Comments on The Skeptic's Field Guide: Please abstain from euthanasia vote unless you're ...

And my point is further proved:

Some four out of five Australians want the federal government to allow the territories to legalise euthanasia, according to a News Limited poll published today.

So the conscience of the majority of individuals in the country suggests they are happy for individuals to be able to choose for themselves. Yet:

Ms Gillard said it was a matter for individuals, "not looking at the newspaper polls".

Yes - it's only a matter for 150 individuals, not 20 million (give or take...). Delightful.

Yeah, I admit the fascist comment was a bit over t...

2010-09-21T13:52:03.173+10:00

Yeah, I admit the fascist comment was a bit over the top. But hey, one needs good link bait...

To summarise your assumptions I'd argue that y...

2010-09-21T13:15:01.508+10:00

To summarise your assumptions I'd argue that your main assumption is that libertarian principles should form the basis of the political process. I totally agree with you.

But that is an opinion. There is another outlook which says that a government is also responsible for moral and ethical decisions over the population as a whole. It's not 'fascist', it's simply a different approach to governence.

Yep, I understand how representational government ...

2010-09-21T10:09:29.927+10:00

Yep, I understand how representational government works. In saying that, if my representative was voting for the electorate's "conscience", then surely they should be out door knocking, conducting polls on this issue - not merely using their own individual conscience to make a decision? When I vote for a local member I do so on the understanding of their position on issues in relation to their party's policies, not their conscience...

Anyway, that's all besides the point I was making. I do have some hidden premises that I should have outlined to help the argument make sense.

Premise 1 - Governments should only legislate on matters that constrain individual liberty and freedom to choose when there is a clear case for the public good to do so (think mandatory seat-belts).

Premise 2 - Legislation that has a clear case for the public good would by definition, not be related to someone's conscience (which has to do with values, “gut feeling”, religious conviction, etc.). The party would have a firm position based on the effect of the legislation. (This doesn't mean parties can't disagree about what the public good is, and what effect legislation might have. The National Broadband Network and Resources Super Profit Tax are examples of this.)

A conscience vote does not meet the conditions of premise two. As soon as an issue that would traditionally be a conscience vote is raised, we have an admission that the issue is a moral / values / ethical one. And if you accept premise one (I have a soft spot for mild libertarianism) the government shouldn't ever be allowed to rule on such things - again, unless they can argue it has a demonstrable negative (or positive effect). Of course, if they could argue this, then, by definition, it wouldn't be a matter for (150) individual consciences. QED.

The point of a conscience vote is that the MP or S...

2010-09-21T09:09:18.991+10:00

The point of a conscience vote is that the MP or Senator acts does not have to follow the whip. Australia is fairly unusual in its level of party discipline and it is one of the few times an MP can vote from their own position as a local representative rather than toeing the party line.

Of course strictly speaking an MP is the conscience of their electorate as we have a representative (as opposed to proportional) system. To abstain could mean that you believe your electorate is so divided that you can't put forward a strict position one way or another but it could also mean you are consciously refusing to allow your constituency a say which goes against democratic principles.

Your conclusion is false.