The Importance of Social Conservatism

Tim Andrews writes on why libertarians ought embrace social conservatism. 

So! I think the time has come for me to once again alienate everyone who reads this blog, and raise the ire of conservatives and libertarians alike! :)

I do this for a very simple reason. Specifically, I do not think most conservatives understand just why achieving their aims through the coercive power of the state is totally counterproductive, and, more pertinently at the moment, I am rather convinced that libertarians in Australia don’t realise the importance of social conservatism to achieve their aims. Which is not only strategically to our detriment, but something that, on the random off chance of a libertarian revolution, will lead to a social catastrophe of epic proportions.

Allow me to explain.  Even if we ignore the fringe elements of the now thoroughly-discredited liberaltarian movement (those people who seem to advocate rank hedonism as a necessary lifestyle choice) almost all libertarians have taken a very similar position on social matters: “You run your life how you want to, it is no business of mine as long as the state is not involved.” Which is a nice ideology in theory, but in practice, I worry that it is one that shall degenerate into total and utter failure. Because with the moral vacuum caused by the exodus of government, unless something comes in to take its place, society shall go to hell in a handbasket. In the same way that the years immediately following the collapse of communism in the USSR led to morally repugnant economic practices, I fear the same may happen in social matters if we achieve our aims, but are not careful about how we do so. Indeed, the older I get, the more I find the traditional libertarian position unsatisfactory, and somewhat of a cop-out.  To deny the real problems of broken families, of drug abuse, of the consequences of actions – this is naivety at the extreme. Which is why the only possible way libertarianism can succeed in the political sphere is by combining it with social conservatism in the personal/societal one. For if we do not do so, we shall have a world without shame, a world where everything goes. And a world that shall rapidly become a nightmare.

The impetus for this post of mine was Andrew Bolt’s piece today. I quote:

But I’d like to know how she was allowed to so forget herself and her dignity—to forget why it was shameful to get drunk, smoke dope, drive too fast, abuse the helpless or leave our children far behind in our wake.

I can’t believe that she did all this forgetting by herself. Oh no, not at all.

Maybe a generation or three ago, someone like her would at least have had a priest in her ear once a week booming: remember! ``Thou shalt not.’’

Now, of course, most priests find the only people who turn up on Sundays are too creaky to need tying down with sermons.

No, these days the young and frisky must get their little homilies from government advertising instead—30-second messages of don’t smoke, don’t be a bloody idiot, don’t gamble, and talk to your children.”

Mr. Bolt has a point that I think far too many libertarians ignore. As a society, we need constraints and strictures on people’s behavior. Libertarians rightly believe that these should not come from the State, but most of us pay little attention to the fact that something must fill the void.

Allow me to simply sketch out one example, that of the War on Drugs. The use of the coercive power of the state to forbid people from taking drugs – quite literally at gunpoint – is, in my mind, morally reprehensible. However, no-one in their right mind could argue that a drug-fueled society is one that shall be good for all. Sure, some people can handle drugs in the way there are functioning alcoholics, but for the most part, it is a net societal ill, and the more it can be minimized, the better off we all are. Hence why social pressures are so important. If we, as libertarians, want to get the state out of legislating morality, then we must take care to prop up social structures that take its place.

I have already discussed at length how government regulation is the root cause of most things social conservatives find abhorrent, and  how by reducing the size and scope of government most social conservative goals will be realised. But I really want to go further than that. I want to argue that the only way we can achieve a society free from government coercion  is by buttressing the social fabric of civil society. Removing the chains of government does not mean every individual should be free to pursue every vice. Rather, it ought mean that civil society should grow up.

As such, libertarians ought not endorse drugs, ought not endorse families out of wedlock, ought not endorse rampant hedonism. Rather, they must do the opposite. They must join forces with their traditional foes – the social conservatives – and recognise that the only way to achieve their policy aims is to ensure our civil society is based on a strong social conservative ethos. Because otherwise, the Sodom and Gomorrah society that shall emerge shall quickly fail and burn.

This isn’t only something that is tactically sound, or something that will ensure greater political gains. Rather, it is the only way we will be able to get a great society to flourish.

 (Tim Andrews is a Washington DC based political consultant, and well as co-founder & Editor of Menzies House. His personal blog is Musings of an Australian Classical Liberal in Washington DC. This was originally posted at Thoughts on Freedom, the official blog of the Australian Libertarian Society)

Comments

[Vikas Nayak]

1.

Tell me tim, why do you hate freedom.

Just kidding.

If one asserts the axiom that the invisible hand of the market best determines the position of the government, we must also accept the axiom, that the invisible hand of social conciousness will best determine what is and what isn't acceptable in society.

[Tim Andrews]

2.

Little known fact: I hate freedom - I just hate government coercian more :)

(TVA)

[Vikas Nayak]

3.

surely mob rule is a form of coercion in itself Mr Andrews.

[David]

4.

Pragmatism and libertarianism also seem to be foes, ideological purity drives a lot of libertarians. "Who cares if Rome is burning, so long as I can live in a society which allows me to smoke dope and pay no tax?" seems to be the general attitude.

[Brett]

5.

ugh, no.

Freedom works, government doesn't.

[Vikas Nayak]

6.

noone is as ideologically pure as the impotent. In that sense, i wish parliament was more ideologically pure.

[Cameron]

7.

As a libertarian, I think I have more faith in the ability of humans to behave rationally and morally when free of external influences, than you do Mr Andrews.

The current government advertising campaigns that Bolt writes about, are merely a faint and ineffectual shadow of the powerful force of social conciousness that exists to influence behaviour, and will persist with or without the state or libertarian intellectuals lecturing people on how to behave.

[Ben]

8.

“Freedom cannot be absolute.” – Friedman

[Jake the Muss]

9.

You could have written an excellent article pointing out the difference between libertarianism and libertinism.

You could have defended libertarianism against the common slurs, stereotypes, and strawmen that we struggle against every time we speak up.

Instead you have chosen to write an article that paints us as the libertines. You have misrepresented libertarianism and insulted the movement in a manner that Ben could never hope to achieve.

[David]

10.

LOL. You need the government to roll back unfreedom! Does that work?

Freedom is the freedom for something to work or fail. To argue that it always leads to an optimal result is ridiculous.

[TerjeP]

11.

Tim - I read the Andrew Bolt article you cite and it also gave me pause to reflect on these matters. However I think you make too much of this concern. Consider for example brothels and prostitution. NSW relaxed the laws in this area quite some time ago and we have not had a huge shift in social mores. Certainly we have not seen the collapse of the family. Society has moderated itself without a need for illegality.

Andrew Bolts article is an anecdote about an intoxicated fool. This is within the context of a highly regulated environment. It does not follow that deregulation will be a disaster. However it probably does make the case for a reassertion of conservative social institutions in some areas, not as a substitute for illegality but as something useful, perhaps even necessary, irrespective of the law. A conservative reform of civil society could precede a libertarian reform of the state. However I'm just as comfortable that a libertarian reform of the state can precede a conservative reform of civil society. Both reforms have merit and neither should wait on the other.

[Ben]

12.

“You have misrepresented libertarianism and insulted the movement in a manner that Ben could never hope to achieve.”

Jack you sound so precious. I thought victim politics was a specialty of the socialist movement. I also thought libertarians respected intellectual diversity and the individual’s right to think outside think tanks. In any case, small family-run businesses and farmers are the true heroes of capitalism.

The real threats to the so-called libertarian movement are so obvious. They include age (most people grow out of libertarianism when they marry and have children) and crime waves (go figure). But in any case, when people talk about problems out loud, they don’t cause them, they simply expose them.

[TerjeP]

13.

Ben - I married had children (now have three) and subscribed to the libertarian label all about the same time. I reprent a sample space of only one, however I've grown into libertarianism rather than the opposite. Most of the seriously active people I've met in the LDP are well into or well beyond their 40s. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that people tend to grow out of libertarianism because I suspect that the opposite is true.

[Brett]

14.

"LOL. You need the government to roll back unfreedom! Does that work?"

So if I stab you and then take you to the hospital, are you going to pat me on the back for saving your life?

" To argue that it always leads to an optimal result is ridiculous."

Uh, nope. I know of nothing that the government could do better than individuals acting on a free market.

Well, except of course for theft.

[Brett]

15.

yeah those Austrian economics guys are just young rebels! They'll grow out of it one day!

[Ben]

16.

“Consider for example brothels and prostitution. NSW relaxed the laws in this area quite some time ago and we have not had a huge shift in social mores. Certainly we have not seen the collapse of the family. Society has moderated itself without a need for illegality.”

TerjeP – yes, society has moderated. Many hookers are now addicted to state money, and who is on the frontline dealing with “bastard” children? Or paying for expressive abortions, and the subsequent medical and counseling issues? Family life has been undermined in significant ways since the so-called sexual revolution. Please, visit a public hospital and talk to honest doctors about STDs.

RE: Andrew Bolt. He has made similar (indeed stronger arguments) before. Some of his socially conservative views are outlined in Still Not Sorry – specifically, Groping For A New Morality (Chapter 3).

[Brett]

17.

yeah because us libertarians love the idea of the government giving money to people!

[TerjeP]

18.

Ben - the sexual revolution was not brought on by a relaxation of laws (except possibly in regards to divorce). If you're blaming the sexual revolution that has nothing to do with libertarian policy ideals.

[pommygranate]

19.

I married had children (now have three) and subscribed to the libertarian label all about the same time.

so did i, Terje. but im younger than you.

[pommygranate]

20.

I married had children (now have three) and subscribed to the libertarian label all about the same time.

[Ben]

21.

“Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that people tend to grow out of libertarianism because I suspect that the opposite is true.”

A to Q: Evidence? We can start with the election results in Australia. As a general rule, when people grow older they think and vote more conservatively. The immigration debate springs to mind. In Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, also highlights differences between small socially liberal families/singles and big socially conservative families, from religious backgrounds. Of course, a young liberal/libertarian college student thinks very differently about law and order than, say, a father with five children.

There’s a reason why there isn’t a major libertarian party in Australia. I note too the shrill anti-Catholic and WASP elements and the mothering of drug addicts. Not a great look.

[TerjeP]

22.

Pommy - long time no see. Must catch up for a coffee some time.

Ben - anecdotally people vote less left wing as they age. However that's just annecdote and most libertarians don't think of themselves as left wing or identify with left wing political parties.

[Dan Nolan]

23.

Tim seems to have missed the primary tenet of libertarianism and conservatism which is personal responsibility.

As in taking responsibility for one's actions.

The rest of this article is voodoo psychology/an attack on libertinism.

[Jake the Muss]

24.

Out of that entire rant the only thing that is remotely relevant to my post is:

"Jack you sound so precious

One small sentence. And you got my name wrong in it.

God I hate you with every fibre of my being.

[Ben]

25.

Wow Jack (sorry, Jake) – forgive me for not remembering your name. My mind was on pistol shooting lessons.

But “hate” is such a laughably strong word. I feel sorry for you. You must really hate it when people don’t follow your strict definitions of what it means to be a perfected libertarian. Very sophisticated.

[TerjeP]

26.

Tim has also posted this at the ALS blog where it is also getting commentary. So if you're outraged by the comments here then head over to the ALS and get outraged by a whole different set of comments. ;-)

http://blog.libertarian.org.au

[Tim Andrews]

27.

So. In response to Jake & Dan. Am I being too harsh on libertarians? Of course - I mainly wrote this just to annoy you all after all! :)

But, my trolling aside, I do genuinely believe that in terms of public perceptions of libertarians there is an (obviously incorrect) belief that a libertarian society will quickly descend into some form of hell. From a PR perspective, this is significantly harming libertarians getting conservative support. So I think the more libertarians ramp up their 'conservative cred', the better.

[.]

28.

"TerjeP – yes, society has moderated. Many hookers are now addicted to state money, and who is on the frontline dealing with “bastard” children? "

I cannot fathom the stupidity here. If they are talking the welfare they are cheating and simply don't need it.

Seriously google "cocos" or "Mona Lisa Models" and lookup "rates". Not all hookers are this attractive. It gives you an idea as to how imbecilic the idea that legalised prostitution has made them dependent on welfare rather than under the thumb of violent pimps.

[.]

29.

"Most of the seriously active people I've met in the LDP are well into or well beyond their 40s. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that people tend to grow out of libertarianism because I suspect that the opposite is true."

Yep, they're old farts. They remember when you could do very mundane things without having to pay a fine for it, in addition to wanting to the see the abolition of victimless crimes we've had since their childhood.

[TerjeP]

30.

Tim - The moment libertarians open their mouths to the media and say they want lower taxes and free trade they get pigeon holed as right wing conservatives. It is vital to the libertarian brand that they counter that perception by being noisy on issues such as ending the war on drugs, same sex marriage, a womens right to choose, opposition to criminalising prostitution etc. If your suggesting that libertarians should pass themselves off as political conservatives then I disagree. If your suggesting they need to explain libertarian policies then no argument, however you can't explain a policy if you're keeping it a secret.

[Tim Andrews]

31.

Oh no disagreements - I think its obviously vital to talk abotu ending teh war on drugs, opposing criminilisation of prostitution etc (although I would argue that it's better to argue to get state out of marriage, rather than to support state-sanctioned gay marriage, and I also think it's possible to be both pro-life and libertarian, eg Ron Paul).
BUT my point is that if we talk about ending the war on drugs, we need to explain clearly that it doesn't mean that everyone will become junkies because civil society will step in.
Like I said at Thoughts on Freedom, we often talk about how civil society will fill the gap of the welfare state and society won't collapse. I think we ought make the same comments far more forcefully when talking abotu social issues (TVA)

[Ben]

32.

TerjeP: So you want the media to love libertarians? Thus, when an abortionist jams his state-funded pair of scissors into an innocent baby's skull, that’s the kind of “libertarianism” you’ll support. Plus, you’ll be liked, and won’t be labeled a “right-winger” (God forbid). Or you could focus on media bias.

And regarding prostitution, would you like your kids to enter the “profession” when they grow up, with the state’s blessing? So there should be no restrictions for whoring people out to clients (aka taxpayer-funded politicians and state servants), right? And, why stop at 16? How about 15? Or, 14? Where do you restrict and why? Surely you must have some moral compass.

In truth, “progressive people” have harmed the libertarian brand. At least social conservatives aren’t craving to be loved by the establishment. They refuse to whore out the next generation and abort so-called useless eaters, because their sense of freedom is more highly developed and compassionate.

[Eddy Jenner]

33.

now that is some impassioned social conservatism!

high five!

[Davidmrussell]

34.

Tim, Tim, Tim! " . . . the moral vacuum caused by the exodus of government"? As a non-believer in anything much other than a personal set of values, I'm appalled at the notion that anyone could conceive, even for the purposes of stirring debate, that government provides any sort of moral 'occupancy'. Sure, government lectures us (after the fact of legislation and regulation) on how we should/must behave in many fields of endeavour. Self-evidently, so little of it works. The notion of relying - to any extent whatsoever - on governmment for moral direction is truly frightening. Those who have failed to develop or recognise a meaningful set of values to guide their daily actions (are there are squillions of them out there) are those least likel;y to have their consciousness penetrated by government advertising. Which is why I am so pessimistic for the future. And, the way in which all manner of churches seek to fill this moral vacuum is even more distressing than government. I think I'll run off into the woods.

[Pip]

35.

I was hoping for more in the answers to this topic.

I was hoping to learn something.

I found this article that leaves multiple tentacles into the question of civil society and how new approaches are being examined since the 1980's. I'm hoping someone who is more versed than I will take it up, take the specificity out of it and consider it more widely?

Civil Society as a Counterpoint to Ethno-Religious Identities

Civil society as disestablishment would thus seem an apposite argument to make, both towards disembedding statehood from ethno-religious identities and for allowing those identities a new role in articulating the place of the self in a truly pluralistic society. Recognizing the extremely limited analytic purchase of the idea of civil society, I would claim for it, in the context of Palestine and Israel, one illimitable virtue - it turns our thinking away both from the state as well as from all forms of primordial, ethno-national identities - and towards other possible models of sociability, trust and a common life.
Religion clearly matters, and matters a good deal to many people in the area comprised by Palestine and Israel. Yet the identification of religious with state and national identities has proved disastrous for the possibilities of the peoples to live together. It is a combination that resonates with some of the worst forms of political and romantic sentimentalism that the modern world has bequeathed us - pure forms of what the thinker Eric Voegelin termed modern political Gnosticism: belief that we are the secret sharers in the historical process. But religion outside of such modern political frameworks and identities may yet prove a different entity entirely. Religion, not as a form of high-modern political identity and commitment, but as a form of early modern civility and approbation, a measure of personal modesty (anva, in Hebrew, hilm in Arabic) an epistemological humility and constitutive tolerance for what is beyond the boundaries of our own identities - a force for what the Confucians term li and the Scots termed civil society - may yet surprise us all.
To the extent that civil society, as a conceptual field moves us beyond the realities of the nation-state and the terms of ethno-national and, I would add, religio-ethno identities as bases for political life it is still useful, as a slogan rather than a scientific concept. To the extent that its analytic purchase on the reality that we hope to establish is limited, we must supplement its meanings with a yet to be realized praxis.

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=323

Those familiar with Weber's Politics of Civil Society may also shed some light on this subject for all of us.

I'm just casting around for some answers.

[.]

36.

"And regarding prostitution, would you like your kids to enter the “profession” when they grow up, with the state’s blessing? "

Better than being an outlaw and giving carte blanche to organised crime.

"And, why stop at 16? How about 15? Or, 14? Where do you restrict and why? Surely you must have some moral compass."

What has this got to do with anything? All that matters is the ability and act of consent given without duress.

Because I'm not wanting to lock up prostitutes doesn't mean I am immoral. Nor does it mean I want child prostitution.

What kind of education produces such muddle headed thinking?

"In truth, “progressive people” have harmed the libertarian brand. At least social conservatives aren’t craving to be loved by the establishment. They refuse to whore out the next generation and abort so-called useless eaters, because their sense of freedom is more highly developed and compassionate."

Lies and idiocy (just like your low rent assertion I was a Nazi when I suggested ONLY the individual should have a say on their euthenasia, and the law would have to be superbly drafted, and you insinuated that I was dangerous to ICU and palliative care patients. [You low dog. You weak dingo.]). Legalising prostitution and making it safer is not socially engineering a prostitution racket. Now you're confusing your stupid argument that allowing euthenasia under strict circumstances and a sensible position on abortion (safe, legal, rare, unsubsidised) is the same as ordering the murder of thousands of non existent whore children.

This too, coming from a lackey for a Government which subsidised the less well off and uneducated to open up their legs for the engenderment of generational poverty. How many grandchildren of these people will be aborted you stooge?

The only pimp of welfare whores in all of this is the former Howard Government and it's insidious "Baby Bonus".

[Eric Tan]

37.

Individual social conservatism will do nothing to prevent the slide of society into anarchy and chaos. It requires a socially conservative society to implement and impose its mores on individuals.

Liberal society does not automatically mean a chaotic one either. Liberals, like conservatives have agreed mores they wish to impose too.

All societies, liberal or conservative will by necessity devise rules governing appropriate and inappropriate conduct. Libertarians are not necessarily anarchists.

[Ben]

38.

One has to feel sorry for all these faceless and nameless libertarians hiding behind pseudonyms. Then again, if I supported child prostitution (a logical extension of adults-first libertarian thought) I’d be ashamed too.

[.]

39.

That's probably libel. Time to get you kicked off this site and stop polluting it with your abject stupidity.

[Tim Andrews]

40.

Ben and Dot - please keep it civil.

[Vikas Nayak]

41.

I prefer to egg them on Tim. I figure people behave similarly to "like" charges in an atom. While they experience coulombic repulsion, when pressed further and further together...BOOOOM...FUSION.

Plus i imagined you wanted a coombaya moment with libertarians and conservatives :P.

[Brett]

42.

Lol ben best troll ever

[Andy]

43.

THAT as government expands, liberty contracts;
THAT centralised funding centralises power;
THAT government reform, private competition, and individual freedom often succeed where increased government spending and power fail;
THAT An individual has liberty if he is left undisturbed in the use of his God-given free will, but restrained from intruding on the equal liberty and genuine rights of others;
THAT when individuals unite to form a government, they do not surrender their rights, but instead grant their government the qualified permission to ascertain and keep the just boundaries of their liberty, which are to be defined by law, by their elected representatives, and in accordance with the constitution;
THAT in every government rests a sacred and immutable duty to secure and respect the rights of the governed, to guarantee equality before the law, and to preserve the rule of law;
THAT the free market is simultaneously an expression of liberty, a necessary condition to the effective use of liberty, and the best economic system to nourish vigorous economic growth and meet the material needs of human beings -- and, as a result, the free market has no tolerable substitute.

[Graham]

44.

>>I'm appalled at the notion that anyone could conceive, even for the purposes of stirring debate, that government provides any sort of moral 'occupancy'.

Are you serious? Of course Government provides a moral compass, they're the ones who create the laws!! You know those things that our children grow up being told not to break, practically every minute of their existence, to the point where they're largely internalised to such an extent that even if they don't know it's illegal, they know it's wrong?

Of course Government serve as a moral compass. Whether they should or not, and in what areas, is one ongoing debate, and an interesting one, but it can't be claimed that it doesn't serve any such function currently. That's not debatable.

We get our morals and social conscious from a plethora of sources. Art is one of them. Parents/family is another. Religion is another. And Government is another, through the legislation it passes.

[Pip]

45.

"civil society" that is one thing that is often missing here...civility.

There is so much on freedom but little on "thy neighbour", other than that they should have freedom to get on with it too...

Inclusion seems to be the buzz word, for the bureaucracy and Julia Gillard. It does seem to come down to disability, those unable to compete on an even playing field in the brave new world of the Libertarians?

The UN approach from what I can see is to by-pass States with NGO'S. Its business is to spawn ever new NGO'S to counter States?

From the piece by Adam Seligman, the idea seems to be to extricate people,religions,customs from "place". Gary John's article in the Australian, similarly warned against any references to place. Hettie Perkins doco on aboriginal art, stressed over and over, "country", yet this is increasingly seen as an elitist ploy, by John's and others.

Okay, I'm dabbling here with a view to drawing somebody out...

[Pip]

46.

I might well be wrong but Adam Seligman does seem to be the authority on Civil Society?

He has a new book out, reviewed below:

The Problem of Trust
Adam B. Seligman

The problem of trust in social relationships was central to the emergence of the modern form of civil society and much discussed by social and political philosophers of the early modern period. Over the past few years, in response to the profound changes associated with postmodernity, trust has returned to the attention of political scientists, sociologists, economists, and public policy analysts. In this sequel to his widely admired book, The Idea of Civil Society, Adam Seligman analyzes trust as a fundamental issue of our present social relationships. Setting his discussion in historical and intellectual context, Seligman asks whether trust--which many contemporary critics, from Robert Putnam through Francis Fukuyama, identify as essential in creating a cohesive society--can continue to serve this vital role.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6185.html

I wonder if anyone would like to speak to that?

[Pip]

47.

continued...

Seligman traverses a wide range of examples, from the minutiae of everyday manners to central problems of political and economic life, showing throughout how civility and trust are being displaced in contemporary life by new "external' system constraints inimical to the development of trust. Disturbingly, Seligman shows that trust is losing its unifying power precisely because the individual, long assumed to be the ultimate repository of rights and values, is being reduced to a sum of group identities and an abstract matrix of rules. The irony for Seligman is that, in becoming postmodern, we seem to be moving backward to a premodern condition in which group sanctions rather than trust are the basis of group life.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6185.html

I'm sorry I left that essential section out!

So I wonder if anyone would like to speak to that?

[Graham]

48.

Just further to my previous comment:

>>As a non-believer in anything much other than a personal set of values

The point is that your values are not merely "personal", they are formed through your broader social interaction. Morality is largely a result of society. Run off to the woods, like you say, and you have very little need for it. Morality is by and large about how we deal with other people. The laws that we are all subject to play a very strong role in establishing those values for you, whether you're conscious of it or not. When you reject Government as having any legitimate role as a moral purveyor I suspect you are not rejecting the rule of law entirely. But wherever you believe our laws should come from, this source essentially plays the same role as a framework of morality that Government establishes through legislation. It merely transitions to whatever other institution you believe should play that role.

I think you need to analyse a little more deeply where your own morality comes from. While there is much that you have formed through self-reflection, we are very much products of our environment. It's for this reason that institutions are so important, and it's why they've evolved, be they religious or statist.

[Brett]

49.

lol so basically, we need government for our morailty?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Graham]

50.

Um, if you believe we need laws then by extension, yes, we need some form of governance to create and enforce those laws - the byproduct of which has an effect on the shaping of individual morality through social relations.

It shouldn't be the only institution - nor could it ever be. And the debate over how MUCH and in what ways it should provide that framework should be a lively ongoing one. But yes, it needs to be there. And in fact always will be. Even if you "eradicate" Government altogether it will simply spring up in other forms.

[TerjeP]

51.

I believe very strongly in the need for laws. I don't believe that a land without laws is any form of utopia or even merely peaceful and pleasant. How laws get created, administered, enforced is open to many possibilities and I'm not convinced that we have arrived at the optimal institutional arrangements but I think it highly naive to crave a world without laws.

[.]

52.

Graham you are one confused puppy. You veer further to the unworkable Christian socialism of Rudd and Conroy everyday.

[Graham]

53.

Confused puppy am I? Then so were some of the greatest minds of humanity, including such political philosophers as Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Burke, and so on and so on, who all pretty much agreed with the thrust of what I said in my last post.

If YOU disagree then make your case, rather than dismissing well established and empirically sound ideas as "confused".

Don't mistake your refusal to educate yourself for my confusion.

[Ben]

54.

"I prefer to egg them on Tim. I figure people behave similarly to "like" charges in an atom. While they experience coulombic repulsion, when pressed further and further together...BOOOOM...FUSION."

Vikas: I think you mean Chris (not Tim). It is confusing, to be fair.