Values, government and liberalism: not so strange bedfellows

Somehow, through the use of lots of quotes but little argument, Elias concludes that freedom is slavery. It is not clear whether he also insists that black is white,but in either case the Orwellian double-talk is unhelpful.

Elias suggests that the operative word in the initial question is "value". Not true. The important elements of the question are "value" and "government". Nobody, least of all a liberal, would deny people the right to use non-violent and non-coercive means to influence values. No liberal wants to ban preaching, opinion columns in newspapers or the ever-readable Policy magazine.

What is at issue here is to what degree we should use force (i.e. government) to control values. If the question was, "Is there a legitimate role for a tennis club in shaping the values and attitudes of Australian citizens", there would be little reason for debate. Most people would agree that the tennis club can espouse its values in our free media, but would insist that the tennis club not use force.

The defining feature of government, and what makes them different from a tennis club, is that it has access to force. Legislation must be obeyed, under threat of jail. Tax is not voluntary. If you disagree, try not paying it.

So what is the role for government (i.e. force) in shaping values? This is not a simple question, and the liberal inclination to avoid force where possible may not always be correct. But by his misrepresentation of reality, liberalism and the question at hand Elias unfortunately brings us no closer to a better answer.