Recently, my wife took me to the Brunswick Commons: one thousand acres of land kept in “general commonage.” I could not avoid thinking about what some might say about it: property held in common smacks of socialism, it’s downright un-American. Instead of being put to productive use, the land is left for those engaged in the shameless pursuit of happiness – a peculiar notion, indeed – by doing nothing but walking, running or watching the birds fly and the grass grow.

Some might also say, if our true concern is the “common” good, the Commons should be immediately put on the market and sold to the highest private bidder, as long as it is not a foreign interest. Ideally, no regulations should restrain the buyer’s freedom to engage in any activity he or she chooses, in order to maximize the profitability of his investment.

If we were to turn this public space over to private interests, however, we ought to first consider whether it would move us closer to achieving the aspirational benchmarks set by the nation’s founders in the Preamble to the Constitution. They defined the aims we should pursue to achieve what they termed “a more perfect union”:

• Establish justice
• Insure domestic tranquility
• Provide for the common defense
• Promote the general welfare
• Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Is putting individual interests above collective interests always good? And is the pursuit of private profit the best way to “promote the general welfare”?

Xavier Comas
Alna