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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.