I have responsibility for planning long range infrastructure at a state level. The subject continuously comes up of equity and fairness in the setting of priorities. If the most equitable and sustainable solution for the future of all citizens requires some citizens currently to have less equity or do with less now: is this temporal inequity justified or fair, for the superior sustainable equity for all in the future? On the other hand, if we are fair to all now, the future will definitely be unfair for all and worse for some.

Is it right to make glib statements such as "You must vote"? My elderly mother took this statement to heart and voted in a referendum although she was uncertain at the time which way to vote. After she had voted she was very unsettled because she felt that she might have made the wrong decision - but she voted because she felt that it would be more wrong not to vote than to make the wrong selection when voting. ("You must vote" signs posted throughout the country - at the behest of the Government.)

In what sense can someone come to 'own' a piece of land?

Re: Mitt Romney. Is it ever appropriate for a politician to justify policy on the basis of religious belief? Presumably, most people would answer this question with a vociferous "NO!". There's something strange about the way we ask politicians to compartmentalize their beliefs and motives, however. If a politician tells me that he has religious belief X but that he's able to separate this from his work in office, it seems to me that he doesn't really believe in X at all.

If I believe something is wrong, namely poverty and income inequality, then shouldn't I do as much as I can to make it right? So then my question becomes, what is the most effective way to help impoverished people? If I become completely devoted to ending poverty and spent all my time say working for a non-profit organization I believe I would be doing some good. However, if I become a successful businessperson then I could possibly be doing even more good by donating millions of dollars, although I would be more committed to business then fixing poverty at that point. How can I be sure what option will give me live the "good life"?

Let's say a certain group of people V, from a distant country invaded and colonized another group of people G, in the late 19th century. These people V built mansions for themselves, schools for their children, divided G's land among themselves. They then forced this population of natives to work for them, and built up a vibrant economy from this exploitation Now we are in the 21st century, all the people who invaded G are dead of old age, and their descendants are still benefiting from their father's colonization. G managed to get political independence from V, but the economy is still in the hands of V. What is the just thing to do here, both for V and G?

What happens to Justice when a state is in democratic transition (that is to say, moving from a regime that was percieved as commiting atrocities against its own people or violating its citizens' human rights in some way - Taiwan and the "228" incident, Poland and the whole issue of "lustration", South Africa, etc.)? The TRC in South Africa, for example, went for restorative justice, while in other cases many opt for a retributive justice. While the former hopes to "heal" the community there is a sense in which the guilty go free; whereas the latter punsih the guilty many see this as causing further divisions. Is there any other option for justly dealing with such transition?

The 'State of Nature' is often appealed to in order to make systematic the justification of the state and the extent of our political obligations to it. What option does the present day anarachist have if he refuses to accept the force of these arguments and genuinely wishes to live a stateless, obligation-free, apolitical existence ? Surely he didn't 'choose' to be born into a modern state and yet it seems that there is little he can do to live an alternative life. Is this a significant restriction of his freedom ?

Should the state be seen as responsible for crimes committed by prisoners against prisoners in jails? It seems to me that knowingly incarcerating a person in a place where inmates are at risk to be beaten, raped or killed is like throwing him in the lion's den.

A lot of thinkers (Martin Luther King, religious leaders and Jesus Himself were in my mind) have claimed that one day humanity will reach a higher plane, where all people will live in peace and brotherhood. It seems like some individuals would be capable of participating in such a Utopian society, but is it realistic to suppose that the whole of society could one day be transformed to this peaceful, cooperative way of living? Additionally, do you think that we should aim towards this Utopian ideal? Thank you- I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions!