The title of the article - Beyond self-interest - indicates what seems to me to be a fundamental problem. States must always act in their own interests, and populations will always elect governments to look after their own interests. The idea of moving "beyond self-interest" is utopian: it will not happen.

What we really need to do, as a number of posters have suggested, is to broaden the definition of our self-interest. Our long-term interests are best served not by bolting our doors and leaving the rest of the world to its problems, but by guarding our doors and simultaneously working to reduce the global problems that turn ordinary people into refugees.

If we are worried about our security, then self-interest says that we must deal with other people's poverty. If we are worried about terrorism, then self-interest says that we should be concerned about how people are oppressed. If we are worried about refugees, then self-interest says that we must do something about stopping the flow at the source, not at our door.

If we can turn the world into a place where everyone has the opportunity to build a good life for themselves in their own country, then the refugee problem will be over for all of us. And we don't even have to care about those people: it's just being guided by our own self-interest.

Oh thats just bloody lovely mate.

Thats all I can say. I was going to write a comment on this idealistic, remote - acadamic nonsense, when I find you have all done very superbly with out any help form me at all. I feel positively redundant well done all of you.

So for Leigh, Shonga, Mickijo, Craig blanch, Colinsett, Plerdsus, Ludwig, Ozone, and Ian, thanks a lot and most interesting.

As for Bushbred, regrettably, well, he was off chasing wild brumbies totally caught up in it all and sadly, got lost in the bush. Just where was he bred ?

As for good old Redneck, sure mate what ever. But keep working at it because your angle sure beats the PC and the bleeding hearts.

Thanks all