Daviy,

To answer your question directly: My supposition equated a lack of interest, debate, discussion, & understanding within society (i.e. the general public) regarding maters of political philosophy as a lack of political philosophy. A loose term and I regret its usage.

The current climate of ‘general public’ discourse concerning and/or in spite of the trend towards a homogenous politico-philosophical schema is worrisome. There shouldn’t be a prevailing or overriding way. I agree that clashes of ideas are bound to occur; but in my fantasy this happens within a tolerant, liquid, and non-partisan construction i.e. liberal society. It’s useless to acknowledge (but here I go) that there’s enough political philosophy out there - meaning texts to be shaped and informed by. If that was the impression left, sorry. And I agree Australia has lost the plot (plot?). As well as humanity for that matter - attributable to those that ‘wield the sword’ and those that follow them blindly – which, rightly, is their choice!.

My point was directed toward our society therefore the constituents of that society and the apathy demonstrated in the face of the myriad horrible realities presented it. Society being a collective can’t put up a fight. It is up to persons to harmonise in the way they individually see appropriate (and if persons choose not to harmonise then so be it). I guess this is my lament... The political, social, economic, and environmental landscape of modern/western human civilisation isn’t open to choice, let alone informed choice (said hubristically). How is choice (namely a mode of liberalism) to be afforded? What are the frameworks (should there be a framework?) for this choice? I’m unfamiliar to a communal-deconstructionist theory, therefore, I’m at a loss as to how the ‘Zeus’ that is modern society can be unmade and re-pieced without great harm coming to certain sections that call that society home and are proud in doing so.

The sovereign being is burdened with a servitude that crushes him, and the condition of free men is deliberate servility

I agree with the above quote (Georges Bataille) albeit cynically

Wing Ah Ling is 100% correct.We only live under the illusion of freedom and democracy.Socialism as well as corporate facism has destroyed small business and freedom.

Thanks Matt
A follow up question.

<To answer your question directly: My supposition equated a lack of interest, debate, discussion, & understanding within society (i.e. the general public) regarding maters of political philosophy as a lack of political philosophy.>

How are people to be expected to have an understanding when they are not told the truth? We have liberal lies, we have labour lies but if people vote for lies how do they have any idea what they are voting for? I think that is what you are eluding to in the latter part of you post. If it is how do we have a framework that forces politicians to tell the truth?
Isms?
Don't we first of all have to have a system that works before we argue about the 'isms' of how it will be used? There can be as many 'isms' as you want but if the mechanics don't work in the first place no-body is going anywhere.

Daviy,
I don't consider 'institutional' education necessary in developing the minds of people. I believe a near majority of people would consider education, theirs & others, to be of utmost importance. As a society it is a desirable obligation to educate. Education can be facilitated in as many modes as there has been days on this earth. Whatever problems the cancerous politicking of governments the world over cause - even with a complicit media - enough understanding exists within the general population of 'political' realities (however ephemeral) for what they are. This need not be a grievance about incommensurable variants of liberalism. But there is reason to believe grievance enough exists to know that societies view their governments with distrust. What this distrust is is as individual as you and I. How can we further modus vivendi in the face of a ‘trend towards a homogenous politico-philosophical schema’? I, in the end, believe in the individual and that individuals must be proactive in furthering their learning about the countless facets of their landscape alluding to community, economy, politics and society - plus what’s between - as we all do to varying degrees. I think it fatalistic and insipid upon those that avow to an ideal that benevolence will befall them. As I said ‘there’s enough political philosophy out there - meaning texts to be shaped and informed by’ and I maintain that. In my circumstance what opinion I hold is that which I’ve crafted through my own pursuit of further education. I haven’t been to university: I have taken a simple interest in reading. This notion that politics, philosophy and economics are the domain of a neo-nomenklatura or the intelligentsia is something to be derided. As stated before it is an individual’s choice to pursue what ever their notion of the good life is. If someone derives their happiness from Neighbours and talking about celebrity so be it. They’re obviously sated by things other to you/me. To vote and however useless it is in affecting change still counts - for opportunity exists despite whatever ignorance is put upon us.