What is the "Common Good "and why does it seem this concept is more entrenched in American Law?

[Marcel_Prix]

PS: I don't think everyone in America thinks this way. What I am trying to get at is that it seems that this culture does exist in America and to a lesser extend I can also see it in UK.

Also the examples are "idealized" and only of few of tons of other examples, but they do point out to an actual reality that does happen.

Example #1(Drinking in Public)

Germany, Quebec: You can go drink at the park and nobody cares.

America: If you go drink at the park its illegal and you can get in trouble.

Example #2 (Living in an "luxury" apartment building)

Germany: You can smoke in your apartment.

America: If you smoke they'll report you and get you in trouble.

Example #3: (Playing Music)

Germany, Spain: You can play loud music in your apartment, people tend to not care.

America: If you play loud music your neighbor can call on you, to say you are disturbing the peace.

You guys get the idea, but it seems that any kind of "Spontaneous" type of behavior is reprimanded. For example, in an America city some people wanted to play music at the park and someone immediately called the cops since that wasn't allowed.

What I'm getting at is that it seems the Law in America is there to protect the "property owners" from "outsiders" as opposed to creating a community between property owners and non-property owners. For instance, I read on the Dutch idea of the "third space" where people get together-the Communal space.

Maybe, it could be Calvinism's and/or Evangelist influence where other people are seen as a "depraved" or "sinners" who are in the way, of the property owners.

 

[Hank77]

Germany: You can smoke in your apartment.

America: If you smoke they'll report you and get you in trouble.

To whom do they report the smoker?

Owners have a financial interest in protecting their property from damages.

 

[BobRyan]

PS: I don't think everyone in America thinks this way. What I am trying to get at is that it seems that this culture does exist in America and to a lesser extend I can also see it in UK.

Also the examples are "idealized" and only of few of tons of other examples, but they do point out to an actual reality that does happen.

Example #1(Drinking in Public)

Germany, Quebec: You can go drink at the park and nobody cares.

America: If you go drink at the park its illegal and you can get in trouble.

Example #2 (Living in an "luxury" apartment building)

Germany: You can smoke in your apartment.

America: If you smoke they'll report you and get you in trouble.

Example #3: (Playing Music)

Germany, Spain: You can play loud music in your apartment, people tend to not care.

America: If you play loud music your neighbor can call on you, to say you are disturbing the peace.

You guys get the idea, but it seems that any kind of "Spontaneous" type of behavior is reprimanded. For example, in an America city some people wanted to play music at the park and someone immediately called the cops since that wasn't allowed.

What I'm getting at is that it seems the Law in America is there to protect the "property owners" from "outsiders" as opposed to creating a community between property owners and non-property owners. For instance, I read on the Dutch idea of the "third space" where people get together-the Communal space.

Maybe, it could be Calvinism's and/or Evangelist influence where other people are seen as a "depraved" or "sinners" who are in the way, of the property owners.

It used to be ok to smoke on airplanes and then when that got restricted -- they made it "smoke only on international flights" and then that was shut down as well. It used to be ok to smoke in the office while at work - then they created smoking rooms and then no smoking except outside the building.

Given that smoking damages health - and not just the health of the one smoking - then I agree that 'do no harm' is a great rule and it has nothing to do with "protecting the property owner" in these cases.

Also - playing very loud music that inserts itself into the home of your neighbor is not 'the best'. A number of years ago the authorities (ATF / FBI ) in America wanted to smoke out a small cult in Texas. The people were living in a very large communal house and one thing that they did to drive them out - was play very loud music outside the building 24x7. Clearly they knew that this kind of thing annoys people.

Having drunk people wandering around public parks shows a massive "assumption" on the part of responsible people - where it is "assumed" that drunk people are always on their best behavior and will of course never do anything to endanger themselves or threaten others. Not an assumption based on a lot of "fact" as it turns out.

The Bible says Christians are supposed to love others as they would themselves - wanting the best "for the other guy" in the same way that in the non-Christian world many people look out just for their own interest no matter how it affects another person.

 

[public hermit]

PS: I don't think everyone in America thinks this way. What I am trying to get at is that it seems that this culture does exist in America and to a lesser extend I can also see it in UK.

Also the examples are "idealized" and only of few of tons of other examples, but they do point out to an actual reality that does happen.

Example #1(Drinking in Public)

Germany, Quebec: You can go drink at the park and nobody cares.

America: If you go drink at the park its illegal and you can get in trouble.

Example #2 (Living in an "luxury" apartment building)

Germany: You can smoke in your apartment.

America: If you smoke they'll report you and get you in trouble.

Example #3: (Playing Music)

Germany, Spain: You can play loud music in your apartment, people tend to not care.

America: If you play loud music your neighbor can call on you, to say you are disturbing the peace.

You guys get the idea, but it seems that any kind of "Spontaneous" type of behavior is reprimanded. For example, in an America city some people wanted to play music at the park and someone immediately called the cops since that wasn't allowed.

What I'm getting at is that it seems the Law in America is there to protect the "property owners" from "outsiders" as opposed to creating a community between property owners and non-property owners. For instance, I read on the Dutch idea of the "third space" where people get together-the Communal space.

Maybe, it could be Calvinism's and/or Evangelist influence where other people are seen as a "depraved" or "sinners" who are in the way, of the property owners.

This might help:

In ordinary political discourse, the “common good” refers to those facilities—whether material, cultural or institutional—that the members of a community provide to all members in order to fulfill a relational obligation they all have to care for certain interests that they have in common. Some canonical examples of the common good in a modern liberal democracy include: the road system; public parks; police protection and public safety; courts and the judicial system; public schools; museums and cultural institutions; public transportation; civil liberties, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of association; the system of property; clean air and clean water; and national defense. The term itself may refer either to the interests that members have in common or to the facilities that serve common interests. For example, people may say, “the new public library will serve the common good” or “the public library is part of the common good”

The Common Good (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Hank77]

What is the "Common Good "and why does it seem this concept is more entrenched in American Law?

From the Preamble to the Constitution...“promote the general welfare,”.
The idea of common good/general welfare was established by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution the bases of our country's law.

 

[public hermit]

What I'm getting at is that it seems the Law in America is there to protect the "property owners" from "outsiders" as opposed to creating a community between property owners and non-property owners. For instance, I read on the Dutch idea of the "third space" where people get together-the Communal space.

I am tempted to blame John Locke for the American notion of private property. He "wrote the book," so to speak, on the justification for private ownership and had significant influence on the founders and how Americans think about private property.

 

[Marcel_Prix]

I am tempted to blame John Locke for the American notion of private property. He "wrote the book," so to speak, on the justification for private ownership and had significant influence on the founders and how Americans think about private property.

Good contribution. Yes, I was reading both Hobbes and Locke but they seem very influential in both America and the UK if you look more closely. I remember reading somewhere that when Locke talked about "Liberty" he was talking about it in the context of Middle Class British Values. Which he indicate like owning your own house. He didn't mean it in the "positive liberty" in that of get together with your friends to play loud music at the park.

My impression is that Germans, Dutch, and others have a higher degree of "Social Tolerance" for behavior which would not necessarily agree with. While in the English speaking countries and maybe some Scandinavian countries there's a "Lower Social Tolerance." Its not just about drinking, smoking...etc Those are other examples. Like for instance, if you are an adult and you want to play some videos games with "racy" type content. It seems that many people in Continental European don't care. While in America there's both social stigma but now there have been Progressive groups who want to ban those kinds of games, like having attractive girls since they seem it as misogynistic. You're only free until you start doing things that might be perceived as against the "Public Good" and that's when your freedom ends.

 

[public hermit]

Good contribution. Yes, I was reading both Hobbes and Locke but they seem very influential in both America and the UK if you look more closely. I remember reading somewhere that when Locke talked about "Liberty" he was talking about it in the context of Middle Class British Values. Which he indicate like owning your own house. He didn't mean it in the "positive liberty" in that of get together with your friends to play loud music at the park.

I hadn't thought about it in that context, but that makes sense.

My impression is that Germans, Dutch, and others have a higher degree of "Social Tolerance" for behavior which would not necessarily agree with. While in the English speaking countries and maybe some Scandinavian countries there's a "Lower Social Tolerance." Its not just about drinking, smoking...etc Those are other examples. Like for instance, if you are an adult and you want to play some videos games with "racy" type content. It seems that many people in Continental European don't care. While in America there's both social stigma but now there have been Progressive groups who want to ban those kinds of games, like having attractive girls since they seem it as misogynistic. You're only free until you start doing things that might be perceived as against the "Public Good" and that's when your freedom ends.

Maybe there is a distinction between social norms and commons goods? For instance, I don't think anyone wants the fire dept. to go away no matter the socially accepted behavior, but whether one thing is seen as socially acceptable or another changes and will change. Where I think the two cross is when human rights, which are a common good, come into question or are treated as simply another social norm liable to change.

 

[Marcel_Prix]

I hadn't thought about it in that context, but that makes sense.



Maybe there is a distinction between social norms and commons goods? For instance, I don't think anyone wants the fire dept. to go away no matter the socially accepted behavior, but whether one thing is seen as socially acceptable or another changes and will change. Where I think the two cross is when human rights, which are a common good, come into question or are treated as simply another social norm liable to change.

Interesting, the way I was understanding this idea is that there's a "Common Good," and it might be set of rules that everyone in a give society, let's say a city has to follow. The people who break any of those rules would be said to be "disturbing" the "Common Good." I did not think it was relativistic or constantly changing. But rather they were "bedrock" values which where given in a society. Similar to the Constitution. To change them would take a lot of effort or big cultural change.

 

[public hermit]

Interesting, the way I was understanding this idea is that there's a "Common Good," and it might be set of rules that everyone in a give society, let's say a city has to follow. The people who break any of those rules would be said to be "disturbing" the "Common Good." I did not think it was relativistic or constantly changing. But rather they were "bedrock" values which where given in a society. Similar to the Constitution. To change them would take a lot of effort or big cultural change.

I'm not equating social norms with codified law. I'm thinking those get confused, but they are not the same thing. Granted, both depend on agreement, so...political philosophy.

 

[Marcel_Prix]

I'm not equating social norms with codified law. I'm thinking those get confused, but they are not the same thing. Granted, both depend on agreement, so...political philosophy.

I'm still wrestling with many of these ideas. I am studying political philosophy and sociology. I think Friedrich Hayek has some theories on Norms. But I am not as familiar with it just yet.

 

[public hermit]

I'm still wrestling with many of these ideas. I am studying political philosophy and sociology. I think Friedrich Hayek has some theories on Norms. But I am not as familiar with it just yet.

That's fantastic that you are reading good works. Trust me, it will help to a limit, but most folks don't get that far. I encourage you in your reading and understanding. I wish more had read and understood. Alas, maybe you can communicate what you understand.