Not a bad article. The "progressives" are the most hypocritical and deceiving bunch. They sprout slogans of egalitarianism and altruism, but once you disagree with them, boy, do the invectives start flying! They rarely see the irony in their slogans of 'tolerance' while they discharge their hate toward whatever group they dislike on a given day. At least the conservatives are more honest in this regard. People may not agree with the conservative side of politics, but often it is "what you see is what you get" with them.

Anyway, all this talk of harmony and unity is a bit off putting. The world works according to Heraclitean principles, not earthly utopias. The world is always divided by multiple perspectives of thought, and will be so for eternity. The concept of unity is an idealization that only exists in the heads of its proponents, and not in any empirical form. When "progressives" talk about gay marriage and tolerance of all cultures, they don't see that they're not creating a unity at all. They believe that they're heading to 'unity,' but in reality they're suppressing thought of the opposition; usually through the executive branch of government

Co-incidentally, I came across this article which seems to complement this interesting post. Read them together and you'll really be ahead of the pack.

The article, written by David Swanson, an American, can be found on David's blog: the article is called - Drowning on Wall Street and Ending World War II.

It is a must read, especially for those who worship the U.S.!

http://warisacrime.org

Aristocrat you immediately contradict your point aimed at progressives, read your first paragraph again!

Politics is founded on the concern for the availablity of the goods and opportunities of life. Truly human culture is founded on concern for the right use of the goods and opportunities of human life, as well as concern for the higher growth and ultimate self-transcendence of human individuals (one at a time).

The realm of politics is the realm of conventional striving, and it tends to dominate human life with dehumanizing force, unless Wisidm is valued by the people and by those in power. Such of course does not exist in the now time of the 21st century, and of course it never ever really did.

Until the culture of Wisdom oroduces individual responsibility and general agreement on the ultimate Situation of human existence, all talk of "freedom" and "justice" is nothing more than political gossip and a continuation of (dreadful) business as usual.

Every human being must be poltically free to enjoy access to the goods and opportunities of life, but every human being must likewise be spiritually responsible for the right use of those goods and the right exercise of those opportunties. Any other situation is subhuman, befert of culture, incompatible with true freedom and justice, and leading nowhere but toward exploitation and despair.

Until we all awaken to the Situation and purpose of human existence, we will create no lasting peace or order, and each day will bring the world closer to the finite chaos of war and collective bewilderment.

Have you really read the "news" or the signs of the times?

Come off it Daffy, "Until we all awaken to the Situation and purpose of human existence", you do go on a bit.

What ever gave you the idea that human life had a purpose.

Human culture is based on getting enough to eat, & perhaps helping your neighbour build a hut. To give it more than this is purely gilding the lilly, because you want a gilded lilly.

We had it about right in the 60s. Housing & petrol were cheap, & every thing else was very dear. At least we could afford to pay our own medical bills, perhaps only because doctors couldn't do all that much.

Then we started filling office towers with arts graduates, with no other possibility of employment other than government.

If only these people had realised they were charity cases, & read a book, all would still be well. Unfortunately a few wanted to "do good" & started writing regulations, which ultimately crippled the society that could afford them.

Now we are on our way to bankruptcy in money & so many other things, & these fools want to write more regulations.

Perhaps that will give the duck meaning, but I doubt it.

The article contrasts "self interest" with a "mutually appreciative, consensual culture of deep shared purpose": the later is obviously nice to have, in one community or another - but why should that be in the context of a national state, how much more so under a social contract we never actually signed?

Surely there are different options than the above two and surely there are those who want neither a champion team nor a team of champions and have given no commitment to national society in the first place - neither from the head nor from the heart.

Regarding the dispute between Duffy Duck and Hasbeen: you may argue ad nauseum whether life has a purpose or not, but for the purpose of this particular article I think you both agree that it is NOT life's purpose to create an ideal society or an ideal nation - and that's all that matters in this context.
(and BTW, I agree with you both!)

As a side remark, why should we be reading all this American content on an Australian site?