A normative basis is an an ethical or legal pillar of a political argument. All political arguments on the Direct Democracy Forum must start by listing one or more normative bases from the set enumerated on this page.
These normative bases have been curated based on careful reflection, subject to the following properties:
While these normative bases are intended to be purely normative (i.e. purely relating to principles or ethics), many of them are clearly correlated with empirical beliefs about the world. For example, a person who believes in redistributive policies on the basis of an Egalitarian ethic likely also holds the empirical belief that poverty is not a product of personal incompetence. This somewhat blurs the distinction between the idea of a normative basis as an "ethic" and the idea of a normative basis as an empirical thesis about the world.
The way we can keep that distinction as crisp as possible is by making the normative bases as general as possible. Some examples to illustrate this idea:
If, after seeing the examples of normative bases on this page and meditating on these criteria, you think that there are some important possibilities missing, please do join the discord and send a message there. Also send me more ideas for quotations to accompany the descriptions (preferably, things said by Australians) either on discord or by emailing me at tom@directdemocracyforum.com.
* Yes this is imprecise and inherently contentious. But the idea is that no argument on this site should be appealing to values that do not at least resonate with a sizeable chunk of the population.
Use this category when you are attempting to argue based on the same set of values as the opposing case (actual or constructed), i.e. rather than contesting the values or principles on which the opposing case is founded, you are solely questioning the reasoning or evidential support in its favour.
Use this category when your argument is based on a legal principle e.g. you are arguing some policy idea would be unconstitutional or appealing to a priciple of International Law to which Australia is a signatory. For example, if you wanted to argue for an extension to the current provision of public education in Australia, you would write "Legal Principle: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 26".
It's the vibe of it. It's the Constitution. It's Mabo. It's justice. It's law. It's the vibe and ah, no that's it. It's the vibe. I rest my case.
Use this category if you believe the proposal in question has direct implications for human (or animal) lives in a way that can be readily quantified, i.e. you believe a given political proposal will have a directly quantifiable impact on improving or saving human or animal lives (or the opposite). This should be used only in particularly clear-cut cases or when you are able to cite substantial evidence, since such claims can usually be contested.
Use this category if your position is based upon an "Egalitarian" ethic. What is an "Egalitarian" ethic? This is a very vague term with a multiplicity of philosophical interpretations (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/), but for our purposes, it represents the intuition that we should favour outcomes that involve greater equality in socially important dimensions, such as income, wealth, political power, access to education and access to healthcare. Note that Egalitarianism in this sense should not be thought of as inherently opposed to Meritocracy. For example, someone who supports redistributive policies motivated by an Egalitarian ethic might do so in part because they believe that economic outcomes are largely non-meritocratic, i.e. determined by a combination of inheritance, luck and the compounding accumulation of invested wealth. Egalitarianism does not mean that equality of outcome is an important goal in every domain of human activity, but it does imply a willingness to intervene in domains where inequality is thought to be unjust.
Use this category if your position is based on a "Propertarian" ethic. "Propertarianism" refers to the idea that existing property rights and concentrations of private wealth ought to be protected against state intervention. This is the moral foundation of the popular American concept of "freedom", meaning freedom of private interests, considered typically meritorious, from public/adminstrative ones, considered as coercive or parasitic. It is not quite the opposite of Egalitarianism, but is typically associated with very different beliefs about the fairness of the dynamics that cause inequality.
Use this category if your position is derived from the principle that we should not discriminate against people on the basis of superficial characteristics such as race, gender or disability. This concept arguably overlaps with Egalitarianism, in the sense that discrimination is a form of unequal treatment. The main distinction is that Egalitarianism, in the sense we defined it, is more concerned with the distribution of resources, whereas Non-Discrimination is more concerned with treatment of people.
Use this category if your position is based on a desire to promote a democratic society, in a full-bodied sense of the term, i.e. not merely a society that can be categorised as a "Parliamentary Democracy" but a society where a large mass of the populace is actively engaged in the process of politics. To be "Pro-Democracy" in this sense means to uphold the ethos that people should be empowered to govern their own lives as much as possible. This ethos is typically associated with the promotion of education, "critical thinking", civic-mindedness, civic participation, a vigorous press and the right to protest, among other things.
"Hobbesianism" here refers to a world view that hearkens back to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, specifically, to his bleak vision of human nature and to his belief that authority and power are necessary for a civilisation to thrive. Hobbesianism, in this broad sense, describes a particular moral vision of the world that sees an important and enduring role for institutions of violent or coercive authority in society, whether they be the state, the police or the military. As with many of these other normative bases, Hobbesianism (in this sense) is a continuum, not a binary. One may appeal to "Hobbesianism" in one's argument without endorsing a return to an absolute monarchy or a police state.
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry... no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Use this category if your position is based on a concern about natural ecosystems or our living environment that goes beyond a purely human-chauvinist or extractivist perspective. This could arise from an aesthetic apprecation of nature and other organisms, a belief in the ethical value of living ecosystems, or a broader perspective that the health of the biosphere and critical ecosystems is, in the end, a pre-condition for the flourishing of human civilisation.
Use this category if your position is based on a concern with Australia's global standing or the power it projects. This could be power in its softer varieties - cultural power, sporting prowess, diplomatic influence - or power in the form of outright economic or military strength.
Use this category if your position is based on an ethos of martial or manly virtue, i.e. a subscription to martial or chivalric ethics, the upholding of such values as "Honour", "Duty", "Courage", "Strength", "Mateship", "Self-sacrifice", and martial or physical prowess. This is the moral foundation of such attitudes as viewing war as noble and potentially good for society, or the admiration of "Strong Man" leaders. Arguably, it is also the emotional wellspring of the worship of sport and sportspeople.
Use this category if your position is based on esteem for knowledge, scholarship and those who pursue it. This is arguably the main moral foundation of support for high-performing schools and universities, as well as museums and libraries.
Use this category if your position is based on the idea that the creation of beauty, art and cultural wealth are important societal ends. The term "Aestheticism" typically denotes a particular movement in the late 19th Century, but this usage has a broader meaning to the effect of "An ethos that places high value on art and cultural riches".
The arts are central to Australian life and culture and [...] as our identity becomes more obvious, as we make a greater claim on our own sovereignty, as we project ourselves into the world, as we rejoice in what we become, the arts will be an obviously central ingredient to all of that.
Use this category if your position is based on an abhorrence of war and all it entails. This does not imply rejecting the possibility of a just war, but does imply a strong presumption against war as a means of resolving disputes.