< …a narrow focus on economic growth was detrimental to our quality of life and wellbeing. To eliminate the 'moral deficit', I concluded, we needed to focus less on the rate of growth and more on its quality. >

Absolutely Peter. This has been at the heart of my despair for many years now.

< The truth is that our standard of living is unsustainable and our quality of life is declining, not because of the failure of government policies, but because of the failure of the paradigm of material progress on which they are based. >

Yes indeed… except that government policies are integral to this paradigm. They promulgate it, and therefore there certainly is a fundamental failing inherent in government policy.

I don’t think we can expect Abbott and his mob to see this or do anything meaningful about it, but I would have hoped that Labor would realise the great imperative to change focus and concentrate on the quality of growth, achieving the right sorts of growth while curtailing the wrong sorts, and moving strongly towards a sustainable future.

But alas, there is no hint of this from Shorten, and I presume likewise from Albanese.

I agree with the author's analysis, with one important exception.

"Let's not delude ourselves, as our political leaders delude themselves, about what a positive people we are, and how wonderful our future is." ---No, it's not a delusion it's essentially an expression of contempt for the mass of voters.

Many of our politicians, particularly on the conservative side are not deluded, budget deficits and surpluses are easily understood by the public, the "obsession" is a cynical diversion from the underlying economic and social problems. The fixation on the budget by the Coalition and their propagandists in the media is a cynical manipulation of voter ignorance and anxiety, as is the hysteria over a relatively minor issue such as the "boat people".

What the country needs now is a genuine social democratic party, we used to have one, however it appears to have disappeared.

Quality of life declining? Richard, do you have any proof of this? You cite a survey of young people but its just one data point. Where's the rest of the data? If you don't want to base this assessment on incomes, which have been going up, then what else specifically? Environment? If so, are you talking about urban environment where everyone lives (all indicators have been improving)as opposed to the general environment which is alleged to be growing warmer. Are the young people complaining about the warmer temperatures?

Crime rates (going down, mostly)? Health outcomes? Generally improving and if you don't believe me go and look at the ABS stats for yourself, or the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics.. The article is just politically correct musings..

Interesting article. However, government is not equipped to address the moral deficit. They are equipped to run the country. Any attempt at addressing the moral deficit will inevitably become some kind of shallow propaganda. There has been much talk about the separation of church and state. What now that we have achieved this separation? The state finds itself unmoored from the insights that the church could bring to the meaning of human life.
Peter Sellick

A moral code is something that is lived, not lectured!
The Christian master said, in so much as you do to the least amongst you, you also do unto me.
I wonder what he would have said about the ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots; and the homeless, understandable, if we were an impoverished country, where the minimum pay was a $1.20 a day.
But here of all places, were we are almost better off than any other nation on earth!
Just look at the mess the religious right/tea party are making, while they hold the mightiest economy to ransom, just so they, as the better off, can deprive the poor of minimum health care.
There no doubt these same people will regularly frequent the local church, stand up front and with much ceremony, put a very large note on the plate; and possibly even as lay preachers, pontificate on the evils of unfaithful husbands and wives etc/etc ad infiniitum, ad nauseum!
Morals? What morals?
The best leaders are those who lead by example, rather than a plethora of pious paradigms!
Only to return to work and pound out pernicious policies that deal parsimony/penury to our least well off!
And all so unnecessary, when better more generous policies are very affordable, add to the economy by boosting discretionary spending, by shutting down tax avoidance, via a stand alone, unavoidable, expenditure tax system.
The very broadness of a broad based system, spreads the load onto those who formerly avoided a fair share.
And the so called followers' of Christ, front and centre, in this avoidance!
The very unavoidability of an expenditure tax, allows various entities to pocket former compliance outlays, which would no longer serve any functional purpose, in a win/win outcome for long suffering tax payers, the overall economy, which finally starts to work for us; and the least amongst us, who through their increased new means/improved discretionary spend, also serve to improve everyone Else's lot!
It's too easy!
Rhrosty.

I am surprised that people think that our political parties do not operate by a clear moral code.

The good news is that the code has been followed by all parties since 1808.

The bad news is that the code is the one followed by the Rum Corps.

It can be paraphrased as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but do it first."

The reality is that whatever people have, they want more. So expectations keep rising, they then claim to be unhappy, if these are not met.

Yabby - good point.. they are relatively unhappy because they don't realise how bad things were for their parents..

Richard, certainly it's a good idea to keep checking our moral bearings and keep orienting our direction to our values and aims; although I think "surveys suggest" is a pretty uncompelling form of argument.

On the one hand your whole argument is that the State and its directors should define a "national purpose and meaning". But you do not seem to reflect whether the State, as an institution, is intrinsically unfit for the purpose of telling other people what their morality or values should be.

Hans Hermann-Hoppe, in Democracy: The God That Failed, showed how a democracy instrinsically does not select for the most moral or the most capable politicians. On the contrary, it selects for the habitual amoralists, the most unprincipled people in the whole population: the people who think nothing of deceptive behaviour to get what they want, the people who reason "I want something, therefore it's okay to use force to get it", the people who represent the most anti-social forces of party and faction and race and religion and grabbing, the people who think nothing of forcing everyone else to obey their arbitrary opinion. In a word, sociopaths. (That's why both the socialist and the conservative voters constantly despair of Labor and Liberal - because neither can get their respective politicians to recognise or stand on any principle – all they get is endless wishy-washy expedience and lies.)

There is simply no reason to think that unprincipled politicians are competent to enter, let alone to lead, a discussion about what our moral principles should be. On the contrary, these are the people least fit for the job in the whole of society.

Morality, by definition, can’t be just “might is right”, because the reason why we need rules of just conduct in the first place, is to stop the stronger merely grabbing from the weaker. But in the final analysis, the State is by definition the strongest party, and might-is-right is all the State has to offer, else the issue would be voluntary. For what is the State but the institutionalisation of the means of force?

(cont.)

This truth can be concluded from a different perspective. Why a “national” purpose and meaning? Why that particular collectivity? Why not some other collectivity, such as the whole world, or the nations of the South Pacific, or one’s home State, or home district, or family or volunteer group? Why the nation-state?

Aren’t people outside Australia moral beings? Why are they to be excluded from the definition of “our” purpose and meaning? What could the reason possibly be, other than that the nation-State has historically, by force staked out a legal monopoly of the use of aggressive force in the territory subject to its claim. And what could be any *less* reason for it to claim a *moral* ascendancy?

But if non-Australians are to be included, why would we charge the nation-State – an institution that explicitly and forcibly discriminates against non-nationals – to be the judge of what is moral?

No sir the project of defining group purpose and meaning cannot be done without first identifying the principle of morality which is to serve. To be moral it needs to apply to everyone equally, otherwise it’s not a rule of morality, it’s an enforced double standard. This rules out the State as the arbiter, because the State by definition always embodies the double standard “I’m allowed to aggress against you to get what I want, but you’re not allowed to aggress against me to get what you want”.

The only principle of morality that will answer, and that is necessary, is the non-aggression axiom, which is the same as the principle of liberty: you have a right to be free to do what you want, so long as you do not aggress against the person or property of another.

This, not religion or state, is the true and rational basis of morality. It would solve a multitude of evils both within and outside Australia.

Viewed in its true perspective, the State is perhaps the main impediment to the realization of this higher moral and social value. The principled politician is the one who stands for the principle of liberty.

Jardine I know we’ve been over this at length previously, but I would just like to reiterate that I think you are totally off the mark with your basic premise that the state is the main impediment to higher moral and social values.

A lack of state authority or a weak level of governance or however you would like to put it, would select for the habitual amoralists, the most unprincipled people in the whole population: the people who think nothing of deceptive behaviour to get what they want.

A well-developed level of state control, even where there are some very serious flaws associated with it, has GOT to be better than a no-state or no-governance or extremely-low-level-of-law society.

A poor level of governance would actually mean much greater freedom only for the ruthless and unscrupulous elements, and much less freedom for the rest of us… and a much lower level of moral and social values.

That's coming from someone who openly urges unlimited government power over everyone and everything and when asked how that power could be limited even in principle, answers "I don't know!".

The problem with that view is that the State power over and above that necessary to enforce the principle of liberty, is not limited by any principle other than might is right, and just degenerates into mere grabbing.

That's why you were unable to sustain your sustainability argument without immediately being unable to know whether it would kill more people than it would save.

<< That's coming from someone who openly urges unlimited government power over everyone and everything.. .>>

Dear o dear Jardine, I did expect a little bit of a better response than that.

Making such utterly polarised end-of-the-spectrum assertions as this does your credibility no good at all.

Of course government shouldn’t have unlimited power. Nowhere near it. There is a point of balance between too much and not enough government control over our lives and over all of society.

It is interesting that you should assert that I hold such a polarised position. It tells me everything about the way you think. It fits perfectly with your desire for no (or absolutely minimalist?) government.

Please, if you can, start thinking in shades of grey, points of balance, equilibria, etc, rather than in hard and fast black and white terms.

<< The problem with that view is that the State power over and above that necessary to enforce the principle of liberty, is not limited by any principle other than might is right, and just degenerates into mere grabbing. >>

Yes, fine. Governments can sometimes take it too far. The point of balance is very often very difficult to achieve. Sometimes it is overcooked, sometimes way underdone. But even if it were to all be overdone quite considerably, it would still be a whole lot better than if it was vastly underdone by way of no government or extremely weak government, which again, would allow the ruthless and unscrupulous elements to dominate and greatly suppress the rest of us.

<< That's why you were unable to sustain your sustainability argument without immediately being unable to know whether it would kill more people than it would save. >>

Erm, what the ??

Maybe I'm missing something here - it certainly wouldn't be the first time - but could somebody please explain what a "moral deficit" is? How do we identify it, and once identified, how do we measure it?

Presumably, the idea is to decrease such a deficit. So we must be able to measure it, in order to determine whether we are heading in the right direction.

Then, of course, you need to stop before you move into a moral surplus. Or would that be a good thing? What would be the identifying characteristics of a moral surplus - or, come to that, a moral equilibrium?

Unfortunately, I suspect the phrase was arrived at sometime late at night by one of Abbott's scriptwriters, who was casting around for something that might make his boss look less like an automaton - a polibot, if you will - and more like someone who actually concerned himself with humanity at large.

Once it is out there, it becomes just another element of political discourse, immune from any detailed examination. Because, like so many other trite and hackneyed phrases uttered by politicians on the campaign beat, it is drained of all meaning.

A pox etc.

"The point of balance is very often very difficult to achieve."

It certainly is difficult to achieve if you don't know what it is.

What is it?

Capitalism + morals do not belong in the same sentence.
By definition you must take more than you give.

Take away the Diseased English and here is what Richard Eckersley is really saying.

"I am so superior to you. I am so superior, that I sit with the Gods on Olympus. Even God calls me God. I am not materialistic in any way, and that is why I am superior to you. You suburban low lifes who live west of the Gladesville Bridge are utterly appalling creatures because you are happy with your materialism, and I and my superior class say that you are not supposed to be happy. You should be as miserable as me and the rest of my moral posturing class who are so intellectually and morally superior to you. Materialism, and being happy with materialism, is a defining characteristic of people who I consider my social inferiors."

For those unable to recognise it, what Richard is doing is displaying is his class superiority. It is funny how a class of people who a generation ago were manning the barricades for Egalitarianism have now become social climbing socialists who never cease to inform the Great Unwashed how inferior we all are.

London to a brick, that Richard is a scion of some middle class home where his pathway to a university career was mapped out at birth. He never had a deprived childhood, and he was not only born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he got the whole silver service. No, materialism is not important to people like Richard who were born with it, and who know that they will never have to work when they turn 50 because of their inherited wealth. What is important to Richard, is always showing the less fortunate how superior you and your parvenu class are in society.

It is a wonder that Richard didn't just write that the wretched working class who he despises, and who are happy with their materialism, should not just doff their caps and pull our forelocks every time he and his finger wagging, pseudo patrician Brahmin caste walk by

<< What is it? >>

Jardine, good question.

As it concerns moral and social values, it is highly complex, constantly being debated and forever evolving.

Everyone has different views on what various aspects of our morality and social fabric should constitute. No matter what the government did to try and uphold these values, they'd incur considerable criticism.

It is a constant struggle to find the right points of balance. But if government was to sit back and not attempt to regulate these sorts of values, we’d find ourselves at the mercy of the amoralistic and unprincipled elements.

I find it most interesting that you are concerned about the facilitation of the breakdown of morals and freedoms, but rather than advocating a better level of governance and rule of law, you advocate much less if not a complete abolition of government. This seems to be enormously counterintuitive to me.

I agree with the notion of smaller govt and a bill of rights to protect us from the absolutists, who seem to be attracted to power like moths to the flame!?
We with just one exception are the most over-governed people on the planet!
State Parliaments, cost the Australian taxpayer 70 billions plus per!
Simply reconciling our inordinately complex tax system, costs the tax payer more than 5 billions annually; and that just a drop in the bucket, in comparison to compliance costs ripping around 7% from the corporate bottom line.
Imagine how much better the budget bottom line would be, if we could collect the company taxes, of the 40% or so, of our transnational guests, who allegedly, pay no co tax to anyone?
If we were wise, we would finally reconcile State govt duties and services, and that which the fed provides.
We have to end the duplication and duopoly that creates much of it!
There ought to be just one funding entity, not the inordinately costly double handling, which occurs now and inevitably adds to the cost of govt service provision.
Were we to rationalize this buck passing dogs breakfast, we would provide all health, education and public transport funding as a direct model from the Fed.
This would eliminate at least 30% of the current cost structures, and allow that additional funding to be redirected to the coal face.
Funding by this means, could be based almost exclusively on a pro rata funding model, increased in direct inverse proportion, to the distance from the capital.
In which case, state govts could be reduced to a single governor, (elected), and he she could employ a very small very professional team, to take care of what would then remain of state govt responsibility?
This team would lose their tenure, with every change of state parliament!
This then would virtually eliminate incompetence and or corruption, which would be much more difficult to hide from the investigative media!
Rhrosty.

My take on this article is not that it is about general societal morality, but rather about the inherent moral direction of government decisions, policies and economic development - such as whether pursuing (and supporting) sustainable initiatives will be in the common long-term interest, or whether to limit gambling, or plain-paper packaging for tobacco, or an NDIS, or whether to proceed with CSG or mining of the Barrier Reef (or under what circumstances), or whether superannuation schemes should invest in tobacco, or if foreign investment in this or that will be in our interest.

It's not about rich vs poor, white collar vs blue, business vs workers, but rather about fairness in business and in employment, recourse to redress without having to mortgage the family home, quality healthcare for all, a fair and just legal system, good roads, good amenities, good education and good career (or job) prospects for all.
It is about confidence that general expectations will be met - but not at risk of poisoning the planet, of wiping out vital fish stocks, of smashing biodiversity, of generating acid rain or of making cities and towns unfit to live in.
It is about sustainable quality of life for ALL, and about ensuring all pull their reasonable weight, but are not overburdened.
It is about social cohesion and happiness that will withstand future shocks; about maintaining resilience and sense of purpose; and of focusing on 'the Big Picture', not just the next election.
And it's ultimately about obviating 'ill-gotten gains'.

That's a bit of a stretch, Saltpetre.

>>My take on this article is not that it is about general societal morality, but rather about the inherent moral direction of government decisions, policies and economic development<<

Are these really indicative of a government's "inherent moral direction", ?

>>...pursuing (and supporting) sustainable initiatives<<

>>...limit gambling, or plain-paper packaging for tobacco<<

>>...an NDIS<<

>>...proceed with CSG or mining of the Barrier Reef<<

>>...whether superannuation schemes should invest in tobacco<<

>>...if foreign investment in this or that will be in our interest<<

I am not convinced that any of the above genuinely represents a moral dimension. Sure, they are all policy stances that you can agree with or disagree with, depending upon your position on freedom of the individual, free trade, mining vs. conservation etc. But to endow them with some kind of spurious morality seems a bridge too far.

And this is just a laundry list of feelgoodery:

>>...fairness in business and in employment, recourse to redress without having to mortgage the family home, quality healthcare for all, a fair and just legal system, good roads, good amenities, good education and good career (or job) prospects for all. It is about confidence that general expectations will be met - but not at risk of poisoning the planet, of wiping out vital fish stocks, of smashing biodiversity, of generating acid rain or of making cities and towns unfit to live in. It is about sustainable quality of life for ALL, and about ensuring all pull their reasonable weight, but are not overburdened.<<

Are you sure you are not simply overlaying the article with your own utopian dreams?

Ludwig
You mentioned a point of balance. Do you know what that is, or not? If not, a simple 'no' will suffice. If yes, what is it?

Pericles
"Are you sure you are not simply overlaying the article with your own utopian dreams?"

LOL. Certainly seems that way. Saltpetre is merely doing what Ludwig is doing: alleging some unspecified moral principle which just happens to justify forcing everyone into obeying his own arbitrary opinions.

<< Ludwig you mentioned a point of balance. Do you know what that is, or not? If not, a simple 'no' will suffice. If yes, what is it? >>

Yes I know what my point of balance is for all manner of moral and social issues, but I respect other peoples’ differing views.

Pick an issue, and I’ll tell you my point of balance.

So what are you suggesting? – that if we can’t absolutely define, with a great deal of community support, just what the point of balance regarding a particular moral issue is, then our government should do nothing?

Or don’t you care that much? It seems that your heart is not really in this particular debate.

And please, stop asserting that other people hold views that you know they don’t.

Re: << Saltpetre is merely doing what Ludwig is doing: alleging some unspecified moral principle which just happens to justify forcing everyone into obeying his own arbitrary opinions. >>

This sort of thing totally undermines your credibility.

Dear Saltpetre,

<<It is about social cohesion and happiness... about maintaining resilience and sense of purpose;>>

So it is about enforcing social cohesion even over those who were never interested in being part of society, or perhaps are interested in being part of a society, but not necessarily that particular society called "nation". It is about attempting to make people "happy" for things that would make other people happy, rather than allowing them to seek their own happiness. It is about enforcing a particular sense of purpose over those who already have a different sense of purpose in life.

In one word, it's about oppression.

Dear Ludwig,

You were looking for a point-of-balance between too-much and not-enough government-control over our lives and over all of society, so here is where I believe it should rest:

The state should have authority to direct the lives of those who wish or freely consent to be part of it (hence called 'citizens'). As for all others, the state may only take such measures to control them as necessary to prevent them from harming (including statistical-harm = risking) the well-being of its citizens.

The state has no authority, for example, to "protect" those who have not sought its protection or to assume that someone has asked for its protection merely because that person happens to live in a territory that is controlled by that state.

People are more likely to consent to be part of a society/nation if they receive certain guarantees, such as a constitution and democratic elections; or a bill-of-rights, etc., but there may always be others who do not consent even then, and their dignity must be respected as well. While the state is not obliged to protect non-citizens or their property, it may not actively harm or limit them either, or expel them from its so-called territory so long as they do not disturb its citizens.

In summary, citizens must abide by their agreement, but those who do not wish to be part of a nation-state, should be treated at least as well as the wild animals roaming the country.

"Pick an issue, and I’ll tell you my point of balance."

Then I pick this issue:

"There is a point of balance between too much and not enough government control over our lives and over all of society."

You give me the impression you don't know what it is? If you do, what is it? If you don't, why don't you just say so?

Obviously if you think the point of balance is one thing, and someone else thinks it something else, and you want the government to enforce your view, then it's not true you respect others's differing views, is it?

"So what are you suggesting?"
I'm suggesting that aggressing against the person or property of others is immoral. You're defending it; I'm trying to find out what would be a justification. What is it?

Dear Jardine and Ludwig,

<<"Pick an issue, and I’ll tell you my point of balance.">>

I would like to pick an issue, because I sincerely want to hear both your views on it.

It's about mining and property rights.

Farmers in Australia own only their above-ground land. What's below is owned by the state.

As the state seeks royalties for the minerals below ground, it permits companies to enter private properties without the owner's consent, conduct mineral surveys and if minerals are found, dig for them. In theory they could dig tunnels below ground from neighbouring properties or public areas, but that would be very expensive so it's not how it's being done: they actually invade private properties, creating noise, dust, smells, traffic, poisoning, contamination of water and what not, making the farmer's life hell as well as forcing out people who came to live in the outback for a life of peace, quiet and solitude.

Is that justified for the 'common good'?

The panel is open!

That's as may be, Yuyutsu.

>>The panel is open!<<

But the question you pose has nothing to do with a "moral deficit", which was the headline topic suggested by the article.

>>It's about mining and property rights<<

That is an expression of of economic policy, not morals. The concept of property rights has no moral dimension whatsoever - unless, of course, you are suggesting that ownership of property is itself a moral issue.

To identify a moral deficit requires the definition of some kind of moral quantum, which everyone here seems to have abandoned in favour of pursuing their personal hobby-horse arguments about government policy.

Which is always amusing, of course. But tends to get somewhat repetitive.

It would be nice, just occasionally, to stick to the topic, if only to avoid the feeling that we are all reading another cut'n'paste job.

<< You give me the impression you don't know what it is? If you do, what is it? If you don't, why don't you just say so? >>

( :>|

Jardine, haven’t I already addressed that question directly?

It seems to me that you really are totally unable to appreciate things that are any more complex than simple back and white, yes or no, all or nothing type of situations!

<< Obviously if you think the point of balance is one thing, and someone else thinks it something else, and you want the government to enforce your view, then it's not true you respect others's differing views, is it? >>

Interesting indeed!

No it is not as black and white as that! Yes I would like the government to adhere to my view on a particular subject. But no that does not mean that I can’t respect other peoples’ views, or the need for government to consider them and to implement a policy which takes into account the full gamut of views.

Can you appreciate that?

<< I'm suggesting that aggressing against the person or property of others is immoral. You're defending it; >>

What??

I’m defending aggression against person or their property?? I’m defending a moral position that there is a right for people to be aggressive against other people and their property??

Jardine, where do you get this stuff? What is going on in your head whereby you can continuously assert things about other peoples’ views which are without any foundation, if not knowingly false!?!

Funny old world, isn't it?

Wasn't sure if I was reading the same thing as mentioned in earlier comments.

What I took away from the article was that it presented an opportunity for Richard Eckersley to tell us:

"Earlier this year, a council officer in an affluent part of Sydney told me... '...your work has transformed the muddle of issues and complexities that characterize modern western living into something comprehensible and hence more manageable.'"

and

"A teacher wrote to me recently about why my work had become important to a bunch of 17- and 18-year-olds in southern Sydney."

and

"A UK colleague said: '...They [ordinary office workers and factory workers] experience profoundly what you are talking about.'

However putting the backslapping aside, in fairness it was in the opening paragraph that 'moral' reared its (undefined) head:

"In a 2001 address to the Sydney Institute, Tony Abbott, then Employment Minister, spoke about the 'culture of despair' in Australia that he wanted to root out. The Government must 'handle the moral deficit as well as the budget deficit' and appeal to 'people's deeper values and beliefs', he said. 'Countries, no less than individuals, need a sense of purpose and meaning'."

So for definitions, maybe instead of Richard's guesses, or ours, we should look to the Prime Minister to root out his sense of morals.

Then it will be easier to consider deficits... or that almost extinct political entity, a moral surplus...

(Which shouldn’t be confused with a moral surplice... that is something clergy cover themselves with)

Pericles I’ve got to disagree entirely. You can’t say that mining and property rights have nothing to do with morality. Indeed, there is a very big moral aspect to this particular issue. And it’s got everything to do with this article and discussion.

Yuyutsu, thanks for asking.

Like so many others, this particular issue is certainly not black and white. It is complex and is a good example of the difficult search for the right point of balance.

Property owners should certainly not have inalienable rights to do whatever they like with their land and to exclude all other uses or people.

Neither should miners, or the state, have the right to just romp onto private property at will and do whatever they like there, regardless of the impact on the landowner, his/her livelihood or the environment.

As with tree-clearing legislation in Queensland, which I was involved with for many years, careful assessments need to be made so that the best balance between productivity and environmental values can be upheld.

So as it concerns mining and property rights, my point of balance is that the common resource beneath the ground should be available to miners, but that the impact on the landowner should be minimised and the level of compensation should be adequate to cover him/her for any losses.

But each case needs to be looked on its own merits and there may well be cases where mining gets refused because the impact would be considered too great.

Thank you Ludwig,

I now eagerly await Jardine's response, so I'll keep to the sidelines for now.

Dear Pericles,

<<That is an expression of of economic policy, not morals. The concept of property rights has no moral dimension whatsoever - unless, of course, you are suggesting that ownership of property is itself a moral issue.>>

I agree that ownership of property is not a moral issue: there is no moral imperative to own property.

But given that, somehow or another, one already owns property, isn't the issue of whether it is right to take it away or otherwise deny that person the ability to enjoy that property, a moral one?

If it isn't, then where does property end and body begins? Is the question whether it is right or not to strip a person of their clothing an economic or a moral question? Then what about hair? is the question of shearing another person's hair an economic or a moral question? If it's merely an economic question, then why not knock their teeth and pull their nails as well? or is harvesting someone's kidneys merely an economic issue, a legitimate way to have them repay a financial debt? Where do you draw the line, or do you?

Well of course you do, Ludwig. It's your own personal moral imperative.

>>Pericles I’ve got to disagree entirely<<

So let's get back to basics for a moment, and take stock of where we are. First of all, is there anything in this analysis of morality that you find untenable...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Here's an interesting starting-point:

"In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations."

With that as background, to your point:

>>You can’t say that mining and property rights have nothing to do with morality<<

Certainly - as Yuyutsu points out - the violation of mining and property rights has a strong moral dimension. Theft, after all, is generally regarded as a "moral prohibition" in most societies. The morality of property ownership itself is surely an entirely separate question.

Some governments have tried to make property ownership a moral issue, Soviet communism being a recent example, with its Marxist roots. Proudhon gave it a fully anarchical flavour with his much-interpreted slogan, "property is theft". But most people today are happy to separate the moral content of the ownership of property, from the violation of it.

So, if you please, a little more justification of this statement of yours might help things along a little:

>>Property owners should certainly not have inalienable rights to do whatever they like with their land and to exclude all other uses or people.<<

Why not? So long as their actions do not violate the rights of others - which would quite rightly bring their actions into Yuyutsu's morality compass - surely they have an entirely moral right to enjoy their own property?

From the principle of liberty, ownership of land should be, as at common law, to the centre of the earth. The statutory “reservation” of minerals by “the Crown” is, in plain language, nothing but the theft of property by the most aggressive party. The law should be that any use of the owner’s property requires his consent. The owner should be liable for infringements of the personal or property rights of others.

The current heated conflicts between “agriculture” or “mining” are unnecessary. They are caused by the State invading the principle of liberty as explained above.

Ludwig’s argument would only make sense if government did not enforce law or policy. Given that it does, the ethics of using force or threats of force are unavoidably implicated in every government policy.

The reason Ludwig is unable to state any principle by which anyone could know whether their person or property should be free from aggressive invasion by government, is because he doesn’t have one! His talk of “shades of grey” means only that he doesn’t know what the principle limiting government power should be. He hopes it will be his own opinion about how other people should use their own property. But he concedes that it, in practical politics, it might be someone else’s opinion or a compromise of the opinion of other people, who want to forcibly override the personal or property rights of others. They only thing he is constant on, is that non-owners and non-producers should be given benefits of other people's property without paying for it, by threatening to imprison the owner if he doesn't agree. And then, assuming his honesty, he displays his failure to comprehend, by protesting that he doesn't defend aggression against person or property. That's exactly what he's defending!

(cont.)

Our argument looks like this:
J: “The principle of liberty states the legitimate limits of governmental action.”
L: “No it doesn’t. There needs to be a point of balance.”
J: “What is the point of balance?”
L: (Long spiel on multiple imponderable factors and objectively unknowable values without at any stage saying what the point of balance is.)
J: “What is the point of balance?”
L: “I’ve answered that directly. How can you suggest I’m in favour of aggressive violence?”

Ludwig is caught in a self-contradiction. Either he states the principle on which government power should be limited; or he continues to obfuscate what it is; either way he is left only affirming that the principle of liberty should be forcibly violated.

As for the “common good”, the good cannot be known in common. That’s why Ludwig can’t say what the point of balance is at which he himself could know the legitimate limits of government in his own statement “Of course government shouldn’t have unlimited power”.

Thank you Jardine,

This debate is extremely fascinating.

Still from the sidelines, I notice lack of agreement about the terms we use:

What is 'ownership'?

Here Ludwig seems to use the existing, Australian, legal definition while Jardine uses the common-law definition.
Interestingly, both conflict with the plain-English use of the word 'owner'.

L: Property owners should certainly not have inalienable rights to do whatever they like with their land and to exclude all other uses or people.

J: ownership of land should be, as at common law, to the centre of the earth.

Legally speaking, as Ludwig does, ownership is subject to legislation, hence to potential, partial or complete, revocation.

In plain English, however, as found in businessdictionary.com, an owner is:

1. A party that possesses the exclusive right to hold, use, benefit-from, enjoy, convey, transfer, and otherwise dispose of an asset or property.

Ownership is thus absolute and irrevocable (except when transferred voluntarily, but in some biblical references ownership is by divine decree and cannot be revoked even voluntarily). This would render Ludwig's statement self-contradictory, for if you can't do what you like with X, then you do not actually own X.

On the other hand, Jardine too cannot do whatever he likes with his owned land all the way to the centre of the earth - for not even the combined effort of all humanity can reach down further than 10 kilometres deep or so, then it would become too hot, the pressure too high and at some stage magma will burst out spreading over large areas, thwarting any attempt at land-ownership.

So the question stands for both:

What is ownership and how is it gained?

Some company was already selling plots of land on the moon - does this grant any person or any state/government ownership over that part of the moon? What then about other planets and distant stars? Does discovering them amount to ownership?

Looking forward to your answers!

Well according to the theory I'm prepared to hazard for anyone to shoot down if they can, ownership denotes a right to use something to the exclusion of others, using force if necessary to exclude them. (Ownership is not possession per se, so there’s no reason why a claim of ownership can’t extend to the moon or Earth’s centre. Whether it can be vindicated is another question.)

The starting point is that we need rules of just conduct because goods – the physical means to satisfy human wants – are scarce. If all goods were infinitely available, there would be no possibility of A’s usage having any negative consequence for B, and hence no need for rules of just conduct. This problem is not a “social construct” or because of “ideology”. It inheres in the physical nature of reality – natural scarcity. Even if we lived in a garden of Eden, replete with cornucopia, the problem would still exist because there would still be, at least, a scarcity of the physical stuff of one’s body and one’s standing-room.

The basal right of ownership, giving rise to all other ownership-rights, is the right of ownership of one’s physical body. Anyone who denies this must perform a self-contradiction, because he must assume the right to control his body to participate in the argument. He must also admit the possibility of coercion-based ownership of others.

From the right of self-ownership we derive the right to appropriate unowned goods from nature, e.g the air we breathe, without which the original right would be nugatory.

The next right to follow from these is that of *voluntary* exchange and association, without which, the benefits of human society would be denied.

Any use of force beyond that necessary to defend liberty and property, represents the original problem of unjust aggression which man needs to invent ethics, and property, to solve. The notion that human society, or fairness, or productivity, necessitate a larger role for unprovoked aggression is factually, logically and ethically false.

Hold on Pericles, you wrote a whole post asserting that there is no moral dimension to property rights, and then in your following post you wrote:

<< …the violation of mining and property rights has a strong moral dimension >>

Which surely means that the definition and implementation of property rights must also have a moral dimension.

I wrote:

>> Property owners should certainly not have inalienable rights to do whatever they like with their land and to exclude all other uses or people. <<

You asked:

<< Why not? So long as their actions do not violate the rights of others… surely they have an entirely moral right to enjoy their own property? >>

I find it quite amazing that you feel the need to ask such a question. I would have thought it obvious.

We can’t have the right to do whatever we like with our land for all sorts of reasons. Obviously we don’t have the right to undertake illegal activities on our land, which encompasses a very broad variety of restrictions.

It could also be argued that it is amoral to undertake activities which are not accepted as fair and reasonable by the wider community but which are not actually illegal.

Morality, being defined as codes of conduct put forward by society, can certainly be impinged upon in all manner of ways if we have inalienable rights to do whatever we liked on our property.

Dear Ludwig,

You claim that one's own land is not the right place for one to undertake illegal activities or activities which are not accepted as fair and reasonable by the wider community.

OK, Where then is the right place to undertake such activities (assuming nobody else is hurt as a result)?

In public parks perhaps? in your friend's house? in the outback? inside a volcano? in wombat burrows? in the sea? under the sea? out in space? on top of government-house? In the world-to-come and the kingdom of heaven?

<<Morality, being defined as codes of conduct put forward by society, can certainly be impinged upon in all manner of ways if we have inalienable rights to do whatever we liked on our property.>>

I see what you mean, such immoral actions, for example, as hiding Jews in your property against the codes of conduct put forward by a Nazi society.

I once saw the movie "Logan's run", where society decreed that it is immoral to be old, to live beyond 30, so everyone reaching that ripe age is ritually killed on the carousel ("renewed" in their jargon, so they are told). In that movie at least, the hero and his girlfriend managed in the end to break out of the city and found that extremely illegal really-old man who immorally lived to be 60 or so. Where is the exit from this locked city called society?

I'm beginning to suspect that you deliberately misunderstand, Ludwig, simply in order to have something to say.

>>Hold on Pericles, you wrote a whole post asserting that there is no moral dimension to property rights, and then in your following post you wrote: "…the violation of mining and property rights has a strong moral dimension"<<

Those are most definitely not contradictory statements. In fact, they encapsulated the point I was trying to make, which was that it is the act of violation that has a moral dimension, not the property.

Violation on one hand. Ownership on the other. Two separate issues. Does that make it clearer?

You continue your muddle with this, along precisely the same lines:

>>We can’t have the right to do whatever we like with our land for all sorts of reasons. Obviously we don’t have the right to undertake illegal activities on our land, which encompasses a very broad variety of restrictions.<<

Illegal activities are indeed a moral issue. But that applies to everything you can think of. Owning a car is not a moral issue. Running over little old ladies is a moral issue. Same same. It is the act of running someone over that has the moral dimension. Actually owning a car is entirely passive, and does not have a moral dimension.

>>It could also be argued that it is amoral to undertake activities which are not accepted as fair and reasonable by the wider community but which are not actually illegal.<<

I take it you mean immoral rather than amoral. But you are correct. It is the actions that may be regarded as moral/immoral.

With me now?

<< From the principle of liberty, ownership of land should be, as at common law, to the centre of the earth. >>

What??

Why, Jardine?

We own land and use the surface and subsurface soil and water. That’s it! We shouldn’t own more than that. The minerals at a greater depth SHOULD be state property, or the property of all of us in the nation state.

I can’t fathom how you can talk about a principle of liberty leading to ownership to the centre of the earth, or to a depth any greater than what we need to run a farm, or a garden.

For that matter, the water that we draw from bores could easily be deemed common property, for which we have to pay, and for which there are restrictions on the amount of usage, due to the prospect of overdraw and hence depletion or saltwater incursion of the groundwater resource, and hence the violation of other peoples’ right to use this resource.

And the soil could also have restrictions placed on its use, for the common good, so that it doesn’t blow away or become depleted.

So when you talk about the common good, or the violation of peoples’ rights in the long term, we shouldn’t even entirely own the subsurface, let alone anything deeper!

continued

<< Ludwig’s argument would only make sense if government did not enforce law or policy. Given that it does, the ethics of using force or threats of force are unavoidably implicated in every government policy. >>

Crikey Jardine, you do get loopy!!

The law is meaningless, and the morality therein is neutered, if there is no enforcement regime!

<< The reason Ludwig is unable to state any principle by which anyone could know whether their person or property should be free from aggressive invasion by government… >>

Aggressive invasion eh? I’ve made it clear that if mining is to happen on private property in order to recover the resource that is owned by us all beneath the private property, then it should be done with the fullest of consultation and compensation with and for the landholder.

I’m as much against aggressive state invasion as you are Jardine.

<< That's exactly what he's defending! >>

There you go again, making false assertions. You build straw-man scenarios against your sparring partners, and assert them as absolutely factual.

But why?

Why can’t you debate in a sensible manner?, as per Yuyutsu.

<< I'm beginning to suspect that you deliberately misunderstand, Ludwig, simply in order to have something to say. >>

Just beginning eh Pericles? Hehehe.

Not at all. This sort of thing has happened many times in our long and sordid correspondence on this forum. We both raise what appear to be contradictions in each other’s writings in order for them to be clarified. It is an integral part of this sort of slow written debate.

So, thanks for the clarification.

<< Violation on one hand. Ownership on the other. Two separate issues. Does that make it clearer? >>

Yes.

But I disagree.

It is not just violation of the law, or the moral code which is immoral. There is surely a fundamental moral aspect to the formulation of that code in the first instance.

It could be argued that the law is a subset of the moral code. But an imperfect one, where there are situations where the law could uphold an immoral position and breaking the law could be more morally acceptable or sensible than sticking to it.

The action of formulating the law must surely be considered a moral act.

And the action of land ownership within the bounds of the law must likewise be a moral act.

That's a bit confusing, Ludwig.

>>It is not just violation of the law, or the moral code which is immoral. There is surely a fundamental moral aspect to the formulation of that code in the first instance<<

There is indeed a moral aspect to the formulation of a moral code. I would have thought that to be self-evident.

But if you meant that there is a moral aspect to the formulation of laws, I would have to agree with that also. Hence my earlier reference to those countries' laws that did not permit property ownership. You could make a case - as many have before you - that ownership of property is an intrinsically bad thing.

But once again, that is a totally separate issue to your assertion that "[we] can’t have the right to do whatever we like with our land", with which statement, as you know, I am in full agreement.

We have laws that extend to the sorts of behaviours - polluting the land in a manner that adversely affects others, for example - that have a distinctly moral flavour about them. But unless you deem the ownership of land itself to be immoral, you are left with only those behaviours to complain about. Just like the little old lady and the car - she can complain about the driver's behaviour in running her over, but she can't protest the driver's right to own the car in the first place.

Dear Ludwig and Jardine,

Your responses demonstrate that the word 'owner' is ambiguous.

I was hoping to find a definition of 'owner' with both meaning and substance, but alas, Jardine's definition has meaning but no substance while Ludwig's has substance but not meaning.

Jardine's has no substance because while it would be nice to have such ownership, it doesn't exist in reality since nothing on earth can confer that kind of ownership on a person. In heaven perhaps, but not on earth.

Ludwig's has no meaning because it is fleeting as quicksand: what a person can do with their land, according to this definition, can vary as the wind turns and the mood of the public and their legislators.

Meanwhile, what recourse has our poor farmer or hermit who wakes to the sound of rumbling bulldozers, their life in ruins?

“We can’t have the right to do whatever we like with our land for all sorts of reasons. “

Why not? That’s not a reason.

“Obviously we don’t have the right to undertake illegal activities on our land”


That’s only valid in saying what the law *is*.

But here the issue is what the law *should be*: because the original article was about politicians giving moral purpose or direction for the nation.

“It could also be argued that it is amoral to undertake activities which are not accepted as fair and reasonable by the wider community but which are not actually illegal.”

Why? You haven’t given any reason.

What would be an example of a valid restriction on a landowner’s freedom to use his own land, based on third parties’ opinions of what is “fair and reasonable”? (Please don’t give reasons that it would impinge on the personal or property rights of others: that proves my argument not yours.)

You are not “the common” so the common good is not yours to know any more than it is mine.

The deep structure of your argument from the common good is only this:
“In my opinion, people shouldn’t be allowed to use soil so as to deplete it.
“Why not?”
“Because it’s my opinion.”

To avoid this circularity, it’s not enough to point to negative consequences of using natural resources (e.g. depletion). You have to show how you account for the positive consequences (e.g feeding the hungry). You haven’t done that, which means, your definition of the common good goes only to your own opinion. According to your standard, all I have to do is allege “the common good” to win the argument. You are left arguing that it’s for “the common good” that people go hungry so well-fed middle class Australians can feel good about themselves for advocating socialism that they can’t rationally defend.

So … how do you account for the positive consequences?

So far you have not given any valid moral reason for the restrictions you advocate, other than agreeing with me.

It seems that we are largely in agreement. Pericles.

However…

<< ...unless you deem the ownership of land itself to be immoral, you are left with only those behaviours to complain about >>

But you can’t separate them, unless you have blind faith that the law is always 100% right and that any violation of it is inherently immoral. You may well feel that there are aspects of the law are immoral. Most of us do, yes?

It is complex as to just what the ownership of land entails. Just exactly what you do own and what you can do on your land is fraught with moral difficulty. In all probability, you will find something if not many things that you disagree with regarding the legal restrictions.

You could indeed consider the ownership of land, overall or in some circumstances, to be immoral. Or you could consider some of the aspects of the ownership of land to be immoral.

So...

<< Violation on one hand. Ownership on the other. Two separate issues. >>

No I don’t think so. It is all totally intertwined.

<< …the little old lady… can complain about the driver's behaviour in running her over, but she can't protest the driver's right to own the car in the first place. >>

Oh yes she can! If the driver was so dangerous and irresponsible as to run her over, depending on the exact circumstances, she could well have every right to complain about the morality of him owning a car or a drivers licence!

Dear Ludwig,

I am relieved that you do not equate law with morality!

Can you also acknowledge that popular/common-societal-views are also distinct from morality?

<<If the driver was so dangerous and irresponsible as to run her over, depending on the exact circumstances, she could well have every right to complain about the morality of him owning a car or a drivers licence!>>

Nobody needs a license to own a car - only to take a car on public roads. If you do have such license, the car need not even be owned by you. However, in most cases where little old ladies are run over by cars, the car is found to be stolen and the driver unlicensed.

It reminds me of the car we had in kindi, in the middle of the sand patch: it could no longer be driven anywhere, otherwise I would happily run over that little old lady in the roll of a kindi-teacher.

<<It is all totally intertwined.>>

A sword, anyone?
(referring to Alexander the Great and the Gordian knot)

To cut it short, if you are looking for an answer to the question "Is ownership moral?", a similar-in-nature question would be:

"Is a gay Anglican priest allowed to marry his widow's sister?"

<< Your responses demonstrate that the word 'owner' is ambiguous. >>

Yes Yuyutsu, ownership is not a straightforward concept. As it concerns land, it is indeed quite complex as to just what is owned, both in a physical way and in terms of usage or rights.

Even though we may own the surface of the land, we certainly don’t own the right to do whatever we like with it. Far from it.

And perhaps we don’t own the land surface all that conclusively either. If we don’t pay our rates or keep it lawfully maintained, some jurisdictions might take it off us.

<< …Jardine's definition has meaning but no substance while Ludwig's has substance but not meaning. >>

Well, Jardine’s comments seem to always lack substance and meaning!

And um, I’m not sure how my comments could have substance but not meaning. ( :>/

<< …what a person can do with their land, according to this definition, can vary as the wind turns and the mood of the public and their legislators. >>

I don’t know about that! I think most things are generally pretty constant over long periods of time.

<< Meanwhile, what recourse has our poor farmer or hermit who wakes to the sound of rumbling bulldozers, their life in ruins? >>

But that never happens! Landowners are always consulted or at least warned well in advance of the miners’ intentions. Maybe the level of consultation and compensation is inadequate sometimes, but it is not as if miners and the state just steam-roll over the top of landowners in the middle of the night.

<< Can you also acknowledge that popular/common-societal-views are also distinct from morality? >>

Yuyutsu, they are not distinct from morality. They are an approximation. I’d say that there is a pretty good correlation.

I think it would be fair to say that most of us have a reasonably strong moral compass and develop our views on all manner of things with that as a basis.

<< Nobody needs a license to own a car - only to take a car on public roads. If you do have such license, the car need not even be owned by you. However, in most cases where little old ladies are run over by cars, the car is found to be stolen and the driver unlicensed. >>

Fair enough. But if the fellow who ran over the li’’tle ol’ lady owned the car he was driving, had driven in a dangerous manner thus causing the mishap, had a history of bad driving, etc, then she could rightly have questioned the morality of him owning a car.

Yuyutsu

“Jardine's has no substance because while it would be nice to have such ownership, it doesn't exist in reality since nothing on earth can confer that kind of ownership on a person. In heaven perhaps, but not on earth.”

Why not? You haven’t given any reason.

All it would take is for the government to repeal statutes which restrict the right of owners to use their land as they wish, subject only to the personal or property rights of others.

Don’t confuse possession, which is a physical fact, with ownership, which is a claim of right. The fact that we can’t physically take possession of Earth’s centre, or other planets, means that no claim of ownership arises. But if it did, there is no reason why the courts could, should or would not adjudicate them on the ordinary principles of ownership.

Ludwig

The issue is not morality in the abstract, it's morality enforced by government.

On the one hand you say that government should not have unlimited power. But you give no reason or principle by which to know what the legitimate limits of that power should be, other than that it harms the person or property of others. This does not support your contention that the principle of liberty cannot be the limiting factor.

The one other criterion you give just refers off to what third parties may think fair or reasonable, but the only way you give for knowing what that is, is that the government decides so! So although you say government power should be limited, in principle you support unlimited government power without having any reason for it.

What would be a specific example of a reason to limit the landowner’s freedom to use his land as he wants, other than that it harms the person or property of someone else?

If people thought it “fair and reasonable” that consenting private homosexual acts, or witchcraft, or the practice of X religion, should not be permitted on someone’s land, would that justify government interference?

Dear Jardine,

Earlier you wrote: "ownership denotes a right to use something to the exclusion of others, using force if necessary to exclude them."

Now you weaken that definition by implying that it is subject to government-consent: if statutes can be repealed, then they can also be re-legislated; or another state may take over, conquer your land and your ownership goes down the drain; or a revolution could occur, etc.

"to the exclusion of others" includes to the exclusion of the government of the day, to the exclusion of all other governments in the world and to the exclusion of rebels. I may even add to the exclusion of beasts, snakes and spiders - they too are 'others' after all!

While governments may give you all kinds of promises and assurances and (for the right fee) hand you nicely-engraved documents with beautiful curly fonts and ribbons all over, granting you 'exclusive ownership' over heaven and earth, which they themselves never had a right over in the first place, you may be left in the end with just a piece of paper.

In other words, while your original definition of "owner" was perfect, it was not achievable because no earthly power could ever confer that on a person. That is what I meant by having "meaning, but no substance", that there is no actual example or instance of such ownership in this world.

Dear Ludwig,

<<Even though we may own the surface of the land, we certainly don’t own the right to do whatever we like with it. Far from it.>>

That's because no genuine ownership actually exists on earth, but as I explained to Jardine above, only mock ownership.

But then, what good is ownership? why even bother having it?
Such ownership which doesn't bring with it the ability to live your life as you wish, is meaningless!

Perhaps then, the solution for the farmer's or hermit's painful problem is not the ownership of land.
Perhaps something different is needed...

(continued...)

(...continued)

And that's why I don't place much value on 'rights', why I don't plead with the government to give me more rights, not even a bill of rights.
All I ask is simply: "Don't take away my freedom, then you don't need to return me bits and pieces of its remains as 'rights'"!

<<But that never happens! Landowners are always consulted or at least warned well in advance of the miners’ intentions. Maybe the level of consultation and compensation is inadequate sometimes, but it is not as if miners and the state just steam-roll over the top of landowners in the middle of the night.>>

So our farmer or hermit got a short reprieve - days or weeks, what then?

Perhaps the hermit is a monk who took a vow of silence, then consultation is not going to help a lot; or perhaps he does speak and says: "I worked hard for 50 years, then bought this plot in the outback for all I had so I can retire peacefully, spending my whole time praying and meditating here under these fruit and nut trees which I planted myself and not have to meet another person ever again."

Now suppose the mining-company says: "The earth here is full of diamonds, gold and oil, it's worth billions, so why can't you take $100M and go away?" - but it so happens that the monk took a vow never to touch money again...

... or it so happens that the farmer buried his wife on his plot.

<<Yuyutsu, they are not distinct from morality. They are an approximation.>>

If you heard about Darwin, people developed by a genetic process to survive, not to find the truth. Seeking to go beyond survival and discover morality, is the exception, not the rule.

<<I think it would be fair to say that most of us have a reasonably strong moral compass and develop our views on all manner of things with that as a basis.>>

Having a moral compass is one thing, being moral is another. Many moral compasses do not point to the north.

That's just perverse, Ludwig.

>>But if the fellow who ran over the li’’tle ol’ lady owned the car he was driving, had driven in a dangerous manner thus causing the mishap, had a history of bad driving, etc, then she could rightly have questioned the morality of him owning a car.<<

I was discussing the "morality" of car ownership, not the morality of allowing a homicidal maniac to own a car. They are surely two entirely separate concepts.

There is no morality inherent in the ownership of a car. There is no morality inherent in the ownership of land.

<< There is no morality inherent in the ownership of a car [or] …land. >>

I don’t understand why you insist that this be the case, Pericles.

<< I was discussing the "morality" of car ownership, not the morality of allowing a homicidal maniac to own a car. They are surely two entirely separate concepts. >>

No they aren’t! The immorality of a homicidal maniac owning a car is obvious, I would think. So therefore, the ownership of a car by some people at least is a moral issue. Therefore, there is a moral aspect to car ownership overall.

Obviously it is morally corrupt for the state or society to allow homicidal maniacs to own and/or drive a car. And extending from that, it is morally questionable to allow people who have inadequate training or who have demonstrated poor driving skills to own / drive a car.

In short, there is indeed a very strong moral aspect to car ownership and operation.

I give up, Ludwig.

The difference seems so obvious to me, but is invisible to you. Simply saying the same things over and over is not productive.

Have a great day.

Dear Ludwig,

Let's be accurate:

The fact of an homicidal maniac owning a car is not in itself immoral.
The act of an homicidal maniac, who knows that fact about himself, yet goes ahead and purchases (or manufactures) a car, can in some circumstances be immoral.

Allowing an homicidal maniac to own a car is likely immoral, however any act of allowing something is normally a consequence of formerly disallowing the same.

Disallowing someone to do something is a very serious moral problem: it is a form of violence.
The act of disallowing someone to do something, who is not your child or has otherwise consented to be directed by you, is never in itself moral, yet when sufficient and overwhelming grounds are present, such as self-defence, which likely suits the case of an homicidal maniac owning a car, then it is not immoral either.

So if the state or society tells an homicidal maniac: "we allow you to own a car", then the person(s) who act in the name of the state are likely doing something immoral (the state itself, or 'society' as such, cannot be moral or immoral because it is not a person and has no will and no life of its own).

But if the state simply stops disallowing people to own cars (other than people who explicitly requested or consented to be directed by the state), then no immoral act was committed by the state-official(s) involved.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

That’s a pity Pericles. It was shaping up to be an interesting discussion.

I don’t think we’ve been saying things over and over. The discussion has progressed well. At any rate, you’ve got the capabilities of breaking out of a circular discussion and taking a different tack.

I can only assume that you can see the fundamental sense in what I am saying and that it really is nonsensical to argue against it ( :>)

<< Having a moral compass is one thing, being moral is another. Many moral compasses do not point to the north. >>

Ah but Yuyutsu, what is north for you may far from north for someone else. But both your and the other person’s moral compasses may be just as legitimate.

Moral dilemmas are everywhere. One person’s moral position clashes with another’s all the time.

I find myself in an almost constant moral dilemma when driving.

I desire to totally respect the speed limit and other road rules, but I also desire to keep things as harmonious and safe as possible. These desires clash.

In just about all instances, most drivers travel a few kms over the speed limit, and if you travel at the speed limit, or a bit under which you should in order to make sure you don’t inadvertently slip over it, you incur impatience from other drivers, resulting in tailgating and a generally increased risk of conflict and mishap.

So perhaps the higher moral position is to exceed the speed limit and roll with the flow, in order to keep things as harmonious and safe as possible.

It is that assumption of yours that confirms my decision to leave this particular sandpit, Ludwig.

>>I can only assume that you can see the fundamental sense in what I am saying and that it really is nonsensical to argue against it ( :>)<<

The discussion has been moving backwards along a single track of your choosing, instead of opening up avenues for examination and debate.

Consider for a moment how far from the topic - the "relationship between the moral and economic deficit in Australia" - we have strayed, and you might just see what I mean.

Have a great day.

But Pericles, you have entertained this ‘wayward’ discussion, without attempting to broaden or redirect it, yes?

And besides, it’s not really off-track at all. Many OLO discussions move into broader realms than what the particular article has focussed on.

So if you’d like to take a different tack, well removed from the narrow and wayward focus that we have apparently been on, then I’m all ears….or…..eyes and fingers on the keyboard! I’m happy to discuss with you whatever aspect of this subject that may be of your choosing.

Dear Ludwig,

You need not find yourself in a moral dilemma every time you drive. For one thing, it is dangerous, detracting your attention from the road, so better sit down on your couch, gather the facts, then work it all out in advance.

What, if any, makes driving over a speed-limit immoral?

You are driving on a road that's on a land which is not yours.
If that land is owned by another, then you need their permission to enter.
That permission can be conditional: "you may enter so long as you don't pick up flowers", or "you may enter so long as you don't drive faster than xxK/h".

So first question is: "Does the presumed land-owner (government/state) indeed have ownership over that land?"

If your answer is 'Yes', then the second question is: "Does the land-owner indeed forbid you to drive faster on their land?"

If your answer is 'Yes', then by driving above the speed-limit you are guilty of trespassing, in other words, stealing, which is immoral.

Or you may answer 'No', the land-owner only said that "it is illegal to go over the speed-limit", with the intent that if you drive faster, then they may penalise you, rather than accuse you of trespassing.

Then you have a moral challenge: what if they're not sure and ask you, "how fast did you drive?". Would you tell a lie to escape punishment?

Wouldn't it then be easier to avoid exceeding the speed-limit in order to avoid the risk of lying?
But if you feel strong enough in your conviction that you will either speak the truth or remain silent, come what may, then why not go ahead and drive faster?

The same outcome is reached if you answered 'No' to the first question (as for example every aboriginal would).

So unless you answered 'Yes' to both questions, the morality of driving faster depends on your courage and determination to avoid lying in case you are caught by police.

P.S. incurring impatience from other drivers is not a moral consideration, but merely a matter of convenience.

Yuyutsu
Your criticism of my remarkably fine theory of rights seems to be inconsistent. On the one hand you say it's got meaning but lacks "substance". You didn't say why "nothing on earth could confer that type of ownership", but I presume you meant because it's not enforceable on outer planets. (As I said, this doesn't matter, because it doesn't become an issue until there's a scarcity-based conflict between human beings.)

When I responded that it is enforceable wherever it matters, you criticise if for requiring the consent of governments.

That appears to be self-contradictory. The fact it's enforceable negates your earlier criticism.

Why does my theory lack substance? It applies wherever humans might experience conflict over the use of scarce resources. It does not *require* a State to enforce it, (the owner or his agents can), but on the other hand, if a State does enforce it, that's fine.

As for requiring the consent of States, you could say the same about any theory of rights: the right is overridden in practice if the most powerful party in fact disregards it. That doesn't disprove the theory, it only shows that aggressive violence is a problem, whether it's being done by the mafia or the State.

Ludwig
What would be an example of a restriction on an owner's freedom to use his land, that is not based on infringing the personal or property rights of others.

If the wider community thought it fair and reasonable to criminalise homosexual acts, witchcraft, or a particular religion, would that justify their using force to impose their will?

All
Therefore the only moral principle that could further the moral wellbeing of the nation, consistent with the exercise of power to achieve it, is the principle of liberty.

<< What would be an example of a restriction on an owner's freedom to use his land, that is not based on infringing the personal or property rights of others. >>

Jardine, I can’t think of a single one. Can you?

Every restriction is fundamentally in place because the freedom to undertake unrestricted activities would or could result in the infringement of others’ rights, now or in the future. Maybe well into the future, by way of a degraded environment, for example.

Or possibly there are some restrictions that don’t impinge on human rights at all, but do impinge on the rights of flora and fauna, by way of the protection of rare species, their habitats, and even of common species unless they are pests and their treatment is legal. Although you could say that restrictions of this sort do give us a better quality of environment, which is an important aspect of human rights.

<< If the wider community thought it fair and reasonable to criminalise homosexual acts, witchcraft, or a particular religion, would that justify their using force to impose their will? >>

The will, or the best interests, of the wider community as enshrined in law, obviously needs to be enforced to be meaningful. That may require considerable force in relation to serious matters if the offender keeps ignoring an order to cease and desist.

"Jardine, I can’t think of a single one. Can you?"

No, I can't. Thank you for conceding the general issue.

"The will, or the best interests, of the wider community as enshrined in law, obviously needs to be enforced to be meaningful."

We have just established there is no moral justification for political action, law or policy to override the personal or property rights of others, which is probably why you don't agree with slavery, killing homosexuals or burning witches, do you, *even if* a majority of the wider community were to consider it fair and reasonable.

<< No, I can't. Thank you for conceding the general issue.>>

Not sure what you think I’ve conceded here. But you seem to have conceded that there is a good reason for each and every law (notwithstanding that many are overdone or undercooked and not adequately regulated) and that they are all related to the protection of the common good and the rights of us all therein.

<< We have just established there is no moral justification for political action, law or policy to override the personal or property rights of others… >>

We have??

Sorry you’ve lost me there.

We need political action, law and policy to protect the rights of the majority, to ensure that we all have similar rights, to plan for a healthy future for all of society, to control the ruthless and unscrupulous elements and to stop the tragedy-of-the-commons scenario from playing out, whereby the most aggressive get most of what is going and those who lay back a bit get very little if anything.

Political action, law and policy don’t override personal or property rights. They ensure that we all have these rights.

“Not sure what you think I’ve conceded here.”

You just lost the entire argument.

“But you seem to have conceded that there is a good reason for each and every law (notwithstanding that many are overdone or undercooked and not adequately regulated) and that they are all related to the protection of the common good and the rights of us all therein.

No, that’s just you being confused and going around in circles as usual. You were completely unable to defend what you have just suggested in that paragraph, remember?

“<< We have just established there is no moral justification for political action, law or policy to override the personal or property rights of others… >>

We have??

Sorry you’ve lost me there.”

That’s because you’re too dumb to understand what you’re talking about.

You were unable to find any example of a justification of overriding the principle of liberty, other than to defend the personal or property rights of others. Remember?

*Think* Ludwig. Don’t just yabble-yarp. Actually think of a restriction on an owner's freedom to use his land, that is not based on infringing the personal or property rights of others.

If you can’t, it means you’ve just lost the argument, and everything you just wrote shows either complete intellectual confusion, or complete intellectual dishonesty.

And if you can, what is it?

“We need political action, law and policy to protect the rights of the majority, to ensure that we all have similar rights, to plan for a healthy future for all of society, to control the ruthless and unscrupulous elements and to stop the tragedy-of-the-commons scenario from playing out, whereby the most aggressive get most of what is going and those who lay back a bit get very little if anything.”

The tragedy of the commons is caused by *not* private property, dumbo.

And it’s you who’s in favour of aggression, remember? And when I asked you to justify it other than by the principle of liberty, you couldn’t, remember?

Instead of just garbling on thoughtlessly, why don’t you actually try to understand what you’re talking about?

<< That’s because you’re too dumb to understand what you’re talking about. >>

<< Instead of just garbling on thoughtlessly, why don’t you actually try to understand what you’re talking about? >>

Well Jardine, we did have a couple of reasonable exchanges there. It looked as though it could have developed into a meaningful conversation.

But alas, you blew it.

I’m not interested in any further correspondence with you. Bye.

Dear Jardine,

<<You didn't say why "nothing on earth could confer that type of ownership", but I presume you meant because it's not enforceable on outer planets.>>

Had this been what I meant, then indeed I would be contradicting myself. However this wasn't.

The reason nothing on earth could confer such strong/perfect/ideal ownership on a person is that in order to confer it, someone else, the conferrer, must have had that same level of ownership in the first place - but how then did the other person come to have it? Either this is a case of 'turtles all the way down' or some divine being or power conferred it on an historical human. Since you don't seem to believe the latter, I don't think that I need to argue against it.

<<Therefore the only moral principle that could further the moral wellbeing of the nation, consistent with the exercise of power to achieve it, is the principle of liberty.>>

Almost:sentence

A moral principle has to be a verb, a directive, while 'liberty' describes a state-of-affairs.
Also, a nation cannot have "moral wellbeing" since it is not a conscious entity. What you probably refer to, regards the morality or otherwise of legislators and executioners who act on behalf of a nation.

So the corresponding moral principle should be to AVOID DENYING THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS.

I agree.

Dear Ludwig,

<<We need political action, law and policy to protect the rights of the majority, to ensure that we all have similar rights, to plan for a healthy future for all of society, to control the ruthless and unscrupulous elements...>>

This statement can be made true by changing only one word, substituting 'need' with 'want'.

The question is whether it is morally correct to achieve what we want on the back of others.

Is it?

---

Dear Jardine again,

Getting one word wrong does not justify calling someone 'dumbo':
If you read Ludwig's corrected statement ('want' instead of 'need'), we all sometimes have immoral desires and so-long as we don't act on them that's OK. I think you should apologise to Ludwig.

“The reason nothing on earth could confer such strong/perfect/ideal … how then did the other person come to have it? “

I didn’t say anything about conferring ownership. I said “ownership denotes a right to use something to the exclusion of others, using force if necessary to exclude them.” There’s no need to assume that someone confers ownership, and there’s no reason why others cannot recognise such ownership; and no reason inconsistency in others, including a State, undertaking to defend it.

I don’t see why you characterise such ownership as “strong/perfect/ideal”. No-one here has yet established any just principle for any other kind.

“A moral principle has to be a verb, a directive, while 'liberty' describes a state-of-affairs.”

The moral principle I refer to is the principle of liberty, which is, you should be free to do what you want so long as you are not aggressing against the person or property of others. The verb is “be”, adverb “should”.

“Also, a nation cannot have "moral wellbeing" since it is not a conscious entity. What you probably refer to, regards the morality or otherwise of legislators and executioners who act on behalf of a nation.”

The nation, considered as all the people in the group denoted, can have moral wellbeing. And if the moral principle involved is true, and universal, then there’s no reason why the same moral principle cannot apply to all. I assert that the principle of liberty is true and universal, because
a) founded on the self-evident truth of a right to self-ownership, and
b) it cannot be denied without self-contradiction.

The moral proscription is on anyone, including legislators or officials, aggressing against the person or property of others.

I’m sorry Ludwig. I apologise for being insulting. Obviously your advocating physical violence against me is much more offensive.

You have given no reason for infringing the principle of liberty. After repeatedly evading, you finally admit you cannot exemplify a justification, and then, having conceded what's in issue, you keep popping back up again stubbornly re-asserting the same disproved and indefensible belief system.

I wrote:

>> We need political action, law and policy to protect the rights of the majority, to ensure that we all have similar rights, to plan for a healthy future for all of society, to control the ruthless and unscrupulous elements.. <<

Yuyutsu, you replied:

<< This statement can be made true by changing only one word, substituting 'need' with 'want'. >>

No no, we NEED it! We absolutely need it. We need laws that apply equally to everyone, so that the ruthless and aggressive elements won’t be allowed run amok over the top of the rest of us, and reduce our rights right down to the bare minimum.

Hey, it’s always a difficult balancing act. Every law restricts our right to do something. But in so doing, it helps protect our rights, which would be more significantly eroded if the unscrupulous and self-centred elements had free reign.

Isn’t this obvious?

Jardine seems to completely miss this fundamental point. Can you appreciate it Yuyutsu?

We absolutely need a strong rule of law.

Surely it would be quite immoral to argue against this, which would be arguing for an anarchic, dog-eat-dog, bad-guys-win, horrible world, wouldn’t it?

Dear Jardine,

If ownership isn't conferred, then there is nothing sacred and absolute about it (or tell me what else possibly makes it sacred and absolute), hence no reason why EVERYONE should respect it. SOME may recognise it, others not, some may form a state to defend it, others ignore it.

We don't find true ownership in nature. What we see around is only quasi-ownership, mock-ownership, pretend-ownership, which lasts only until government eyes your property or until your neighbour is hungry.

Yes, you WANT to have ownership, but it's equivalent to Ludwig wanting equality. Neither exists, neither is natural. Ludwig for example wouldn't recognise your ownership because he believes in socialism and a dingo for example wouldn't recognise your ownership because it doesn't understand the concept. You may believe that you NEED your ownership, but so does Ludwig believe that he NEEDS equality. A dingo believes that it needs to fill its stomach.

What sacred principle allows you for example to kill the taxman and dingo on your property, to save your crops and stock, but not the policeman who stops you on the road or your neighbour's barking-dog from across the fence?

You mentioned "the self-evident truth of a right to self-ownership": while self-ownership is undeniable, it does not even imply ownership over your body. The evident truth is that people, especially at both ends of their life, do not own their bodies and are helpless while others care for it, how much more so before they are born and after their body dies.

Similarly, there is no moral principle of liberty, no moral imperative to "be free". Most of us want to be free and our liberty should indeed be respected and treated AS sacred, but not because it is a sacred moral principle in itself.

The underlying moral principle that indirectly upholds liberty, and to some degree also ownership, is non-violence, Ahimsa, or as Hillel puts it: "What you hate being done unto you, do not do unto your fellow". The moral imperative is thus to respect other people's liberty, rather than to demand your own.

Dear Ludwig,

Please read what I just wrote to Jardine: much of it applies to you as well, only interchanging "ownership" with "equality", "socialism" with "capitalism", etc.

<<We need laws that apply equally to everyone>>

But laws never apply equally to everyone. The letter-of-the-law may be the same, but some are pleasured while others are pained by them.

Imposing laws is a form of violence.

It may perhaps be excused when made in self-defence, but legislators must be extremely careful not to cross that boundary.

<<so that the ruthless and aggressive elements won’t be allowed run amok over the top of the rest of us...>>

I appreciate that you want this, but utmost care should be taken to avoid using violence in order to achieve your goals, unless it's absolutely needed for self-defence.

<<Hey, it’s always a difficult balancing act.>>

Balancing between your wishes and hurting others?

Hurting others is wrong, but understandable if you must do it in self-defence. Ideally you should turn the other cheek, but that's not a realistic expectation from ordinary people.

<<Every law restricts our right to do something.>>

No, every law restricts our freedom to do something: see below.

<<But in so doing, it helps protect our rights, which would be more significantly eroded if the unscrupulous and self-centred elements had free reign.>>

What gives us 'rights' other than the law itself?
More laws mean more 'rights', requiring even more laws to protect them, hence even more violence.

Best stay away from 'rights' in the first place. Use legislation only as last resort to prevent violence and fraud against your people.

<<Surely it would be quite immoral to argue against this, which would be arguing for an anarchic, dog-eat-dog, bad-guys-win, horrible world, wouldn’t it?>>

Are you claiming that I am immoral? Anarchy put simply, is acknowledging that no person has a right to rule over another, to control another, to use violence against another. That a group of people organise to form a state, doesn't grant them any more moral powers than the sum of the moral powers those people had to begin with.

"If ownership isn't conferred, then there is nothing sacred and absolute about it ... hence no reason why EVERYONE should respect it."

I'm not saying that ownership is sacred or absolute, I'm saying that the moral principle underlying ownership and the principle of liberty is universal. It's universal because you can't deny it without performing a self-contradiction - as Ludwig is doing.

"The evident truth is that people, especially at both ends of their life, do not own their bodies and are helpless while others care for it ..."

Firstly that provides no justification for using force or threats to command others' obedience when they are not babies or incapacitated by old age. It is not okay to treat the entire population as incompetents, as wards of those wise guardians the government. Even if that premise were granted which it's not, then obviously it raises the question why the guardians should not also be presumed incompetent. Thus the whole approach must founder in self-contradiction.

Secondly, babies and children in all societies form a special exception to the rules applying to adults, and I reject confusing the case of the latter with the former.

Thirdly, the fact of old age is not a reason why the aged person's consent should not be required to their treatment.

Property originates in one of three ways:
a) by appropriating something from its unowned state in nature
b) by transforming it by one's own labour
c) by voluntary exchanges with others.

All presuppose the universal morality of the principle of liberty.

The facts that no-one can deny these without performing a self-contradiction, and that human society is not possible without them, establish my proof that liberty and property are the universal foundations of morality, without the need for recourse to any conjecture of what is sacred or absolute. Force is justified to defend liberty and property, no more.

The question is not whether one verbally agrees. The question is whether one can deny the principle without self-contradiction.

I say you can't. But if you can, how

Dear Jardine,

I definitely wouldn't deny liberty.

The principle of liberty is a very useful abstraction: all I am saying is that it is not a fundamental or a moral principle per se, but rather a derivative of deeper and more fundamental principles.

<<All presuppose the universal morality of the principle of liberty.>>

While the principle of liberty is compatible with morality, in fact a derivative thereof, it is not in itself a moral principle.

Now here's a contradiction: if it is universal, then it should apply on every planet, over any species, over young and old alike, including over children, but you disagree!

I assume that you don't really think that the principle of liberty begins to take hold at 00:00:00 of one's 18th birthday (otherwise government could take away your liberty by cancelling day-light-saving!).

I don't know how you explain this dichotomy away - my explanation is that liberty is not the ground principle, but non-violence.

As for ownership, it is a derivative of liberty, so being a derivative of a derivative, it is not as clear and accurate a concept. Nevertheless, it is very useful.

In a society where the roots of liberty are not well understood, revered and followed, ownership can be used as a buffer to shield oneself from violence. Had the roots of liberty been respected, then we would have no need for property and ownership, but as it stands, we unfortunately do.

Yuyutsu
I don't think there's any substantial difference between us.

I think you're right in that the principle of non-violence is the basis of the whole thing. From that directly follows the right of self-ownership, because what freedom from other people's aggressions means is that you ought to be (statement of right) free to exercise exclusive possession and use of your own body, subject to the equal rights of others. This in turn implies the right to claim unowned natural resources, else no-one could ever make use of natural resources. And it also implies the right of voluntary exchanges, without which human society would not be possible.

The Ludwigs of this world aren't interested in any meaningful discussion because every single time he presents a circular argument that simply assumes the beneficence of governmental intervention, and when you question it, he just falls back to the same assumption.
"Government doing x is beneficial".
"How do you know it's beneficial".
"Because government does it."

All statist argument is just different variants of that.

For example he said he believes in limited government. But when you ask him on what principle it is to be limited, he eschews principle, and says to the effect that each case needs to be decided on its merits by reference to all interested parties. It's not just that it's impossible in practice. It doesn't make sense in theory either, because there is nothing in what he proposes that intrinsically acknowledges any legitimate limitation on government power.

In a prior argument on sustainability, he again said he doesn't stand for totalitarianism but called for thoroughgoing control of everything, and when asked what the limting principle would be, said "I don't know." Real mid-brain stuff. Herding and bleating instinct.

Jardine and Yuyutsu,

There is no such thing as unconditional liberty;
and no such thing as unconditional ownership - of anything (save only of one's own body - but then, only in a society, culture or state which respects the individual's right to keep that body intact, and not see some 'bodies' as merely machines to do work or as store-houses of body parts for the use of others).

'Liberty' may only be exercised within the constraints set down by law (and in many cases within the constraints accepted and applied by the culture, religion, moral code or behavioural norms of the relevant society).
That some may appear 'above the law', or beyond the moral constraints of the relevant society, is the fault of the law or the code - or of its lack of vigour or enforcement - and not a failure of the society itself to endeavour to exercise 'moral vigour'.
Societies may exhibit aspects of what may be considered to be a 'universal' moral code, but, as there seems to be no actual codification of such a code, it appears clear that no society on earth can now be exercising such a code - though perhaps Bhutan has some genuine inclination in this direction:

"P.M. Thinley (whose country Bhutan has endorsed Gross National Happiness) suggested that focusing on happiness worldwide was essential if the world was to get on a sustainable trajectory. Last summer, led by Bhutan, the UN unanimously adopted a measure “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development.”

Could 'gross national happiness' perhaps then be the primary subject of any supposed 'moral deficit'? (Anywhere.)

Pericles,

>There is no morality inherent in the ownership of land.<

Some indigenous groups and peoples would perhaps disagree.
TBC>

<Cont'd>

Ludwig,

Thank heaven for your sanity (and for your moral stamina under great provocation). I agree with your propositions and your arguments entirely - as would any 'reasonable' person (ie, one not pushing some weird or unusual personal philosophy or view of individual 'rights').

Clean air, land and water are the reasonable expectation of every being on the planet (human and otherwise - though only the caring speak for non-humans), as should be reasonable freedom from hazard from unscrupulous land-'owners' or business 'proprietors'.
'Free-for-all' "Liberty" is the province of dictators, potentates, war-lords and the otherwise 'deluded' or unscrupulous. (Ie, the truly selfish, power-hungry or just plain stupid.)

'Morality', or Responsibility to Others - for their, and your reciprocal, right to a reasonable 'quality of life'? What's the difference? Semantics: or jiggling our chains?

Perhaps, Saltpetre.

>>"There is no morality inherent in the ownership of land"
Some indigenous groups and peoples would perhaps disagree.<<

But on what moral grounds would they disagree?

They may, once upon a time, have eschewed the concept of land ownership amongst themselves. But I suspect that may have been a purely social construct that suited their tribal relationships.

Let's not forget that one of the most prominent features of the past fifty-odd years of aboriginal affairs has been their intense focus on land ownership.

To the point where no formal meeting in which the government is present can start without an acknowledgment of the traditional ownership... "I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is being held on Aboriginal land... etc. etc"

Would you consider this to be fundamentally immoral?

Hey, perhaps you do.

Dear Saltpetre,

I was looking at Bhutan as inspiration for something closer to an ideal society than we have in the West, even playing with the idea of living there, but alas, since they introduced television in 1999 it started going downhill.

<<There is no such thing as unconditional liberty;>>

Agreed. Liberty is not a primary value: the value behind it is non-violence. By practising non-violence, others enjoy their liberty.

It is crucial to distinguish between action and result: Right action is within our power, thus our duty, while the results of our action are not within our power, thus are not. In this particular case, non-violence is one's moral duty while living-at-liberty is not (though it's nice when it happens).

Morality exists and is universal even if it cannot be codified. You cannot expect a written 'universal moral-code' because every situation and every person/animal are different, yet sages have given us general principles to follow such as non-violence, honesty and non-stealing. The more intelligent one is, the more they should be expected to follow morality.

Society is not a moral construct because it is based on seeking results, rather than on morality.

While society is not expected to be moral, hopefully we should expect society to not be immoral. The fact that a number of people gather for one purpose or another and call themselves 'society' does not grant them exemption from morality, allowing them to do things which would otherwise be immoral for the sum of those people to do.

Specifically, it's immoral for a gathering of people to automatically assume that others are part of their group without seeking their consent, then make laws that also apply to those others, then use violence to enforce those laws. Moreover, it is also immoral to become part of, or cooperate with, such a group which does the above. Needless to say that people who never voluntarily agreed to belong to 'society' are under no moral obligation to follow its laws (though those who agreed are morally-bound by their agreement).

To counter moral-deficit, operate on moral-principles rather than on result-seeking.

Pericles,

Would they not, or some at least, consider the annexation of their former tribal territories by an outside 'invader' to be immoral? It seems the answer is most would and do.

I don't get you. How would you possibly construe from my posting that I might consider native land title or recognition to be 'immoral'?
(Some claims a bit far-fetched perhaps, but that is a highly vexed and contentious question, and beyond the point of our current discussion.)
I merely questioned whether your statement was accurate, by giving a possible (or potential and probable) exception.
(Or am I somehow misusing or misinterpreting what may be considered a 'moral' issue?)

And what of the great national moral dilemna (or deficit) or our time?
Is that now a finalised, and fully defined, issue (or subject) - for I have seen little of genuine discussion of this on this thread (except for those calling my earlier post in this regard 'utopian' - or impractical) - or are we happy to consider the author's proposition as 'handled', or as too ill-defined to be worthy of further serious evaluation?

Yuyutsu,

>Specifically, it's immoral for a gathering of people to automatically assume that others are part of their group without seeking their consent, then make laws that also apply to those others, then use violence to enforce those laws.<

I cannot agree. Live in a society (or nation) and one is deemed to be a part of that society (or at least as having to abide by its laws and generally understood mores and codes of conduct) or else can only be considered to be an alien - and still having to abide by the law and moral code in operation. No-one can be exempt - in any 'modern' society at least.
As for 'violence', I find it absurd that enforcement of the law of the land should be considered 'violence' (or perhaps cruel and unusual punishment), for it is, in our society at least, merely 'enforcement' in the common interest of security and stability and the preservation of human rights.

>.. people who never voluntarily agreed to belong to 'society' are under no moral obligation to follow its laws ..<

Sorry, but I definitely cannot agree - and if anyone flouts the law they will soon receive confirmation that they are not exempt.

Though you may consider the law not to be based on common morality, but rather on perhaps the whim or contemplation of some faceless men, the application of the law, and the judicial system, should clearly stand to demonstrate that 'morality' is, or is usually, at the base of any fair and unbiased legal system and system of laws.

>To counter moral-deficit, operate on moral-principles rather than on result-seeking.<

Any society which does not seek results will not persist.
However, the morality of the methods employed, and even of the results sought, can stand as a measure of the general moral standards of that society.
No-one left behind? Or, let the devil take the hindmost?
You may not wish to protect the rights of others, but someone should (and must) - or all is chance, opportunism, and, potentially, chaos.

Dear Saltpetre,

Your argument clearly comes down to "might is right":

<<if anyone flouts the law they will soon receive confirmation that they are not exempt.>>

Yes, I am well aware that your society/state has guns, trained policemen, helicopter gunships, sniffer and attack dogs, surveillance and many other oppressive capabilities.

But we are not arguing the facts of modern societies - we are arguing their morality or lack thereof.

You believe that your society's goals (such as "No-one left behind") are good? then why not try to convince others by peaceful means? If others believe this too, then won't they cooperate?

But no, you don't really trust that you can convince them peacefully, so you "deem" them to be yours, whether they like it or not!

<<Live in a society (or nation) and one is deemed to be a part of that society>>

The above is a tautology, but you hiddenly assume that all people live in a/your society. Many of us however just live our God-given life on God's earth, and although we happen to live in your physical proximity, this doesn't mean that we took a body and came to live in this world in order to be part in your society.

<<I find it absurd that enforcement of the law of the land should be considered 'violence'>>

There is no such 'law of the land' - laws are made by people, not by the land. Now you claim the land itself as belonging to your particular group. You have not asked permission from the people who live on that land nor from the land itself, then you say that it is not violence - what an absurd!

<<Any society which does not seek results will not persist.>>

Well, here is your bias: YOU want to persist, so much intent on that goal that you will not bother trying to enlist others' peaceful cooperation. You WANT to persist and you will do whatever it takes to achieve it - including killing others who won't cooperate, if necessary.

Then you still dare call this moral?

Dear Yuyutsu,

The responsible majority surely seek and want 'peaceful cooperation', but unfortunately this cannot always be relied upon - as there will always unfortunately be those who choose to cut corners, to seek unfair advantage, to 'rort' the system or simply to pursue a criminal/outlaw career. History, past and present, provides testament to the marvellous variety of 'con-jobs', scams, oppression and inhumanity perpetrated by various deviant (and even supposedly 'normal') cultures and individuals in many sectors of global humanity.

When we talk 'morality', is it 'moral' to simply excuse deviant and/or 'criminal' activity? To 'turn a blind eye' or 'the other cheek'? Almost certainly NOT - for the majority of 'our' Aus society at least. Can we effectively 'remove' ourselves from such segments of our community - and then leave the 'correction' or the 'reform' of any deviants (from the accepted moral code) to 'others' (who either choose to 'belong' to, or are unable to divorce themselves from the larger 'community')?
Isolationism? 'Head in the sand'? Neglectful, uncaring, cloistered and oblivious, or, in effect, 'running scared'?
Stand for something; or slink out and hide away from the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'??
(If your child was raped, would you want justice? What justice would you seek?)

Animals are not subject to 'morality', for they operate by instinct (or by human training - and in this instance the 'human' element may be subject to the 'morality' of their handling or of the consequent actions of such animals per the training or instruction provided); the land, air, water, mountains, valleys and plants are not of themselves subject to 'morality' - though what humans do with them may well be.

So, let's be clear, when we refer to 'morality' we're talking solely of what MAN does.
And, MAN includes individuals, society, culture, religion, states and nations; what any does may conform to, may 'offend', or may be in outright conflict with any relevant 'moral code'.
That there is no universally accepted (or applied) moral code is a deficiency and a major 'flaw' in global human 'civilization'.
TBC>

Cont'd>

Dear Yuyutsu,

You may well consider your mind/spirit and 'body' to be separate entities, but I would venture that for most of humanity these 'elements' of our 'existence' are inseparable and indivisible; a collective 'whole' is essentially what we have to work with.

As for divorcing yourself from other mortals, for most of us this is not an option; and, if we do not 'produce' we remain a burden on others.
If none produce, nothing is achieved, and then 'we' cannot survive.

Not 'guns', 'justice'; and a sound and generally implemented 'moral code' - by ourselves, our 'governments', our states, our 'culture' and our 'nation'.

Live 'here' on an ongoing basis and you ARE a part of 'us', like it, and believe it, or not. No man is an island (though some may pretend, or wish, to be).

Can governments, states and nations act 'morally' (including ethically, justly, 'legally', responsibly, accountably, and genuinely in the long-term common interest of their constituencies and the 'global community' as a whole)? I believe so - and this, I believe, is the 'nub' of the article.
How such 'morality' may be pursued effectively, IS the question.

Dear Saltpetre,

Anyone can act morally, but most don't want to.

Humans and animals are not different in essence: both are just a bunch of organic molecules which follow the laws of physics, so no morality is expected of either. However, morality can be expected of YOU, or anyone else who for the time-being happens to occupy a body.

If you rather work with "a collective 'whole'", then you prefer to work with a lie, or a false premise, or with blindness. This includes the delusion of "common interest".

That you value the survival of one body over another, or of one type of body over another is not a moral issue, but a personal preference.
While there is nothing wrong with having a preference, acting on preference rather than on moral principles, is what leads us down the garden-path.

The highest level of morality is to turn the other cheek; to avoid seeking any earthly justice, but instead to trust in God's justness and be equally content and thankful with whatever He brings into one's life. In fact the very highest level of morality is not to be born in the first place, but if for any reason or combination of reasons you are unable/unwilling to follow this, then there are lesser alternatives.

One reason why a universal moral-code is impossible is this multi-level morality. For those who cannot/would-not turn the other cheek, the next alternative is honourable defence only as a last resort. There are people whose natural and divine calling is to do just that: these are natural leaders and warriors, so they have their own code of secondary-morality. They are duty-bound and happy to sacrifice their life and limb for the well-being of others.

Modern society, however, is NOT led by the above who follow this secondary-morality. Modern society is led by greed, lust and darkness.

True leaders that follow secondary-morality are far between, so democracy unfortunately, which gives equal say to the masses, while preventing the worst type of dictators, also prevents true leadership by the above.

(continued...)

(...continued)

For those who cannot/would-not follow even secondary-morality, there are lesser-still levels of tertiary-morality, including codes of honest-dealings and abiding by the laws set by the above leaders. However, that's not possible when society is not led by them.

Social-deviants are of two kinds: better and worse.
You only mentioned the latter.
Those who are deviants for the better, do not harm society, but typically seek a higher purpose rather than being part of it.

True leaders who follow secondary-morality do, in self-defence, rid society of the those deviants-for-the-worse, but revere those who are deviants-for-the-better, never suppressing them or ordering them around as they do for deviants-for-the-worse.

So in order for society to pursue even relative morality, the notion of 'equality' must be done with. We are not equal because some of us take greater responsibility and higher levels of morality than others.

We also need to let go of this victim-mentality: "I can't help it, it's my body...". If you chose to associate yourself with this particular body, then you ought to take responsibility for that choice of yours!

That's exactly my point, Saltpetre

>>Pericles, Would they not, or some at least, consider the annexation of their former tribal territories by an outside 'invader' to be immoral?<<

A society that allows people to own property clearly considers land ownership itself to be moral.

Theft - annexation, if you will - is usually regarded to be immoral.

Land ownership = moral; theft = immoral.

In the case of aboriginal land, it may well have been the situation that ownership of land was previously considered immoral in their societies, so they didn't practice it. However, in more recent times, they seem to have decided that ownership is not immoral after all.

Either that, or it was never immoral in the first place - they just hadn't thought of it before.

"Either that, or it was never immoral in the first place - they just hadn't thought of it before."

Could it have been a clever case of mystical logic similar to that in: What if it's trees moving that creates the wind?

What if it is the land (permanent) which 'owns' the people (transient stewards)?

Yuyutsu...?

Dear Trevor,

<<What if it is the land (permanent) which 'owns' the people (transient stewards)?

Yuyutsu...?
>>

Had morality been widely followed, then the need for ownership would not arise in the first place.

The reason we want to own things is that we feel unsafe, afraid that others will come and deny our needs, thus we use the concept of ownership to fortify against them.

It seems that in the old days aboriginals used to have other, if not better, methods to ensure that their needs are met, so ownership did not cross their minds. Now that they either lost access to those methods or those methods themselves lost their power, they recourse to ownership.

As for the earth, it has no needs to be denied (well, I do not believe in Gaia, do you?), hence it has no need to own anything or anyone.

Note that science discovered four elementary forces in nature (gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic). Ownership is not among them!

"(well, I do not believe in Gaia, do you?)" No, because I see no reason to believe in it any more than Gaia believes in me.

"Note that science discovered four elementary forces in nature (gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic)."

Yet I can't help thinking that is only because sneaky old nature doesn't want us to discover the other fundamentals... yet.

"Ownership is not among them!"

That does not stop me feeling sorry for all those molecules caught up in processes beyond their control and suffering involuntary theft of electrons by force.

I've heard it said that love makes the world go round, though I suspect it is gravity and that centrifigal force then makes it go pear-shaped

Saltpetre
"Can governments, states and nations act 'morally' (including ethically, justly, 'legally', responsibly, accountably, and genuinely in the long-term common interest of their constituencies and the 'global community' as a whole)? I believe so - and this, I believe, is the 'nub' of the article.
How such 'morality' may be pursued effectively, IS the question."

The question is how you can define morality in such a way as to justify the existence of government - except one limited to defend liberty and property - without contradicting yourself? That is the question.

I have never advocated "unconditional" liberty or property rights, but only ever liberty and property conditioned on, and limited by the equal right of all people to enjoy their liberty or property free of aggressive infringement by others.

But if you suppose the liberty and property are limited by some other principle, then you need to be able to say what that is.

And I have never seen anyone do it without contradicting themselves.

The problem is, if you assert that government is there to stand for some higher morality, then what is to stop government from aggressing against the person or property of others, from becoming itself the instrument of injustice?

So in the end, if you don't defend the principle of liberty or property, all you have is an open-ended claim to a right to arbitrary power - which is what Ludwig keeps defending - in other words, might is right, which is the opposite of morality, as well as the opposite of liberty.

But if I am wrong, then what is the principle that:
a) would define when liberty is excessive - other than infringing the person or property of others?, and
b) would delimit the legitimate powers of government from illegitimate excess or abuse of power?