On the common good

Peter Kreeft used to say that a good society is one in which it is easy to be good. In this sense, is our society good? And how can we judge its goodness? The essential concept to answer this question is the common good, a concept so relevant that it largely explains the destiny of societies, the well-being and happiness (always relative) of their citizens and their material, intellectual, emotional and spiritual development. Yet, despite its extreme importance, the common good is rarely mentioned and even more rarely understood.

Let us define the common good

Using the via negativa, it is useful to clarify first what the common good is not. The common good is not the sum of the goods of the members of a society, nor does it refer to state-owned goods, to the existence of public services, or to some kind of collectivism or redistribution of wealth. This is not to say that the common good does not address these material and economic issues, but rather that it has a much broader and deeper human meaning. Nor is the common good a zero-sum game or opposed to the private good; it is not exclusionary, but benefits all.

What is it then? Its most accurate definition is the following: “The common good is the set of social conditions that allow citizens the expeditious and full development of their own perfection”[1]. In other words, the common good refers to the creation and maintenance of an institutional, political, social, legal and economic framework and, above all, of a shared êthos or morality that facilitates the attainment of a fullness of life, of a transcendent and holistic realization of each individual and, consequently, of the partial attainment of the happiness we all long for[2].

The common good creates a framework for action and a breeding ground, but it does not offer a predetermined outcome. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. It makes it possible for people to flourish, but it does not guarantee it, for everything will always depend on the highest attribute of human beings: their individual freedom. As the Sage said 2,200 years ago: “In the beginning God created man and left him in the power of his free will. He has placed before him fire and water: extend your hand to what you will. Before man lies life and death, and to each one will be given what he prefers”[3]. In other words, the common good is the good soil that allows man to germinate, but, in the last analysis, man, as an autonomous subject of moral decision, “master of his fate and captain of his soul”[4], will always be ultimately responsible for bearing fruit. In the human being, freedom, responsibility and dignity are inseparable.

From all this, it follows that the concept of common good has nothing to do at all with egalitarianism, since the full development of each individual is always relative and its fruit will depend on his or her capabilities (intellectual, moral and emotional), which vary from individual to individual and produce different results, which are fair precisely because they are different.

The defense of life and the family

The first element of common good is the respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, beginning with the right to life from conception to natural death. The common good demands, therefore, a culture that extols and defends life at all costs, a society in which an absolute respect for life, considered a free gift that does not depend on anyone’s will and desire, prevails. In this sense, the sad Culture of Death that currently grips Western societies, which not only normalizes the horror of abortion and euthanasia, but identifies them with progress, does not indicate civilization but barbarism, and portrays a sick and, in a certain sense, grotesque society, for there is nothing more ridiculous than believing oneself to be the opposite of what one really is.

The common good demands the defense of the family as the basic pillar of society so that the child can have the possibility of growing up in a stable family environment with his father (XY chromosome) and mother (XX chromosome). It is, therefore, contrary to the common good to promote divorce as does the Spanish “Express divorce” law, which has eliminated prudent delays for the married couples that allowed them to discern the decision they were about to make. A policy favorable to the common good would be the opposite: to help married couples to avoid, as far as humanly possible, a step that has no turning back. Also contrary to the common good (and to the truth) is the cultural silencing – for example, in movies – of the suffering that divorce entails for most of its protagonists, especially for the children.

The defense of freedom

Another essential component of the common good is respect for individual freedom. Freedom is the oxygen of the soul, without which it withers. In this sense, the gradual repression of personal freedoms that we have experienced in recent decades in this Europe kidnapped by the EU is disturbing.

The case of Spain after Franco’s dictatorship (1939-1975) is particularly paradoxical. Nobody imagined that the price of obtaining a very restricted political freedom, based on little more than a rather useless voting ritual performed one day every four years, was to lose enormous degrees of personal freedom, stolen by the bureaucratic oppression and the great tax robbery of that semi-totalitarian State called the Welfare State. Thus, the average Spaniard pays twice as much taxes today as he did in 1974 and, on top of that, he has to endure a number of prohibitions and a daily requirement of administrative permits much higher than half a century ago. We have gone from one dictatorship to another, much more hypocritical one.

And what about freedom of thought and speech, persecuted in the midst of “democracy” by the tyranny of political correctness and the most impudent censorship? And what about freedom of religion, especially Christianity, persecuted and insulted by buffoons who would never dare to do the same to other religions?

Economic progress as a common good

The common good also requires an economic system that encourages wealth creation. Happily, there’s no need to invent it, for it is well known: a free market economy, framed in an environment of legal security, a small government and, above all, an absolute respect for private property, a sine qua non condition for economic progress and “a fundamental principle that must be considered inviolable”[5].  

Statism, legal insecurity and taxes are enemies of private property. Thus, it follows axiomatically that a society without legal certainty and with high taxes such as those we suffer in our vampire Welfare States, or in which squatters enjoy greater rights than the legitimate owners of the houses (as happens in Spain), will be poorer and more unfair than a society with legal certainty, low taxes and solid private property rights.

That said, having an adequate system is a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic progress, which will always depend ultimately on the actions of the individual. No system or social structure can solve the problem of poverty as if by magic without a “constellation of individual virtues: industriousness, competence, order, honesty, initiative, frugality, thrift, spirit of service, keeping one’s word, audacity, in short, love of a job well done”[6].  

In the same way, a society in which rules multiply like cancer cells and can be arbitrarily interpreted, a society in which iniquitous and ever-changing legislation are constantly passed at the whim of a majority to perpetuate itself in power, is contrary to the common good. In the same sense, a society in which the highest jurisdictional bodies are politicized and fall into the most abject prevarication cannot be a good society, as opposed to a society governed by just laws based on immutable principles, on common law, on Natural Law and on common sense, and with an independent Judiciary.

The common good demands that those who are unable to provide for themselves should be cared for by the community and not abandoned to their fate, for a society that does not protect its weakest members cannot be called good. However, taking care of that small minority that cannot take care of itself has nothing to do with the trap of the Welfare State[7], whose iron-fisted “protective” mantle (a disguised prison) unnecessarily covers the entire population with the sole objective of controlling it, that is, as an alibi to achieve a State of Servitude. As we saw with the recent catastrophic floods in Valencia, the community can voluntarily and spontaneously take care of its members with much greater agility and efficiency than a stiff State controlled by petty interests.  

But the most perverse aspect of the Welfare State is that it makes ordinary citizens believe that they will never be able to fend for themselves, but will always need the State, a false and denigrating belief that is directly opposed both to the common good and to the principle of subsidiarity that should govern any society[8].  

Respect for the truth and for the word given

As Thomas Woods reminds us, “all countries that have been economically successful possessed robust property rights and a clear demand for the enforcement of contractual rights”[9]. Saying the same with other words, Richard Maybury bases the success of a society on two principles: do not encroach on other people or their property and do all you have agreed to do.  

The common good, therefore, also requires keeping promises, contracts and, ultimately, one’s word. A society that respects a handshake and does not require the signing of a complex contract for every small action is a good and efficient society, because without a minimum of trust every society becomes inoperative: sometimes the buyer pays in advance and sometimes the supplier delivers his product without having been paid, and in both cases there is an underlying trust that the other party will fulfill what is due, the same trust that the lender has in the borrower.

In politics it is also key to be able to trust the electoral promises in exchange for which the citizen delivers his vote, that is, his political sovereignty. It is obvious that in our perverted democracies this is a chimera, which greatly weakens the common good.

Likewise, the common good would demand a genuine search for truth on the part of the media. Unfortunately, that’s not the case at all, since they are devoted to propaganda, to the defense of hidden interests and to continuous deceit.

To respect the word given is to respect the truth, which place do we reserve for truth in our society today? The question is not whether people lie more or less than before, but whether lying is socially stigmatized or normalized. This is not a trivial issue, since the institutionalization of lying gives rise to a chronic cynicism that is like a slow-acting poison that rots society from within.

The demand for peace

Ultimately, the common good demands that there be peace, understood not only as the absence of war, but in a broader sense. Peace requires that political debate be limited in substance and form within a framework of coexistence and rules respected by all. In this sense, the common good demands tolerant and respectful dialogue based on respect for the truth, since truth should always takes precedence over consensus.

In this respect, it is possible that we are facing a systemic problem. Indeed, by its very nature, democracy leads to social polarization, as politicians excite the passions of voters for political purposes, inciting fear of the adversary and dragging the citizenry into an atmosphere of growing intolerance and anger.

But peace also includes peace at home, hindered by the permanent struggle of the sexes in which we have been submerged today. This phenomenon, introduced by globalism as a substitute for class struggle, has dangerously permeated a large part of society and is one of the great enemies of family peace and, therefore, of the common good.

Finally, peace requires an effort to attain inner peace, so often elusive, but even more difficult to achieve in a relativistic, hedonistic and nihilistic society that lives with its back turned to the ultimate reality of this creature called man; a society without God and without purpose, a society that lacks the compass of good and evil, hopeless and sad, despite its false appearances, a society, in short, that digs in the garbage, deceived by those who only wish to subdue it, believing that there it will find the delicacies that it desires.

Dear reader: the common good is based on rights and freedom, on order and justice, on family and private property, on truth and peace. I do not believe that most Western societies today meet these conditions, but if we want to improve them, this is the only path forward, and no other.