One of the submersed and half-conscious social conflicts is over the value of "common good". Liberalism is promotion of the common good through equal opportunities and social development across a broad plane, like fixing roads, building schools and extending loans and credit. Conservatives oppose that standard calling it feel good liberalism. The bigotry and elitism which they promote doesn't feel good, because it opposes truth. A logic is not produced for opposing "common good," because the opposite is elitism and bigotry, which cannot be justified.

There is a need for more awareness on this subject. What are the alternatives, and what are the consequences? The most important fact about the whole subject is that it is not possible to destroy life for some persons and not for everyone. Life is unified reality. It can't be dissociated and still be life.

This subject (and all subjects) can be evaluated at the reality level and the social level. Reality is a medium for life, like water to fish. Life depends upon a medium of reality, just like fish depend upon water, and humans depend upon air to breath. Spiritual life requires unified reality, just like human life requires a clean environment.

The social question is why is it not possible to destroy some persons while others live. There are two answers. One, destroyers are not God enough to know who needs to be destroyed and who needs to live. They differ in their opinions and end up destroying everyone. The ones with power destroy the ones without power, but power changes like the weather; so who is destroying who keeps changing until everyone gets destroyed.

The second reason is because destroyers cannot be trusted. The whole social fabric disintegrates when destructive standards prevail. This applies to all sin. A social order requires constructive relationships between persons.

Corrupt persons assume they can spot pick their enemies and friends. They assume they can destroy the right persons, and build up the right persons, and all will go well. It's important to understand the fallacy of that assumption.

One of the problems with spot-picking good and evil is the "collateral damage". If for example, roads are left in disrepair, all cars get damaged. Corrupters assume they can repair their cars easier than their enemies, who are always lower class persons. But multiply the standard infinitely, and there is no social order or economy for the rich and powerful.

A major blind-spot in the minds of corrupt persons is in not knowing that the rip-offs cannot go on endlessly, while the social fabric is being destroyed. Airplanes, televisions and caviar don't come from nowhere. It takes a social fabric to produce them. Corrupters don't have good enough judgment to know that. Sometimes, they assume that they are only corrupting a little bit. That's like being a little bit pregnant. The little bit is never separable from the real lot.

Another major reason why spot picking doesn't work is because everyone's interests conflicts with everyone else's, when the common good is not the standard. Even with parallel status, or at the top of the power structures, there are conflicts of interest. When each person is picking, they pick each other to death.

The logic of corruption (bigotry and elitism) is that the most powerful persons should prevail over the less powerful. This is called "social Darwinism". Supposedly, higher good will evolve out of conflict. But the opposite is true. When conflict determines who prevails, then the amount of destructivity keeps increasing until all is destroyed. The fallacy is in the assumption that power being used to destroy powerless persons is a virtue to be promoted. Power feels like a virtue, because it is like a drug. But destroying is not a virtue.

A summary of this subject would be to compare it to the workings of a biological cell. Every element of the cell must be in harmony with every other element. One part of a cell cannot be trying to destroy another part of the cell. The "common good" is like the laws of biochemistry applying to all parts of the cell.