<< They must not outbreed others in the country – for social and ecological reasons… >>

I find it strange Valerie that you are thinking about ecological reasons (and inherent in that: sustainability reasons) in relation to the number of children some immigrant groups might have, but have not borne a thought for the numbers of immigrants we are bringing in to this country in the first place.

Our immigration intake is vastly more important than the breeding patterns of those immigrants.

We absolutely need to reduce our immigration program down to net zero.

At that level of immigration, the more fecund breeding patterns of some immigrants compared to others immigrants or to long-established Anglo-Celtic and indigenous Australians surely becomes virtually irrelevant.

We can limit breeding by giving preference to unbearable women.

Valerie I want to be six inches taller and be able to dance like Fred Astaire! Oh and good luck with your aspirations too.

What would be worse, would be, if new citizens brought to these shores, the very problems they came here; to escape from in the first place!
Like say, forced/underage marriage/marital rape/no voting rights/fanatical absolutism/sanctified murder/and or, religious beliefs, founded on a body of lies, that are then revised time and again, to embellish or enlarge the lies/myth/legend?
Even then our own democracy wouldn't be hurt by several reforms.
One, could be to limit serving politicians to just two terms, which in effect, would seriously limit corruption/cronyism and or white collar crime/expense account padding/insider trading/what new or changed legislation could mean, or produce some sort of perverse financial advantage? Polymer note sales/AWB etc!
Another just has to be optional preferencing!
Another a long overdue bill of rights! And to be sure, rights also impose responsibilities!
Another, true equality before the law; rather than perverted justice, and just for the rich!
Rhrosty.

"Must"

18 times.

Must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must, must.

It sounds more like totalitarianism than liberal democracy.

Must not.

"We can limit breeding by giving preference to unbearable women."

LOL. Please: no more unbearable women.

From the 1986 song by Mike & the Mechanics.

Take the children and yourself
And hide out in the cellar
By now the fighting will be closed at hand
Don't believe the church and state
And everything they tell you
Believe in me, I'm with the high command

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

There's a gun and ammunition
Just inside the doorway
Use it only in emergency
Better you should pray to God
The father and the spirit
Will guide you and protect from up here

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For someday sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me?

Hear me calling you
Can you hear me running, hear me running, babe?
Can you hear me running, hear me running?
Calling you, calling you ?

Shockadelic

"must" x 18. Spot on. Valerie is a indeed a totalitarian, not a democrat.

Democracies set rules on how people behave, they don't tell them what they must think.

Despite all those ugly "must"s, Valerie has a point:

Citizenship is a contract between a person/family and a group of people, so that group, whether democratic or otherwise, may set whatever membership-conditions they like, even insane conditions if they so desire - take it or leave it.

But two problems arise:

1) The group in question, comprising mostly of those born in Australia, was never consulted about belonging to that group in the first place and most of them have never consented to its constitution. A few members are thus dictating conditions of entry in the name of all others, who may well disagree. Note that democracy is irrelevant because it only applies within that constitution, for those who voluntarily accepted that constitution.

2) The question of membership is currently linked with allowing people to come and live in this continent, something which no group of people is morally allowed to prevent, regardless of its internal organisation (for example, democratic).

Once those two problems are corrected, then for sure citizenship will be a fair case of "take it or leave it".

Yuyutsu, I agree with your second point.
We have never given our consent to any particular immigration program.

Your first point is a bit dubious.
People can't help where or to whom they're born (unless you believe we choose the circumstances of our reincarnation, and if you do, you shouldn't migrate as you are betraying your destiny).

Once of adult age though, (and only adults vote in democracies) they can choose to leave this group (Australia) and join another.

We should stop all immigration until a truly democratic policy is debated and decided about what we really want in that department, no matter who may be "offended" or ultimately excluded.

Dear Shockadelic,

Although being agreed with feels nice, from the rest of your response I'm afraid that this agreement is not likely based on having understood what I wrote.

Let me rephrase:

There are two issues here, which I believe should be separate:

One is citizenship and the other is where one lives. The latter includes both migration and the ability to remain where one was born.

Groups of people may organise themselves in any way they like, so long as membership in those groups is voluntary. When doing so, groups are not obliged to admit in anyone else and may impose whatever conditions they want on accepting others.

On the other hand, it is wrong for groups of people to assert exclusive ownership over large areas of land.

There are certain easements which do legitimately allow a group of people to exclude others from their land ('others' here is not limited to humans). In the most broad terms, that is when allowing others would disturb their peace. This may apply in the case of extensively developed and populated areas, such as cities, but cannot apply in the case of a whole continent.

So neither those who are born in a certain location nor those who migrate there, should need to have anything to do with the social structure of that place, even if the majority of the people there adhere to that structure, so long as they do not threaten the peace of the inhabitants.

It is OK to refuse membership in your society.
It is not OK to restrict free movement of people as long as they are not likely to disturb your peace.

Bringing in 'democracy' is a red herring: democracy is something to do with the internal organisation of a group. While you may support or oppose it, it is meaningless until and unless one has actually agreed to become one of that group and abide by its constitution.

"On the other hand, it is wrong for groups of people to assert exclusive ownership over large areas of land."

Yuyutsu, we are material beings who need physical space to live in.

You support the establishment of voluntary groups who can *exclude* others.
How can they do this without a "territory"?

If people you would like to exclude can just move into your "space" anyway, how do you maintain your group's existence and access to vital resources?

Why do think all these exclusive territories exist in the first place?

Because that enabled the perpetuation of social groups (Tibetans, Irish, Finnish, etc).

Since no person (other than prisoners) are *prevented* from leaving these groups and their territories, those who stay are implicitly giving their consent.

"nor those who migrate there, should need to have anything to do with the social structure of that place"

If anything, immigrants are the only people who have *explicitly* "agreed to become one of that group and abide by its constitution".

But native-born have also done so by default.

They also have the option to migrate themselves.
If they choose not to, they are implicitly accepting the same conditions.

How do know *beforehand* whether immigrants will "disturb the peace"?
That is an impossible task and therefore unworkable as policy.

But policy can be based on probabilistic predictions.

We do know that the Dutch and Latvians are related to Australians and have similar cultures and Egyptians and Samoans are not related and have dissimilar cultures.

Who is *probabilistically* more likely to "disturb the peace"?
Similar/related or Dissimilar/unrelated?

Dear Shockadelic,

<<those who stay are implicitly giving their consent.>>

So when a robber with a gun tells you: "your life or your money" and you choose to have your life and part with your money, is that an implicit consent?

Nobody should have to leave their home, family, friends and place of birth just because they aren't interested in belonging to some mega-group.

<<How can they do this without a "territory"?>>

By respecting others who live on the same land and do not wish to join one's group. So long of course as those others do not reasonably disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the group's added value.

Natural resources do not belong to anyone, but people (and animals) are entitled to retain the fruits of their effort to enhance those resources.

It is acceptable to protect the immediate area where significant effort was exerted in developing it. This is like a bird protecting its nest. It isn't however reasonable to block access to large areas that are mostly undeveloped, where issues of protecting added-value do not exist.

Cats for example have overlapping territories with humans. It is reasonable to keep them away from the kitchen, especially from the fridge with the milk inside, but not from the whole yard (unless you raise chicken there).

<<If anything, immigrants are the only people who have *explicitly* "agreed to become one of that group and abide by its constitution".>>

(also public-servants, though it doesn't stop them from disturbing the peace!)

Yes, I am in that category myself and I do abide by the Australian constitution (which doesn't prevent me from screaming that it's unfair!). It is in essence a form of blackmail: "accept our social terms or we won't let you into this land". Clearly I never had any intention or likelihood to disturb anybody's peace: nobody ever doubted that in my case, but it wasn't sufficient for allowing me into this continent.

Note that other countries are even worse. Tragically, no place is free of territorial mega-societies. That's wrong!

The smaller the state, the more options we have.

Yuyutsu, nobody has a metaphorical gun to native citizens heads.
They are not threatened or coerced into staying here.
Invalid analogy.

"Nobody should have to leave their home, family, friends and place of birth just because they aren't interested in belonging to some mega-group."

You don't have to identify with that group personally.

But when you are living in a population of millions, there are practical limits on how social matters can be organised.

That's why tribes, cities and nations evolved (in that order) and created their own political structures in the first place.

You seem to negate that entire historical development.

The concentration of populations in large groups is not going to reverse.
It's too convenient, efficient.

"It isn't however reasonable to block access to large areas that are mostly undeveloped"

Mostly desert.

How many immigrants want to live in the desert?
Is anyone preventing them?

"It is reasonable to keep [cats] away from the kitchen"

Why do you have power over the cat's free movement?
When did the cat consent to *your* authority?
You are contradicting your own principles.

"It is in essence a form of blackmail"

Or a contract, between consenting adults.

Why would immigrants *want* to live here, if they were so antipathetic to the local sociopolitical reality?
Are they masochists?
Why not choose are more suitable location?

"The smaller the state, the more options we have."

Again, we've already been there, done that, historically.
Left it behind centuries ago.
You really must try living in the real world, Yuyutsu.

When I read Valerie Yule's article, I burst out laughing.

Valerie appears to be a very, very nice person who thinks that even people who's values are diametrically opposed can live in peace, love and tolerance forever in multicultural bliss. Ignoring the fact that this has never happened in all of human history and is therefore un natural, does not trouble Valerie one whit.

All we have to do to is to follow five principles.

We must allow other religions.

We must let people change their religions

We must give women equality with men.

The different cultures, religions and ethnicities must not try to outbreed each other

We must not insult each other or feel insulted if someone insults us.

Then Valerie tossed in a couple more. People doing the most socially demeaning work should be given the same wage as people doing responsible work, and schools should all be equal and secular.

It must be lovely dancing with the fairies down the bottom of the garden with Valerie and listening to the morning birdsong. But wait, there is a problem here. Valerie has previously written an article complaining about those black crows committing ethnic cleansing on the local song birds. Valerie's solution? Those black birds should be "culled". I think that Valerie is a apian racist who wishes to commit apian genocide using violence.

It's funny how Valerie can make moral judgements about the behaviour of bird types and conclude that some are inimical to the world full of musical birdsong she wants to live in, but she refuses to make the same conclusion about human religions, cultures and ethnicities.

Perhaps Valerie can convince the black birds to follow her five simple steps to obtain apian multifeathered Nirvana? Because she will have about as much success with that as with humans. Just like humans, birds of a feather just keep flocking together. They don't like birds of a different feather invading their territory, and the stronger birds will always take over the territory of the weaker birds as a survival imperative.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<You don't have to identify with that group personally.>>

Nor do you have to obey its laws.
So long as you never consented to be a part of that group, nothing morally obliges you to follow its dictates.

(my personal case is different because I am an immigrant, but that's for those born in Australia)

<<But when you are living in a population of millions, there are practical limits on how social matters can be organised.>>

Yes there are such practical limits, but what states do today, the extent to which they force themselves over those who never consented to belong, is way beyond what any of those practical limits requires.

<<That's why tribes, cities and nations evolved (in that order) and created their own political structures in the first place.>>

Most of which are shunned upon today, considered barbarian.

<<You seem to negate that entire historical development...You really must try living in the real world, Yuyutsu.>>

History is not over. Perhaps there isn't much I can do about this now, but future historians will note that: "Someone has already spoke about this and exposed that evil as early as the 21st century"!

<<How many immigrants want to live in the desert?
Is anyone preventing them?>>

Have you never heard about the Australian government and its immigration laws?

If an Indian boy arrived in Australia on a boat with his bengali tiger, the tiger would remain in Australia (albeit in a zoo, in order to keep the peace) but the boy would be sent back to India! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Pi

<<Why do you have power over the cat's free movement?
When did the cat consent to *your* authority?>>

My kitchen is no longer just "nature" because I invested much effort into it: The cat is likely to take my milk and create a big mess in the kitchen, so I prevent it. I have no intention to boss the cat, only to preserve my kitchen.

<<Why would immigrants *want* to live here, if they were so antipathetic to the local sociopolitical reality?>>

Because where they come from is even worse!

Yuyutsu "but what states do today, the extent to which they force themselves over those who never consented to belong, is way beyond what any of those practical limits requires."

Agreed.
But that is more a matter of the psychology of ideological activists than the political structure itself.

If people keep voting for politicians who make compulsory-helmet/no-smoking-anywhere type laws, then we'll keep getting more of those laws.

We need to change *voting* choices, not necessarily the system (although we should have proportional representation in all parliaments and *much* more direct democracy).

Re: desert.

There's millions of immigrants already given permission to live here.
And very few live in the Outback, the only "undeveloped" part of Australia.
Most head straight for the major cities.

"I have no intention to boss the cat, only to preserve my kitchen."

Immigrants take our "milk" (jobs, housing, welfare) too.
Nationalists just want to preserve our "kitchen" (culture, history, ethnic group/identity, social reality).

I don't want to "boss" immigrants either.
I want us to *select* only the ones we don't need to boss, because they're already Western-civilisation/liberal-democracy-compliant.

"Because where they come from is even worse!"

Not our problem.

And their own people made that hell.

What do you think they'll do to "their" neighbourhood here?
Many mini-hells are already established or out of the starting blocks in Sydney and Melbourne.

Many of those foreign conflicts are ethnic-based.
Borders were drawn without consideration of ethnic concentrations.

The many separatist movements in the world testify to the fact that peoples (ethnic groups) want to live with their *own* kind in their own territories.

Multiculturalism is the *exact opposite* of that natural inclination and is therefore doomed to fail, catastrophically.
Intelligent, educated people should KNOW this!

Future historians may note your purist idealism.
They may also note my "brutal" realism, in the face of rampant utopianism.

Dear Shockadelic,

Democracy; voting; majority; employment; unemployment; mono/multi-culturalism, are all red-herrings because they only apply once one consented to belong to a given society. Think of it more like about animals: they don't need to vote, they don't need money, employment or social-benefits and their culture has nothing to do with human-culture. They are here on earth and earth's natural resources belong to them no less than to humans.

It could be that the majority of society don't want to allow others to ride without helmets, but what right have they to impose that idea on others who do not belong to that society, others who never ask Medicare to pay if they break their head? Such others shouldn't need to obtain citizenship and voting-rights just in order to defend themselves from helmets and perhaps, theoretically, become a majority (of what?) one day.

The example you cite, of Muslims living in Sydney and Melbourne, is quite the opposite: they are eager to receive financial and medical assistance, they are eager to vote in order to compel others to follow their ways and they eager to live in highly-developed areas. In other words, they DO seek others' milk.

Whatever you mean by "Western-civilisation/liberal-democracy-compliant" is ambiguous: sure you won't allow in those who threaten your own way of life - but it's wrong to prevent those who only wish to live side-by-side harmlessly from entering this continent, including those who aren't interested in the Western-civilised-liberal-democratic lifestyle (presumably because their way of life is superior to that, rather than inferior such as the Muslim culture you cite).

<<Not our problem. And their own people made that hell.>>

If indeed it's not your problem, then leave them alone.

There are people who escape bad company, yet you cruelly insist on grouping them with their tormentors. I have left my "own people" and found a home in Australia. I came for the land, not for the social-culture and I harm no-one. As a condition of entry, I was compelled to accept certain social-standards that are not my own. I keep the deal, but it's unfair!