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 > Values, government and liberalism: not so strange bedfellows > Comments

Values, government and liberalism: not so strange bedfellows : Comments

By John Humphreys, published 24/8/2005

John Humphreys argues to defend liberalism and against the governments' role in shaping values.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
John, "institutionalized violence (or force)" is pretty much the only way a government can operate, due to the unreliability of peoples behavior.

That threat of force, in turn is based on the basic agreed values of the social contract participants.

So, the question becomes as I see it, "Where do we draw the line between basic freedoms and enforcable values". I guess that is the main issue between left/right.

From what I observe, the 'left' views values like

-Freedom of Sexual orientation
-Welfare State
-Gender Equality
-Freedom of migration

as being very important, while the 'right' views these issues as requiring a degree of guidance.

On the surface, it might seem petty to squabble over such things. But I guess the 'right' believes that undesirable social consequences will occur if no guidance/limits are placed on those things.

Let me give an alternative view, the biblical one :) you knew that was coming though didn't u ...

The basic 'do for others as you would have them do for you' is the best guide. If applied to Gender for example, and in the frame work of the Biblical teaching on male female roles I don't really see a problem. I do see a problem if the 'whole' biblical picture is not followed (I'm referring to the New Testament here) where a man might demand his wife 'obey' him but will not 'Love her as Christ loved the Church'

Welfare State.

The old testament has some very specific teaching on this. The main point being that those who prosper (with fields/crops) are not to harvest to the nth degree, so that the 'alien and widow' can glean leftovers and survive

I won't go to the other issues, they might cause a verbal volcano :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 26 August 2005 8:10:29 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
You said that the 'left' is defined by values like:-

-Freedom of Sexual orientation
-Welfare State
-Gender Equality
-Freedom of migration

As somebody that calls themselves a Libertarian I would say that I personally support values like:-

-Freedom of Sexual orientation
-Gender Equality
-Freedom of migration

However I would never call myself left-wing because as you can see I don't value the "welfare state". However I do support uncoerced charity and I would encourage all people to give as their conscience demands. I could go on to say that I also value:-

-Free enterprise
-Free trade
-Freedom to take drugs
-Freedom to bear arms
-Freedom of speech
-Freedom of religion

All of this form part of a basic belief in something called "liberty". The idea that each of us is endowered with "free will" and each of us is the rightful custodian of our own life.
Posted by Terje, Friday, 26 August 2005 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
John, I might just make one reply at a time...
You point out that most people support 'a ban on recreational drug use', 'the current ban on polygamy' and some control on 'the industries of pornography and prostitution'. I would ask: do you, as libertarian, also do so? If so, on what basis?
I don't think it can be on a Millsian basis, because most of these things don't really cause physical harm to anyone. And if they cause moral or psychological harm, so what?
Posted by Phillip, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 2:00:20 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
Phillip -- I do not support the current ban on recreational drug use or polygamy or the sex industry.

However, my point was simply that I am (contrary to the suggestions in your article) in the minority.

Further, my comment "so what" was not related to whether moral or psychological harm mattered... but whether they mattered to the definition of freedom. I agree they matter, but "freedom" is not the same as "good" or "utility". One is a process (to be able to act without coercion) and one is an outcome. I think they are often related (ie, I think free behaviour generally leads to better outcomes), but that doesn't make them the same word.
Posted by John Humphreys, Monday, 7 November 2005 6:34:06 PM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

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