the past 100,000 years. Before the agricultural revolution it was less of an issue because the numbers in a group were very small.
Governance will always be a work in progress. The Political theorist Francis Fukuyama warns us about the greatest threat in politics - the “bad Emperor or the bad dictator” problem.
History is full of well meaning leaders with noble goals which end horribly with time. The current list includes: Chavez, Mugabe, Mao and many many others. There is no such thing as a good dictator or a good Grand Inquisitor. It always ends badly.
We have not arrived yet but a democracy (with independent judiciary, free speech and vigorous institutions including free media) where the people have the power to deselect Goverment leaders is infinitely better than any other system in existence.
This is a beautiful post. It got me running back to - Hobbes’ Leviathan and it’s reprise in the Brothers Karamazov.
Humankind is trying to get its governance right for the past 100,000 years. Before the agricultural revolution it was less of an issue because the numbers in a group were very small.
Governance will always be a work in progress. The Political theorist Francis Fukuyama warns us about the greatest threat in politics - the “bad Emperor or the bad dictator” problem.
History is full of well meaning leaders with noble goals which end horribly with time. The current list includes: Chavez, Mugabe, Mao and many many others. There is no such thing as a good dictator or a good Grand Inquisitor. It always ends badly.
We have not arrived yet but a democracy (with independent judiciary, free speech and vigorous institutions including free media) where the people have the power to deselect Goverment leaders is infinitely better than any other system in existence.
The "common good" is a vague, undefinable slogan used by collectivists to justify the violation of individual rights so as to bring about what they consider to be their utopian vision.
As an example here is a quote from Adolf Hitler: “a man must renounce putting forward his personal opinion and interests and sacrifice both…” “the common good comes before the private good”
It is contradictory to say that a good society can be brought into existence by using force, i.e. by violating the rights of the individuals of that society. No good can come from an evil act.
It is wrong to characterize Vermeule as a man of the right. He is entirely a leftist in search of an ideology to justify elitist power. He uses Catholicism as a veneer. Christ rejected political rule. See John 6:15, Matthew 4:8-10
The "common good" is evil by another name. First, there is no "common good" to which we can aspire because the innate dignity of humans precludes the common good, which treats as like widgets. God did not grant us free will so we could be slaves to sinners. In non-theological terms, freedom is an essential good; no system that denies freedom can be good. Second, the elevation of the common good requires the use of force or deception; any system the requires reliance upon evil to attain "good" is evil.
"My vision of the “common good” is one where the State leaves law-abiding men and women alone to quietly build families, to work and create, to gain knowledge, to travel, to coach little league soccer, to tend their property, to go to the local pub for a pint, to celebrate Independence Day with friends and family, to watch Clemson beat ‘Bama, and to pursue their vision of the good life."
This last paragraph reveals a lot that your essay does not answer. What is "law-abiding"? If the law allows slavery, those quietly built families will have slaves, oppressing other humans like themselves. If the law allows for the possession of assault weapons...well, you know. What about the insane and the homeless? At the root of it is freedom. Many people are less free than others. An addict is less free than someone who does not have an addiction. The emotionally deficient or co-dependent are also less free. Nelson Mandela was free even though he was in prison because of the power of his convictions and ideas. The idea of the common good -- so well expressed in the Socratic dialogues -- is a search for what makes people more free. To cite extremist groups like the Nazis and say that the fact that they believe the promotion of a master race is a common good, means that this ideology is as reasonable as any other, is ridiculous. Most people will agree on what constitutes the common good.
Every civilization that is worthy of the name organizes itself around some concept of the common good, and this results in the achievements of that civilization. All involve some subordination of the individual interest to the common good. The Pax Romana, for example, featured a vigorous concept of the common good -- the acceptance of the authority of the Roman state, the imperative to acknowledge the Roman dieties, Roman law. Icelandic landowners met yearly in a parliament that decided and resolved quarrels, under a concept of the common good. The warring city-states of Renaissance Italy, which produced some of the greatest art and literature of all times, had a robust conception of the common good. But these these high-achieving societies become corrupted by internal weakness, leaving it to other groups of people to once again become standard bearers for the common good and create great civilizations. Vox populi, vox dei -- that's the principle on which our Democracy rests. Yet without a vision of the common good, the voice of the people is easily corrupted. Just look at Trump's gospel of lies, self-interest, and outright rejection of science.
Your powerful essay should be corrected. Kansas conservatives do force the teaching creationism. Why would you say such an easily demonstrable falsehood? Once again a conservative tries to curry favor by promoting leftist canards...
"What Happened in Kansas?
“Anti-Evolution” Curriculum Likely to be Overturned
on August 10, 2006
Last week’s school board primaries in Kansas have generated much news—and much confusion—about the teaching of “creationism” in Kansas schools and AiG’s stance on the matter.
Last week's school board primaries in Kansas have generated much news-and much confusion-about the teaching of “creationism” in Kansas schools and AiG's stance on the matter.1 Although the popular press has gone to great lengths to show that the recent election pitted pro-evolution, pro-“science” candidates against those who backed the mandated instruction of creation in public schools, the election was nothing of the sort. Furthermore, it's not the first time the media has intentionally misrepresented the issues surrounding the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The election centered on the Kansas State Board of Education curriculum, which was widely misrepresented as “anti-evolution,” though it was nothing of the sort. The curriculum did not promote the teaching of intelligent design or biblical creation; it only required that students, during their review of the principles of evolution, hear a small sampling of the numerous problems with evolution.
Evolutionists, however, consider any criticism to evolutionary theory identical to teaching creation, so even the slightest mention of problems with evolution is interpreted as violating the First Amendment. More absurd, however, is the current trend that even mentioning that there is a controversy (that is, that some scientists question evolutionary theory) is ruled to constitute creationist teaching. So what has happened in the public school science classroom? The prohibition against teaching “creationism” spread to teaching any kind of design, then to any discussion of the problems with evolutionary theory, and has now spread to any mention that a controversy exists!
Many evolutionists are treating the results of the school board primaries as the triumph of evolutionary instruction; however, the same situation occurred in Kansas in 2001, when the school board re-emphasized evolution after it had been mildly de-emphasized in standards approved in 1999. Evolution was again mildly de-emphasized in standards passed in late 2005, which led to the media attention on last week's primary election. Since the Kansas science standards have already been changed three times (and will presumably be changed a fourth time when the next board takes power), it will not come as a surprise if the Kansas school board continues to sway back and forth on the issue for years to come."
With different visions of the common good heard from various quarters, I wanted to ask Dr. Thompson and fellow Redneck Intellectual readers: what did our nation’s founders mean by the term when they used it?
When Adams drafted the Massachusetts Constitution, what did he mean when he wrote that “all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good,” that “government is instituted for the common good,” and that the assembly should meet frequently “for making new laws as the common good may require”?
In the cited passage of Federalist No. 10, Madison wrote that zeal for various opinions, and attachments to various leaders and persons, “have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” What did Madison see as the common good, for which men, divided into parties, were not cooperating?
Later, in Federalist No. 57, what did Hamilton or Madison mean by the common good when he wrote that “the aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society”?
And in his first inaugural address, what did President Jefferson mean when he asked Americans to “arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good”?
In Article VII of the Massachusetts Constitution, after Adams wrote that “government is instituted for the common good,” he immediately added, “the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people.” If the “protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people” is what Adams meant by the common good, is this perhaps what the other founders meant as well when they used the term?
You are correct in your asseveration that the FedCath has struck again with his typical flourishes of sophistry that would make a freshman polysci major cringe. The root of his inability to articulate stems from his determination to work within the confines of the Constitution as it was written. And he's an inveterate papist.
If Adams were to visit America today there would be a number of things that would send him walking back to his grave plot. I would imagine his chief concern would be the absence of virtue (in the Aristotelian sense). I quote Adams in his letter to Mercy Otis Warren, "“Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” Based upon this premise alone our foundation has long since been absorbed by the sinking sands of postmodernism. It is time to begin again. I quote Jefferson to Madison "The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force (tyranny), and not of right.” *checks calendar* yes, we are 264 years past the Constitution's efficacy and *scrolls WaPo and checks paystub* we are indeed under the heel of Oligarchical tyrants.
To your point common good is only applicable as long as there is commonality. With nearly 330m people, 13 different categories of religious belief (or non belief), 5 identifiable racial categories, *counts on fingers* at least 8 different gender categories (50+ if you include sub-categories), and FORTY SIX terms within the taxonomy of sexual orientation how could anyone imagine forming a government of passing laws on the basis of "common good"? FedCath is either certifiable insane or working for the Derp State, probably both. Common good is a meme unless applied in some very high level framework, as in "just don't physically hurt me." If everyone can agree on that then we can ostensibly form a "common good" government Although, now we're leaving out the BDSM crowd. I give up.
The root issue is not how we should be governed. The root issue is the spirit of the people from whom government is derived. The current government has been formed by denatured men who are completely incalcitrant in observing Natural Law, thus they elect rulers who reflect their "will to live" spirit. These elected Bugmen desire nothing more than to sycophantically lick the boots of the Oligarchial class in hopes of favor vis-a-vis K street lucre.
Your powerful essay should be posted on the bulletin board of Vermeule's brothel. Perhaps he can provide a scholarly rationalization for evading the 400-year change from Christianity's illusory individuals to the Enlightenment's celebration of the reality of individuals.
Our collective greatest good is that we are each free to pursue our own individual greatest good, with minimal interference from authorities. Good government ensures that this happens.
This has to be coupled with a skeptical attitude toward authority and independence of mind, which should be taught in our schools. But even if it isn't, see my first sentence, above.
This is a beautiful post. It got me running back to - Hobbes’ Leviathan and it’s reprise in the Brothers Karamazov.
Humankind is trying to get its governance right for the past 100,000 years. Before the agricultural revolution it was less of an issue because the numbers in a group were very small.
Governance will always be a work in progress. The Political theorist Francis Fukuyama warns us about the greatest threat in politics - the “bad Emperor or the bad dictator” problem.
History is full of well meaning leaders with noble goals which end horribly with time. The current list includes: Chavez, Mugabe, Mao and many many others. There is no such thing as a good dictator or a good Grand Inquisitor. It always ends badly.
We have not arrived yet but a democracy (with independent judiciary, free speech and vigorous institutions including free media) where the people have the power to deselect Goverment leaders is infinitely better than any other system in existence.
This is a beautiful post. It got me running back to - Hobbes’ Leviathan and it’s reprise in the Brothers Karamazov.
Humankind is trying to get its governance right for the past 100,000 years. Before the agricultural revolution it was less of an issue because the numbers in a group were very small.
Governance will always be a work in progress. The Political theorist Francis Fukuyama warns us about the greatest threat in politics - the “bad Emperor or the bad dictator” problem.
History is full of well meaning leaders with noble goals which end horribly with time. The current list includes: Chavez, Mugabe, Mao and many many others. There is no such thing as a good dictator or a good Grand Inquisitor. It always ends badly.
We have not arrived yet but a democracy (with independent judiciary, free speech and vigorous institutions including free media) where the people have the power to deselect Goverment leaders is infinitely better than any other system in existence.
The "common good" is a vague, undefinable slogan used by collectivists to justify the violation of individual rights so as to bring about what they consider to be their utopian vision.
As an example here is a quote from Adolf Hitler: “a man must renounce putting forward his personal opinion and interests and sacrifice both…” “the common good comes before the private good”
It is contradictory to say that a good society can be brought into existence by using force, i.e. by violating the rights of the individuals of that society. No good can come from an evil act.
It is wrong to characterize Vermeule as a man of the right. He is entirely a leftist in search of an ideology to justify elitist power. He uses Catholicism as a veneer. Christ rejected political rule. See John 6:15, Matthew 4:8-10
The "common good" is evil by another name. First, there is no "common good" to which we can aspire because the innate dignity of humans precludes the common good, which treats as like widgets. God did not grant us free will so we could be slaves to sinners. In non-theological terms, freedom is an essential good; no system that denies freedom can be good. Second, the elevation of the common good requires the use of force or deception; any system the requires reliance upon evil to attain "good" is evil.
"My vision of the “common good” is one where the State leaves law-abiding men and women alone to quietly build families, to work and create, to gain knowledge, to travel, to coach little league soccer, to tend their property, to go to the local pub for a pint, to celebrate Independence Day with friends and family, to watch Clemson beat ‘Bama, and to pursue their vision of the good life."
This last paragraph reveals a lot that your essay does not answer. What is "law-abiding"? If the law allows slavery, those quietly built families will have slaves, oppressing other humans like themselves. If the law allows for the possession of assault weapons...well, you know. What about the insane and the homeless? At the root of it is freedom. Many people are less free than others. An addict is less free than someone who does not have an addiction. The emotionally deficient or co-dependent are also less free. Nelson Mandela was free even though he was in prison because of the power of his convictions and ideas. The idea of the common good -- so well expressed in the Socratic dialogues -- is a search for what makes people more free. To cite extremist groups like the Nazis and say that the fact that they believe the promotion of a master race is a common good, means that this ideology is as reasonable as any other, is ridiculous. Most people will agree on what constitutes the common good.
Every civilization that is worthy of the name organizes itself around some concept of the common good, and this results in the achievements of that civilization. All involve some subordination of the individual interest to the common good. The Pax Romana, for example, featured a vigorous concept of the common good -- the acceptance of the authority of the Roman state, the imperative to acknowledge the Roman dieties, Roman law. Icelandic landowners met yearly in a parliament that decided and resolved quarrels, under a concept of the common good. The warring city-states of Renaissance Italy, which produced some of the greatest art and literature of all times, had a robust conception of the common good. But these these high-achieving societies become corrupted by internal weakness, leaving it to other groups of people to once again become standard bearers for the common good and create great civilizations. Vox populi, vox dei -- that's the principle on which our Democracy rests. Yet without a vision of the common good, the voice of the people is easily corrupted. Just look at Trump's gospel of lies, self-interest, and outright rejection of science.
Common good?
Zeke Emmanuel says we should all die at 75. Fauci is 80. He must stop wearing a mask right now.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
Your powerful essay should be corrected. Kansas conservatives do force the teaching creationism. Why would you say such an easily demonstrable falsehood? Once again a conservative tries to curry favor by promoting leftist canards...
"What Happened in Kansas?
“Anti-Evolution” Curriculum Likely to be Overturned
on August 10, 2006
Last week’s school board primaries in Kansas have generated much news—and much confusion—about the teaching of “creationism” in Kansas schools and AiG’s stance on the matter.
Last week's school board primaries in Kansas have generated much news-and much confusion-about the teaching of “creationism” in Kansas schools and AiG's stance on the matter.1 Although the popular press has gone to great lengths to show that the recent election pitted pro-evolution, pro-“science” candidates against those who backed the mandated instruction of creation in public schools, the election was nothing of the sort. Furthermore, it's not the first time the media has intentionally misrepresented the issues surrounding the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The election centered on the Kansas State Board of Education curriculum, which was widely misrepresented as “anti-evolution,” though it was nothing of the sort. The curriculum did not promote the teaching of intelligent design or biblical creation; it only required that students, during their review of the principles of evolution, hear a small sampling of the numerous problems with evolution.
Evolutionists, however, consider any criticism to evolutionary theory identical to teaching creation, so even the slightest mention of problems with evolution is interpreted as violating the First Amendment. More absurd, however, is the current trend that even mentioning that there is a controversy (that is, that some scientists question evolutionary theory) is ruled to constitute creationist teaching. So what has happened in the public school science classroom? The prohibition against teaching “creationism” spread to teaching any kind of design, then to any discussion of the problems with evolutionary theory, and has now spread to any mention that a controversy exists!
Many evolutionists are treating the results of the school board primaries as the triumph of evolutionary instruction; however, the same situation occurred in Kansas in 2001, when the school board re-emphasized evolution after it had been mildly de-emphasized in standards approved in 1999. Evolution was again mildly de-emphasized in standards passed in late 2005, which led to the media attention on last week's primary election. Since the Kansas science standards have already been changed three times (and will presumably be changed a fourth time when the next board takes power), it will not come as a surprise if the Kansas school board continues to sway back and forth on the issue for years to come."
The substantive arguments are strong enough; the ad hominem silliness just detracts from them.
With different visions of the common good heard from various quarters, I wanted to ask Dr. Thompson and fellow Redneck Intellectual readers: what did our nation’s founders mean by the term when they used it?
When Adams drafted the Massachusetts Constitution, what did he mean when he wrote that “all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good,” that “government is instituted for the common good,” and that the assembly should meet frequently “for making new laws as the common good may require”?
In the cited passage of Federalist No. 10, Madison wrote that zeal for various opinions, and attachments to various leaders and persons, “have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” What did Madison see as the common good, for which men, divided into parties, were not cooperating?
Later, in Federalist No. 57, what did Hamilton or Madison mean by the common good when he wrote that “the aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society”?
And in his first inaugural address, what did President Jefferson mean when he asked Americans to “arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good”?
In Article VII of the Massachusetts Constitution, after Adams wrote that “government is instituted for the common good,” he immediately added, “the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people.” If the “protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people” is what Adams meant by the common good, is this perhaps what the other founders meant as well when they used the term?