When we hear the term "public good," we are presented with the idealism of the capitalistic view that supposedly works towards just that: the good of the public. Commonly mistaken for the "greater good," which has seemingly become the slogan for the progressive movement, the greater good pushes the agenda of socialism.

The difference between the two is the movement for which it stands. There is the understanding that the public good should speak for the individual benefit, whereas the "greater good" insists that the individual must sacrifice their own benefit for the betterment of the entirety of the public. The logic behind this is incredibly faulty, because when, if ever, has the 'greater' majority agreed on what constitutes as good?

In a country of division and with the individual's liberties of freedom of press, religion, and opinion, the meaning of 'good' is completely subjective. This fact itself single-handedly destroys the basis of any sort of assumption that there is an irrefutable, predetermined 'good' for all that is supposed to be attained by either capitalism or socialism.

There is no possible borderline agreement of the words 'good,' or 'fair,' or 'justice,' as no grouping, culture, or country can agree on the definition. When terms are left subjective, arguments for the greater/public good are rendered completely hearsay, as this slogan suddenly is left without weight or merit in the face of a moral controversy.

Not to mention how this philosophical conflict weaves through the argument against capitalism for the sake of 'fairness' to the public as whole, as we find that there is no true meaning of what is considered fair. The argument that equality is more fair than the individual's right to reap the benefit of their work becomes moot, seeing as how we—as a society—cannot agree on the basis of definition, leaving words such as 'fairness' and 'goodness' with standards that hold merely the significance of a metaphor.

By defending capitalism with the excuse of the "public good," the meaning and basis of capitalism is misconstrued. Capitalism was founded out of the idea of the individual—the person; the singular— in an attempt to magnify the importance of individual effort to provide for yourself.

Capitalism is built off of independence. The very phrase "public good" immediately implies that it's the responsibility of the individual to take care of the whole. Capitalism is a working example of survival of the fittest. It ensures the sole thought of the single, the separate, the lone, and the solitary. It encourages original thought and an entrepreneurial surge through society.

People will work for their own benefit with much more audaciousness and ferocity than if it was for the benefit of others. It isn't wrong. It's human nature. It's also no one else's job to take care of you, which comes from our societal entitlement mentality. Without work ethic in a capitalistic society, you aren't rewarded, which is the exact reason why most have a problem with capitalism.

Whereas the greater good leaves much room for subjectivism, the essence of capitalism does not. It's a concrete absolute—an unswaying concept—that produces the same result from varying circumstances. A producer produces a product or service, and the consumer chooses whether or not to purchase or pay for the product or service. In these scenarios, you are granted the freedom to exercise your individual right to choose either what to produce or what to consume.

"When you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction." -- Ayn Rand

In this type of society you choose to either be an exploiter or the exploited, leaving no room for the rights of any singular person without intertwining them with your own.

The most common method of the battle against capitalism is to simply entrap and enslave any dexterous mind or work. It isn't enough for free thinkers to contribute to their society, but said society is only satisfied with the enslavement of their ingenuity and success. They hate success that isn't theirs, they spit on ability they don't possess, yet they expect it to feed into them and their society.

The moral and democratic struggle to define and agree leaves no room for mass coherence towards right or wrong. When the push against capitalism is categorized by unwarranted jealousy towards success, lack of drive, and unfounded morality, there really is no argument at all.