The danger of the “COMMON GOOD”

We often hear the pope use the term “the common good”. But what does it mean? It actually has no meaning, because what is good for me might not be what you value as good for you. What is considered a good way to live for me and my family might be considered not so good for another.

In practically all types of political tyrannies and regimes, the term “common good” has been used as justification of suppressing the people and bring about some sort of collectivist state where the individual is a slave in the state.

“good” can only pertain to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.

The common good can only be established by systematically violating the individual rights of a human being. The pope sets himself up as the “the voice of society” as if he has some sort of idea of what the common good is for the world populations. But it is the most dangerous thing to do if you – as the pope does – define you own role in the world as the vicar of God with direct knowledge about what God´s plan is for the world. This threefold combination of a man seeing himself as “The voice of God” claiming that he knows God´s plan and has an idea what is good (common good) for all of us, is the most dangerous cocktail you can imagine. This can only lead to a global tyrranny if this voice gets power to fulfill the dream.

It delivers the helpless majority into the power of a religious institution that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and can only proceed to rule by means of physical force.

Ayn Rand quote about the common good:

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.

Ayn Rand

“The common good” can ONLY mean “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. The term is only logic in a tyranny. If the term “common good” is becoming the way we go, then we will gradually accept that someone determines for the majority what is good and the rest – which are criticizing the decisions taken to promote the common good must be sacrificed.

Maybe you have other values than me. But in the “common good” global village we all

About human rights:

Ayn Rand

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .

What we are aboyt to witness is that Agenda 2030 will be used in the name of the “common good” to abolish this (read the quote above).

Redistribution of wealth

Ayn Rand quote

There is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel [løsøre].

If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism.

Observe that any social movement which begins by “redistributing” income, ends up by distributing sacrifices [med sacrifices tror jeg Rand referer til mennesker som ofres for at systemet kan fungere].

Ayn Rand