What Shall We Maximize?

Upon initially reading “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin, I found that there was one part in particular which made me think of a phrase used in Richard N. Rosenfeld’s “What Democracy?” essay. Rosenfeld made a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence, which declared that the government’s purpose is to secure certain inalienable rights, such as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Hardin asks, “What shall we maximize?” as part of a greater discussion about how to avoid an increase in human misery and reach the goal of creating the maximum good per person for the maximum number of people.
I thought it was interesting that Hardin actually talked about this “good” and how it means different things for different people. “To one person it is wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousands”, leading one to conclude that this kind of comparison is impossible because goods are incommensurable. Hardin then reveals that this is only true theoretically, and that in reality incommensurable goods are commensurable and therefore comparable, using a criterion of judgment and a system of weighting. But what does this mean for us? I asked myself the question, does this mean that it is possible to achieve the maximum good for the maximum people, and if so, what kind of world would that be?
Lastly, Hardin mentions Adam Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand” which states that an individual intending to gain for himself, is led by this invisible hand and ends up promoting public interest. I believe that there is truth in this statement, the proof of which can be found in society today, such as perhaps, the example of a car company seeking to follow the “green trend” and seeks to improve it’s own profits by creating a hybrid car that is good for the environment and thus benefits the public. I would be interested to hear if others think that this example fits, and if not, give an example that they think does fit.