David, I didn’t directly refer to moral choices in this thread but rather focused on real choices about life style and life chances. I challenged Mr Farrelly’s original posting for his apolitical assumption that choice and freedom exist in a socio-economic vacuum and relate solely to individual effort and character.

I was irritated by his assumption that we all have equal chances to exercise choice. Clearly this is a view from a position of privilege which carries the ludicrous implication that anyone too poor to exercise choice (e.g. of schooling, housing, medical services) is somehow personally deficient and responsible for their own circumstances.

Then came Mr Farrelly’s patronising advice to the poor: when you see choices beyond your means don’t be tempted to a life of crime or gambling - have the self-discipline to live within your means and to increase your income through legitimate avenues. My experience is that many low-income people are morally scrupulous and many rich and powerful people wouldn’t know an ethical position if it hit them between the eyes.

FrankGol. Now you have chosen to address me.
Your statement of complete dismissal as in “What a load of gratuitous twaddle.”

It is difficult for you to claim “I think I was very moderate in my response to Farrell's insensitive arrogance”.

I found nothing “insensitive” or “arrogant” about Ross Farrelly’s article.

However, that is a matter of individual interpretation and how we interpret is always conditional upon our underlying individual choices. I am just pleased to repeat, I am relieved you are not authorised to make the choices, interpret or express opinions for me, especially when you seem to be making such a hash of expressing your own.

Gusi, nice spin on the French revolution.

Richard, the problem with the terror, which followed the idealism of the French revolution was, as I alluded to in my previous post

“It has often been said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The best way of avoiding the consequences of absolute power is to leave individuals alone to make their own choices instead of the corrupt and powerful imposing them upon us.”

The vacuum in France following revolution and collapse of all state authority led to a dominance of power in the hands of one central committee. It was the corruption or that committee which produced the terror, not the ideals which Gusi alluded to.

I will admit we have seen similarities of corruption and abuse of power and breakdown of law and order, following the collapse communism in the independent states which comprise the former USSR (which, itself was corrupt).

Ena, only by aspiring to excellence do individuals pull society along. Restricting the right of individuals to self determine merely ensure that mediocrity is the best we all can hope for and

“how it treats its most vulnerable citizens,”

is impeded by an inability to support, fund or supply “how it treats”.

As for “thank you grandkiddies, blah”

I am 56, you must be absolutely wizened crone to think I am in the age range of your “grandkiddies”!

To deploy a FrankGol expression “What a load of gratuitous twaddle.”

Mark,

I think the tyranny and dictatorship that followed the french revolution were not caused by the ideal of the revolution but by poor "change management". ie the french revolution was hijacked by opportunists.

Something similar happened in Australia with Pauline Hanson's party. The ideals of her party appealed to many but without an existing party mechanism, the new party members had minimal scrutiny and several opportunists got through. PH ended up paying the price in jail.

Exactly the same happened with Pim Foruyn's party in Holland a few years ago. His populist ideas attracted many people. Party candidates were selected on the basis of one or two interviews with little or no reference checks. PF was assassinated but his party went on to get 22% of the vote. In a proportional recreation system that meant a lot of MPs. In the ensuing years a number were forced to resign in disgrace after their "real" past became known.

I am not an historian but I suspect the same thing happened in France, except that without the stable democratic background the bad guys hijacked the state.

With fraternity I don't mean that we should love each other as our siblings. I don't think that would be realistic. I see it more as social harmony. ie ladies can exercise their choice to enjoy the Cronulla beach in a bikini others can exercise their choice of not eating pork.

Boaz, at some point you need to stop skim-reading these posts for hooks upon which to hang the tired hat of your down-home evangelism, and address the points that have been made.

>>Pericles points us to the Clockwork Orange character who stopped being human when he could not fulfill his need to hurt people.<<

Once again, you are confusing the evil of the choice that was made with the ability to choose in the first place.

Alex was deprived of his ability to choose. The fact that it was the ability to choose a particular type of evil - ultraviolence - is simply the whim of Burgess. It would have been an equally powerful story if he had chosen to depict, say, a priest deprived of his ability to choose good.

>>The ‘Liberal’ view seems to be that true humanity and fulfillment only comes when we are free to EXercise our choices, be they evil or good.<<

Please articulate for me the "conservative" (or non-Liberal, if you will) view on this. Surely it is cannot be "true humanity and fulfillment only comes when we are unable to exercise our choices"

>>Nambla is constantly telling us the Man/Boy sexual experiences can be ‘positive’<<

I have noticed this unhealthy fixation of yours with Nambla. I assume that you use them here as an example of the evils associated with choice. But can you not understand that it is possible - and in this case necessary - to condemn the choice that was made, without at the same time condemning the existence of choice itself? That is akin to banning rope on the basis that it could be used to garotte someone. Buying rope is not a sin, but winding it around someone's neck with a view to ending their life, is.

One more try

>>Burgess in CWO suggests that when individuals are not able to fulfill their choices they cease to be human.<<

No. Burgess in CWO suggests that when individuals are not able to exercise choice, they cease to be human

I think we've lost the point of the original post - it was to do with choice in education and how it "benefits" us all.

Report after report shows that with the de-regulation of educational provision and its increased exposure to market forces, the educational choices across ALL SOCIAL CLASSES diminishes. One type of control is merely substituted for another type of control - in other words, removing government control means that big business soon slips its foot in the door, whether that business is "Education Unbound", "Educational Solutions" or the Catholic Church.

At least when government has control (in a democracy like Australia's) the voters have the right to demand transparency.

Ross Farrelly and Kevin Donnelly (similar surnames, even ... hmmmm ...) try to push the choice / vouchers / privatisation line time after time and each attempt looks lamer than the last. A bit like a photocopy of a photocopy.

I have made many posts and have several links on these matters at:

petaldavid.blogspot.com

Choice is not intrinsically good or evil - there's going to be a fair balance of 'choices' that are going to be wrong, just as there would be a fair amount that are right.

But I think if we were to divide the question into two options: 'choice' and 'limiting choice' the latter would prove the more reprehensible in more occasions.

Some choices need to be limited - fine. But the majority of choices you make each day are ambivalent.

Say I'd like an orange juice rather than tea. Or to use the red pen instead of the blue. These choices are not wrong, but it would be wrong for someone to tell me I had to use the red pen.

Perhaps at work, fine. But I have the choice to leave work, even if my choice leads to impoverishment.
Again, it would be wrong for someone to tell me I had to stay - that would be tantamount to slavery.

On the other hand, were I to choose to attack someone, that choice must be circumscribed in all but the most unusual circumstances.

But let's face it - if 80 per cent of our choices are neutral, ten are good and ten are harmful, then 'limiting choice' is the wrong option 90 per cent of the time.