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.

" 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'.

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.

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.

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.

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!

John, "institutionalized violence (or force)" is pretty much the only way a government can operate, due to the unreliability of peoples behavior.

That threat of force, in turn is based on the basic agreed values of the social contract participants.

So, the question becomes as I see it, "Where do we draw the line between basic freedoms and enforcable values". I guess that is the main issue between left/right.

From what I observe, the 'left' views values like

-Freedom of Sexual orientation
-Welfare State
-Gender Equality
-Freedom of migration

as being very important, while the 'right' views these issues as requiring a degree of guidance.

On the surface, it might seem petty to squabble over such things. But I guess the 'right' believes that undesirable social consequences will occur if no guidance/limits are placed on those things.

Let me give an alternative view, the biblical one :) you knew that was coming though didn't u ...

The basic 'do for others as you would have them do for you' is the best guide. If applied to Gender for example, and in the frame work of the Biblical teaching on male female roles I don't really see a problem. I do see a problem if the 'whole' biblical picture is not followed (I'm referring to the New Testament here) where a man might demand his wife 'obey' him but will not 'Love her as Christ loved the Church'

Welfare State.

The old testament has some very specific teaching on this. The main point being that those who prosper (with fields/crops) are not to harvest to the nth degree, so that the 'alien and widow' can glean leftovers and survive

I won't go to the other issues, they might cause a verbal volcano :)

You said that the 'left' is defined by values like:-

-Freedom of Sexual orientation
-Welfare State
-Gender Equality
-Freedom of migration

As somebody that calls themselves a Libertarian I would say that I personally support values like:-

-Freedom of Sexual orientation
-Gender Equality
-Freedom of migration

However I would never call myself left-wing because as you can see I don't value the "welfare state". However I do support uncoerced charity and I would encourage all people to give as their conscience demands. I could go on to say that I also value:-

-Free enterprise
-Free trade
-Freedom to take drugs
-Freedom to bear arms
-Freedom of speech
-Freedom of religion

All of this form part of a basic belief in something called "liberty". The idea that each of us is endowered with "free will" and each of us is the rightful custodian of our own life.

John, I might just make one reply at a time...
You point out that most people support 'a ban on recreational drug use', 'the current ban on polygamy' and some control on 'the industries of pornography and prostitution'. I would ask: do you, as libertarian, also do so? If so, on what basis?
I don't think it can be on a Millsian basis, because most of these things don't really cause physical harm to anyone. And if they cause moral or psychological harm, so what?

Phillip -- I do not support the current ban on recreational drug use or polygamy or the sex industry.

However, my point was simply that I am (contrary to the suggestions in your article) in the minority.

Further, my comment "so what" was not related to whether moral or psychological harm mattered... but whether they mattered to the definition of freedom. I agree they matter, but "freedom" is not the same as "good" or "utility". One is a process (to be able to act without coercion) and one is an outcome. I think they are often related (ie, I think free behaviour generally leads to better outcomes), but that doesn't make them the same word.