Dear David F.,

What you (or the American constitution) describe as "rights", I rather describe as mitigation.

So in a democratic state, the majority can generally take away your freedom, it can search and arrest, it can punish and otherwise cause you so much harm as long as the majority voted for it. However, in America, the constitution somewhat mitigates or limits what the state can do to individuals: it can still impose its will, but if you fail to accept it then it must for example give you a fair trial (as if that helps).

Even a softened version of tyranny is still tyranny: a majority (of some cohort you never voluntarily agreed to have anything with) can still take away your freedom. Another way to describe this, is imagine your freedom was a $100 note, so the state takes away your freedom and in exchange returns you some nickels in the form of "rights".

Not good enough!

Dear Yuyutsu,

We can only strive to be more democratic. "Not good enough" is simply not good enough. Current Australia is more democratic than current China. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Who of us is completely fair and impartial? No government is completely fair and impartial since it is made of imperfect people.

While I was away in the US in 1993 Marie got a caravan and drove around Queensland. She filled three notebooks with an account of her travels, encounters with people, poetry & philosophical musings. Shortly before Marie died she gave me those notebooks.

They contained the following:

I think it's the absence of any goal that has given me this freedom just to be. We are always told we must have a goal in life, whether it be to accummulate wealth, achieve professional success & recognition or to make the world a better place. One must have a goal. I have always unconsciously rebelled against this idea, the idea of an "ultimte aim in life." There are always "goals" in the plural that give life zest & meaning - the goal to reach the mountain top & enjoy the view, the goal to help a friend in need, the goal to pass exams so one can work in an interesting field.

The "ultimate aim in life" I think is life destroying, a negation of the present which is after all, all we ever have, and ultimately, I believe unachievable. When is rich, rich enough, power great enough, recognition satisfying enough?

The meaning of life is life itself. How it came about is a wonderful question to explore. "Why" is meaningless. It implies purpose. It implies a creator. It implies that we have a purpose in the mind of the creator....

I think she was happy when she wrote that. Perfection is an unreal goal. If you want or expect it you will be disappointed.

David F,

Your wife was an insightful woman, my compliments to you for your having her as a companion.

Australians would do well to decide whether there is one rule for all or no rule for any.
On the present rationale used to justify the subjugation of the Palestinians because of prior claim by the so called Israelis, then the right to bear arms by the indigenous of Australia to reclaim their heritage and land would be just as righteous.
The indigenous claim would be based on far greater length of time than a mere three thousand years as claimed by the Jews in claiming their entitlement to be based on.
So if China, as example, were to arm the indigenous with all required to implement a violent uprising such as the UK and US for the Jews in Palestine, would we all pack up and leave?
I think not!

Here's the thing, the Palestinas are the ethnic cousins of the Jews and are also the sons and daughters of Abraham. And unlike the wandering Jew stayed on THEIR LAND!
Alan B.

Dear Alan B,

Many of the Jews who went into exile were deported by the Romans, Persians and other occupying powers. It was often not a choice to stay in the land. However, regardless of the peregrinations of our ancestors we can recognise each other as fellow human beings and refuse to be divided by the evil nonsense of religion.