Australian Egalitarian Movement :: Offering Egalitarianism or Anti-Elitism

Australian Egalitarian Movement


Home > Major Policies > Common Questions About, and Criticisms of Egalitarianism > Social Equality, Freedom of Choice, & Religious Influences in Voting


Home Page

Our Mission

About the AEM

Our Major Policies
and Explanations

Questions & Answers

Current Affairs

Join the AEM
FREE Membership

Contact Us




 Does Social Equality Include Equal Choice, and if so, Are Gay Marriages & Abortions Allowable within the AEM's Egalitarian Society, Or Are Such Issues Determined by Voting, and if so, Won't Such Issues Continue to be Influenced by People's Religious Beliefs? 

With regards to the concept of freedom of choice: if we all had total freedom of choice, we wouldn’t have any laws at all. Just by being a member of a society or social group, one must agree to a having diminished freedom of choice so that the society or social group can function properly. Laws are often enacted to protect people from the feared consequences of certain behaviours and ideas being enacted within their society. Some of these feared consequences may be real, reasonable, and/or rational and some may not be. And even amongst Egalitarianists, there are going to be very different opinions about this.

Generally, within the AEM's Egalitarian society, national laws and policies are made by the government, but any law can be challenged, and one of the ways in which laws can be challenged is via strong public support for change. As such, the religious vote may well influence the outcomes of such elections because we cannot force people not to vote in accordance to their religious beliefs. However, arguments based upon religious beliefs are not included in the preceding public discussions relating to any issue up for dispute. It is through this process of informing the public about all non-religious viewpoints relating to an issue that we believe the majority of the public will make informed and responsible decisions should such issues be voted upon. We should mention though, that religious institutions do have their say about any social issue during their normal programming times.

After saying this however, the AEM isn't too concerned about the religious vote creating and changing laws or policies. Firstly, laws relating to such issues have never been voted upon by the public within any democratic-capitalist country, suggesting that the current laws and policies relating to many social issues are not what what majority would vote for, and are instead kept in place by those people in positions of power forcing their (religious) beliefs upon the society. As such, we fear that many religious people will be more concerned about this process than non-religious people might be. Secondly, many religious people accept that it is unacceptable to enforce their religious beliefs upon everyone, and correctly see it as a form of domination. Many also believe that it is god's intention that people are supposed to make their own choices in life (and that the choices one makes are reflected in what happens in one's afterlife).

However, if we do find that the majority of religious people are voting in accordance to their religious beliefs (which would be difficult to prove because many non-religious people also have very conservative opinions), and that these people are managing to change laws and policies to be inline with their religious beliefs, the government would have no choice but to concede defeat when there is a large majority of the public (which would be required to change laws and policies) who feel safer by doing so. However, this doesn't mean that anybody, including the government, cannot continue in their efforts to put forward new and old arguments in an attempt to change what the public thinks and believes.  

The AEM also feels that there needs to be stability in the laws relating to most social issues, rather than for example, banning abortion one minute and then making it legal again two years later, and so on. Therefore, once a decision has been established, it would normal policy to not allow the public to vote on the issue again for at least ten years, regardless of the ups and downs of public support during this period.

While the AEM may intend to allow everybody to have as much free choice as possible, as part of the AEM's duty of care to its citizens, all behaviour needs to scrutinised to ensure that individuals and the society are not harmed by these behaviours. If someone can demonstrate that harm is being generated, the AEM's Egalitarian government must respond to ensue that harm is prevented from occurring. Further, even though such findings may not support the laws and policies that the Egalitarian government has enacted, the government is obliged to inform the public of these findings, so that the public can reconsider the issue for themselves. 

Therefore, the AEM cannot make commitments about issues such as gay marriage or abortion and expect them to be upheld for all time within an Egalitarian society, because our democratic process allows laws to be challenged. The other reason why the AEM doesn't make commitments about such issues is because these issues are not constitutional issues. That is, these issues will always be argued about whether or not we are an Egalitarian or capitalist society.   

Even though some changes will occur just by becoming an Egalitarian society, we should mention that the AEM does not seek to revolutionise gender and sexual issues. Our primary focus for the first 15 years of Egalitarianism is to make Egalitarianism work culturally and economically, and to set up a system that will serve to maintain and improve it. Generally, issues such as abortion and gay marriage are therefore left for others to lobby the government and the society about.


Home | Our Mission | About the AEM | Major Policies | Current Issues | Join the AEM | Contact Us | Feedback | Resources

Legal Issue:  Copyright  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer