oh dear Don, this is worst than your climate change articles and this is apparently your area of expertise.

If I condense what you've said it's this....People on the left believe that humanity has an ultimate destiny and that they have no logical basis for believing that.

The idea that humanity should progress to a brighter future is shared by just about everyone, it's just the means in which to achieve it or what a brighter future actually is that we can't agree on.

Ironically the Babylon 5 sifi series is a great story to watch on this very subject. i won't spoil it for those that have not sen it, however it boils down to this.

What is the best method of driving progress, cooperative endevour or competitive conflict. In our history we have seen both drive us forward.

There's no longer a left or right in politics, just up or down good policy versus bad policy and progressive politicians lined up against entrenched positions and vested interest? Usually one and the same?

It was progressive conservative Christians and the odd Jew, who outlawed slavery, child labor, and drove emancipacion?

Sadly, these examples are very far and few today, with most of the conservatives, and some of the laborites, in the pockets of big business, none bigger it would seem, than the four trillion plus a year fossil fuel industry?

And at complete odds with the greatest moral imperative of the century, real action on real, human created or caused, climate change!?

None of which needs in any way shape or form to actually ever impact in any negative way whatsoever on our economy, but rather the very opposite in the hands of those whose moral compass is still functioning?

Turbocharge it beyond any previous experience or history, but especially for the pathfinders who lead and show the way, with a two pronged attack that massively lowers the individual and corporate tax burden and the cost of energy!

And that difficult or simple, depending on your rusted on ideology or lack thereof!

Thinking inside a fixed circle of ideas, limits the questions. And if the questions are limited, so also are the answers!
Alan B.

I'm wasn't aware that the Left even had a moral basis.

Those on the left tend towards being openly materialists/atheists (while those on the right are often functionally materialists/atheists).

If materialism/atheism is true then there is no ultimate goal toward which anyone can progress. Each person can have their preferences about things but no preference is better than another and there is nothing that anyone ought to do, ever.

“Progress”, “purpose” and “morality” are all empty terms in a materialistic universe.

I expected more from someone who has been on the forefront of academe all his working life. Missing in his appraisal of the Left is two thousand years of Christianity with its focus on the neighbour. I am used to Australian academics in all fields ignoring the Christian intellectual heritage but it always comes as a shock. Don's use of the phrase "human species" is a give away.

@JP what rot, the fact is that Christianity like all religions is a human construct, and you pick and choice which one you wish to believe in.

If your going to seriously tell the rest of us that some how you know the truth to the validity of any religious claims then you better have some remarkable evidence to back it up.

If as I suspect you only have your personal conviction then you really are a fool.

Sells who is a deacon ( I think?? sorry Sells ) is humble enough to understand that his christian belief is a choice he has made. you're into bat excrement crazy runner territory if you think over wise.

Thank you Don for this brilliant article.

The Hindu view is that quality-of-life is cyclical, not linear. Nevertheless, unlike society as a whole, we as individuals are capable of elevating ourselves to escape and transcend those cosmic and social cycles.

ttbn,

"I'm wasn't aware that the Left even had a moral basis."
That would explain a lot!

The moral basis of the Left is a fair go for everyone. You can forget Don's waffle, but please don't forget this!

Wow Aidan, that's a good one.

From what I have seen the only "moral basis of the Left" I have ever been able to find, is to get very rich as quickly as possible, at the cost of the rank & file dummies you can command.

Can you name any left leader who departed any office poorer than he entered it?

While on this lefty stuff Don, would you please if you can, explain why all lefties profess a belief in the Global warming hooey, & if you see this belief as a fact, or merely something they wish to use for political gain.

Yes the Left too frequently seems to be about Guilt, Apology backed up by an ignorance of history.

Australia's Greens provide a good example. The vast white majority in Australia apparently should apologise for their existence and all other groups are self-evidently morally superior, be they Aboriginal activists, muslim refugees or Japanese residents of Hiroshima.

Greens, like Hanson-Young, seem to enjoy a kind anti-white determinism - justifying Greens getting re-elected to high paying jobs in Canberra.

Aiden,
Its not a fair go for everyone if you end up destroying everything.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/how-tyrants-arise-platos-eerily-accurate-words/

Cobber – you may be right that Christianity cannot prove its religious claims, but whether you are right or not about that, it still remains the case that in a materialistic/atheistic universe, “progress”, “purpose” and “morality” are all empty terms.

You say that I would be a fool to rely on my personal convictions: I am curious as to what you rely on apart from your personal convictions?

yep the left very much believe in solving problems and imaginery problems with other peoples money. That is why they are into big Government and Government funded positions. Conservatives are much more likely to use their own money in the causes they believe in. Look at how Rudd and Gillard were so free in giving away tax payer money as well as supporting all the charlotans involved in the gw scam. Gillard dumbed down the education sector by getting the public purse to pay for thousands of degrees that were never going to result in real jobs. The leftist secular ideology has failed almost every part of society.

Most, if not all of the millions of human beings who participate in the organizations listed on this site would be on the left side of the culture wars divide.
http://www.dabase.org/GCF.htm
And as such their participation is based on a justifiable moral concern for the betterment of the human situation - as much as that is possible and necessary in any given location.
The idea of a linear time line "governing" the affairs of humankind has its origins in the Christian idea of his-story.

First of all God "created" the "world" in a specific one-off act (day ONE) And "he" has a "plan" for humankind which will be "worked out" in linear his-story.
Secondly the drama of "Jesus" created an all-encompassing meaning to the presumed "plan" and significance to the mortal human drama.

His-story is thus moving in a linear direction and its ultimate significance and purpose will occur when "Jesus" reappears at some defined point in linear history to "redeem" all of humankind.

And of course the earnestness of the Christian POLITICAL project to convert all human beings to the one-true-way is supposedly given "divine warrant" by the "great commission" to convert all nations or more correctly all human beings to the one-true-way.
Of course Jesus who was never ever in sense a Christian never ever gave such a warrant/commission.

But what is the nature of the "world"? Is it a fixed very concrete thing, or is a much more fluid plastic which can be (and is) trans (trance)formed by ones presumptions about it.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/spirit-of-buddhism

And what about applied right-wing politics, or the politics of "there is no other way" as stated by Margaret Thatcher.
These two references sum up their applied politics, as does the book The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein in which she describes in great detail the phenomenon described in the first reference below.
http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner
This stark image sums up the applied politics of all of the right-wing think tanks, including the IPA.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel21.htm

Don is exploring many difficult ideas here, which frankly seem to be beyond many commentators. As well, some are affronted by what he writes, the Marxist Left for example, with his exploration of inevitability. I very much agree with him that " .... we have to do the best we can. But I do my part without any sense of inevitability, and with often a worrying sense that there is too little recognition of what can go wrong, .... "

i.e. nothing is inevitable, including 'progress', it's something we have to constantly work for, it won't just happen. In one of his last papers, Karl Popper (1989) wrote that all of his life he had been trying to bring together the best of both liberalism and socialism. Many times, e.g. in his critiques of historicism, he tried to point out that, if a revolution didn't either come about 'inevitably' or 'inevitably' improve people's lives, then it would be better to avoid it and improve society wherever one could, incrementally. i.e. if you don't really know what you are doing or where you are going, first and foremost do no harm. And never plan as if other people can be sacrificed for your cause.

Yes, pretty wimpy, I know, but leave the sacrifice of the masses to tyrants.

The 'Left' is a very broad church. The 'Right' is a very broad church. The 'Centre' is a very broad church. Most of us hold firm beliefs which may stretch across church boundaries, but few would agree. But I would suggest that those who believe in the inevitability of progress may be more 'trans-church' than they think.

I look forward to more articles from Don (?) :)

Joe

Armchair,

"Its not a fair go for everyone if you end up destroying everything."
I agree absolutely. However if you look at changes in the form of government, you'll find it's a lot more complicated than Plato predicted, and there's no inevitable progression.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

It is indeed a good one, for it is an entirely accurate one.

I can't off hand name any political leader, left or right, who departed any office poorer than he entered it. Unfortunately the acquisition of wealth seems to be part of human nature, and people tend to feather their own nests whether they believe doing so is right or wrong. Though there are many on the right who see getting rich as inherently good, it's difficult to think of even one person on the left who even purported to have any moral basis for getting rich at others' expense. I suppose Evita might count, but that's about it.

As for global warming, it might have a lot to do with the right swallowing all the propaganda they read in the Murdoch Press (or in America's case, Fox News). In Europe (and indeed Africa, Asia and South America) the right are more willing to accept the facts.

______________________________________________________________________________________

runner,

The left make a distinction between government money and other people's money. They do of course accept that other people's money is a major source of government funding, but also accept that this is justified when government spending benefits everyone.

Hi Aidan,

The late David Lange, PM of NZ, lived in a state (housing commission) house before, during and after his time as PM. I think he died there. The current President of Uruguay is reported to live in a two-room cottage.

On the other hand, Ceausescu of Rumania built himself a two-thousand room palace. Probably from his life savings from his evening shift job. And would you suggest that current Chinese leaders are getting by just on their state salaries ? Does Mugabe live in a two-bedroom cottage ? Or are rumours of his string of palaces, around the world, nothing but lies ?

Caution: don't get between many on the Left and the chance to spend other people's money. On good causes, of course. Such self-sacrifice ! Brings a tear to the eye.

Joe

Hi Joe

Australia's Curtin-like saint of a politician, Neck Xenophon, is also known as a Man, of non-enriching, non-material, habits:

"People usually boast that their car is the latest model of a posh brand. Xenophon brags instead that his is a bomb, one of the cheapest cars on the market and almost a decade old."

He reputedly also lives in a cheap motel, when in Canberra.

A legend.

Pete

Aidan,

Your Left "fair go to all" uses the 'equality' myth to steal from those who have the money and give it to those who don't. The comrades overlook the fact that wealth has to be earned, and those who have not earned it have no right to the wealth of others. Give people money, and they will blow it all quickly, and come back for more. They don't appreciate it if it is free of effort on their part.

The Left idea of equality would see us all equal, alright: all broke, because the rich would soon stop producing money to give to bludgers. Your sort of system no longer exists. It has been tried and failed.

ttbn,

That's a very common myth used by those on the right to discredit the left, but if you consider it carefully you'll see it's mainly false.

Firstly, the left generally aren't calling for much more direct redistribution of wealth than there is now. Certainly not enough to destroy the incentive to work.

Secondly, those who are paying and those who are receiving are usually the same people in different stages of life.

Thirdly, of course wealth has to be earned, and there is a lot the government can do to enable and assist the population to do more high value work.

So while I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Your sort of system", I know it's not what I advocate.

The main objective of the left is for the government to provide better services. Do you have a problem with that?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth,

Where they live when they're in power doesn't actually address Hasbeen's question.

Tyrants tend to pretty quickly lose any ideology they start off with. As for the current Chinese leaders, they're all thoroughly corrupt. But remember, they joined the Chinese Communist Party not because of any leftist moral basis, but because it was the only legal political party in the country.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

I previously said:
I can't off hand name any political leader, left or right, who departed any office poorer than he entered it.

I've now thought of one: Clive Palmer (who was leader of the Palmer United Party).

A very good article by Don Aitken,questioning what reality the
ideology of the left and those with similar ideas on the right base
their beliefs on.

This idea they have of a new world order, the quaint idea of a global
village, where humans will live for evermore in love peace and harmony.

How do they think, they alone, in the space of their short lifespans as compared
to the 1,000,s of years of humans who went before them can bring this about.

If it was that easy to do, the wars, and the individual human search for prosperity,
(snouts in the trough), would have stopped by now.
But these people think they have such amazing ability, and assumed intellectual supremacy ,and understanding
that they alone in history, can change human nature and behaviour-after all this time.
This article points out that they have no reasonable premise for believing they can bring this about.

Dear Aidan,

«The moral basis of the Left is a fair go for everyone.»

Even for cows, sheep, chicken and pigs?

Once you stop eating them, then I may be inclined to believe.

However, this approach for humans to wilfully attempt to achieve a fair go, is short-sighted. Considering the long term, FAIR GO is already here, including for these poor animals. The problem is that some people believe that God is not managing the situation well enough, that they can do it better...

«Firstly, the left generally aren't calling for much more direct redistribution of wealth than there is now.»

Yes, indirect, covert redistribution, robbing people's hard-earned savings through inflation is now more in fashion.

«Secondly, those who are paying and those who are receiving are usually the same people in different stages of life.»

This is, assuming the potential recipients are depraved enough to accept money that was taken from others against their will. The end result is, those honourable people with a moral spine paying to support those without.

«Thirdly, of course wealth has to be earned, and there is a lot the government can do to enable and assist the population to do more high value work.»

Similar. Only those who are willing to take other people's money that was taken off them involuntarily may accept such "assistance", a short-term assistance as such, before they end up burning in hell for it.

Also, "high value work" rarely has anything to do with good work. Chances are that while more money will flow, less happiness will result.

<<The main objective of the left is for the government to provide better services. Do you have a problem with that?>>

Definitely. Government provides the above services using money taken from others without their consent. Benefiting from any such services is therefore an immoral act of theft/robbery.

Aiden,
I think the modern day democracy 'tyrant' will be a banking administrator and austerity, leading to the complete destruction of sovereignty, open borders, police state and a global government run the banking elite in league with large corporations.

I was following a compass that turned towards the Left, until they wanted boys to use the girls toilets.

And they wanted men to marry other men.

And they wanted fathers to be replaced by sperm donors in an IVF clinic.

And they started calling Islam a race.

And they started saying that someone who is born in Australia to Asian parents, and now speaks with an Australian accent and has never been to an Asian country is multicultural.

And so on.

interactive,

The Left is a very broad category. Not everyone on the left agrees with all the others. I certainly don't!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,

What constitutes a fair go for cows, sheep, chickens and pigs? Many of them owe their existence to the fact that humans do eat them.

To say a fair go is already here is misleading even in the long term. God has given much of the control to us. And I'm sure God dislikes being used as an excuse for people to perpetuate their own unfairness.

Inflation is not robbing people of their savings. Our government is not forcing people to keep their savings as cash. And there's no good reason for them to encourage the hoarding of it at the moment.

Do you seriously believe that anyone will end up burning in hell for accepting assistance from the government?

The argument from the dogmatic Right that taxation is theft is rather like the one from the dogmatic Left that property is theft. Both taxation and property are absolutely essential to the functioning of any modern society, and if we got rid of them we'd all be much much much poorer.

And what is it that you regard as good work?

Hi Aidan,

Wise words.

"The Left is a very broad category. Not everyone on the left agrees with all the others. I certainly don't!"

Yes, even I, in my infinite wisdom, forget that. Sorry :)

And yes, if turkeys were not eaten, they would be an endangered species. Many vegetables too. Including kale, so it wouldn't all be bad.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Aidan,

«What constitutes a fair go for cows, sheep, chickens and pigs?»

Allowing nature to take its course.

«Many of them owe their existence to the fact that humans do eat them»

Is this necessarily a good thing? Would you elect for that sort of existence?

«God has given much of the control to us»

According to the way we use it, it could be argued to come from the devil instead.

«Our government is not forcing people to keep their savings as cash»

Sure, we could keep our savings in bags-of-rice, although sooner or later the rats would get them. We could also keep it in gold or foreign-currency, etc., but the moment we want anything more than rice, say a medical treatment, we would need to pay CGT on the nominal dollars we get from selling our rice and what remains may not be enough to pay the doctor.

«Do you seriously believe that anyone will end up burning in hell for accepting assistance from the government?»

That's only an idiom, but one would acquire negative karma as a result which would eventually cause them to suffer in a similar/equivalent way to those from whom the tax-money was involuntarily taken.

«The argument from the dogmatic Right that taxation is theft»

I don't know about this Left vs. Right, I only know that taking people's possessions against their will is theft (if covert, robbery if overt); and that scripture tells us that it is wrong. Taxation need not involve theft: so long as it is voluntary it's OK, but currently it is not.

«...are absolutely essential to the functioning of any modern society»

If modern society is that good, then you should be able to convince people to participate in it voluntarily.

«And what is it that you regard as good work?»

I'll never be able to fit in 350 words all the good things that people can do to benefit others, even when they receive little or no pecuniary benefits for it.

Yuyutsu,

Allowing nature to take its course would be much crueller than the status quo in most cases. Neither the wild nor farmed alternative is particularly appealing, but at least farm animals are provided with food, water and shelter that may not be available to their wild counterparts, and we do have mandatory animal welfare standards (though I'd like to see those tightened).

"«God has given much of the control to us»
According to the way we use it, it could be argued to come from the devil instead."
Almost anything could be argued, but that argument doesn't make any sense. For a start, why would the devil have the control to give? I also note that it's incompatible with your previous argument about God managing the system and already giving everyone a fair go.

I'm curious as to whether you consider it immoral to accept assistance from a state that's only partly funded by taxation?

Scripture does not tell us taxation is wrong. The concept of taxation was familiar before the commandment not to steal was given, and God did not claim that taxation is theft. Nor did Jesus say anything against taxation when asked about it. Even in ancient civilizations, taxation was regarded as necessary.

Your suggestion of making tax voluntary would result in "those honourable people with a moral spine paying to support those without" as everyone within a state benefits from its existence in some way, even if they don't realise it.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth,

WTF do you have against kale? I regard it as quite a good thing, as it holds gravy better than ordinary cabbage.

//Loudmouth,

WTF do you have against kale?//

Presumably he doesn't know how to cook with it properly. Scottish methods of cookery are clearly the best way to handle kale: batter it and deep fry it. With a thick enough coating of batter, you wil'nae even notice the leafy green shite.

You're right, Toni, I've tried that with weeds and it works ! Sour sobs do well. A bit of batter, pepper and salt, and it's free. I've seen top-class kale being sold in an eastern suburbs up-itself shop for $ 15.99 a kilo, $ 1.99 for 100 gm. And people buying it. I tried to sell them some weeds @ only $ 1.99 but I was hunted off, back to the western suburbs.

Joe

//I tried to sell them some weeds @ only $ 1.99 but I was hunted off, back to the western suburbs.//

I doubt it was the weeds that were your problem: they may not have been particularly digestible to humans, but that's never stopped vegans before. Given that they are highly gullible and appear to lack the sense of taste, I suspect that one could sell them deadly nightshade as a trendy salad vegetable with relative ease. Not that I would, of course...

Clearly your problem is marketing. Tell them that your product is consumed by some obscure tribal group, invent some wondrous health-enhancing properties but word them vaguely so you don't have to prove them, and jack the price up to $2.99. If you do that, you shouldn't have any trouble flogging off your grass clippings to idiot hippies as the latest superfood.

.

Dear Sells,

.

Commenting on Don Aitkin’s article, “The moral basis of the Left”, you note :

« Missing in his appraisal of the Left is two thousand years of Christianity with its focus on the neighbor »
.

Like the proverbial fool, I can’t help looking at your finger as you point to the "neighbor". I see Christianity focusing on the “self”, not on the “neighbor”. I see it delving deep into the inner life of the “self”, scrutinizing every nook and cranny of its intimacy and holding it to account.

I see it intruding into the life of the family and the society at large, imposing its dogma and world view, on pain of incurring divine wrath.

Christianity and democracy have had a long and often troubled relationship. The monolithic god figure is not exactly a symbol of democracy.

As to the left or right political affiliation of Christianity, it seems to me that it’s a mixed bag with the scales slightly but clearly tilting to the conservative right.

I think that even my good friend, Runner, would hesitate qualifying Christianity as “progressive”.

.

Hi Toni,

Grass clippings - with all that cat dudu, all finely chopped ? Okay, I'll give it a go, maybe in the $ 4 - $ 5 range. Kikuyu and Buffalo a bit more, because more fibre.

Hi Banjo,

Yeah, probably. But Christianity does have the Good Samaritan, someone helping someone else who is not even from the same group. That does it for me. Other religions would have advised that Good Samaritan to 'pass by on the other side', after all, it was the victim's karma to die in a gutter. And Muslims would help the victim only if he was Muslim, as in most tribal societies.

So what is the moral basis of the self-styled Left these days ? It does seem that their primary principle (if one could laughingly say that the Left has principles) is anti-Americanism, including anti-capitalism, anti-globalisation, anti-growth and anti-consumerism.

They don't seem to realise that the most reactionary (i.e. extreme right-wing) ideologies currently around the world are all of those things, with a lot of racism and misogyny thrown in. No names :)

So the self-styled Left finds itself, as it has done many times over the past century, in bed with the most backward, extreme-conservative and, let's face it, fascist, groups, and face-down.

Since the fall of communism, pretty much forever, the 'Left' has had nothing to latch onto and accordingly, have turned towards nihilism and, ironically, consumerism for themselves while they would deny it to others. Hence, kale, quinoa, fashion bags, up-market restaurants and coffee-shops, the latest serious play, annual and bi-annual holidays overseas, while they rail against GW, population growth (Where ? Amongst themselves ? Oh, no, more like Africa and India) and of course, Everything That the US Represents.

But a question: Which Left, given that it is a very broad and sect-ridden church ? The moral basis of which Left ?

Joe

Here's a research topic for somebody:

- poll all those inner-suburbs kale-munchers on their attitude to the US - AND ask them if they have been there. Of course, many times, they'll say, sort of proudly.

- And where would they like to migrate to if they were offered a tenured position ? Anywhere in Africa ? Asia ? The Middle East ? NW Europe or Canada, perhaps ? Maybe even the US ? If they were honest, even with themselves .....

As for the Genuine, Critical, Left: what are some of the sources of its moral basis ? I would suggest that yes, parts of the Sumero-Judeo-Hellenic-Christian tradition, the separation of church and state, the magna Carta and its recognition of individual rights, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Marx, perhaps Bernstein and Liebnicht (Wilhelm), Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper. Currently Nick Cohen, Pascal Bruckner, Alain Finkielkraut, Paul Berman and a few others.

What are its principles ? A critical analysis of social forces, based on the assumption that nothing has ever been, is or ever will be perfect, that you therefore criticise your friends even more than your enemies, a universalism that assumes that every African or Indian has the same rights to comfort as kale-munchers, and to remain ever-sceptical of anything that smells like Utopian notions.

Thanks, Don, for the opportunity, and the impulsion, to grope towards systematising one's ideas and inadequately express them.

Cheers,

Joe Lane
Adelaide

Dear Aidan,

Allowing nature to take its course could be seen as cruel unless you have faith in the balance of actions and results. Regardless, this would then be nature's cruelty, not yours.

You may be fascinated to learn that Exodus 30:11-16 actually ordains the collection of a tax. Accordingly, this collection is stated to be the only valid way to conduct a census: counting people was forbidden, so instead, every person had to give a half-shekel coin, then the coins were counted instead. If, however, you consider this book as a source of morality, then that same book which calls for tax-raising also commands (Exodus 22:18): "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Jesus indeed said nothing against taxation because there is nothing morally wrong about being on the giving end, only on the receiving end; and that too, only if the givers (or at least one among them) did not do so voluntarily.

«I'm curious as to whether you consider it immoral to accept assistance from a state that's only partly funded by taxation?»

There is no problem with taxation itself - the problem is when tax is taken without the payer's consent. If you benefit from such money, wholly or partially, then to that extent you take part in theft/robbery.

Once tax is made voluntary, there will be no longer a problem in benefiting from the state's coffers. Obviously, those who choose not to pay tax should also, to any practical extent, be barred from receiving state-benefits and privileges. Even more specifically, in order to encourage the big-end-of-town to pay their tax, one who chooses not to pay their share of tax, should not have their business recognised as an incorporated company or have their real-estate properties formally registered as theirs.

.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

.

That seems to me to be a fairly perspicacious analysis of the various shades of left. If that’s what we choose to call it.

Though just about everything I am seems to have a left and right to it, including my brain and my heart, I guess my thoughts and feelings follow the same pattern. The only obvious difference seems to be that the right side of the heart is slightly smaller than the left side. I understand that this is because the right side of the heart only sends blood to the pulmonary circuit, whereas the left side sends blood out to the whole body.

As a result, perhaps it could be said that the left side of the heart is a little more generous than the right side and works harder.

Basically, what I want to achieve in life is the best for my family, self and friends and for mankind in general. I place a high value on individual freedom and autonomy (of thought, opinion and action) and have a visceral detestation of injustice in all its forms.

However, I accept to play by the rules, even if some of them are unjust, provided they apply equally and indiscriminately to everybody – until such time as they are changed.

Though I find myself mellowing with age and becoming more tolerant, I continue to consider that some people forfeit their right to life by their failure to respect the right to life of others and should be euthanized as peacefully and painlessly as modern science can allow.

I recognize no god and have difficulty accepting any form of hierarchy not based on demonstrated superiority or democratic selection.

Both left and right co-exist harmoniously in me. I am right-handed and right-footed for most things but left-handed and left-footed for others. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

As for the Good Samaritan you mention, I understand that the Samaritans are considered to be the smallest and oldest sect in the world today. Total population was 777 in 2015 (http://www.thesamaritanupdate.com/) – hopefully, all good !

.

Thanks Don, you certainly got me thinking.

And thanks to all posters, a thoroughly interesting read.

Though I say so with tongue definitely in cheek Don, I think your essay can be reduced as follows:

"I will have two bob each way on the favourite!"

Who's the favourite you say ?

Answer: Progress !

Simple really !

After all, the idea of progress is just an idea - - - - isn't it?

Hi Pilgrim,

Here's another suggestion from an ex-Marxist, for what it's worth: if there is ever to be a 'better society', it must incorporate the best of the Enlightenment, democracy and freedoms. It must build on those, instead of going off in some alternative direction - which invariably (so far) has degenerated into totalitarianism and fascism.

Democracy may be imperfect - it may always be imperfect - but it's the foundation for whatever may improve on it.

And another thing: there will never be a Utopia.

Cheers,

Joe

Thanks Joe, I appreciate your comments, especially concerning Utopias.

One subject that may interest you, and totally off topic, is: "Shaping History through Personal Stories".

This was the title of the Annual History Lecture delivered in Sydney in 2002 by Tim Bowden to the History Council of NSW.

The link can be found here:
http://historycouncilnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2002-AHL-Bowden1.pdf

In that lecture Tim refers to the wonderful BBC Radio production: "The Long March of Everyman" first broadcast in England in 1971 and subsequently relayed here by the ABC.

I listened to that series and now kick myself that I didn't record it.

Perhaps we in Australia are overdue for something similar. What do you think?

Hi Pilgrim,

Fascinating account ! I've enjoyed everything Tim Bowden has ever done. But I'm a bit wary of a lot of oral history, unless it can be at least partly checked and corroborated. Rumours and hearsay, especially from someone with authority, carry a lot of weight and can influence policy and historical accounts. Entire books have been written based on stories that I suspect were basically fiction.

And since probably none of us - except you and Don of course - are above bending the truth just a little to support our arguments, one must often suspend belief until one has found some back-up. Which Tim Bowden did amply.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe. Sorry for the delay, I've been a bit crook.

I agree with your conclusion and suspect that, in any event, we are not, as a Nation, quite ready to to down this road - fascinating though it would be - particularly sorting sheep from goats - if you get my drift.

P.S. Courtesy will get you anywhere !

Best wishes

The Lefties = WELFARE for ALL for EVER!

Forget the cost cause the govt can always borrow more.

Never mind the AAA credit rating warning.