"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.