Kevin Drum thinks that Sully has shown himself to be simply a heartless conservative in his reaction to Hillary’s quote (blogged earlier today) about taxs, taking things away, and the “common good”:

he was annoyed because HC invoked the “common good.” This is apparently all it takes to drive some conservatives nuts these days.

What a sad commentary. Of course the purpose of taxation is to provide for the common good and of course Hillary believes her agenda coincides with that common good. What else would she believe?

Apparently, though, a mere acknowledgment that she believes in advocating for the common good is anathema to Sullivan. But if that was really his gut reaction, what does he think we’re all here for?

What Kevin misses is that the objection that Sullivan is likely expressing, and no doubt one that most conservatives hold in common, is not the direct objection that government does things for the common good, it is the ideological arrogance suggested by Mrs. Clinton stating that she wants to “take things away” from citizens “on behalf of the common good” because the implication is that she knows better how to better promote the common good than do those who earned their own money (and other “things”).

There is a clear theoretical statement that undergirds Mrs. Clinton’s pronouncement: that the best way to promote the common good is for the government to confiscate wealth and redistribute it. It assumes that Mrs. Clinton and her compatriots in the Senate know what’s best for the country, and therefore believe they have the right to take from some citizens to promote that vision of the good.

The fundamental conservative revulsion at that statement in question comes from the idea that only right-thinking members of the state know what the “common good” is and, further, that only they can promote it–and can best do so with your stuff.

It is not, as Drum tries to intimate, that Sullivan (and by extension, conservatives) simply care not for the common good.

There are two additional points to be made here:

1) There is a legitimate theoretical position that the common good is better served when the population is more in charge of the wealth they earn. Further, one can argue that it is morally proper for one to keep the fruits of one’s own labors.

2) The most fundamental problem here is that there is profound disagreement on what defines the “common good.” To assume that one is personally imbued with the perfect definition of the “common good” is the apex of hubris, and typically leads not to any good, but rather to tyranny.

Update: Stephen Bainbridge reacts as well.