A legitimate role? Perhaps, but only in an optional manner and where it is ancillary to other functions of Government. Eg. prevention campaigns, advisories & public schools. The government's inability to be entirely values-neutral cannot justify active involvement in influencing values; the difference is too great.

Is the government the master or the people? Or is it a bare majority of the people? We seek norms, regularity and values but that doesn't mean we want them imposed or dictated to us. I think the author overstates the extent to which we are capable of determining our own values, and I would suggest that we have very limited and seldom exercised "values-choices". Regarding the statement that we do not need to be afraid of being pushed around by governments, I would expect a history student to know better.

A difference exists between responding to community values and manipulating them. And there are further distinctions between responding where there is controversy rather than consensus and between restrictive, necessarily restrictive and unrestrictive responses. What constitutes harm can be hard to pin down, and may depend upon the values and attitudes of those involved, but it allows for greater diversity than alternative approaches. Understand that this applies primarily to social liberalism, not economic liberalism; since there are quite a few distinctions.

EXCELLENT article... congrats on a fine essay, well researched.
I would go so far as to suggest the author is very much making history with it.

I take issue though with 'natural law'..... I prefer divine revelation. ("I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" Jesus Christ)

Sartre also said "“If God Exists,man cannot be free, but man is free, therefore God cannot exist,Since God does not exist, all things are morally permissable”.

Now if that doesn't scare the pants of people... I don't know what will.

Deuc...

you're becoming a mini dinasour mate :) you are very good at analysis, but looks like ur stuck in some 'liberal democracy' rut there.

No offence ok.

Government, in my humble opinion, being representatives of 'The People' should VERY MUCH have a hand in shaping values. If that isn't part of what they were elected for...then what is ?

In another thread, I advocate the following:

1/ DEFINE Australian culture (Anthropologists, Sociologists,Theologians,Historians etc)
(I would hope that this results in a 'JudaoChristian/AngloEuropean flavor, but with due reference to our immigrants and indigenous sectors)

2/ EDUCATION When point 1 above is done, begin forthwith in the education system to inclulcate agreed values reflecting the outcome of point 1.
All religous schools should have accredited teachers involved in 'values' based subjects.

3/ IMMIGRATION. Based on the result of point 1, we must limit immigration to ONLY those who can accept things as they 'ARE' and that citizenship, visa will only be issued on strict condition of loyalty to, and promotion of, those values which we hold dear.

4/ LEGAL. Our laws will be based on Point 1. With no exception for minority religious groups seeking excemptions or to laws which they perceive as negatively effecting them. As Peter Costello said today "There is only ONE law in Australia".....

5/ CULTURAL Tax payers money should not be used to promote alternative cultures. All people pay tax, but tax is not paid to promote 'marginal or minority culture'.

I'm so happy to see thinking people doing it. Prepared to question the lefts 'doctrines'.

In considering whether governemnt should (or could) shape our values you do not take into account our convict tradition. Briefly, this can be summarised as:

1. The government is the enemy of the people;

2. No taxation with or without representation, with any deficiency being made up from the sale of politician's assets;

3. It doesn't matter whom you vote for at elections, a POLITICIAN is ALWAYS elected.

4. Always vote "NO" in federal referendums.

I am sure that a large part of these attitudes spring from our convict heritage, with its profound disrespect for authority, and is not likely to change any century soon. The attitude towards government is that as a basic first step, it is required to be perfect, but as with all humans, we would hope for performance a little better than the basic. Very fortunately, we are one of only two countries where the text of the constitution can only be changed by the people, and not by politicians, with the two best examples being the conscription referendum of 1916, and the republic referendum of 1999.

I would therefore conclude that on subjects about which the people have strong fixed opinions, the government would have as litle success in changing them as the political elite.

David, I am glad you liked the article. I am also surprised. You prefer ‘divine revelation’ to natural law, but they are not the same thing. In fact, my point is that values can be derived from natural law precisely because the natural law is universal, and not limited to a particular chosen race or religion. I am afraid that from this nothing you say regarding education, immigration, law or follows.
I will expand...

Phillip,
Natural law: Individuals - Society - State
You recognise individuals and society, but ignore the aspects of the state that differ from both individuals and society.
There are three levels here - the state is above the level of society because it includes the whole population, and because it asserts the legitimate use of violence within a sovereign territory. Both the individual and the state are in the liberal tradition abstract - values-free. Society consists of the many associations that form the identity of any person, and this is where you find values. But with values some people are included and others are excluded.

The overriding reality of modern states is the power of the state. A counter-balance to this state power is the abstract idea of the individual and freedom for an individual to live by their own values and beliefs. How that freedom is exercised by a person is arbitrary - but the important thing is that a person is not coerced by the state, or more precisely the group of people who control the state, in an undue manner. Values are personal and are often expresssed in oppositional terms - this is good and that is bad. States are powerful and if the history of the twentieth century teaches us anything, it would have to be that when states are used by minority groups to enforce their views of what is good and bad on the whole population, then human rights are violated - sometimes with crimes against humanity.

I discuss these ideas on my blog http://pharoz.blogspot.com and have posted a few comments to Peter Sellicks latest article on Online Opinion.

I think that your approach is disingenious - and dangerous. You can only make your argument for having a state enforce personal values - by ignoring the state and the power of a state.

Mr. Elias quotes Martin Heidegger as having said "we are creatures of the unreal". The chief problem is that Heidegger never wrote that, nor even words to that effect. In fact, nothing that follows the quote in any way resembles Heidegger's way of thinking.

I also suspect the Nietzsche quote is also made up, but I'm not enough of a specialist in that thinker to say definitively.

Naturally, I'm now suspicious of the veracity of everything else in this essay.

So, congrats, to Mr. Elias on taking the prize, but shame on the Centre for Independent Studies, and anyone else associated with praising this text.