I was recently privileged to spend some time chatting with local citizens from around the Saugeen region about politics, community, social structure, economics and just about as many other things as can be fit into 4 hours and a round at Shorty’s. A topic came up around the question of "self-interest vs. the common good". Other ways to state this include "individual interest vs. community interest", "private interest (or ownership) vs. public interest (or ownership)", "self-preservation vs. benevolence", etc. We all generally agreed that to function as individuals and as a society a mix of the two ideas or motives are necessary. The question is in regard to the proper mix.
But I write this article because there still seem to be many citizens (if they can be called such) that seem to operate out of only self-interest. Worse still, some like to wear the guise of benevolence, or common good, but fail to demonstrate it when the situation affects them personally.
Take for example the case of two former members of Power Up Renewable Energy; a group dedicated to the promotion of renewable energy sources in Ontario. These men were outspoken proponents of clean, renewable wind power until they learned of a proposal to build a wind farm near their properties. Now, it is the prerogative of these individuals to take whatever position they wish on the issue, and my point here is not even that they are taking the wrong position, but rather to point out an important question: Did these two men bother to consider when they were proponents of wind energy that the current situation might occur? Or was wind energy OK so long as it was somewhere else?
Maybe it is a question we all fail to ask often enough. How much am I willing to sacrifice for the common good? To be sure, there are limits for all of us, and from a social standpoint there should be. There may also be priorities, such as putting our families above others. These are all valid points of discussion.
What I find alarming is the tendency to change opinions depending on which side of the fence one is on. Some would say it’s a matter of perspective; I say it’s a matter of taking the time to understand what is outside of your personal sphere of interest.
Another recent case involved the question of the Queens Hotel here in Owen Sound. Many framed the issue as one of private interest vs. common interest. I believe that City Council ultimately made the right decision in this case because common interest is not something that can be forced on another and in this case private interest held the financial cards. Whether or not the owners of the Queens would wish to preserve a historical structure for the commons is a matter they have to decide based on economics, and other factors. And in case you think I’m biased, I hate parking lots! The extra parking wouldn’t be necessary if we weren’t overly car-dependant; but I digress.
Ultimately it comes down to the kind of community we want to be a part of. In fact the very word "community" speaks of shared values, shared concern, and shared effort. It also means a degree of self-sacrifice and responsibility to one’s neighbour.
As for me, this is the type of community I wish to be a part of rather than the "every man for himself" variety.
How about you?
Comments
An issue similar to this
An issue similar to this arose when Student Trustees from around the area were discussing our duties amongst ourselves. While each of us serves as our school's youth representative on the Board of Education, we are there to represent ALL students of Bluewater, from JK to Grade 12. For us, it was a matter of thinking of the bigger picture. One solution may work for the Owen Sound schools, and be completely wrong for schools like Peninsula Shores or Saugeen District. The solution is to compromise and hopefully come up with a win-win resolution. For example, in the Queen's hotel dispute, a more careful and open approach to preserving the history would have been preferable. The structure was weak but the spirit of the hotel was obviously still quite strong.
I must agree with Shane on
I must agree with Shane on this one, there are many folk who preach one thing but practice another. Each of us has a limit where the intrusion into our personal life or beliefs by changes to the countryside, brought on by the demand for more of this or that by our ever increasing urban population, becomes unacceptable. We must try and ensure that our rural areas remain as unaffected as possible whilst still providing the resources required by a modern society, to most of us in this area the sense of community and being “good” neighbors is much stronger than that seen in our large cities. Unfortunately it is often not the needs of the individual vs the community where the conflict occurs but rather the greed of the Corporation vs the community. Those that have had large corporate owned (or sponsored) hog barns proposed in their neighborhood will understand that only too well. Increasingly it is the (often international) corporations who are forcing change upon all of us, our government has recently formed a panel consisting exclusively of CEOs of large corporations to “advise” them how to “integrate” with the U.S. and Mexico. Is this a move for the common good or a move to increase the profits and control these corporations have upon our economy. How will this affect us locally, how forgiving must our farm families be to embrace this move towards “the global” market that has eroded their profits of late?
With a project such as a wind farm, or any other neighborhood project, those that live nearby have at least some say during the planning process via their local council, and that is how it should be. I wonder how many of us would like to have a say in the ongoing integration with our rather aggressive neighbor to the south, it seems that even our representatives in parliament don’t get a say, as these agreements are debated and agreed to by a few individuals with minimal debate in parliament and often with little public publicity or consultation. So if you oppose a project in your backyard be thankful that you have the opportunity to voice your opinion, try and be reasonable and try and determine if it does pass the test as “for the common good” or if it is an attempt to increase corporate profits with little regard for the local economy or ecology.
For much more debate on the subject of the loss of our sovereignty and the giving away of our natural resources to foreign nations or corporations go to http://www.vivelecanada.ca/index.php?topic=canusrelations