Although these approaches may differ, all of them concur onthree essential points:

This larger perspective is offered by an analysis of citizenship and the common good. I begin with the idea of citizenship as being a practice entrusted with the preservation and conservation of the nexus of recognitional practices in a society. Then I move to the notion of the common good, interpreted not as a collective thing, a transcendent principle, or an abstract concept, but as the flourishing of the recognitional nexus itself. 

Today, countries, municipalities and NGOs are the entities that supposedly take care of common goods, but their capacity to do so is very limited due to their centralized structure. They are limited by the relative ineffectiveness of centralized constructs — in sense-making, scalable action, engagement and alignment of interests, and more severely, by the personal interests of the people steering them, which often override their interest to take care for the benefit of the community they are in charge of steering. Indeed, neglecting such common goods is one of the biggest problems of humanity in almost every possible domain and circle we can think of.

Unlike naming children, coding involves naming things on a daily basis. When you write code, naming things isn’t just hard, it’s a relentless demand for creativity. Fortunately, programmers are creative people.

Man, for some reason, I really like this answer. I recognize it's a bit more complicated, but it seems so useful. And given that I'm no bash expert, it leads me to believe that my logic is faulty, and there's something wrong with this methodology, otherwise, I feel others would have given it more praise. So, what's the problem with this function? Is there anything I should be looking out for here?

Historically, the communitarian bases of the American legal system supported the subordination of individual rights when necessary for the preservation of common good. Quarantine measures were subjected to a deferential review supporting the states' right to substantially limit individual rights for the community's benefit.

The treatment of quarantine reflects the latter. Courts and academics rarely expressed doubt about the validity of quarantine regulations, since the courts presumed that actions taken under the police power were constitutional.10,11 Challenges to the Fourteenth Amendment, usually successful when governmental intervention interfered with individual liberties, were not well received by the courts when communicable disease regulations, including quarantine, were involved.

quarantine was already a well established form of public health regulation, and was considered proper exercise of the police power of the states; the Supreme Court, in its affirmation of this power, noted that the state had the power to quarantine “to provide for the health of the citizens.”10,11 The uncontrollable nature of epidemic diseases moved the Supreme Court to uphold such extreme measures on the basis of the defense of the common good.8

COMMON GOOD FORECASTER™

Hochberg, M. E., Chase, J. M., Gotelli, N. J., Hastings, A., & Naeem, S. (2009). The tragedy of the reviewercommons.Ecology Letters, 12, 2–4

Property Status Conclusions and Implications Intellectual property is neither ‘scarce,’ nor does the taking of it leave “enough, and as good, left in comm on for others” (the Lockean proviso) (Long, 1995, n. pag.; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).