Daemon,
Great article

Let's take in 20-200 million...stop "pussy footing" around.

No end to our species stupidity with fertility and selfishness in wiping-out all the other species which "share" our planet.

Naive , "do-gooding" should be accelerated , so our future is obvious to all.

Shame about the forests being cut-down for more food and native cultures wiped out , by pro-natalists who refuse to support an education of having 2 children .........to save the Planet....mathematical illiterates !

I love them.

Best,
Ralph

Thank you Daemon.

About the sadness, I agree and feel so too. I do genuinely know what you’re talking about because I help refugees to put forward their cases under the Convention (just came back from Manus Island). My work involves sitting with them for four hours at a time, hearing in confidence all their troubles, and even their sobs and howls of pain when they recount their experiences of torture, bashings, rape and attempted murder at the hands of the statists in other countries. Anyone on this site will tell you I do nothing but put forward the arguments for liberty, and I can honestly say there are many refugees who owe their freedom from persecution, and even their life, to my work.

However it's not enough to *feel* strongly. We need to *understand* correctly. And just because I feel for, and act for refugees, doesn’t mean I share the view that the solution is open-ended governmental handouts paid for through the coercion system.

I have already shown the collectivist error in the idea that “Australia” hates asylum-seekers. I hate the shallow, facile, pious, ostentatious, vilifying ignorant fakery of the left wing. In the end it consists of nothing but insisting that what they want should be paid for by someone else under compulsion. At best, it’s moral and intellectual confusion and self-contradiction.

In particular, it is completely illegitimate to fail to distinguish, as that article does, between people not wanting asylum-seekers here because of:
• crimes refugees commit
• the huge costs to the taxpayer, and
• mere blind prejudice
and just thoughtlessly, fatuously lumping all objections into the last category.

I don’t think anyone objects to asylum-seekers when they’re in someone’s private home, not committing crimes, and not consuming costs that are publicly borne or imposed. (If they do, that’s sheer blind prejudice, and we agree it should be ignored.) The issue is the financial and non-financial costs they impose on Australian society.

Thus the root of the problem is the collectivist mindset itself, for three reasons.
Firstly refugee flows are overwhelming caused …

(cont.)

… by statist beliefs motivating persecution in the countries of origin. It’s precisely the Greens’ same creed of unlimited State power, that you’re justified in using violence to get whatever you want so long as you do it through the State, that rights are whatever the State says they are. This is by far the main 'push' factor in the refugee-generating countries. It’s an intrinsically abusive belief system.

Secondly, the main reasons people don’t want refugees are to protect socialist institutions. The main argument is that these people use common resources such as schools, hospitals, water etc. (People also resent refugees as competition for jobs – exactly the same reason why the Labor party initiated the White Australia Policy. The xenophobia is socialist to its core.)

Socialism would be better called "anti-socialism" because that's what it really is.

Thirdly the reason why we can’t just take refugees in privately, is because
a) immigration is a quintessential government monopoly, and
b) of all the government regulations.

For example, on my farm we could easily accommodate and employ refugees, and it would be mutually beneficial. Why can’t we? Because for every $100 transaction, the worker gets $84 and we pay $136, so the government gouges 50 percent of every transaction, making it completely non-viable – not counting the zillions of other regulations!

And the collectivists, who are overwhelmingly causing the problem on so many fronts in the first place, want even more of these heavy-handed coercions stripping away private property and liberty, and vesting all decisions in the political coercive class on behalf of the greater good, what else?

“I hear the points you raise, but find it difficult to find a way to make my points,… whilst holding in my mind, the collective, as represented by "our" government, which isn't really representative.”

Can you see how you’re confirming what I’m saying? It’s the mental habit of giving primacy to the collective that is causing the problem, because - even though you see it’s factually and morally wrong - it’s preventing you from thinking about better, more humane solutions.

So, all those who know what the problem is, get up & solve it. Go out & prevent people from becoming refugees. Taking in refugees only exacerbates the plight of refugees. As long as people are not stopped from sending people away from their countries than it is that long that refugees will seek out countries which advertise generous social services at the expense of those who funded those services with their own future in mind & not those who are unwilling to join them.
Most decent people will offer refuge to the needy. Most people also object to being taking for a ride to their own detriment. Why not conduct a survey on what percentage of able-bodied refugees would go back to their country in an australian army uniform & help fight their oppressors. Would they still be called murderous invaders by the Marylin Shepherds & David Gs for fighting to regain freedom in their own country ?

JKJ,
Thanks for your posts.
I like the way you think.
Your posts on this topic are really worth reading.
So far from the rabid rantings usually associated with this subject.
SD

<<JKJ, Thanks for your posts...Your posts on this topic are really worth reading>>

I'll second that