The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Humanity beware! > Comments

Humanity beware! : Comments

By Murray Hunter, published 29/5/2015

High population densities in the third world and the exponential rise in cross continental migration are symptoms of the biggest problem humanity has ever faced.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
The economic/sociocultural considerations are relatively less important than the implications for disease management.

The last time the human species was so exposed to the potential for massive epidemic disease spread across the entire species it was all living in Africa and there were perhaps a few hundred thousand in total.

This is not a trivial issue. Bill Gates made the papers yesterday talking about it, but it's been a matter for serious consideration for some time.

We don't need to be selfless humanitarians to understand that allowing endemic poverty to exist across large parts of the world is not in anybody's self-interest.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 29 May 2015 7:52:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see a lot of finger pointing but not one realistic, workable and/or practical 'solution' offered by the author. I even find the article contradictory in places.

"This potential epidemic so far has been only tackled from the national, and sometimes bilateral perspectives. These attempts like Australian-Indonesian cooperation have been aimed at preventing the arrival of refugees, rather than attempting to solve the actual source of the problem." Okay Murray, tell us how to do that.

The only proposal offered to resolve the problems I can glean from this article is wealth redistribution. The author seems to have not considered trying to get these countries to control their out-of-control population growth one way or another.

The author fails to recognise that stopping the people smuggling trade will go a long way towards discouraging the life threatening mass migrations; but that's not surprising given he doesn't recognise Australia's success in this area.

Regretfully the world is not paradise, all people are not born equal or with equal opportunities; in general life can be very unfair. That's the way it is and the way it will always be. I do feel genuinely sorry for people born into these circumstances and admit if it were me, I'd also try to get my family out. But at the same time I recognise the developed world simply hasn't got the room or resources to fulfill everyone's desire.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Friday, 29 May 2015 9:30:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Usual wringing of hands and refusal to face up to the real problem - uncontrolled population explosions. Nations have it in their hands to stop it. China is leading the way with draconion measures, in Bangladesh over a period of three decades the growth rate dropped from almost 7 to 2.4 in 2005-2010.

Western foreign aid should be exclusively devoted to female education broadly and to provision of contraception. NGOs to do likewise.

The Catholic Church and Islam are responsible for part of the problem.
Posted by Outrider, Friday, 29 May 2015 10:04:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I almost agree with Outrider.

He wrote: "Western foreign aid should be exclusively devoted to female education broadly and to provision of contraception. NGOs to do likewise."

I would change it to: "Western foreign aid should emphasise female education broadly and to provision of contraception. NGOs to do likewise."

Education in critical thinking and science should also be provided to spark a renaissance freeing people from the deadening affect of archaic religion.
Posted by david f, Friday, 29 May 2015 10:17:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about some wealth distribution Murray? What say we start with the bloated, greedy public service? Oh yes what about the education sector? They have presided over lessening standards of literacy whilst enjoying massive increases in pay.
What say we give you and your mates a real haircut and use the funds to support, educate and assist the third world getting to sustainable population levels?
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 29 May 2015 10:32:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well you've been very clear and extremely thorough in identifying the multiple problems Murray?

And apart from dumping and or moving the problem on/spending other folks money Murray, you seem to be bereft of actual solutions?

If we're ever going to fix this problem, it needs to be addressed at source; and indeed, where instead, we need to be throwing our hard won billions at a seemingly intractable problem.

We could make a start by just recognizing the true source of most of these problems and just send a cruise missile through every dictators bedroom window!

Then with the running interference out of the way, set about ensuring every female on the planet get a decent education; to at the very least, be able to know her rights; one of which is a right to say NO!

The second part of the solution is enabling people to help themselves!

And that can be done with a single pot of locally available money, and micro loans, that can be lent again and again as the small loans are repaid.

And that will be surer, if the money is loaned exclusively to the women folk and their start up family enterprise/cottage industries.

And of course that must be preceded by clean water and proper sanitation.

The only places where we have effectively introduced real and lasting population control; is where we have successfully educated the women!

Everything else is just kicking the can down the road, including mass migration/imposing on the wealthier nations!

I mean, Greece wasn't a real basket case economy until she opened her doors to around a million economic migrants!

And proved forever, that a country with such a small population base just can't be so generous! But particularly, with other folks money!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 29 May 2015 11:10:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Outrider and david f

Overpopulation is the overall problem. Overpopulation is an increasing problem in the author's listed country - which is Malaysia.

Malaysia would like to shift more of its refugee problem to Australia. Malaysia is less than half the size of NSW but has 30 million people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia .

Australia has the right under international and Australian law to determine who can enter Australia.

Australia accepting more illegal immigrants allows overpopulating countries to export excess population for money. Not only people smugglers make money out of refugees but government officials in their home countries and transit countries rely on refugee money.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 29 May 2015 11:42:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you have to be a little slow to still be talking about helping over-breeding and illiterate people after all the money and other aid that has been thrown at them for decades without result. We are under no obligation to help. Australia is what it is through democracy, the rule of law, property ownership, education and the work ethic.

The other poor wretches are the way they are because they are the exact opposite. There have been enough attempts to show them how to do it. They have not learned, so they must survive or not on their own. They are no more use to Australia than they have been to their own countries; but if some people had their way, we would have all them here dragging us down to their level

It' well past time for people like this author to put a sock in it.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 29 May 2015 12:19:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You say that we are under no obligation to help.

However their failure today will sow the seeds for our failures tomorrow.

At some point we should acknowledge that and stop saying "Bugger you, I'm alright Jack".
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 29 May 2015 1:24:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bugsy

The more Australia settles refugees coming by boat - the more boats, the more people drowning when those boats sink. How do you reconcile that?

If those refugees are in camps in Indonesia and Malaysia then Australia can consider and sometimes accept their refugee applications.

Refugees in Indonesia and Malaysia, are, of course, considered alongside refugees in camps in the Horn of Africa region. Many of those Africans are Christian and have been slaughtered and starved out by Muslims and others.

The question of who is more in need should run higher than the political pressure exerted by people smugglers and transit country officials taking people smuggler bribes.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 29 May 2015 1:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"rather than attempting to solve the actual source of the problem."

And how the hell do we do that?
"The" source?
There are a myriad of causes involved, some of which are probably unsolvable, and none of them are our responsibility.

"conflicts are very likely to develop and erupt between neighbouring countries."

But we have no land borders and virtually no "neighbouring countries".
Only two, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.
And that's not where the migration is coming from.

"many cities will not be able to take the strain. Infrastructure may just collapse, urban transport will be inadequate, unemployment dramatically increase, food and water shortages occur due to supply chain stress, making cities almost totally unmanageable. The sustainability of cities will come under threat."

It's already happening.
With legal government-approved excessive immigration.
Many experts think we are already past our sustainable population size.

"The decision making models that exist within the world today are self-destructive"

They are insufficiently self-protective.
We need more of what the author fears, not less.

More blatant self-interest, more governments looking after their own people's future, not the future of "the planet" or "humanity".

You can never solve other people's problems. They are intrinsic/internal.
But we can keep them out.

That's why our ancestors built walls, moats, fences and drawbridges.

"Humanity beware!"

Of the "humane" global dictatorship apparently favoured by this author and his kind.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 29 May 2015 1:46:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Think about the Titanic: there were not enough life-boats, so those in life-boats pushed away those swimming in the water who tried to come near them.

While they were all on the ship, everyone was friendly and there were no similar divisions among them, but once in the water, suddenly those in boats have something in common (but not with the others), suddenly a life-boat becomes a "nation"...

Fortunately, we are not anywhere near there yet - only the cities, actually just some of the cities - so why prevent entry into other areas of this continent rather than only to those cities?

But then one is afraid that if allowed in the country, those immigrants would also infest the cities. This fear, however, is based on a combination of three unnecessary and irrational ideas:

One: Everyone is equal and must be treated the same: if you cannot afford to treat immigrants the same as yourself, then better not treat them all.

Two: National identity and pride: the name and fame of your nation is enhanced and glorified by signing and keeping international treaties (even if they are only kept in a technical/legalistic sense). In turn, those agreements prevent self-defence and demand the above "equality", thus the need to circumvent them and nip immigration at the bud.

Three: Sovereignty: a "nation" may and must occupy as much space as possible and control everyone within that space, regardless of all differences in the values of the inhabitants.

For example, some of those boat-people would be grateful to be able to come here as slaves with no rights: to labour all day in the fields in return for some food and a leaky-hut with a straw-bed; or to stand all day in the sun building roads, rails and dams; or to constantly nurse the elderly, feeding them and changing their nappies, especially as the baby-boomers age. But no - the Australian ethos does not allow such things, there are industrial rules, safety-and-health regulations and international agreements to keep... "our nation would not look good if we did that"... Thus a lose-lose situation!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 29 May 2015 2:25:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi plantagenet, I agree with you.

However I was not referring to the boats but rather the attitudes previously expressed that we are under no obligation to help these people, whether they be on a boat or in their own country. It was expressed that "after all the money and other aid that has been thrown at them for decades without result". I suggest that we at least keep trying to help, otherwise the result will be that these countries will produce ever more refugees.

Their countries' failures today will put pressure on our country tomorrow. If we are to keep them wanting to stay at home, then we should at least try and help make their homes more comfortable to live in
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 29 May 2015 3:50:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Philippines is a developing nation with a multitude of problems and very few practical solutions. But the govt here has said that in principle it is willing to accept a certain number of Rohynga boat people refugees - even if they are 'undocumented' - out of its obligations under international law and because it is morally right to do so.

Under previous President Manuel Quezon, they accepted about 1,300 Jewish refugees in the 1930s out of a well-founded fear of persecution.

Pray tell me, how many did Australia accept?
Posted by SHRODE, Friday, 29 May 2015 4:19:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bugsy

Re: "I suggest that we at least keep trying to help, otherwise the result will be that these countries will produce ever more refugees."

Of course there are different ways to help.

1. We could take in boat refugees with open arms. Thus encouraging more boats and more drowning, while effectively boosting people smuggling business who in turn pay-off government officials who kickout more minorities making for more refugees.

2. Australia could (as it is doing) join Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in politically pressuring supposedly Buddhist Burma-Myanmar not to be so heartless as to force Muslim Rohingyas out of Burma at gunpoint

3. All those countries could (and are) reminding Bangladesh not to profit from bribes from people smugglers who fleece Bangladeshi labourers who want a "Better Life", ie economic refugees, mainly wanting to move to Malaysia. Malaysia is crowded but luxury compared with the 170 million in Bangladesh. Malaysia's ruling religion is Islam hence less cultural clashes with Muslim Bangladeshis.

So its rather complicated.

2 and 3 are better than 1. Australia opening its doors or throwing money at people smugglers is more heartless. Those in Africa are more needy - refugees in (high famine, overgrazed) Africa who are usually starving to death inside and outside refugee camps.

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 29 May 2015 4:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

Are you addressing me? If so I have to say that I do not get your point that their failure now will be our failure in the future. Perhaps you could expand on it a little. We have been going ahead while they have been going backwards, even with our help and that of other countries. I am intrested in others peoples' points of view, but I like to know what they actually mean.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 29 May 2015 4:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

These people are NOT immigrants, and they are NOT refugees. They are people who don't like where they live; are mainly illiterate in their own language - can't speak the language of the country the are attempting to invade and, in my opinion should be fired on before the get anywhere near the shores of a country which has not invited them.

Unless tough action is taken, we stand to be overrun by useless people who expect to be provided with money, given housing, medical care and all the other benefits our taxes provide. This bleeding heart nonsense must stop or we will eventually in the poor house through no fault of our own.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 29 May 2015 4:52:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ttbn,

<<useless people who expect to be provided with money, given housing, medical care and all the other benefits our taxes provide.>>

Yet, what I repeat over and over on these pages is that although they may expect, THEY WON'T GET IT!

Yes, they should not be stopped, but if their boats somehow manage to make the journey across the oceans without drowning, they would face starvation in the Australian outback - unless of course there are Australians (but not the tax-payer) who are happy to feed them, on their own terms.

We have no moral right to block their entry, BUT we have no obligation to care for them in any way or include them in our society if they do arrive.

Once they know what they can expect if they even manage to survive the journey, much fewer would attempt it.

Somehow my uniquely principled views here seem to be ignored through lack of discrimination and thrown into the same basket of "bleeding heart nonsense".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 29 May 2015 5:12:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Yuyutsu, your proposal for dealing with boat people is one of the cruellest of any suggested.

In your proposal those hopeful boat people who manage to land on Australian shores will be escorted to the desert outback and then forced to fend for themselves; that is unless an Australian citizen offers to take them in and take responsibility for their well being in perpetuity.

So instead of being rejected at the border with an option of either being returned to their homeland or given sanctuary in detention until an alternative country agrees to accept them; they are doomed to starve or die of heat exhaustion in the desert.

I don't think you are as compassionate or fair minded as you think you are, Yuyutsu.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Friday, 29 May 2015 6:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, your solution is far more heartless and brutal than simply saying "No, no more".

They are motivated by envy.

How long do you think envious people who risked their lives crossing the globe will slave under the sun and live in a shack?
When they know across the mountain range is a big city with all sorts of goodies.

Your principles value liberty, but ultimately would undermine it.

A never-ending flood would arrive, causing tremendous social disruption/disorder.

Before long, people will be clamouring for peace and order and will happily don the uniforms of the most promising draconian headkickers.

Better to avoid both fates and just say No now.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 29 May 2015 6:51:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But they do "get it", Yuyusta. How do you think the illegal bludgers here now survive? Even if they are locked up, they are fed, clothed etc at high taxpayer cost.

Do you really think that if they landed somewhere in the outback they would starve? No, our weak politicians would look after them at our expense.

We have the LEGAL right to stop them before they get here. Morals are personal constructs and have nothing to do with the situation.

You are a thoughtful and courteous person, and I did not really mean that you were a bleeding heart. I was referring more to open borders proponents in general.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 29 May 2015 7:20:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A couple of decades ago Sierra Leone was awash with diamonds and gold mines, other places like Nigeria; even now, swimming in black gold or Texas tea!

And all that this inherent wealth has produced is conflict/nepotism and or petty tyrants/rebels murdering and kidnapping their own folk.

To #1 control a particular area!?

#2, obtain slave labor to work the larger mining provinces?

#3 recruit more cannon fodder as the child soldiers/sacrificial lambs they already exploit, are reduced by conflict!

#4 eliminate countervailing religious belief; mostly as Muslims murdering Christians and thereby acquiring sex slaves; and or, their land and stock holdings, what have you!

The smaller mineral provinces infested by crawling humanity seeking their personal Eldorados; and all too often buried in it!?

And until recently, Africa was home to the world's largest refugee camps!

We will never ever solve these or similar problems by providing an alternative homeland for the dispossessed/move the hate and conflict to these shores!

But rather take up the cudgels on behalf of the dispossessed!

It's amazing what might be achieved by arming and training the dispossessed, and assisting their endeavors with a few gunships equipped with night vision, a few rockets and mini guns, that can be used against the petty tyrant's forces, when they are caught in the open; is sadly, an essential part of the solution!

As it was during the Rwandan/Ugandan/Cambodian genocides!

If history teaches just one lesson, it teaches that tyrants can never ever be appeased or turned by peaceful means; or bought with money or treasure; which inevitably leads to endless demands for more; and even more displaced people! The only successful outcomes!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 30 May 2015 1:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a superb article from Project Syndicate to remind us of history.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-refugee-problem-history-by-zeid-raad-al-hussein-2015-05

and this one makes some interesting points

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-north-africa-refugee-crisis-by-javier-solana-2015-05

"Lebanon, a country of just 4.5 million people, has taken in an estimated 1,116,000 refugees"
Posted by Valley Guy, Saturday, 30 May 2015 1:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Lebanon, a country of just 4.5 million people, has taken in an estimated 1,116,000 refugees"

So Valley Guy, are you suggesting Australia should take around 6-7 million refugees, so we aren't outdone by Lebanon?

I'll bet Lebanon didn't take over a million Hindu's, Buddhists or some other alien religious culture to their own.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Saturday, 30 May 2015 2:48:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right you are ConservativeHippie

Australia definitly shouldn't aspire to become a refugee battling Lebanon of the South Seas.

Like Afghanistan and Iraq large parts of Lebanon are warzones of warlords and private armies with the odd Syrian or Israeli invasion now and then. In Lebanon Sunnis fight Shiites who fight Arab Christians much of the time.

Many of the 1 million+ "refugees" (hard to define when many have been in camps for 30+ years) are prevented from integrating because they come from the wrong sides of Islam.

The on again off again Lebanese Civil War is a bloodbath of sectarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War .
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 30 May 2015 4:30:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ttbn,

<<We have the LEGAL right to stop them before they get here. Morals are personal constructs and have nothing to do with the situation.>>

LEGAL is relevant and operates only within a society of those who accepted a kind of constitution: outside such a society, the laws that apply are the laws of nature, both physical and spiritual, morality being a natural law of the spirit just as gravitation is a natural law of physics.

An obvious example are animals: no sane regime attempts to subject them to the laws of a state (except some cases in the middle-ages of bringing animals to court to face trial, but they were insane), that is because they are not part of our society. Only the laws of nature apply in relation to animals and morality demands that we avoid harming them (except in self-defence). We are not morally obliged to feed every bird and every dingo - it's beyond the basic requirements of morality, though nothing of course prohibits it.

You are correct that morals are personal. Had we been living in an absolute-monarchy and the king declared that all approaching-boats should be towed away and their passengers locked up, then I could say: "Oh well, the king is a sinner, but it's none of my business", but in a democracy where those actions are done presumably in my name and even by a party which I preferenced in the last elections, it's my duty to protest and make clear that I'm not a willing party to those sins.

In short, what I'm saying is that humans must not be treated worse than animals. We do have the OPTION, and that's my response to ConservativeHippie and Shockadelic, to treat them better than animals if we want, but not worse. If the Australian people (rather than the government) want, then we can create such a balance where boat-immigrants wouldn't starve but wouldn't be so much better off than in their place of origin as to want to flood Australia. Governments cannot do it because they're bound by silly international-agreements and red-tape.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 30 May 2015 7:49:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu "LEGAL is relevant and operates only within a society of those who accepted a kind of constitution"

And we are such a society.

Can you name any populated region of Earth not under such legal constraints?
If so, would you want to live in that lawless free-for-all?

"outside such a society, the laws that apply are the laws of nature"

Tell me what animal does *not* protect its territory from the encroachments of competitors, *particularly* those of the same species (as they will eat the same foods).

There is only liberty in nature to the extent that you have working fangs, claws or can run from those with them.

"that is because they [animals] are not part of our society"

And neither are the citizens or residents of other lands on the other side of the planet.
There is no "society" that comprises the entire human species and never will be.

"it's my duty to protest"

Protest all you like, but stop claiming we have no "right" to control border crossings.

"We do have the OPTION to treat them better than animals if we want, but not worse."

We also have the option to say no.
To anyone or everyone.

We are not creating the circumstances under which they now live or seek to flee, so those conditions are not *our* "treatment" of them, but someone else's.

Give your moral lectures to the tribal warlords, dictators, religious fanatics "treating them worse than animals".

"Governments cannot do it because they're bound by silly international-agreements and red-tape."

We can't say "no" because of such nonsense.
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 30 May 2015 11:33:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shockadelic,

<<And we are such a society.>>

Not so, because the vast majority of Australians were never even asked whether they accept the Australian constitution, nor allowed any other option within the land they were born in.

But that seems irrelevant to this discussion since you also agree that the boat-people in question are not part of this society.

<<Can you name any populated region of Earth not under such legal constraints?>>

Tragically not.

<<If so, would you want to live in that lawless free-for-all?>>

I want to live in a voluntary society where everyone involved has agreed without coercion to be part of it.

<<There is no "society" that comprises the entire human species and never will be.>>

Thank goodness for that, it's the last thing I want. If anything, the chances of having voluntary societies lie in them being significantly smaller than contemporary nations, rather than bigger.

<<Protest all you like, but stop claiming we have no "right" to control border crossings.>>

You have no moral right to do so, but that's none of my business unless you claim to do so in my name or presumably for my own sake, implicating me as a partner-in-crime.

<<We also have the option to say no.
To anyone or everyone.>>

You even have the option to rape and torture them, but it's immoral.

<<We are not creating the circumstances under which they now live or seek to flee>>

As long as you don't tow their boat mid-sea and take them prisoners. Once you do so, you create new circumstances for them.

<<Give your moral lectures to...>>

Be as immoral as you like, so long as you don't do it in my name, presumably for my own good.

<<We can't say "no" because of such nonsense.>>

Nonsense indeed, which prevents us from saying a partial "yes": "land on our shores if you can, but then you won't become part of our society, you won't receive anything from us, including welfare or a legal status and you take the risk of being treated like an animal in every possible way."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 31 May 2015 1:04:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyustu: If the polls are right then your view is very much in the minority!

Greece was very generous inviting people in and paying unemployment and what have you, and only able to do so due the fact they are part of the EU, and supported by other vastly wealthier nations!

We however must borrow nearly every cent to finance the care and protection of so called refugees!

But nowhere is it written we must resettle these folk here!

Particularly when certain totally incompatible belief systems refuse to integrate; but rather, build ghettos that are in all practical aspects, countries within a country!?

And given the cost of actually making a boat trip, quite massively outweighs air fares; what prevents genuine refugees from simply getting on a plane and presenting here with verifiable ID documentation?

Alternatively if you are a dirt poor intending migrant with no money or salable assets, what must you sell to accrue the thousands elicited as boat fares?

And here you are preaching to the rest of us about morals or community standards!

Genuine morality all but compels us to (within our limited means) do what we can to cure the problems that start them on the journeys to begin with?

Dictators/petty self appointed tyrants!

Let's begin with proper sanitation and potable water. And enough reliable water to conduct sustenance farming!

And follow that by redirecting our limited aid budget to on the ground NGO's/local education.

[We who live on the driest inhabited continent in the world started with far less!]

In the final analysis, we cannot continue to prop up corrupt governments who just use our aid to buy guns and bullets to subjugate their own people!

Nor should we assist any type of ethnic cleansing! Which is what much of this so called resettlement is actually helping!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 31 May 2015 1:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is going to get bigger and bigger, armed refugees are likely in the future.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 31 May 2015 3:20:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu "I want to live in a voluntary society where everyone involved has agreed without coercion to be part of it."

You may want that all you like, but the states that exists all over the world are not going away.

At best, they may split into smaller states, but never with the *unanimous* support of all residents.

Citizens of the Australian colonies actually *did* vote in referendums to unite the colonies under one constitution.

Of course, Australians alive today did not vote, but the same would be true of any of your "voluntary" laws.

The population that chose a law last year would not be that exact same population alive this year.
Are we to revise every "voluntary" law whenever someone dies, emigrates or turns 18?

"the chances of having voluntary societies lie in them being significantly smaller than contemporary nations"

And significantly poorer.
It is only through large populations that economies of scale and the division of labour can produce high living standards and plentiful leisure time.

Being smaller would make them even *more* territorial, as they would have fewer resources to share with intruders.

There were much smaller nations once.
Germany, France and Italy were once dozens of smaller states.
Were they any less territorial than the now larger states?

You live in a castle in the air.
Idealism is just fluff unless it's actionable in the real world.

Sadly for you, your wishes will never be granted.
There is no point "debating" with you, as no workable solutions can ever be negotiated with Noble Ones.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 31 May 2015 3:50:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, animals especially dogs are subject to the laws of the state. Dogs are required to be licenced, they are required to be kept under control and if they bite someone they are likely the face the full brunt of the law. The laws of the wild, or natural laws as you might call them, still present restrictions and limitations. It just happens that the animal 'mankind' is capable of writing down, defining and enforcing its laws (love them or hate 'em) more consistently than other animals.

Likewise this place we agree to call Australia (and similarly all other nations) has defined borders that are agreed on by all other countries in the world. The government of the nation sets the laws that govern the borders. You have the right to not like the laws but you individually have no say in regard to how the borders are managed.

The 'state' has every right to regard the borders as 'our borders' with the word our meaning Australia's borders. 'Our borders' are not yours therefore you have no right to say you disapprove of the laws being applied in your name. Plus you don't recognise the state's right to make laws, so how could that state be doing so in your name?

The same as when you could not provide an example of one place in the world that applies the rules or lack of rules the way you wish the world was, when you dream up a version of the utopia you wish you could live in, its still just a dream.

The more far fetched the dream, the less likely it represents reality.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Sunday, 31 May 2015 4:17:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shockadelic,

Slavery has been around for millennia and was taken for granted. Only a few centuries ago, someone rose and said: "Hey, what are you doing? that's not right!" and at the time everyone else thought s/he was crazy, but within 100-200 years it all changed and slavery is now unacceptable. If someone were to claim as did the Romans: "It's impossible to have an economy without slaves", then almost every contemporary person would answer: "if so, then don't have a bloody economy!".

What I am saying is so trivial, but somehow the opposite is being taken for granted:

>>> It is not right to force your laws upon someone who never consented to have anything to do with you to begin with. <<<

One day, this will be obvious to everyone.

---

I must clarify that I never said that each and every law must be voluntary (thus constantly revised): what should be voluntary is participation in a society, any society - from then on it all depends on the specific constitution of that society.

While members-of-society are bound by law, one should be able to live in freedom without being a member-of-a-society, so long as s/he doesn't hurt or threaten its members. If s/he does then it's not a matter of law but of self-defence and the society may do what it needs to avert that threat.

<<And significantly poorer.>>

While my answer to that is "If so, then be poor!", it doesn't have to be so, just as contrary to the Roman idea, modern society can function without slaves. It's only a matter of having the goodwill to find a different and more moral model.

I'm not locked on this model or the other so long as all is voluntary, but as food-for-thought, if states are smaller, there can be voluntary networks of international agreements such as the European-Union and NATO which combine their capabilities. Also, even large states could have multi-tiered levels of citizenship, with corresponding multiple levels of both privileges and duties, so that everyone can choose their own level of engagement with society.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 31 May 2015 5:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhrosty,

Your interest in helping the poor in poorer countries is commendable: God bless you. However, the topic at hand is what to do about those who arrive by boat despite all efforts.

The first and foremost moral injunction is DO NO HARM. Helping others beyond that is indeed noble.

---

Dear Hippie,

Dogs are not subject to laws: dog-owners are!

<<if they bite someone they are likely the face the full brunt of the law.>>

No - they are just likely to be shot or otherwise euthanased.
Their owners may still face the full brunt of the law if indeed they accepted to be part of that society which has those laws. What the dogs face should be a practical operation to ensure they never bite anyone again. Such operations should be dictated by necessities rather than by laws.

If people who never agreed to become part of society repeatedly keep owning dogs that bite people, then as an act of self-defence it may be acceptable to shoot them along with their dogs. It is however unacceptable to bring them to court for trial, as laws and courts are an internal mechanism of a society.

---

Yes, the laws-of-the-wild present restrictions, but they are not of your own doing, you are not the restricter.

---

<<borders that are agreed on by all other countries in the world.>>

Even pirates have some code-of-honour among them (such as, "you may eat only those people you caught yourself"). Their acts may be agreeable with other pirate-ships, but not with their victims.

<<but you individually have no say in regard to how the borders are managed.>>

My life could have been easier under a dictatorship, but this is presumably a democracy, hence it's my duty to oppose wrong-doings done in my name.

<<you have no right to say you disapprove of the laws being applied in your name.>>

It's not a right, it's a duty!

Even if I happened to selfishly benefit from such immoral laws, it's still my duty to disapprove them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 31 May 2015 6:04:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy