I'm sorry but, I'm way to objective to subvert my best interest for the sake of some unknowns survival. Families that out breed their ability to feed, clothe, educate, or medicate their own are not my moral or ethical dependencies. People may have the right to procreation but, not on my dollar or at my expense. People who insist on living in geographical zones that suffer continuous destruction due to weather influences or where the ground is unfit for healthy food production may be exerting a right but, again not at my expense as part of that right.
Countries or people who are suffering from aids, those who are suffering from malnutrition, or starvation, or genocide, bad politics or any of the myriad human conditions, are not my moral or ethical responsibility.
That I choose to offer assistance or work with the underprivileged and disenfranchised isn't a matter of universal suffering or moral or ethical demands but, rather the importance I personally place on family, community and country.
I am more important than anyone else. And I'm especially more of value than someone I've never heard of.

@Grey,

The greedy Western Governments help to keep corrupt African leaders in power.

African countries were colonialised by Europe and then left on its own without any real structure.

Even to this day the West keeps Africa in debt.

"The vulture funds raise most of their money through legal actions in US courts. Those actions against foreign governments can be stayed by the word of the US President and that is where lobbying and political influence becomes important".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6362783.stm

AnthonyMarinac

In response to two of your points:

1. An excellent example of how things used to operate can be found on the 16th April 1944. The Sydney Daily Telegraph had been having a dispute with the Minister of Information about the censoring of news. The paper claimed the minister was using legitimate wartime censorship powers to restrict items politically damaging to the government. In particular the paper refused to fill in the blank spaces left when the minister censored an item. This resulted in commonwealth police, with drawn pistols, entering the offices of Consolidated Press to prevent the printing of the paper. The company immediately secured an injunction against the minister preventing him from continuing with this action, on the ground that the constitution did not give the commonwealth government power to control newspapers. Judging from the recent judgements of the High Court, it would today rule that the corporations power allows the commonwealth power to do anything it likes in relation to corporations.

2. As far as international law is concerned, you have agreed with me that it only applies when validated by national law. The UN, acting on its own, has no power over Australia, because there has been no consent.

It is interesting to note that almost all of the expansion in comonwealth power over the last 106 years has been due to judicial decisions, which often run contrary to the expressed will of the people at referendums. Time after time the people have voted referendums down, just to see the commonwealth acquire the power by other means. Do you call this ethical and democratic?

Plerdsus,

To take points in reverse order, I didn't verbal you, mate, so please don't try to verbal me. I don't think I made any comments about constitutional expansion - by referenda or judicial interpretation - at all. Overall though, I must say I am happy for the High Court to exercise the sort of interpretative powers that it does. However that doesn't mean I endorse every decision the court has made. You win some, you lose some. Bear in mind that I raised your ire by expressing admiration for one of the court's great dissenters.

On international law, since we both agree that the operative law is *Australian* law not international law, what's your point? Can you give any examples of where some form of international jurisdiction, not acceded to by Australia, has impacted on Australia in a way which compromises our legislative sovereignty?

Finally, on the events of 1944, if those events happened today, sanctioned by some sort of provision which essentially said "A corporation shall not publish material critical of the government" then the High Court would almost certainly find in favour of the publisher, upholding the implied right of free political communication (Australian Capital Television v Cth) and declaring the provision to be unconstitutional. I'm afraid this means you are hoist by your own petard, Plerd - the Commonwealth could be restrained by a High Court using those same interpretative powers you regard as unethical and antidemocractic. Ah well, like I said, you win some you lose some.

Anthony