The Fortunes of a Country


A lot of libertarians are fond of saying there is no such thing as the “common good.” Rightfully, we shake our heads at politicians who do all kinds of unseemly things to our rights and freedoms in the name of the common good. Public Choice theory teaches us that “public benefit” is usually evoked most loudly when political actors are helping special interests in the brothels of K Street. Never mind that the very idea of public benefit is elusive, especially when we start to consider individual actors in particular circumstances.

But I want to urge that there is a common good toward which we can work: equal freedom. The problem is, the real common good is tough for most people to get their heads around, clouded as the idea has become by collectivism.

FEE President Larry Reed just published a little piece for a local Georgia paper where he lives. Reed was writing about a congressman serving during the time of Grover Cleveland. He pointed out that the House speaker from Georgia (one Charles Frederick Crisp) had been agitating for “cheap money.” These inflationary policies would move the United States away from the gold standard and help certain Georgians with interests in silver. The President, Grover Cleveland, fought to protect the gold standard.

“Do you know what this means to me?” Crisp asked. "My people in Georgia are for silver. My political career will be ruined!”

According to Cleveland biographer Alyn Brodsky, the President roared back: “Mr. Speaker, what is your political future weighed in the balance against the fortunes of the country? Who are you and I compared with the welfare of the whole American people?"

Crisp’s reply? “Well, if you put it that way, I’ll consent.”

Thanks to Cleveland’s wisdom and Crisp’s support, the veto was sustained. America’s dollar remained “as good as gold” for the next 20 years until the Federal Reserve System was established—much to our nation’s long-term detriment, I might add.

In the wake of the shameful displays of recent times, can we imagine a politician willing to stand up for the “fortunes of a country,” much less an opposition politician willing to consent in the face of reason? If we must live in a representative republic, the only way we can sustain it is for people of character to act as the republic’s stewards. And people of character are supposed to act in accordance with the real common good.

So what is it?

This is a tough question. But I’d say, roughly, the common good is that good that arises out of the rules all people would choose (or better, actually do choose) in order to cooperate. That requires a superstructure of law that doesn’t operate to the benefit of any person or group, but rather embodies equality before the law. Such law should increase the likelihood that any given person living under its auspices is freely able to pursue his or her particular idea of happiness—without making anyone worse off. Because the "common good," under most other construals, benefits individuals or groups at the expense of others, it cannot truly be common. That's why the common good inheres in equal rights and freedoms, such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. 

The common good, seen as the Founders saw it, severely restricts the powers of politicians and populists.

So by our lights, the common good would include liberty for all, private property, and sound money. But for those who don’t share our starting points, the fortunes of a country might be built on other, decidedly illiberal, foundations. Our job is to persuade them otherwise. For if we don't, more and more people will find themselves living in a nightmare created by those who see the common good as somehow inhering in State power.

Max Borders Author Thumb



Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also cofounder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


July/August 2014

The United States' corporate tax burden is the highest in the world, but innovators will always find a way to duck away from Uncle Sam's reach. Doug Bandow explains how those with the means are renouncing their citizenship in increasing numbers, while J. Dayne Girard describes the innovative use of freeports to shield wealth from the myriad taxes and duties imposed on it as it moves around the world. Of course the politicians brand all of these people unpatriotic, hoping you won't think too hard about the difference between the usual crony-capitalist suspects and the global creative elite that have done so much to improve our lives. In a special tech section, Joseph Diedrich, Thomas Bogle, and Matthew McCaffrey look at various ways these innovators add value to our lives--even in ways they probably never expected.
Download Free PDF