Dear LEGO,

<<You seem to be implying that it is "immoral" for the majority in a democracy to impose its will on the minority.>>

It is immoral for anyone to impose their will on another, regardless whether they are in majority or otherwise.

<<people are free to choose whether they are subject to government control?>>

Obviously at the moment we are not free, but I say that this must not be unconditional, that we should be free to choose whether or not to belong to that society whose the government-in-question represents.

If we agree to be part of a society, then as part of its social-contract we may be obliged to be subject to the control of that society's government and there's nothing wrong with that. If however we choose not to belong to a particular society, then we ought not to be oppressed by the institutions of that society.

<<No society can function without laws governing personnel freedom.>>

That's fine so long as those laws only apply to those who freely belong to that society, but not if they also apply to others who never consented to belong.

<<Every freedom may infringe upon another person's freedom, and it is the right and the responsibility of governments to weigh the choices>>

Yes - WITHIN that society which it represents.

<<You proposed that it is OK to kill people but not to limit their freedom.>>

Yes, that's the other side of the coin: Laws should only apply WITHIN a society (consisting of individuals who freely agreed to belong to it) and I agree that WITHIN a society, killing people is probably not a good idea. Now, when people OUTSIDE society threaten those within, then that society has a natural right to defend itself. In that case, it's legitimate for the attacked society to do what it takes in order to maintain the safety of its members, including to kill if required, but not to attempt to apply its internal laws on those outside its jurisdiction.

So if a person within society commits a crime, they are jailed as common criminals.

(continued...)

(...continued)

If a person outside society commits a crime against others outside society, then it's none of the society's business.

If a person outside society commits a crime against people within society, then society fights them, perhaps wounding or killing them if that's what it takes, and if that person is captured, then their status would be of a P.O.W rather than of a criminal: they are not to be trialled and can be held captive for as long as they pose a potential threat to society (but not longer).

<<that aborigines can do whatever they damn well please because they are a conquered people>>

I make no special case for aborigines (as I wrote earlier, above: "The only wrong thing about it is that they failed to grant the same autonomy to everyone else who so desires."): ANY group who so desires, for whatever reason, not to be part of Australian society, should be able not to be part thereof.

For practical reasons, people who do not wish to belong to Australian society should live on their own separate, contiguous (no holes), piece of land where all the inhabitants choose the same (otherwise, there is a reasonable expectation that their presence at large, especially in cities and on public roads, can threaten their neighbouring Australians, hence they could be treated as enemies).

Aboriginals already fulfil that requirement for having their own separate, contiguous, piece(s) of land - now the only remaining requirements are that:

1) They indeed do not wish to be part of Australian society (this includes no welfare!)
2) NONE of those who live in particular reserve(s) wish to remain Australian (because if they do, then Australia needs to protect them).

Any other group of people that owns a reasonably-secluded piece of land, where they can live their life without interfering with others who do wish to belong to the Australian-society, should be able to do the same. Note that this may even perhaps include mixed groups of aborigines and non-aborigines.

If aborigines wish to live stone age bliss in racially apartheid states under their own indigenous governments, then they can go right ahead. You only have to look at every other self governing black society on planet earth to know what is going to happen. The black communities will revert to total barbarism while holding out the begging bowl to the rest of the world.

How you can consider primitive barbarism as a preferable outcome to advanced civilisation is beyond me.

Dear LEGO,

<<How you can consider primitive barbarism as a preferable outcome to advanced civilisation is beyond me.>>

One's duty is not to achieve outcomes - while man may plan and scheme, outcomes are up to God.
One's first duty is to avoid evil - and forcing oneself on others against their will is evil.

You claim that the result of aborigine independence is necessarily primitive barbarism: I'm not certain about it, but let's even assume it's so - both primitive and advanced civilisations have pros and cons, which must be weighed carefully according to one's heart's desire.

I have no preferences whatsoever in the matter of aborigines because I am not aboriginal.
If I were, then it would be my own tough decision to make, but as I am not, I respect whatever choice they make.

Society, primitive or modern, democratic or autocratic, small or large, rich or poor, white or black, whatever, has no right to exist if built on immoral grounds - and what could be more immoral than forcing itself upon others against their will?

The first and foremost principle must be that participation in society should be voluntary, then only we may consider secondary issues such as democracy vs. autocracy, republic vs. monarchy, primitivism vs. modernism, etc.

We have had "Sorry Day" which is now to be celebrated annually.

Many undoubtedly felt warm and fuzzy. In such a context, "sorry" is easy to say. What exactly has been achieved for our indigenous people since then?

What "sorry" has actually meant in practical, concrete terms is what needs to be addressed.

While I thank ‘Aristocrat’ for opening the debate, I don’t believe in ‘a morality that transcends time, place, cultures, and civilizations’ - that absolutist idea seems as fanciful as the claim that morality is whatever most people at any given time think it is. The latter, when you think about it, is a denial that there are moral values - there are only opinions on moral issues.

The aim of the paper was to bring out the difference between an excuse and a justification in order to assess the Liberal Party’s changing views on the apology. To clarify why John Howard could not (it seems) see the difference, I asked if one could be a moral sceptic on political values and at the same time a practising Christian and decent family man.

There is a common view that politicians across the board cannot be trusted because, once parties attain power, the values they profess to stand for are compromised for the sake of expedience. It is reflected in a belief that the public votes for the least worst party, which means the idea of a mandate is nonsense.

If the common view is right I would suggest two reasons; the first is the doctrine of party unity whereby members of major parties give up their conscience and judgment and toe the party line. In practice it means acting on the views of party leaders, as in the Iraq War and the apology. But to act on the views of another on issues of this kind is to give up any pretence to values, including values the party stands for.

The second is a pervasive scepticism about values, which has its roots in currently fashionable ideas about the nature of moral judgment on social and political matters; it emphasises the ‘subjective’ and ‘relativist’ character of judgment, seen in popular claims that ‘we all have different values’. Dworkin’s thesis is relevant precisely because it challenges the assumptions underlying this scepticism.

Finally, I believe Kant’s Categorical Imperative has so far withstood the tests of ‘time, place, cultures’ and endless criticism.

Max Atkinson