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 > Values, government and liberalism: not so strange bedfellows > Comments

Values, government and liberalism: not so strange bedfellows : Comments

By John Humphreys, published 24/8/2005

John Humphreys argues to defend liberalism and against the governments' role in shaping values.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Thank you for a good and concise defence of liberalism.

I do think your emphasis on violence is a little overstated (if accurate) however - force might be a better choice of words.

Looking forward to reading more.
Posted by blankpages, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 2:19:00 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
" The general liberal position is simply that you should not use violence to enforce values on others"

REALLLLLY ? hmmmmm on the surface this sounds quite cozy.... let's analyse it.

Every state, exists on the threat of VIOLENCE..... (incarceration, shot down like a rabid dog if you have a weapon and don't obey a police instruction) etc.......

If a liberal state means hoping (and it seems to) that all people will just be 'nice' to each other, then.. we need to resurrect Royal Park.... and renovate Larundal then send a lotttt of people for some 'therapy'.

"All peace, is a result of a war.. and every peace contains the seeds of the next war" is my observation of the human condition.

I do take on some of the criticisms of the author here, about the rather broad, but unsupported assumptions about society, in the article by Elias, but I don't think that lack of support reduces the impact or importance of the position he puts foward. I don't detect any suggestion of 'violent imposition' of values in Elias' article.

Speaking of violence and values... Pat Robertson has clearly decided to trip out on LSD or something, calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez... or at best he left his bible well and truly at home on the day he said that, or.. he has suddenly developed personal messianic dillusions. Christ and the Apostles would rightly rebuke him for saying that in their name, and for the record, I, as a Christian of what is usually termed 'the fundy right' (though I reject that) have written to the Christian Coalition, to express this view. I hope others will also.

These 2 opposing views, just illustrate abundantly how, without reference to divine revelation, it all boils down to ....'opinion'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 5:30:53 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
I agree with John Humpheries on just about everything in his essay.

However a couple of qualifiers:-

1. He is talking about "classical liberalism" not modern "American liberalism".

2. In Australia we have a political party called the Liberal party. However their policies are not always liberal. Gun prohibition and drug prohibition being but two examples.

I think the most important points in Johns essay are:-

1. We are not enjoying an increase in liberal policies. Rather we are suffering a near constant decline. The constant growth in taxation being just one example. Those of us who yearn for liberal social and economic policies are losing the policy war on the whole. The only notable exception is in the area of government ownership of industry.

2. Government and Society are not the same thing.
Posted by Terje, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 9:29:58 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
BOAZ_David, your observation on the human condition, that ‘All peace is a result of war and every peace contains the seeds of the next war’, is a valid one. It conjures up much philosophy about yin and yang and so on.

It’s obvious that violence and war are part of the human condition. One can look at our earlier hunter and gatherer days, within a tribal context, survival of the fittest etc, and quite easily apply that behaviour to a larger scale that is what we see today.

But just because it’s part of our condition doesn’t mean we have to accept it. It doesn’t mean it can’t be changed. There are many evils we used to consider a fact of life that we have since all but gotten rid of. Why not violence and war, too? Wouldn’t it be great if it were the next step in the development of society, to realise we are better than this Neanderthal thuggery and that we’re really all on the same side?

We’ve accepted violence as part of humanity, now its time for self improvement by working to rid ourselves of it. Violence once had a purpose, today it is archaic and serves no positive purpose. We are better, more enlightened than that. Time to move forward.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 25 August 2005 10:19:37 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
I have read both John Humphreys' article, and Phillip Elias'. Although both are billed under the title of 'Political Philosophy', I must say that in the Humphreys article there is a whole lot of politics, and not much philosophy.
I think Elias makes some good points on Aristotelian philosophy, although he is somewhat unclear and obscure. He is certainly not making a defence of violence, which Humphreys is obsessed with.
I would like to add one point to Elias' argument against John Stuart Mill's definition of freedom.
The classical concept of praxis is lost on most libertarians. The idea that moral actions derive their meaning not primarily from their consequences but from their tendency to produce vice or virtue in the acting person was burnt with the metaphysics books before Mill arrived. Although ‘virtue’ and ‘moral’ are words often associated with Victorian England, ethics in that society often revolved more around ‘manners’, that is, the social or religious propriety of actions.
Mill’s basic tenet- ‘it’s OK as long as I don’t hurt anyone else’- is pervasive in the modern west. Its backbone is a crude liberalism.
Elias is correct to link the malaise of modern society to philosophical modernism. The suicide, in fact, is the perfect case study. The suicide is not answerable to the law. The social contract does not care for the suicide. What is the response of John Humphreys’ liberalism to the suicide?: “So what.
Posted by Rebecca, Thursday, 25 August 2005 11:54:24 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
Political philosophy is the study of the role of institutionalised violence in society. To talk about political philosophy and not talk about violence (or force, if you prefer) is to misunderstand the topic at hand.

BOAZ_David -- you share the name of a well know American libertarian. A liberal state doesn't mean hoping people will be nice. It is about respecting liberty under the rule of law. I didn't reject Elias's position -- I rejected his strawman characterisation of liberalism, his misreading of reality and misunderstanding of the central question.

Rebecca -- Elias's points on Aristotle may have been interesting, but they were not relevant in a rebuttal of liberalism (which is what he was trying to do).

Elias certaintly was defending the use of violence. All relevant government activity involves violence and he was defending government action to influence values. If you're not interested ("obsessed" as you put it) with discussing the role of institutionalised violence in society, then go discuss moral philosophy or knitting instead of political philosophy. And if you think that libertarians (who were around long before Mill) are ignorant of deontelogical morality, then you're way off the mark.

You repeat Elias's mistake by saying that Mill's basic tenant is pervasive in the west. It is not. I suggest you re-read my article for examples.

My comment "so what" did not refer to suicide or my opinion about non-physical harm. Bad things happen. My point was that the existence of bad things doesn't invalidate the simple of idea of freedom being the absense of coercion. It certainly doesn't turn freedom into slavery!
Posted by John Humphreys, Friday, 26 August 2005 4:51:09 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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