It is in the recognition of growth and change that we become more at ease with life as we know it. There are many aspects of life that are common to all men in their knowing of mankind and of nature, however, the more specific one gets into the knowing of mankind and nature, the less common the knowledge known to all.
Common knowledge and common sense are truly not so common anymore mainly as a result of the diversity of belief systems, along with the advancements in science and technology, that have been integrated into our American society. What is common, or, common sense, to me is not so common to a man with a completely different and diverse cultural background. The adverse is also true, what is common to another man, may, or may not be, common to me. The knowledge of mankind works that way in culture and in environment.
However, does the structure of the common change so drastically in nature? Life, growth, change, and death occurs to us all. It is in the order of nature that there are, truly, commonalities of thought and being that we all know things as they are, or, ought to be. It is in this order of nature and of things that tells us in our conscience that life is good, or, is supposed to be, and that violence and murder are wrong. It should not be easy, or common, to kill another human being, any more so than it is to strike another with a fist. Anger is common to us all, but our response to anger is not so common.
The need for food, clothing, and shelter is common to us all, but how we obtain these basic necessities is not common, save that of work, and even that is not common anymore. Diverse belief systems have changed commonalities at the root of mankind and even at the root of nature. It is what a man believes that guides his life and, as a leader, what guides his home, his community, and his nation. If he believes that the provision of food, clothing, and shelter should come from the work of his hands, or his mind, then that has been as common to man since the garden of Eden. If another man believes that his provision for food, clothing, and shelter should come at the expense of another without any use of his hands, or mind, that being work; then he believes that he has a providential right to take from the one who has and give it to himself or give it to another one in need who also refuses to work. This be the commonplace sense of the thief, the slothful, and the liberal.
"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; nor did we eat any one's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat."
2 Thessalonians 3:6-10 (NKJV)
Nature tells us that the man who did not work for his gain does not understand the value of the gain, nor does he understand the value of the expense that someone else paid for that gain. Gain does not simply materialize, as some preach, but comes at the expense of another. It is the ebb and flow of capitalism, socialism, communism, and thievery.
If a man has obtained a leadership position and the ensuing power that comes along with it and yet, has not paid the price through work, sacrifice, and experience, or gained the knowledge and wisdom required regarding that leadership position, that man does not understand the value of his position and will rule unjustly and ignorantly as a result. Truly, there are rank amateurs in all walks of life in leadership over us.
It is these inane leaders who, seemingly, have attained much with little, or, no effort, that espouse their belief systems onto their masses. If one believes that he does not have to work for what he has been given, he will teach others to do the same. If I believed that, then, it would only seem right that my kind should be as I am only to the extent that everyone should be equal, but not equal to me because, after all, I am their leader and they owe me for the gain that I have taken from others and given it to them so that everyone is equal, except me, of course, because I am their leader and I continue to take from others to make the others equal and the others give to me more power and more gain that I can disperse because I am the leader and I know how to take from others to make all equal, except me, of course, I just get rich.
This is the cause of the social liberalist. Strangely enough, however, the social liberalist believes that this is the cause of the capitalist. The view of the liberalist is skewed and obscured, though, because he has not seen the creation, growth, and change as the effects of work, but, rather sees prosperity and success as an opportunity to take from the rich and give to the poor at the expense of the creator/worker. The social liberalist is the opportunist who sees the blessing of a creator, calls it his own, and, then disperses it to others for his own personal gain.
In nature, this is known as theft, nothing more and nothing less. God has shown us Himself that the child of a monarch has no place on the seat of a throne.
"But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions." (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, Thomas Paine Collection, Forgotten Books, pp. 15-16)
The social liberalist presumes the right of leadership as divine just as the son of a monarch presumes himself upon a throne.
"... (Perception is common to everyone, so it is easy and in no way a mark of wisdom.) Further, with regard to every science, we think a man wiser the more accurate he is and the more he can tell us about causes. Then, among the sciences, we hold one that is desirable for its own sake and for the sake of knowledge to be more truly wisdom than one that is desirable only for what follows from it, and the one that involves the giving of directions as more so than any that is subordinate to it; for the wise man ought not to be given instructions, he ought to give them, and he ought not to obey anyone else, someone less wise than he should obey him."
(Aristotle, The Philosophy of Aristotle, Metaphysics, Signet Classics, p.18)
And so it is in the obverse side of nature and the true order of things we see children leading parents and children becoming leaders in our communities, our churches, and in our government. How unfortunate we are that we are left with the blind leading the blind while the rest of the world watches with disdain and horror, and still others waiting on opportunity.
We need wise men leading us who have paid the price for the leadership they desire and we all will be the wiser for it.
"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan." (Proverbs 29:2, NKJV)