> His autism and drug use and liberal education and view of corruption and power from his parents has convinced him that all of society is an arbitrary social c

> His autism and drug use and liberal education and view of corruption and power from his parents has convinced him that all of society is an arbitrary social construct. > And the fact that he bought off many famous and powerful people was evidence that he is correct in his base assumptions of the world. That does not follow. That people violate norms does not mean norms are "arbitrary". We aren't automatons living in some kind of Platonic universe. The good can be frustrated for various reasons, and in your example, by the very people people making the aforementioned immoral decisions. They are frustrating their own good and the common good. Good and sound norms are rooted in the human good as determined by human nature. Part of what makes humans human is our social nature, which entails society, which further entails a common good because there is no society without a common good. Liberalism gets things backwards by atomizing human beings and construing anything common as a voluntary cession in some way. So, for example, private property is construed as something more basic, prior to, and even in competition with the common good, whereas the traditional view is that private property exists precisely to secure the common good which means it is secondary in this sense.