The Common Good S.Smith

While everyone can appreciate the benefits of clean air, or abundant fresh water, there are some costs associated with this resource.

One of the problems, “free riders”, or those that do not contribute to this shared resources is easily understandable. I felt that this is an important issue to many people these days, especially when it pertains to their daily life. For example, take the emergency services, like the fire department. If no one paid taxes, then there would be no funds, and no fire protection. However, this service exists, even though some don’t pay taxes. Other examples would be park maintenance, public security, utilities, etc. If enough people become free riders, then these services will be stopped. Society must pay for this resource, regardless of the percentage of people that support it. There could be some strife when other people see free riders, then complain at how they take advantage of resources without paying for them.

The idea of individualism is also highly important in the United States, and in Western countries in general. People dislike giving up rights or freedoms for the “greater good”. Some examples would be the privacy issues since 9/11. The citizens have given up some measure of privacy to ensure security, or at least the idea of security. There are those that feel that giving up any liberties is the wrong way to go, and others that feel that giving up a few rights for an overall improvement in security is acceptable. I understand both sides, but feel that there must be another way to protect the public without giving up liberties.

In our society, having multiple view points also presents a problem with deciding what is the “common good.” Is there equal representation for all viewpoints when deciding what is in the best interests for everyone? How are minority viewpoints able to ensure they have equal treatment? This article touches upon the past inconsistencies with equal treatment and plurality of opinions, and I feel in Hawaii it is especially of concern. Luckily, we have a more diverse population and views than on the mainland, however, there are still cases where the minority voice is suppressed for the majority’s benefit.

The idea of deciding what to focus as a common good was interesting as well. In politics, the general problem is deciding the allocation of funds. Usually there isn’t enough money to pay for all projects, so politicians curry favor among the population, winning votes based on the perception that they will ensure a community gets funding it desires. Issues like education versus housing, or transportation versus environment protection can quickly create strife as people state their reasons for which is more important. Gaining a victory usually results in one side not getting support at all for their issue, leading to more conflict.

The tax rate is another example of unequal burden. For the “common good” the rich will pay more in taxes, yet use the same amount of public resources, while the poor will pay a much smaller tax rate and enjoy the same benefits. This creates tension and does not instill any sort of commonality in the community, as the rich see the poor as nothing but free riders, and feel they should pay a lower tax rate to match the poor population’s contribution.

Trying to come up with a concrete idea for a common good is a noble idea, but especially in an individualistic society, doing so may lead to disadvantages for certain circles of the community. Maintaining a delicate balance between different viewpoints, whether culturally, economically, or politically is an ongoing problem that will likely continue for as long as people have different views.

-S. Smith