Public Interest and the Greater Good

Politicians and pundits like to talk about the public interest.  We ought to do this because it serves the public interest.  We need to keep the public interest in mind.  We need to regulate more and close loopholes to protect public interest.

Let me ask you, what is public interest?  A defendant of the term might respond by defining it as something that serves the public in general.  It’s the general welfare of the nation.  Some things must be done which may hurt a select few of the citizenry who can bear the loss, but it is for the greater good.  We must, for example, tax those who can afford it more for the greater good.  We should provide public education for the greater good.  We who are able must make sacrifices for the greater good.

The general welfare clause of the Constitution was probably the biggest mistake in an otherwise brilliant document.  What is general welfare?  Who is the public?  It is us, you, me, everyone individually.  We are individuals who, together do not form a collective body.  We are not one and the same, we do not form a collective will.  We are different, we view things differently, want different things, and as such cannot be treated as a universal collective.  There is no such thing as public interest because by serving the will of one segment of the public you are ignoring or going contrary to the will of another.  The Constitution is mistaken because there is no general welfare.

All policy, except in the exceedingly rare circumstance of unanimity, must necessarily be at the behest of some while benefiting others.  How can we say that some policy is for the greater good when it hurts many people while helping others?  Are we then determining that those whom we hurt with such policy are somehow lesser than those whom it helps?  Is it a greater good because it helps more people than it hurts?  Are those whom it hurts then lesser because they are a minority?  Indeed, because we are all unique, we may all be classified into subcategories, each of which is necessarily a minority in some respect.  Now that there are more women than men, should women be able to exploit men through the law?  What about Mormons?  Perhaps a new “extermination order” might be desirable to many.  If the majority of people want it (as I’m sure they probably do) is it not for the “greater good”?  Should we force fat people to eat better, thus lowering their medical costs (again, greater good here)?  Should we force smart kids to slow their learning so the more numerous ”slower” kids don’t get behind?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, let me ask you one more.  Should we take away all of your income and make you live in a shelter so that we can upgrade my family living conditions?  I’d like a 4 bedroom house with a fenced in backyard, and a TV package with all the sports channels.  And you can’t quit either.  See, this would hurt you, but it would help me and my family, who are more than you.  It’s for the greater good.  Of course, it’s only the greater good if it’s not you that’s being exploited. 

Politics is the science of favoritism, a tried and true game of using authoritarian power to maintain and increase that same power.  By appealing to the majority of voters through the exploitation of the minority, power may be preserved or increased for extended periods of time.  This is where democracy has failed, and we’ve fallen victim to the very mob mentality our founders feared.  This path ultimately ends in aristocracy and dictatorship of some kind, the so-called “road to serfdom.”  I just finished reading George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and was struck by the famous line: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  When society degenerates to such preference for one subgroup over another, as we now see, one group can capture enough power to rule the farm.

If we are to protect our society, or rebuild it, we must restore and preserve the nation’s inability to exploit one citizen for the benefit of any other.  It does not matter whether the person exploited is able or not to bear the exploitation.  If (s)he is willing to give of himself for the benefit of others, such charity may be done voluntarily, but it must not be done forcefully.  For who’s will are we to obey?  Who has the right to dictate their will on another? 

But how do we protect ourselves from such power grabs?  The best protection I can think of against this was the one Lincoln abolished in his war against the Confederacy, that is the right for any self-governing state to remove itself from an overreaching federal power through secession.  The southern states had every right to leave the union, but were forced to remain by military force.  Now the federal government has superseding power over all state laws, and the checks on government exploitation of minorities is gone.  We can no longer “vote with our feet” in choosing states which abide by our preferred principles, but instead we are forced to abide by the principles chosen by a power-driven federal polity.  We must restore the power balance, and place local and state power over the federal if we are to eliminate the “greater good” syndrome from leading down the path of Germany, Russia, and China.