Another day, another Big Pop promo.

All OLO seems to do these days is Big Pop and Christophobia.

"But despite the political rhetoric to the contrary, no government can stop the powerful forces fuelling this surge."

They may not control the "forces", but they do control domestic policy.
There is nothing inevitable about immigration.
It is something we can choose to do, or not do, and according to any guidelines *we* select.

When will we stop?
We can't add an infinite number of people to a finite space.

Will we stop at 50 million?
100 million?
748 million?

Sooner or later it *has* to stop.
And a lot of Australians would choose the "sooner" option.

Peter Hume,

<Looks like the usual anti-freedom, anti-human parrots are out in a veritable squawking flock today, fresh from the defeat of their morally and intellectually bankrupt arguments in other threads, re-running the same refuted arguments.>

Gee Peter,

as I recall it you've been thoroughly bested in recent threads?
And I'm still waiting for some answers to questions I put to you in our last exchange:

<'m not comfortable with an utterly governed existence either, but I don't see your opposite minimal administration via free markets as an alternative. Can you elaborate your alternative? Since presumably you don't hold with a standing army, the police force, hospitals, roads and public transport, schools, universities, welfare, prisons, insane asylums etc etc. How would this anarchy provide for anybody's security or quality of life?
You've asked me questions and I've tried to answer them. How about some answers from you?>

This thread is based on neoliberal ideology, so the perfect place for you to strut your stuff, so how about a thoughtful response to the article? Or you might even answer my questions?

"Pelican
Still under the false impression that shooting people who disagree with you is morally superior? Or perhaps you’re not in favour of enforcing any policy on population after all? You went quiet on me there."
Happy to see Peter Hume would never stoop so low as to indulge in such practices.
Once again Hume derides poor old Malthus, for not accurately predicting the actual size of the bread basket.
Perhaps your God Mises can tell us how to extract a gallon and a half out of a one gallon bucket?
Or do you seriously suggest resources on our planet are infinite?
But of course I'm joking. Mises does provide the answer: let the favored few take as much as they like from the bucket, and let everyone else go without.
This they call 'Liberty'.

No vested interests here Aime - I simply enjoy shooting down bad arguments. It's like shooting fish in a barrel with the Anti-People lobby. I post across a broad range of subjects but the one's I find most interesting are the anti-populationist rants as they sail close to delusion. They remind me of the last days of the Branch Davidian cult.

King Hazza's posts are always curious. They are often unreferenced and seem to be driven by a personal agenda to belittle and demean. There re two benefits though - they are soporific and leave the mind almost vacant, much like colonic irrigation.

Quite agree Squeers and Grim;
But lets face it, by now after learning enough about his strange views of the world (that everybody is a communist), and the fact that he only comes to make outlandish statements or conspiracy theories, and only replies to difficult points by insinuating they are actually jackbooted Bolsheviks who secretly worship trees and hold a death fetish, do you really believe many other people don't notice and still take such a person seriously?
At this point it's about as pointless to consider what he says as it is to consider Runner's posts. It's not even like they actually change either.

My, my, Cheryl, so down on the sustainable population lobby, but you offer no reasons for your strenuous stance in favour of population growth, nor any qualification as to how far you think this should go. Are you suggesting unbridled pop growth for Oz? 50 million? More?

If you are only suggesting that some population growth is inevitable, then most would agree with you. But this would not seem to justify the intensity of your deriding of any who support manageable growth - growth in line with infrastructure and service capacities for example.

Some in favour of pop regulation suggest that industry demand for skilled labour should not automatically demand satisfaction by imported labour, but that even this demand should take its place within a manageable structured plan for pop growth. Are you taking significant exception to this point of view, and if so just what are you proposing?

Perhaps you interest is magnanimous compassion for asylum seekers, and hence that our borders should be wide open, and the more the merrier?

There have been a number of articles on OLO relating to pop growth, from one point of view or another, and in each case, as in this thread, the majority of comments have been for managed pop growth, so you view appears to be in opposition to the mainstream. Hence, our interest.

You keep us in the dark, Cheryl, as to the details of your point of view, and we are interested. No malice here, just interest.