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 > A legitimate role for government? > Comments

A legitimate role for government? : Comments

By Phillip Elias, published 24/8/2005

Phillip Elias asks if there is legitimate role for the government to shape the values and attitudes of its citizens.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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.
Posted by Deuc, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 2:47:26 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
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'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 3:23:54 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
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.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 8:41:58 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
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...
Posted by Phil, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 9:48:22 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
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.
Posted by Rowdy, Thursday, 25 August 2005 12:02:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by enowning, Friday, 26 August 2005 1:44:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elias,

Legitimate roles for government? Yes, but you fail to consider the development of Our jail system elements in southern History and Hence therefore your assention lacks Vital elements.

Further, In addition, as the great French philosopher Immobile Kant stated in eternity, the categorical is demonstrative, and Hence your value assertions fail.

Please You can read more at my personal blog entitled Wodonga. Please note also I have read extensively with regards to this topic.
Posted by Alfred Wodonga, Friday, 26 August 2005 11:15:41 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
Liberal Democracy is a set of values and all mainstream politics is active in support of these values. Was it ever thought otherwise?

I am supportive of the liberal-democratic tradition, not because it is perfect but because provides a reasonably effective environment where freedom and collective decision making are balanced. The system is continuously challenged, more productively on specific issues (free-speech, refugees, workplace bargining) than on the framework issues.

Values are not static. If scientists are still refining their model of the physical world (quantum physics, string theory) who would be so naive to postulate natural laws for human behaviour?

This article is thought-provoking and perhaps a reminder that utopia is unachieveable.
Posted by David Latimer, Friday, 26 August 2005 12:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phil -- I would be interested to hear your resopnse to my article when you have time. If you don't want to discuss it online, feel free to e-mail me: john {at} libertarian.org.au

One a different topic -- It is amuzing that you have found yourself an admiror in BOAZ. It goes somewhat to the problem of us imperfect humans actually finding the true natural law. And once you tell me that it's the politicians and bureaucrats that are in charge of solving this huge philosophical puzzle... I start becoming skeptical.
Posted by John Humphreys, Friday, 26 August 2005 5:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John,
the reason I was admiring Phils article, was that he was searching for the roots of values, going very deeply into the idea that values DO have to have a valid foundation, in order to be universally applicable.

For Phil, that is what he terms 'natural law' (which I reject for reasons I outlined in my response) for me, it is a divine mandate.

In a way, that simply underlines the difficulty of establishing universal values. I might be quite in error, Phil might be also, and it amounts to nothing more than our relative opinions.

But in Phils case, he grappled with the problem searching for an 'earthly' answer, and I was most impressed by the depth of argument, even though I don't concur with his conclusions. I really thought he was leading up to a Christian apologetic at first :)

I would prefer to argue as the Apostle Paul, where upon (if I had a few degrees) one of you (lets call him 'Festus) might be tempted to say "BOAZ..BOAZ.. your great learning has sent you around the twist"... to which I would respond:

25"I am not insane, most excellent Festus, what I am saying is true and reasonable. 26The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.

Then the King (of the forum) would say:

"BOAZ... do you think in such a short time you can persuade me to become a Christian" ?

and the reply would be:

"Short time or long—I pray God that not only you, but all who are listening to me today may become as I am, except for these chains."

I adapted the exchange between Paul and Festus and King Agrippa there..(Acts 26)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 26 August 2005 7:49:32 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
To Philip,

In your discusion Post re a government's rights to alter public opinion, you no doubt meant public opinion not related to what the following letter to the "West Australian" newspaper indicates.

("As a mature age student with a degree majoring in International
Relations it was rather shocking to read an article headed "Anti-US
Line from Teachers: Costello" As a former university graduate
himself, Peter should know that in a democracy, such political
tactics are a NO-NO as they only pertain to a one-party or fascist
state. Surely our Liberals should be confident enough not to stoop so
low, as to warning an academic area which teaches not only history,
but political science as well as political philosophy. Maybe it is
the very truthful foreign affairs line that these academics are
sticking too that Mr Costello is so concerned about? The line, in
truth, that our terrorist problems are not so much to do with
religion, but an angry reaction by Arabs mainly against British and
American economic and political intrusion into their Middle East
territories, which has been going on ever since the end of WW1.

The above is what these so-called leftie academics teach - as they
also teach to beware of a government that has gone too right-wing,
because surely they mean a government does demean itself by stooping
to tactics through the media as was used by Nazi Germany and Soviet
Russia before they closed their universities altogether.") .

Incidently it was no surprise that the above letter was rejected by the "West Australian", when it was found that in his next editorial the editor himself gave favour to what Costello had been intimating.
George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 28 August 2005 5:30:40 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
enowning,
Thanks for picking up on my error re: Heidegger. That quote is from Spanish philosopher Antonio Millan Puelles. I don't pretend to be an expert on either. Just been to a few lectures...
However I think that the error, while careless, was not thoughtless. 'We are creatures of the unreal', I interpreted that in the light of Heidegger's concern with the question of being. He highlights the forgetfulness of being; that we get so preoccupied with questions of empirical reality we forget to question the fundamental 'I am', we forget about being. That's all I was implying. And, of course, the question of being- in an Aristotelian sense- is central to my essay. I'd like to hear your thoughts- as an expert on Heidegger- on this interpretation (p.elias@student.unsw.edu.au).
Again, thanks for the criticism. The mistake was careless but not deceptive.
Posted by Phillip, Monday, 29 August 2005 1:39:00 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
John Humphreys wrote: "Elsewhere Elias brings up the possibility of a common goal, introducing the Platonic arguments about absolute values to counter the perceived liberal position of relative values. But liberalism does not insist that values are relative. The general liberal position is simply that you should not use violence to enforce values on others."

Yep.

Phillip Elias wrote: "Thanks for picking up on my error re: Heidegger. That quote is from Spanish philosopher Antonio Millan Puelles. I don't pretend to be an expert on either. Just been to a few lectures..."

Quite.

The danger of citing sources you've never read. The risk being, as Humphreys points out in the first quote, above, that one misconstrues to the point of embarrassment.

I would think that an elementary criticism of this piece is that it at no point defines liberalism. Where is the literature review distinguishing different strands of liberalism and considering the last 50 years of debates between their proponents? Are we talking Rawls or Nozick, Hart or Dworkin, Raz or Waldron? And what of this natural law and natural rights debate without Finnis, Fuller and Strauss?

Feels like the morning after the night before too many pints of Roger Scruton washed down with a few shots of conservative pop-philosophy. Christ, I was waiting for Lynne Cheney to drop in.

All in all, a most apt reflection on the CIS and on the state of political theory in Australia, as it exists outside of a handful of the more cloistered graduate programs.
Posted by Geoffrey Hills, Monday, 29 August 2005 3:23:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff -- I would like to offer a brief defence of the CIS & Philip.

I agree (sorry Philip) that this essay may not have been a worthy winner, for the reasons I identify in my response. However, Philip was constrained by a word limit and a topic... so he could hardly be expected to explore liberalism to the depth that you seem to suggest.

Further, I think it is a bit harsh to consequently hang the CIS. In many places the CIS is offering some thought-provoking and ground-breaking analysis and policy ideas. Norton on higher education and Saunders on welfare have offered valuable opposition to the status quo position and have enriched those debates.
Posted by John Humphreys, Thursday, 1 September 2005 6:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff,

A brief word regarding your criticisms. It seems that you have a lot of experience in the area of political philosophy. I don't pretend to.
I'm interested in history and the underlying 'deep waves' in ideas. I'm interested in the history of philosophy as divided into modern, premodern and postmodern. I'm intersted in the anthropology of social contract theories and of postmodernism.
True, I didn't research Rawls or Dworkin or Nozick for this essay. I didn't distinguish the 'different strands of liberalism'. If I did I think my 2000 word limit would have been up before I made a single argument.
'Does government have a role...': this is a big question, with no simple answer. Of course I was going to simplify and generalise.
And what did I mean by liberalism? I meant the tendency towards an exaggerated autonomy for the human person. I think this is the anthropological basis for liberal political philosophy. I think this is an error, and that this error is the basis for Western society's inability in some areas to come up with appropriate ethical norms and to face the challenges of relativism.
I apologise for my essay not being a bibliography of modern political philosophy but I'm sure you'd know the best place to find such a source.
Posted by Phillip, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 1:14:14 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
Can there be a legitimate role for government, in shaping the values and attitudes of its citizens? - Great topic, thank you Phillip Elisa.

How do we get to trade a culture of "No" with a qualified "Yes"?

Can there be an Australian debate for a philosophy, that identifies a set of theoretical absolutes, without the habitual practice of disparaging comtempt and cultural disdain?

Is there any substance in claiming we are a nation crowned with "moral sovereigns"? - Then why the reluctance to address areas of incorporeal "moral chaos"?

Why do so many Australians turn off? Choose to ignore the scourge of development indices, those perceptibly locked-in by a moral crisis reflecting linkages broken in general standards of lawful and moral compliance. As Mannes discribes, we have shut down into a “shadowland of moral chaos”. This world can be seen through the evidence of "increasing suicide rates, depression, drug and alcohol abuse and the breakdown of marriage and families".

While I agree with a Kant imperative, that a human person must always be treated as an end in itself, never as a means to an end, I see conflict between a social culture growing towards self moral harm, and a nation having problems coping with value systems that may differ from what may be understood, as the comfort zone of mainstream?

This is because the mainstream ethic appears hell bent on a individualistic sense of "freedom", a new form of slavery, devoid of the kind of scruples necessary for shared understandings about there being a common law, in the eye of being Australian.

For example Australia has a deprived sense of culture based apon government having a role in dealing with a person's crime, but not with their relevant vices. While this may seem appropiate, to protect individual freedoms, it is the basis that gives the government and everyone else the opportunity to wash their hands of having any "responsiblity" of consequence through a social contract, that may otherwise show capacity to deal with a growing nature of social ills
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 24 September 2005 12:37:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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