Despite Brenton Luxton's education and high-toned article he makes crass mistakes..

This sentence "Australia's boat arrival intake increasing, but still lower than other OECD nations".. Sorry, what? Since when do other OECD countries have a boat person problem? Most of america's illegal immigrants, for example, come over the Rio Grande or even through tunnels from Mexico to avoid the boarder fences. Some still come by boat from Cuba. Most of Western Europe's illegals would simply drive in or are smuggled across the boarder in some way. Boats don't enter into it.

Perhaps Brenton has confused "boat people" with refugees quotas.. they are quite different things. If boat people stopped coming altogether to Australia the refugee quotas would still be met - the refugees would simply arrive by plane, rather than boat, after due processing. Australia's recently increased its immigration quota but is it lower than other advanced countries per-capita? I wasn't aware that it was - certainly out overall immigration (which includes skilled immigrants and family reunions and so on) is at quite high levels - but I'm prepared to be corrected.

The fact that the boat traffic has to stop is now virtually bi-partisan policy. Only the greens continue to disagree, to the fury of their labor partners, but that's because they are mad.

Brenton’s article shows the typical pattern of the ideologue, assuming that his way of understanding the world is the only one possible, and therefore anyone who doesn’t share his worldview must be selfish, malicious, cowardly or stupid.

He starts by attacking the NRA, saying that “the inaction on previous gun violence played a large part in Sandy Hook, not many could disagree with this (excluding the National Rifle Association).” Actually, a large proportion of Americans would disagree with this. Rightly or wrongly, many Americans believe that gun ownership does more to protect people than put them at risk, and only about a third thinks the NRA has too much influence on gun control policies (28% think it is “about right” and 19% “too little”). The pro-gun lobby in the USA is not a small group exercising disproportionate influence, but a very large one exercising its democratic rights.

Some fascinating poll results here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

One may disagree with the US gun lobby – I certainly do – but to oppose the effectively requires an understanding of what they actually believe. This is based in the US historical narrative that tells of armed and diligent citizens’ role in winning the war of independence, resulting in the right to bear arms being enshrined in the constitution. It is underpinned by a suspicion of authority and of the potential for tyranny arising when the government is armed but the people are not (in the Australian “progressive” worldview government is benign and well-intentioned, but suspicion of government is far more entrenched in US political discourse). And it is reinforced by sceptical realism about modern society that argues that, while it might be better if no-one had guns, in a world where criminals and crazies will find ways to access guns, honest citizens are safer if they are armed too. All of this can be debated, but to dismiss it as simply selfish and malign seems to me both arrogant and ignorant.

... continued

Similarly, with Brenton’s attack on the Christian ant-gay lobby. They are not motivated by selfishness – opposing gay marriage is many things, but “selfish”?. They are motivated by what they consider to be the best interest of society and even the individuals concerned. If you really believe that homosexuality is a sin, that gay marriage threatens the social fabric, that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable setting to raise children, and that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can be reversed, then you would conclude the only moral position is to oppose it. You would no more care that most Australians support gay marriage than Brenton cares that most Americans support the right to bear arms – a principle is at stake. I fiercely disagree with the anti-gay lobby in all of these assumptions and beliefs, but I accept that that are sincerely held and – in their proponents’ eyes – morally coercive. To say that a “progressive” politician who opposes gay marriage is “motivated by fear of a fickle electorate”, is cheap and lazy. Nor is it consistent with Brenton’s assertion that “the vast majority of Australians are in favour of marriage equality.” If this is true, then electoral expediency would drive MPs to support gay marriage, not oppose it.

I actually support gun control and gay marriage, and want a more humane and tolerant approach to refugees. But Brenton’s article is a reminder of the mixture of smug self-righteousness and blinkered ideological intolerance that characterises so many self-described “progressives”

To Curmudgeon.

Thanks for your comment, as you've mentioned, I should have referred to "refugee quota", not "boat arrival quota" (same for the mention of intake), it was a rather careless mistake indeed.

Your comment on bipartisanship in regards to current refugee policies indicates you failed to understand the purpose of the article, or at the very least disagreed with its premise. Calling the greens "mad" isn't an argument, it is lazy and in my mind unfit as a debating point, irrespective of its irrelevance to this article.

Regards, Brenton

Hi Rhian,

Thanks for the post. I did have a rather comprehensive response to your comments, but was thwarted in posting it due to a page error. I'll do my best to recreate it.

Firstly, your comments relating to whether or not Americans are in favour of gun control doesn't particularly detract from my argument, at least not in the manner you think. What I was attempting to convey was that good policy is being impeded by special interest groups. I think, despite the stats you cited, that most would agree gun deaths can be attributed to laissez-faire gun control. Where they don't, one must ask the question: what is so wrong with people that they can trample on the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of those whose lives are snuffed out by a bullet?

Your dismissive assertion that my perspective is "arrogant and ignorant" is just that. My argument revolves around an ethical standpoint, and yes, discussing selfishness would surely factor in if it is against the rights of others.

Continued:::::

Continued:::::

"I actually support gun control and gay marriage, and want a more humane and tolerant approach to refugees. But Brenton’s article is a reminder of the mixture of smug self-righteousness and blinkered ideological intolerance that characterises so many self-described “progressives” "

This is a little difficult to believe, and I think it says more about you and your claim to being a progressive than it does mine (I might add that I did not make one). You cannot defend the special interest groups mentioned, and in the same breath say you support the groups they are attacking. The foundations of gun control, refugee and gay rights activism (and your support of it) revolves around an ethical and moral argument (one that you have clearly dismissed). Your dismissal (/lack of understanding) of ethical arguments are exactly why you've responded the way you have.

Your comment that this article is nothing but "smug self-righteousness" and "ideological intolerance" is a byproduct of your overly liberal attitude (one that is rampant, especially within Australia). You cannot remain on the fence forever, and when it comes down to ethical arguments, you cannot fullstop. Liberty itself is not limitless, and must be moderated in order to protect itself, this is standard social contract theory.

How typical.

The author doesn't like the facts of a survey, telling him what yanks actually want. Of course not, they refute his whole premise.

No he prefers his own "belief" of what yanks want. More academic bull oozes from our institutions of higher learning.

The very worst factor is that this bloke, with his subject choices is setting himself up to be an "adviser" of lefty governments. In such places, his personal opinion will carry more weight than the facts he chooses to ignore.

God help our kids.

Hasbeen

I'm sorry you failed to understand the subject matter as it was intended. Also a tip, I would refrain from blindly attempting to criticise academia and/or higher education whilst exhibiting poor literary ability, it doesn't do your position any justice.

As for my career ambitions, it's not really relevant. And of course people's ideological position would hold sway over their decision-making (see every single politician/public servant in Australian history). As far as my alleged denial of facts go, please elaborate. My article is based on political and ethical philosophy, not about specific extrinsic realities.

Is it the vigor of youth which enables clear and uncompromising attribution of fault in complex social mechanisms? Are older heads just not 'up-to-date', overly-cautious and ill-informed? Or, do some simply not leap to the most obvious conclusions, however shaky?

.It isn't psychotic, antisocial psychopaths who commit massacres or mass-murder, it is 'guns' (and their free availability) at fault?

.Gay marriage, with all this entails, is 'right', and all argument to the contrary is, obviously, 'wrong'? (Would that all complex social issues were so easily determined.)

.Refugees should be allowed free entry - as a matter of human rights (and 'nature') - and therefore all argument against is contrary to 'nature', and therefore flawed? Hallelujah!

.All lobbying is necessarily (obviously) contrary to 'consensus' public opinion (or 'nature'), and should therefore be outlawed? (Pity those groups wanting a way to have their views fairly heard!)

>>The relationship between human nature (humans) and the institutions that govern them isn't necessarily the primary cause of inequality and injustices, at least not directly.<<

As the premise, or hypothesis, of the article, the above proves nothing, and is arguably invalid - good relationship equals happy campers, bad relationship equals tyranny, inequality, injustice.

.'Human nature' tends to be fairly unreliable, variable and flexible - depending on circumstance, education and environment (of culture, religion and socio-economic status, etc) - and hence fails dismally as any sort of yardstick. So, that leaves us with a sort of consensus of public opinion - and it is just such consensus (or average of viewpoints) which determines government(s), at least in a genuine democracy;

.Democratically elected governments which do not act generally in the national best interest, at least most of the time, don't tend to stay in power for long - but you can't please all of the people all of the time (that's life) - though there's always room for improvement.

We may not have a perfect system, or clear solutions to all 'human' problems, but it was no easy process to get where we are, and those who act in haste very often get to regret at leisure.

Brenton

My objection to your article is that it neither puts a positive case for the positions you espouse, nor engages critically with the arguments against. Instead, you proceed almost entirely by attacking the motives of groups you disapprove of.

Your article states: “not many could disagree with” the proposition that inaction on gun control was responsible for Sandy Hook. But a significant proportion of Americans DO disagree with that, and only a minority agree with you that the NRA wields too much influence. My point is not whether lax gun laws make such incidents more likely (on which we agree), but your contention that most people agree with this position, which in the USA is clearly not true. But more telling is your comment “what is so wrong with people” that they fail to see the issue as you do. Again this reinforces my initial point that you argue like an ideologue – your worldview is so self-evidently right to you that anyone disagrees with you must have something “wrong with” them.

I do not claim to be a “progressive”. If I give myself any political label, it is “small-‘l’ liberal”, so I support some issues commonly seen as left wing (gay rights, refugees) and some seen as right wing (scepticism of economic regulation and social engineering). If you doubt my sincerity – again, the mark of an ideologue (“if you claim to believe X must believe Y”) – check out my comment history, including forums here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11371&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13642&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13293&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11429&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5799&page=0

While you do not claim explicitly to be “progressive”, your frequent and favourable use of the term in the article makes it clear it is a stance you approve of.

I do not “defend” the anti-refugee or anti-gay lobbies, nor “sit on the fence” on these issues (again, check my comment history). I point out that their motives are not merely selfishness and stupidity. They have reasons for their views which by their own lights are no less “ethical and moral” than yours. Respecting the sincerity and integrity of people you disagree with is a liberal virtue.

Why thank you Brenton, you have proved my point so succinctly for me.

Your obvious attraction to form over matter is nicely displayed. Better a nicely written bit of rubbish, than worrying about the subject matter ah? An example of publish or perish perhaps.

Brenton Luxton

tnks for responding. No, its not intellectually lazy to label the greens mad, as that's what they are, certainly when it comes to immigration policy. Everyone but them now recognises that the boat people trade has to be stopped..otherwise too many people will die. I note you didn't respond on the point about immigration quotas or refugee quotas (which is a subset of the immigration quotas).. are we ahead or behind other countries in this respect?

I couldn't say offhand and don't remember seeing any material on this point. About the only point that could be made is that Australia has substantially better control over immigration flows, but there is more confusion about the status of those who do get here if they come by boat.

The US and Britain, for example, would have much larger illegal immigration problems. But anyone they catch would be sent straight back. Far fewer would be in a position to lose all their documentation and then claim they are refugees. Australia is thus probably one of the few advanced countries with a large number of people living in camps while they work through the immigration processes. to claim that their treatment is not "humane" then begs the question what standards are you using?

I think the problem with the conversations around topics of ethical or moral question such as gay rights and refugees is that all opinions are given relatively equal voice regardless of the evidence or lack of that is behind the argument.

For example on Gay rights either we as a society have decided that it is wrong to discriminate against a minority or it isnt. I personally believe we as a society have decided that discrimination against minorities is wrong and therefore refusing the rights of homosexual couples to marry is out of step with one of our core beliefs. Do you think we could get away with saying that Jewish, black, or to paraphrase a recent marketing campaign left handed people were not allowed to get married. I agree with you Rhian when you said "Respecting the sincerity and integrity of people you disagree with is a liberal virtue." However i do not believe this is applicable to issues of ethical or moral standing. Or else would you respect with sincerity the integrity of someone who thought it was ok to go around killing people. I think not, as murder has been ethically and morally determined to be wrong in our society.

On refugees, it is definitely more complicated, however if we look at the issue with regards to our core values. Do we believe all humans are equal? Do we believe we should show compassion and mateship to other human beings? Furthermore community detention is far cheaper then offshore processing and the money saved could be better spent persecuting the people smugglers who are the real criminals and establishing more legitimate points of entry within these transit countries. The reason the majority of Australians support offshore processing is that they have been spoon fed propaganda about a refugee and Islamic invasion that is apparently taking place while the truth is that boat arrivals make up a small percentage of Australia's migration intake and an even smaller part of our population growth.

Ultimately I believe there is to much grey area and almost to much tolerance on issues of morality and ethics. Particular when those whose arguments are outright false, without evidence or go against the core beliefs of our society are given breath in the public arena.

Brenton Luxton

There are some excellent comments in this set of posts - my own contributions are only minor - and I hope you take them to heart.

Rhian:

"My objection to your article is that it neither puts a positive case for the positions you espouse, nor engages critically with the arguments against."

I think you've misunderstood the intention of my article. My positive (arguably overly optimistic) case that I put forth was to empower citizens with honesty and no spin. Did you read it thoroughly?

"They have reasons for their views which by their own lights are no less “ethical and moral” than yours. Respecting the sincerity and integrity of people you disagree with is a liberal virtue."

My article was also about ethics, and doing what is right. Despite what you may think, ethics isn't such a grey area as what you describe. You're arguing from an entirely ethical relativist perspective, one that other branches discount quite vigorously. For you to discount my philosophy with your own relativist philosophy is guilty of the exact same ideological sin you've charged me with.

Thanks for your comments Rhian.

Hasbeen:

Once again, you have failed to grasp the intention of the article, as well as my subsequent comments. This is a political philosophy article. Nice of you to attempt to twist my words also. My gripe with your comment was attacking higher education while exhibitings signs of having none. It is a poor reflection on your case, and may well represent why you haven't understood this article.

I'd also like to direct everybody's attention to the comments by Mr. Anderson, he has grasped the intention of this article well (particularly relating to ethical stances).

Brenton

“Moral relativism has the unusual distinction—both within philosophy and outside it—of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone.”

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/)

I’m not sure what you intend by calling me an “ethical relativist” (there are several different versions of relativism), so I cannot be sure whether the label applies to me or not. It’s not one I’d apply to myself. If you mean that I recognise that different ideological positions and worldviews lead people to very different views of what is right and what is wrong, I accept it. If you mean that I think all moral systems are equally valid, or it is not possible to say one is more “moral” than another, or we should all “agree to disagree”, you are completely wrong. Indeed, it is BECAUSE I think it possible to have a meaningful debate with someone I disagree with that I try to understand the reasons why they think as they do. You will never win a moral or political argument if you don’t trouble to understand why your opponent thinks differently from you. All can do is trade pejorative labels, as your article does.

Mr Anderson

Respecting the sincerity and integrity of those you disagree with doesn’t mean you stop disagreeing with them, or allow them license to do what they want; quite the contrary. Murder is wrong and murderers should be punished. I agree with you that we should take a more compassionate view of refugees, and that gay rights are fundamental human rights. We will win that argument eventually, as we won the arguments for racial and gender equality, with reason and evidence, not insults.

But like Brenton, you assume that the truth of your position is unassailable. Only stupidity, malice or propaganda prevents people from seeing it. So you say “the reason the majority of Australians support offshore processing is that they have been spoon fed propaganda about a refugee and Islamic invasion.” That is patently not true of the arguments of say, Curmudgeon.