Dear Saltpetre,

The one property that distinguishes governments from all other groupings of people is that they are non-voluntary and can use physical force. This is intended and legitimate for defending the people from violent threats - internal and external, not for any other purpose.

By what logic should the body which is responsible for arresting murderers and launching military preventive strikes to protect the country, be more qualified than any other body in providing charity?

The state should keep to its defence role and not forcefully take up the space of other groupings of people who want to take benevolent action. The self-fulfilling concept of taking up all space by pushing others aside, then claiming that "others are no good because they have no space", is unacceptable.

<<So, we take it on good faith that our governments will do the right thing - for better or worse.>>

You don't seriously mean it, do you? Does it help or matter if we have no such faith in (our?) government and don't believe that they do the right thing? Does it matter if we accept neither democracy nor the ning-nong perversion of it that you mentioned which turns it into a joke even if it were acceptable to begin with? All that the government has on its side is brute force. If it only kept to its legitimate role, then that would be acceptable.

Yuyutsu,

I guess on the Aid/Charity side, it's just being good-neighbourly, but as a nation, and by working in concert with other able and responsible nations it serves not only to do a great deal of good for those less fortunate nations, particularly in times of great need following a major natural disaster and such, but also serves to enhance our international reputation and standing as a good global citizen. I don't think we should reasonably expect any less, in this respect (as long as our government doesn't get too carried away with its benevolence on our behalf).

>Does it help or matter if we have no such faith in (our?) government and don't believe that they do the right thing?<

Such is democracy, I'm afraid, a representational compromise hopefully representing the majority views, interests and concerns of the relevant constituency, and in our case with benefit of a house of review, the Upper House (Senate or Legislative Council), whose composition may usually be relied upon to be broader and more balanced than the usual two-party dominance in the lower house (the House of Reps or Legislative Assembly).

Such arrangements are surely a lot better than a dictatorship, communism, fascism, sectarianism, fiefdoms, or anarchy - although it may nonetheless be 'imperfect'. But, there is unlikely ever to be a 'perfect' system - unless it be one where everyone gets to cast a vote on every issue. (Maybe the Internet Future? Though, even then, you can never please all of the people all of the time, and the majority view will prevail.)

We could be a lot worse off, and we do live in the age of miracles; humanity never had it so good, never had such immense capability and opportunity. Our paramount concern should be to use this opportunity wisely, and with a global focus and vision for the future of our native bio-sphere and our place within it.

Dear Saltpetre,

<<but as a nation...also serves to enhance our international reputation and standing as a good global citizen>>

As a nation? I am not a nation and nobody asked for my consent to belong to "a nation", so why should I care about any nation's reputation? Supporting the needy out of compassion is good, but since a nation is artificial and not a sentient being, why should I feel compassionate towards its needs and why should I pay to support other people's reputation and egos?

<<Such is democracy>>

The problem is not with democracy, or any other form of management for that matter - it is with the state overstepping its legitimate boundaries. If the state remained limited to its legitimate role, then whether it managed itself democratically or otherwise would both have been OK. Otherwise, the forced rule of majority is tyrannical and no better than any other forced rule.

<<we do live in the age of miracles>>

Examples, please?

Miracles of course happen all the time, but why this age in particular?

<<humanity never had it so good>>

"Good" by whom? by humanity's own expectations?
Sure we now have ice-cream and we consider it "good", but can it be used as a yardstick?

The only true good is God: what indication have you that humanity is any closer to God today than ever before (including pre-historical times)?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I take your point. We don't have a choice about many things - who our parents are, our genetic and ethnic heritage, where we're born, the religious and cultural environment into which we're born, or move - regarding immediate family or broader community - what we're taught at school, what jobs may be available to us, what facilities and services we end up cherishing and those which fall short of our expectations. Or, regarding those factors and individuals which exercise power over what we may or may not do - local leaders, council, government, laws, and neighbouring groups or nations.

However, we are not individual 'islands', we cannot help but interact with others, and this is the norm, from the beginning of our species, and even before that, from our predecessors (if you believe in human evolution, and the evolution of all living species, as I do).

We all belong to a particular community or nation, unless only a visitor. As a permanent resident we do belong, and can't avoid that - unless we go 'bush' and endeavour to live off the land or purely by our own resources, and even then we are still governed by the laws of the land and relevant territory ownership - and even visitors are governed by the laws of the land, whatever land that may happen to be. Otherwise, all is anarchy.

>The only true good is God: what indication have you that humanity is any closer to God today than ever before (including pre-historical times)?<

Humanity is probably further from God than ever, though most wouldn't realise this. Law is a poor substitute, but, given the broad range of cultures and belief systems across the globe, it is the best we can do, except on an individual level. But I'm sure God would want us to get on with our neighbours, and be a good citizen of whatever community or nation we find ourselves in. My reference to miracles was in respect to materialistic capability, and not our spiritual endowment.

Dear Saltpetre,

I did not suggest that one should not interact with others: between being alone and being connected with 22,947,064 others, 99.9% of which I haven't even met, is a wide gap. That we are involuntarily counted as if belonging to some conglomerate of people does not make it true.

In the true sense of the word, we do not belong to anything, but in a relative sense, we may say that we temporarily belong to some groups of choice - and so long as it is voluntary there is nothing wrong for example with me "belonging" to my orchestra, where we happily make concerted efforts together.

The one legitimate, or excusable, reason for having such large and non-voluntary bodies of people as the state, is defence. Ideally of course, one should turn the other cheek, but short of that, those of us who aren't saints may get together to protect themselves from physical threats - external and internal. States are therefore based on fear, rather than on love, and being involuntary, they should keep just to that role. Nothing of course prevents either that same, or largely overlapping, groups of people, from getting together voluntarily and doing good works of love.