We are no more the government than I am you. That's a farce.

As for the common good, the individual's interests are in alignment with most practical concepts of good. Sarah's post communicates the general idea. Your arguement is a textbook cliche.

That we must surrender our free will to a centralized bureaucracy for our own protection is a view born out of fear and distrust. It's an emotional arguement that assumes such a construct would be capable of successfully filling the role. The reality is that such a state is most often the largest danger to "the common good".

A fallacy perhaps. Or a farcical fallacy. A flagrant fundamental fraud foisted upon us in state-run schools. It is a belief that because we live in a 'democracy' in which a few people in public office are elected, they somehow serve us all, and whatever they do is automatically 'for the common good'. This despite the fact that the vast majority of the apparatus of the state is populated by lifetime unelected bureaucrats who act in their own self-interest, not some mythical angelic creatures who get up every morning thinking 'how can I best serve the common good today?"

The truth is nearly the exact opposite of this. Because activities carried out by the government are paid for by forced taxation and because they do not compete in a market, they are remarkably poor providers of services. In many, if not most cases, government activity is a net-loss for the common good, because it takes money out of productive economic activity and out of the hands of individuals, who can no longer decide as individuals what goods or services will yield them maximal personal rewards. It's also a net loss because bureaucrats with personal agendas and limited knowledge use force to centrally plan and regulate society, creating inefficiencies, economic distortions and frequently gross injustices along the way - usually as unintended consequences.

Here is just one brief example how this cloud of assumptions leads to bad results:

Gasoline is getting more expensive. A reporter asks the presidential candidate: "What will you do to solve this problem?". Implicit in the question is that the market value for gasoline poses some kind of problem, and that the president must 'solve' it. The candidate is then expected to promise some kind of centrally planned iniative or subsidy or regulation to 'solve' the problem of high gasoline prices. The entire outlook is geared towards a statist (socialist) 'solution'.

This approach is ******ed in that it ignores historical context. Rewinding by 4 years, the question becomes "In 2003, the price of oil was under $30 per barrel. After this government invaded Iraq prices are pushing $100 per barrel. How did US government intervention in the Middle East contribute to tripling of crude oil prices? And how would your policy be different?"

As the example shows, considering first what state intervention has done to cause or contribute to a situation leads one to be considerably more wary of proposed interventionist solutions. Lacking this perspective, one falls again and again for whichever candidate's pro-intervention pro-socialist pro-state force solution sounds most appealing.

The candidates may say "oh under my government, we will use your tax dollars to subsidize this and that type of alternative energy." What has the record of such tax-and-spend programs to 'solve' energy 'problems' been? The US subsidizes corn-ethanol production, which has a zero or net-negative energy yield, driving up food prices for consumers and wasting everyone's money directly on a process that is ... a waste of energy. This is a government "solution" par excellence...

The hard truth is, we have not found some divine breed of angelic creatures of superhuman intelligence to populate our bureaucracies, legislatures, courts and executive offices, yet many of us seem to believe that blithely handing these people unchecked powers of taxation and redistribution, regulation, imprisonment, and even of life and death, is somehow a really kind and compassionate and 'progressive' idea.

Yeah, man, i wish i could be so concise. But you have to lead some people by the nose through homilies and stories. Stating an abstract conclusion doesn't show them the path to reach it.