It’s a question which has become more critical in 2020, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 ‘pandemic,’ and also due to the insistence of globalists to elevate of the issue of man-made ‘climate change’ as the central existential of this generation on Earth. According to these dialectics, the interests of the individual should always be subservient to that of the ‘greater good’ as defined by consensus makers.
More importantly: who decides what constitutes or defines the ‘greater good’?
Could the special interests of a small cadre of political elites or oligarchs end-up formulating the ‘greater good’ consensus?
Scott Van Gaaasbeck writes:
“The greater good argument – claiming that the benefits to a group of people outweigh the harm done to another group is always flawed because it always reduces the freedom and morality of all people when a large group uses a small group as a means to their ends, no matter how noble the ends. The resort to the greater good argument is in fact evidence of a failure of government to plan appropriately and work things out among the parties. The true greater good in any nation is inextricably linked to the degree of freedom and rights given to each and every citizen in equal measure.”
This short video presentation by Academy of Ideas explores this argument and tests the idea of collectivism against foundational post-enlightenment concepts such as liberty and individual rights. Watch:
READ MORE LOCKDOWN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Lockdown Files
PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR WINTER FUNDRAISING DRIVE HERE
