The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Should freedom ignore fairness? > Comments

Should freedom ignore fairness? : Comments

By Max Atkinson, published 19/11/2013

Much of the destructive force of politics comes from a belief that these ideals of freedom and fairness, because they are often in conflict, are incompatible.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
There are some interesting associations here between Martin Krygier, Quadrant and the publisher of Martin's book Black Inc.
Martins father was one of the founders of Quadrant. At one stage Martin was on the editorial board of Quadrant including the time when Robert Manne was its editor. A time when Quadrant published some of its best stuff including an essay by Hugh Stretton comparing the UK Corn Laws enclosures to the practices then being promoted by the neo-"conservatives" all over the Western world, and an essay by Ronald Conway which questioned all of the usual Christian orthodoxies.

Soon after the superb articles by Hugh Stetton and Ronald Conway Robert Manne was sacked as the editor of Quadrant. Martin and Robert were good friends and Martin also disagreed with the sacking. So as an act of sympathy he resigned from the board. Some time later he wrote this essay for The Monthly Magazine which is published by the owner of Black Ink, who is also a good friend of Robert Manne.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2006/december/1165812126/martin-krygier/usual-suspects

Quadrant has of course become far worse in recent years especially under the helm of the resident wind-bag who was appointed when Paddy McGuiness died. It has become a voice for back to the past one-dimensional Western (including Christian) fundamentalism. At one stage Quadrant (and the Oz too) was involved in an anti Robert Manne camnpaign.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 9:53:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the doctrine of unity Max refers to allowed Gillard to lie and form sleazy alliances in order to introduce a deceitful tax. Mentioning conscience is only relevant when it is not seared as those supporting the murder of the unborn demonstrate. This article is very cherry picking in nature.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 11:34:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How can the author possibly claim that freedom and fairness do not contradict?

The most obvious counter-example is that if I want to do something unfair (whatever that means), then either you let me - and fairness is broken; or you don't - and my freedom is broken.

The only way to have together both freedom and fairness is to limit the one or the other, or both.

Freedom is already limited (as should) in the case of hurting others. However, this does not go as far as preventing unfairness.

Any attempt to limit freedom further, would necessitate violence that is NOT in self-defence, hence would be immoral.

So is the case for fairness lost (without resorting to violence, which is unfair in itself)?

No: total fairness is impossible, but a limited form of fairness can exist along with freedom.

How?

Here is the formula:

1. Have fairness apply WITHIN SOCIETY, within each and every society that wants to have (and define) fairness.

2. Refrain from robbing away, violently, any individual's freedom to belong or not to society (or to any specific society).

Thus, belonging to society should be optional.
Those who wish to belong to society, may have to agree to practice some standards of fairness - but that agreement, unlike the current situation, would be freely entered.

What about those who would not wish to belong to society?

They will obviously fail to benefit from the the advantages of being part of society. Also, their freedom will still be restricted, but only to the extent that they harm or endanger others within society, not beyond that. What they do by themselves or among themselves, including whether they treat each other fairly or not, is none of society's business since they are not part thereof.

(an interesting analogy is how society treats wild animals - humans should not be treated any worse).

This is the only fair and moral way ahead.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 12:50:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author says, "Government is limited by the compromises inherent in a system which sees 90% of Republicans in Congress, and an indecent number of Democrats, receive funds from the NRA".

So bloody what?!

In so doing the author implies there is something wrong with the millions of highly respectable, law-abiding citizens who are members of the NRA, abhor crime and would never commit an offence themselves. The example is unnecessary to the article and show how easily personal prejudice can over-rule good sense and evidence, even in highly trained legal professionals.

I left the rest of the article unread, why wonder what other secondary agendas the author might have beneath the cloak of concern for the 'fairness' he and other 'liberal' progressives like him would themselves define, because they always presume to know what is best for others.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 19 November 2013 1:15:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy