The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Morality and democracy: public sovereignty is a simplistic approach to policy > Comments

Morality and democracy: public sovereignty is a simplistic approach to policy : Comments

By Max Atkinson, published 12/8/2011

Public policy must rest on a moral standard or value, not an opinion poll.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
JP
I don’t know about an “absolute” moral standard, but a universal and irrefutable moral standard is Hans Herman-Hoppe’s argumentation ethics.

“Argumentation is a conflict-free way of interacting. Not in the sense that there is always agreement on the things said, but in the sense that as long as argumentation is in progress it is always possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement about the validity of what has been said. And this is to say nothing else than that a mutual recognition of each person's exclusive control over his own body must be presupposed as long as there is argumentation (… it is impossible to deny this and claim this denial to be true without implicitly having to admit its truth)”
[i.e. you can’t deny that you have a right to exclusive control over your own body without implicitly admitting that you do by exercising a right to exclusive control over your own body in the process of arguing. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism http://mises.org/books/Socialismcapitalism.pdf p. 158)

Thus, the very fact of argumentation proves a presupposition of
• self-ownership
• the right to own homesteaded scarce resources as well, since without that, self-ownership would not be possible.

Thus
“by engaging in discussions about welfare criteria that may or may not end up in agreement, and instead result in a mere agreement on the fact of continuing disagreements — as in any intellectual enterprise — an actor invariably demonstrates a specific preference for the first-use-first-own rule of property acquisition as his ultimate welfare criterion: without it no one could independently act and say anything at any time, and no one else could act independently at the same time and agree or disagree independently with whatever had been initially said or proposed. It is the recognition of the homesteading principle which makes intellectual pursuits, i.e., the independent evaluation of propositions and truth claims, possible. And by virtue of engaging in such pursuits … one demonstrates the validity of the homesteading principle as the ultimate rational welfare criterion.” http://mises.org/daily/5322/
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 12 August 2011 11:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Difficult topic. However what future in areas of " rights, values, justice and punishment", ever more critical as the "freedom" we have known in Australia since the [1960s till part of 1990s] before narrowing at the "me too" [gone too far] saga got completely out of hand. Leaves us now with less collabrative room then previous as [bloody] competition matches during the 1800's on who can be toughest. Ever more spare are elements of Human Ecology.

Your article began well [expect the focus on Abbotts tactics, redeck and dibilitating]. I fall at the crux where the question is and needs to be; no one wants a 'tyranny of the majority'. A hard issue to discuss. Often it is the selected few [cash strapped] with the power and then there is the problem of "critical thinking". And, even within community the culture can be ignorance based on local status, pride and fear. My own thought on Leadership is about the craft. Being the kind of leader that people can vote for [safely], knowing that they have the public's rather then their own personal agenda at heart. I thought we had it for a moment during Kevin 07... as a public emancipated. Ground gained finally? Enter the selected few. I.E., Mining Companies vs Native Title [needs Urgent Reform]}.... ignorance prevails hence leading into a "patchwork" economy.

http://yindjibarndi.org.au/yindjibarndi/?page_id=945

I am gravely concerned about the future of the North West regions to mention a critical issue. How Australia appears powerless to control the domination of Mining Companies as are the Less Developed Nations. Kevin Rudd was right when he attempted to 'balance-the-books'. He asked Australians to support his policies; demanding a "resource super profits tax ". The story to be told now is about how Australia sold her soil and then cried crocodile tears. Remember crocodiles weep either to lure a victim or when eating one. The media, as reactive as it can be, is partly to blame. The climate of the today reflects a sunny day lost for a majority who had no idea what was actually 'going on'.

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 13 August 2011 3:29:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read the article, reread it and searched and searched for the author's comprehensive definition of democracy. The author gave a very simplist view.

I've been able to deduce two things.

Firstly the author thinks, his version of, Tony Abbott's comment

‘In Australia’ he said, ‘the people are sovereign’.

(Abbott actually said, in answer to a specific question. 'The public. In a democracy, in the end the people are sovereign.'

is Abbott's definition of Democracy.

The author assumes much when he extrapolates Abbott's statement into a definition he suggests Abbott holds.

'that politicians, when deciding on their policies, should be guided by public opinion - their duty, as political officials, is to do what the people want.'

And secondly, the author enlightens us to his simplistic thinking, with his simplistic definition.

'In its simplest and most defensible form democracy means only that the representatives of the majority have a stronger right to make the rules than any other person or group...'

I think the author misses the point of a mandate in our democratic electoral process and of Parliamentary Representation. The vast majority of Australian voters expect politicians to abide, by and large, to the mandates.

Tony Abbott along with the vast majority of Australian voters understands mandates and Parliamentary Representation.

The lying Gillard, her few remaining supporters, her leftie media commentariat and other assorted leftie apologists don't.

The vast majority of Australian voters also reject the miriad weasel word defences of the lying Gillard.

I'd also challenge the following

'... on a carbon price, which gave rise to this appeal to sovereignty. The dispute had seen a challenge to Abbott’s policy from economists and business leaders who agree with environmental scientists that a carbon price, followed by an emissions trading scheme, is the best way to go.'

That is one very skewed view.

Abbott was simply asked to whom he'd listen when forming his views on a carbon tax if he wouldn't accept the views of economist and scientists (No mention of business leaders). A listen to the exchange leads to disagreement with the authors expressed view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrJILLCiJ0&NR=1
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 13 August 2011 10:27:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max Atkinson
Surely the discourse about homosexuality cannot be limited to Morality and Legality.

The other dimension that we have consider is Ethnicity.

Sexuality in all living organisms has proven to be not a fixed dimension but a floating one, so that some organisms can be totally of partially Male or Female, condition that excludes the Moral factor and introduces the Biological one.

To somebody homosexuality is nature’s only tool capable of preventing human overpopulation.

The legalizing of the union of two homosexuals is than only a question linked to the division of what chattels our lives
Posted by skeptic, Saturday, 13 August 2011 9:08:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Hume, the old "in-a-democracy-people-vote-to-rape-others" analogy;
When it is usually in practice the reverse is true; the majority tends to have a problem with rape in every democracy- yet a handful of disgruntled individuals who feel that the government is interfering with their freedoms and everybody should be their own sovereign, decide to treat themselves to raping another person anyway.

What does that sound more like to you?
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 14 August 2011 9:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP asks how a legislator knows which is the ‘right’ moral principle. The short answer is he doesn’t ‘know’ in any sense which presupposes a method to authenticate moral principles, although there is no end of theories to fill the role. I do not believe JP uses such a test to confirm his judgments and certainly I don’t. Why should a legislator be different ? And if someone does claim to have such a test, how can he know it is the ‘right’ test ? The assumption that one needs this meta-ethical level is a fallacy, responsible as much for sceptical as for absolutist theories.

The short answer suggests he should follow the great eighteenth century British conservative philosopher Edmund Burke, and be guided by conscience; the long answer would need to reconcile this with the moral values and principles we share as a community. According to the modern view, Burke relied on classical Natural Law ideas, but we do not need this support.

Senior Victorian makes two good points. Of course politicians must respect public opinion; it sets parameters for all their aims. But they do not take their moral compass - what they aim to achieve - from polls; they take it from their understanding of the public interest, as Burke insists. Otherwise important reforms (like homosexual law reform) are delayed for years. Secondly, I agree that moral independence is crucial,and with Mill that individual freedom means resisting the excesses of the ‘nanny state’.

Peter Hume agrees with most of what I say but does not realise it. This is probably my fault for speaking of ‘community values’ instead of ‘values or principles over and above majority opinion’.I think his terminology is very good and am happy to adopt it.

Finally, any theory of moral reasoning must make sense in the ‘real’ world. The theory which insists that majority opinion is not a moral value explains the difference between democracy and ‘mob rule’ and can be further tested against real world cases, such as the case of homosexual law reform.
Posted by maxat, Sunday, 14 August 2011 11:25:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy