I’m arguing it because I think, as you’re using it, the term “the general good” is meaningless.
And also, you could say that increasing fuel efficiency serves the general good.
I’m curious about your plans for “creating cohesive communities.” What, exactly, would you do to go about creating these communities?
Perhaps, but it’s not immediately obvious to me how it will “increase the personal freedoms of the populace as a whole.” Therefore it’s not the best example to start with.
I was asking you to consider specifically the laws related directly to balancing the needs of different drivers. Do you agree that these laws illustrate more clearly how a few well applied rules can actually increase the capacity for people to exercise their freedoms vs. total anarchy? why or why not?
OK, care to tell me why?
Of course. But I’ve never suggested otherwise. I’m very much an archist. I think laws and regulations are a positive good.
Because no legislator introduces a law without claiming it serves the common good, and probably, legislators don’t pass laws without believing it serves the common good. And since you can say that about every law, the question lacks meaning.
I don’t necessarily hold that society can function completely without coercion, but society should try to minimize it as much as possible. The “how” is important but I don’t think the “why” has been fully explicated yet. I’d like to discover and address the main objections to the principles before I get into the practicalities of how they might be implemented.
Yes, but does it serve the common good because it increases the freedom of society as a whole?
More often than not , I would guess their idea of common good is quite different from what I’m trying to communicate. It doesn’t matter at this point whether a politician could abuse the term “common good”, I’m just trying to make sure you understand what I’m trying to say.
I understand what you’re trying to say.
well if you have any constructive criticisms…that’s what I’m here for.