This is Online Opinion's reserved spot for the daily nonsense article and this one does not disappoint.

Yeah,sure,Lyndon,Australia should open the borders and let in all comers.We have already exceeded our sustainable population by about 10 million and thanks to the the myopic ideology of KRudd&Co we are continuing and enhancing the insane immigration policies of Howard&Co.

How do you think this,alone, is going to end,Lyndon?

I can tell you.It will end in a crash,and,given the preponderance of fools like you in the population,probably a burn as well.

Lyndon has not suggested that we open our borders and let all comers in. Lyndon has suggested getting rid of the nation state system. As a first move there could be a union of the democracies. I think none of those who wish to enter Australia flees from a democracy. All that would result immediately would be a freer flow of people between the democracies.

I wish I had written the article. it makes good sense. I see no reason why Australia and New Zealand should be separate political entities. We could push for a union of our two countries and include other countries as soon as there is enough common ground for union.

Lets take this a step further. Lyndon can open his front door and his bank account to all comers. He can hand over the food on his table too. When will he stop? When he has starved to death? Just asking.
He should also have noted the EU has the most corrupt and bloated bureaucracy in history, complimented by obscene numbers of politicians who are paid large amounts of money but with every tax benefit ever thought of. The point is they keep on putting up taxes but never want to pay any themselves.
No Lyndon you really need to get out more and mix with people.

Imagining some Australians keeping other Australians out of a certain area of Australia, and trying to link that imagining with border protection, comes from a very strange mind.

‘Fellow human beings’ are not fellow Australians living in their own country. Non-Australian human beings are foreigners, aliens who have no business trying to get into Australia uninvited; just as Australians have no business trying to bet into other countries by ignoring the legalities.

And, in what way does this ranter think “… Australia pursues its current border control policy”?

There has been no border control policy since the Rudd Government got in. They openly invite illegals to come here – disbanding the Pacific Solution and advertising that they intend to expand the Christmas Island facility to house more of them when they turn up.

If Lyndon Storey cannot answer his own question: “Why is it alright to treat our fellow human beings this way, when we would never do the same to our fellow Australians?” then he needs a lot of help.

Lyndon Storey, with his open borders, is a raving anarchist.

‘Freedom of movement’, and ‘Human Union’, indeed! There has never been a more disgusting and idiotic contribution to OLO than this.

Imagine if the occupant of an Australian household such as Lyndon's decided to fix locks to his doors to stop other Australians entering.
Imagine also that Lyndon called the police when people attempted to get into his house without his permission.
Imagine Lyndon allowing entry to some deemed "friends" or "relatives" but others deemed “trespassers” were denounced as thieves.

Outrage and condemnation would surely pour forth from the rest of OLO readers.
Lyndon would inevitably be accused of putting himself ahead of his fellow Australians.
There would be cries of how dare he treat his fellow Australians this way, especially those who are suffering and struggling to build a better life for their families.
Lyndon would be accused of denying his fellow Australians a fair go.

Such terrible behaviour seems impossible to us, but this is how Lyndon's fellow human beings are being treated as Lyndon pursues his lock-the-doors policy.

Yes, Lyndon locks less-advantaged people out of his car too!

Why is it alright to treat other fellow human beings this way, when Lyndon would never do the same to his friends and relatives?

Why do people deserve fewer rights than Lyndon just because of who they are not?

Why is Lyndon more deserving of a fair go than other Australians?

The answer to all of these questions is that all human beings deserve to be treated with basic dignity, and this basic dignity includes the right of entry into Lyndon's house and car.

But if what Lyndon is doing is not alright, what should Lyndon do?

Lyndon needs to look beyond the individualism of private property and recognise that he is no more entitled to his property than anybody else.
Lyndon needs to throw open the doors to his house, his car, his bank account and let those more needy than himself partake in what he has greedily accrued to himself.

When Lyndon has done this, everybody else will follow his example, resulting in everlasting peace and prosperity on earth.

Or is Lyndon merely suffering from look at how compassionate I am derangement syndrome?

Twit.

Pathetic responses in the most part to this interesting article. And nobody seems to have answered the first point made in the article. I'll ask it:

Why as a Sydneysider should I have to put up with aliens - be they from Afghanistan or Armidale come into my city? People get very protective about who comes into this country. I'm saying in regard to Sydney that we will decide who enters our city and the manner in which they come.

And if you want to take parochialism even further then I draw the line at who enters Marrickville LGA. But I've made my point.

The following poem is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in New York harbour:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The United States has had an open immigration policy for a significant part of its existence. The wretched refuse has contributed to making the United States of America the greatest nation on earth.

Please, Lyndon, stick to the facts! You describe the outrage that supposedly would occur if Melburnians were prevented from settling in Sydney. The fact is that there is at present an area of New South Wales that outsiders cannot settle in, which is Lord Howe Island.

The realistic fact is that if you want worldwide freedom of labour movement you would have to abolish minimum wages. I would love to have a bangladeshi girl in the house, doing all the cooking, washing and ironing. I would feed her, house her, and give her $20 per week pocket money. Unfortunately minimum wage laws make this impossible, so I do all this myself, as I am not paying Australian rates.

If you had unlimited immigration there would be a large number that no-one would employ, making them an unbearable burden on the welfare system. During the Sydney Olympics the airlines demonstrated that they could fly in a million a week, and I think we could expect the same today.

The UK had a completely open door policy during the 19th century until the passage of the Aliens Restriction Act pf 1914. As far as I know the only country with such a policy today is Israel, but of course only for Jews.

We should go back to using the term "alien". This is widely used overseas, especially in the US, where a visitor has the status of a legal alien. It emphasises the vast gulf between a citizen and an outsider.

Historically, an outsider requires leave before entering another country. Entry without leave constitutes invasion. Ask any aboriginal.

New Zealand was mentioned as a country with which we could unite. I suggest you ask any New Zealander. Remember they are the original failed state, hsving failed to join the federation in 1901.

<< If Australia were to propose such an organisation [a human union], or seek others to join the initial nucleus of such an organisation, Australia would be making a genuine contribution to dealing with the problem of asylum seekers rather than simply guarding its tribal privileges against less fortunate fellow humans. >>

Lyndon, I don’t buy this notion of a human union as being the answer to greater freedom and equality. And I don’t think ‘tribalism’ is the problem here.

It is very clear to me what Australia needs to do in reference to asylum seekers and refugees. We need to have tightly controlled borders that strongly discourage asylum seeking, both onshore by boat and inshore via plane (students, visa overstayers and the like, who apply for residency outside of our formal immigration program).

At the same time we need to boost our refugee intake as part of our formal immigration intake and boost international aid to at least 0.7% of GDP, especially in relation to the causal factors of refugeeism.

We also need to stabilise our own population and develop a political regime based on genuine sustainability.

And we’ll be able to do this much more effectively if we retain full control of our nation rather than if we become part of a greater union, in which there would very likely be a lot of pressure from Asian countries with much large populations than us to increase our immigrant intake to even higher levels than the current record rate.

Incidentally, we could greatly reduce our immigration rate, to about 30 000 per annum and double the refugee intake to about 25 000 at the same time.

No, these rather ethereal notions of a human union and tribalism just don’t seem to me to be particularly relevant to our responsibilities to both secure a healthy future for our nation and to do our bit to help those less well off around the world.

Lyndon,

You naughty boy.

Don't you know Rudd, his labor mates and the media have banned any discussion of illegal immigration into this country.

Did you know the last boat load of illegals arrived Tuesday. It was the 54th this year. That boat with the 78 Tamils who blackmailed their way here was about the 45th.

SSSSSSHHHHH now. Don't talk about it! You'll only stir up the natives.

God alone knows how many more times we are going to have to put up with these pseudo humanitarian outpourings ... and then along comes Storey with his angle of trying to awaken a sense of guilt in those who dont subscribe to his ideas. It doesnt work that way, Storey.

Australia has the right to decide who comes and who doesnt come into the country-not people like you.

You know,guys, these specious arguments were thrashed a long time ago in countries like Holland, Belgium and the UK and look what it's got them. Ask any of them today if we should follow their fallacies and be "as humane" and see what sort of answer you get.
It seems that the scene of this debate has shifted to Australia. All I can say is ... Those who dont learn from history are bound to make the same mistakes.
The time isnt far off before we are going to have to open our doors to all those displaced from submerged countries in the Pacific area of the world.And we shall happily take them all in. We are related.I want to be the first to welcome them as they land or fly into Australia.
We are NOT a racist country but we arent a stupid bloody lot either, despite all the air time cretins like Storey get.

socratease

My crystal ball tells me places like Sydney will stop entry and become walled cities. The world is becoming increasingly urbanised and the centres of finance and business the new countries of globalisation. As globalisation only benefits business, only business borders will count. As the people in cities become richer and richer they will buy more and more rural land and village land until they are the landowners and the rural people the peasants.

Lyndon,
I do agree that your idealism is a tad naive, when dealing with the "Me first tribe" and way before its time.
Sadly, idealism is wasted on these posters, many are still wearing tribal war paint and worship at the pagan alter of 'I'm all right Jack' (aka current major political parties).

They're still struggling with issues like integrity and what is a democracy. As for concepts like responsibilities to society much less, the society of man, may as well be in a foreign language. They call it 'Socialism, world government(hiss, spit). As if it could be any worse than what we have now.

Som,e even have problems with concept that Australia is on the same trouble planet, and where the people live will be irrelevant to the end consequences. They believe, that if we keep everyone out, some how, the effects of climate change will swirl around our borders, leaving us to continue unaffected. Simply look at what serves as politics in Australia.

Most still believe 'she'll be right,mate" is a magical fix all, infallible incantation. Rather than the Aussie version of head in the sand.

In short, You're on the wrong site for intellectual or idealism.

PS 'twit', is in their dialect is for, someone who thinks differently.

Unfortunately for those who don't like this article history is not on their side. They may like to live in mediaeval villages where you lived and died in the same town without encountering a newcomer. They may prefer communist societies like Stalin's Russia which were closed to most foreigners and regulated population movement internally and externally. But, apart from North Korea and Cuba, pure communism no longer exists.

We live in capitalism where, sadly for the critics of Lyndon's article, means increasing movement of peoples and high levels of immigration. In Australia, immigration will be the same under a Labor or a conservative government. Howard's policy on immigration differed little from Keating's. So-called illegal immigration to Australia is continuing. No different to when Howard was in office. And by the way, forget the boat people. Your problem is those who get here by plane then overstay their visa. They're sneaking in under your nose.

As for the idiots who made a pathetic analogy using the author's personal possessions read this carefully: my house, my backyard and my personal possessions are mine because I earned the money to pay for them. I (nor anyone) has earned the money to own Australia (or NSW or the City of Sydney etc). See the difference?

Australia, like NSW and like Sydney is just an administrative convenience that nobody owns and nobody has "rights" over. People may be born here or immigrate here. But that is not the same as rights of ownership. Got it?! Good.

Globalisation will ensure continuing human movement due to economic reasons and as far as I'm concerned that's a positive thing. I prefer capitalism and what it offers compared with other systems. Those who don't may consider moving to somewhere like Macquarie Island. I believe it doesn't get immigrants.

This article is so stupid I will try to elaborate the BASIC, OBVIOUS concepts in response to this smug nonsense like talking to a child.

The Fortress Sydney concept- (ignoring that Sydney would in turn be locked out of Australia and the market) is rubbish because we all extend government sovereignty over each other and are obliged to allow free travel.

Other nations we have NO say in, and as far as I'm concerned, no compulsory responsibility towards. This applies both ways. Also, if I don't want any input from another nation, I don't get input in it in return, thus achieve mutual neutrality and each can be governed in a manner they EACH see fit. If the countries are so similar little would change by sharing sovereignty, they form unions (like the original EU). The problem with the EU is that it is a governing body becoming increasingly distant as more different (and socially disadvantageous) countries are being let in based on incredibly simplistic superficial criteria. Also note the public opposition to further expansion- particularly to places such as Turkey and the interests in the governing level contradicting public will.

Now, I won't elaborate too much on social burdens we'd face as Lyndon obviously doesn't care- but the reason why places isolate themselves ("selfishly") from others is because aside from the potentially negative social effects of those from deeply religious tribal areas on a liberal secular community, is that cities cannot indefinitely cope with the numbers- sharing space and infrastructure even more thinly, driving up house prices to name a few.

And DavidJS, apparently your concept of 'ownership' falls short of electoral registers, citizenship laws and local taxes that would apply beyond private property. And this might come as a shock, but you can be born into automatic ownership of private property too, genius.

Pfft- this topic is like a Kindergarten with several dozen teachers trying to teach a handful of students. More to come later.

Lyndon, rather than freeing up the movement of people in Australia, we should be tightening it right up.

As I said previously, immigration should be reduced right down to net zero or thereabouts. There should also be much tighter restrictions on people moving into overcrowded places, such as Sydney, Melbourne and southeast Queensland.

The emphasis should be on the preservation, or recovery, of a decent quality of life and environment, and to stop it from being eroded by way of our various state and federal governments’ facilitation of ever more people moving into places where population pressure is a problem.

When quality of life is reduced, stresses manifest themselves and strife ensues. There becomes a much stronger call for governments to put money into basic infrastructure, services and control mechanisms. In this situation of greater domestic urgency, there would be much less chance of us doing our bit on the world stage by increasing our international aid effort to at least the UN recommended 0.7% of GDP.

Sydney shouldn’t become a walled city, so to speak, but there should be much better planning mechanisms to entice people to move elsewhere to places that can better accommodate them.

But this sort of redistribution or decentralisation must go hand in hand with a much-reduced immigration rate and a declaration of an overall population cap for the country.

We need more socialistic, or stronger democratic, demographic policies of this sort. Otherwise we are going to suffer terribly if the current level of free movement into and around Australia is allowed to continue.

Why some posters bother trying to explain basic common sence to the author is beyond me. One needs a brain to grasp that.

It is incredable how some humans actually survive after weaning, the author is one. His mother actually deserves a medal for teaching him how to suck.

Lyndon Storey asks why do people deserve fewer rights than us just because of where they were born ?

Perhaps it is a also a question of responsibility.

I wonder if Lyndon Storey would agree that the people of any particular country have a responsibility to improve the social, economic and political conditions in their country, or does Lyndon Storey think that they should just be given carte blanche to move to countries where people have chosen improvement over stagnation and have invested great time and effort to achieve improvement.

At the end of the Korean War South Korea was a ravaged country, but today it is a modern and thriving country (even exporting high tech products) thanks to the energy and ambition and focus of its people. So Lyndon Storey, why cannot the people of dysfunctional African or Middle Eastern nations choose the same course, or does Lyndon Storey perhaps think that they are incapable of doing so, and therefore the only option is for them to relocate to affluent western democracies.

More trite insults from those who have the gall to call this article stupid. Here's one gem:

"And DavidJS, apparently your concept of 'ownership' falls short of electoral registers, citizenship laws and local taxes that would apply beyond private property."

None of which entitles me or anyone else to decide who can enter this country or how many. No such set of rights exist in common law, in the constitution or anywhere else. Only in the minds of those under the illusion they understand the legal system in Australia.

Moreover, in some countries people are NOT entitled to travel whereever they wish inside the country despite what some here may think. Fortunately Australia is not in that category (apart from restrictions on travel within defence force property or similar) but it may be considered if Australian cities are deemed too overcrowded.

National entities such as Australia are no longer the isolated enclaves they used to be and given the way capitalism is developing, will become less so. Regardless of whether Rudd or Abbott is Prime Minister, immigration rates will too high because that's the way our economic and political system works. And I for one would rather the social burdens of immigration levels today compared with the glorious times of 1900 when such levels were greatly restricted.

So, the premise that the public have no right to restrict access to their property to those outside the broader national/local public ownership list in the same way an individual has to restrict access to their own private property is based solely that as of present, there is an absence of a law specifically referring to the citizen and their rights to exclusively withhold their public property from an outside body via input in immigration policy and access to purchasing property, am I correct?

And I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the government DOES reserve the right to process, approve or deny visa- essentially on our behalf- as they and most other Western governments have been practicing.

Wonderful idea. Let's allow all comers to enter Australia and within ten years we will be indistinguishable from the Middle East, India or Africa. In case the author hasn't noticed (or lives in a cave in some remote region of the country), people bring their culture, values and customs with them.

So let's import more of the values and customs that have wrecked the places I mentioned. Let's unselfishly import millions of the people who live by those values and customs and we can kiss our country goodbye.

But never mind, we can always emigrate to the Middle East, India or Africa, I'm sure we would be welcomed with open arms.

Wouldn't we?

I remember when I was younger and studying anthropology that members of many so called primitive cultures referred to themselves as "humans", and considered members of other cultures just non-human, which allowed them to make war on them, take their possessions and women, etc. Non Australian may be foreigners, but only if you think in a particular, narrow sense. We all live in the same world and we all have some basic rights, and I think we are well beyond the notion that we don’t have interest or right to intervene where they are not respected. Lyndon is not proposing abolishing all borders so that total chaos and confusion can follow. He advocates advancing towards a world where the primacy is put on the fact of being humans and not on the particular national, ethnic, religious, etc. group to which we may also belong. We face global challenges that affect all of us and that can be only solved by global governance (climate change is but one of them). Whether because we feel we all are humans (how can we feel otherwise?) or by self interest, we would be wise to pursue the development of a Human Union. It will not come all of a sudden, someone has to take the first step.

I suppose no one will find surprising that I disagree with the notion that EU has the most corrupt and bloated bureaucracy in history, but I think most of its bureaucracy stems from the fact that it is still a Union of States and not a United States of Europe.

The problem jllortega with federalising more countries (in a democratic state, that is) is that eventually you come to a point where some regional communities have such different values the wishes of the other community actually start to be compromised with things they outright don't want purely to appease the new members.

The EU is a perfect example. MOST of the various countries so far inside were enthusiastic about expanding to one another, as they each felt that their own countries alone didn't offer as much as they wanted (travel, trade-wise), and the feeling was quite mutual all around. Nowadays there is almost zero enthusiasm for expanding further because the remaining candidate countries (and some already allowed in) are mostly much poorer, some culturally alien places to which the people in the original union would feel would just burden them and offer nothing they actually want in return.

Considering the contrast in attitudes amongst various states and peoples, you would have a clear clash between the values of secular states and theocratic (including shariah) states- with zero little actual independence and (comfortable) isolation from the other- be it from international lobbying or individuals having unrestricted rights to travel and lobby locally in a place that might not have actually granted them entry if it had the choice. Also there would be a hugely disproportionate pressure on developed countries to carry the world's population financially and even physically. Also take the recent UN movement outlawing defamation of religion- the secular states (basically the entire west and most first-world countries) got outvoted!

This is why nations with borders and little political sovereignty over the others is such a good thing- especially focused geographically so each can handle their own actual climate properly.

Also, I should point out that Switzerland and Sweden- the most independent nations in the world- are among the VERY top (1st and 2nd) for most environmentally-friendly nations in the world- it comes down to the fact that the people there actually get a say in environmental practices- Australian and American citizens get overruled.

We have NATION STATES for a VERY GOOD reason: so different cultures . . . with their own linguistic, historical and cultural traditions . . . can have a voice about their own self-determination and destiny, instead of being dictated to by others who have no understanding or appreciation for their beliefs, their history, their language or their culture.
Yes, of course, many nations states were created through past colonialism. We all know that. We all know that, in the process of colonialism, injustices were committed against indigenous peoples. There is not a single nation state on the face of the Earth that has not, at some point in its history, committed injustices against someone. But, the salient point is that MOST past colonial powers have EVOLVED their own democratic traditions . . . including the admission of indigenous peoples into those democratic traditions. It is true that people from different cultures and language traditions CAN learn to share a belief in common Constitutional and democratic principles. If that happens, so much the better. However, there is no guarantee that it will happen as a result of open borders. Australia belongs to those who share the democratic values of Australia, and who are willing to give their political loyalty TO those values. I say that as an American who loves Australia and Australians. Any democratic nation which either gives up, or loses, control over its own borders, eventually loses control over its own destiny and democratic way of life.

Nation states ONLY have historical reasons.

We have cultural diversity also within nation states even within cities - the answer to this is the principle of subsidiarity.

Looking at our political system there are at least two possible perspectives:
the empirical/historical (from stone age tribes, to villages, to nation states, to transnational unions) and the normative perspective (the idea of the state born from game theory (17th century - Thomas Hobbes)).

The problem with our current political system is that it does not serve as a solution for the "game" any more: we live in a society, which is organized in little nation states and dominated by the globalized economy. This causes great market failure, the destruction of non-renuable natural resources, etc.

Both the historical and the normative perspective indicate a shift towards a global democracy (human union) soon.

Please read books on the topic these comments don´t leave enough room for explanations.
________________________________
http://www.vimeo.com/4043483

Why would anyone in their right mind . . . that is, anyone who believes in INDIVIDUAL liberty and personal sovereignty over their OWN life and their OWN honestly-obtained resources . . . want to give more DIRECT democracy (power to form a MAJORITARIAN dictatorship) to irresponsible and vindictive mobs whose guiding principle is ONLY majority rule . . . THEIR majority rule . . . without any Constitutional restraints on the whims or impulses of the majority, and without ANY regard for the freedoms and rights of minorities or individuals who may disagree with the majority?
In the Muslim world, there have been several radical Islamic parties who have sometimes won elections. However, their concept of "democracy" . . . if THEY win . . . has generally been: one person, one vote, for ONE time. Then, if THEY win, they have frequently acted as if they have a "mandate" to impose an Islamic theocracy and cancel any future multi-party elections. Unless the impulses of majorities are held in check by an independent judiciary with the authority to enforce strict Constitutional protections for minority and individual rights, more "democracy" is a recipe for oppression by the majority. Does anyone in their right mind really believe that open borders is going to guarantee a society of liberty?

I had to wait in line and have my credentials tested before I came to Australia. I see no worth while reason for Australia to now allow any flotsam and jetsam, waif and stray or those who carry a disease, either medical, social or political, to being allowed free entry now.

This is just another spoof attempt by the “internationalists” to impose their illicit agenda of porous borders upon Australia, simply to facilitate the entryism and terrorism which such perverted minds feel is their entitlement to inflict upon a successful nation-state.

Shadow Minister "Twit"

succinct.. although you are too generous SM

In my opinion we do need a world constitution.

What is better than a constitutional democracy?

Giving up sovereignity is what the idea of a state is about: but we get more than we give!

Global democracy is not an illusion it is a subject that is beeing researched by the academice world for a long time.

Without the cold war we would maybe already be living in a global democracy.
Also see Einstein...and many many many more.

I don´t feel I can convice you, but I ask you to think about it.
Thx
FB

fredbrandi states:

"Without the cold war we would maybe already be living in a global democracy."

How is the Cold War responsible for the fact that we do not live in a global democracy? Nobody can force Democracy on cultures that are not ready for the concept, or whose members do not possess the necessary mindset.

Democracy is a concept peculiar to cultures where general education, individualistic thinking and respect for differing opinions are the accepted standards. Cold War or not, the tribal societies of the Middle East and Africa will be a long time in developing the proper mindset for democracy, if ever...

Sorry Fred- I HAVE thought about the implications of a global democracy and have already stated my reasons why it is detrimental compared to multiple smaller (highly) democratic states. But for everyone's convenience I will restate them because I'm just so NICE.
-Smaller nations can cater more precisely to the correct needs of the populace- so long as the country's borders are formed around like-minded people and not by annexation- a global democracy would see governance weighed substantially by multiple conflicting morals and ideals creating a detrimental compromise to each group (eg secularism, shariah, bible-belt, liberalism, conservatism, free-market capitalism, socialism)- all ideologies clearly preferred by persons in very specific parts of the world today. And again, the UN's official policies (by member votes) include many policies outright abhorrent to large parts of the world but supported by most of the world in general (religious defamation laws pushed by Islamic states, opposed by every western democracy now UN law).
-The 'evolution-of-tribes-to-federated-states' concept is also total rubbish- as the states of today are largely SMALLER than those of 100 years ago- despite being more advanced and less warmongering now. And most of the empires (all minus the British one) over the past 700 years were SMALLER than the Mongolian Empire of the middle ages.

I believe much of this discussion is based on something Lyndon didn't say and that is not defended by any cosmopolitan thinker I am aware of, i.e. transforming the world into a single country with a single government resembling our current national ones. I defend the development of forms of global governance that are democratic and accountable to the people and not just to governments, but they should be embodied with limited, restricted powers, as all governments should. This is the statement I use in my world citizen activism. You may disagree with it, but not because it aims at creating a uniform world or a totalitarian world government:

We, world citizens, hereby demand the establishment of executive, legislative and judiciary institutions of global governance that are democratically elected, transparently monitored, and accountable to all citizens of the world, that protect people's basic rights and interests, and that are consistent with the principles of subsidiarity, human legitimacy and political equality.

Democratic global governance: The network of executive, legislative and judiciary institutions of global governance that are democratically elected, transparently monitored, and accountable to all citizens of the world.

Subsidiarity: The principle that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that a global (or higher) level of government should perform only those essential tasks that (for reasons of scale, capacity or need for exclusive power) cannot be effectively undertaken at lower levels of administrative decision-making.

Human legitimacy: The principle that global policies must be consistent with all of humanity having an equal opportunity to benefit and must promote freedom of conscience and expression, democracy, access to education and knowledge, sustainable development, and environmental preservation.

Political equality: The principle that global institutions must promote equal access to the decision-making process, facilitate genuine participation by the vulnerable, provide effective enforcement mechanisms available to all, and ensure that institutions are accountable and operate in a transparent fashion.

jllortega,
I hereby second your motion and further demand that the constitution of your newly proposed tri-partite system of global governance be written in Esperanto so that all the citizens of the world can read it.

I'd like to ask something- what exactly does the global government DO?
That being, what affairs does it actually have authority upon that would actually make it a government of any sort?

And again, "Human legitimacy: The principle that global policies must be consistent with all of humanity" falls on the highly inconsistent attitudes of people across the world- a quick rundown of UN motions, bills etc and who voted for/against tends to get very dissonant (religion- again).
Which is why a world government will never happen- all countries (the most democratic more than any) are aware of the implications of having their own policies compromised for many an incompatible principle.

Also, on the note of the environment- what if the world government's green policy isn't quite Sweden but more USA, Australia, or even China?
The UN could easily get the green policies because the countries knew it was all talk- but when it comes to walking the walk, the whole world may be weighed down by countries that realize they seriously aren't going to like the growing pains.

I liked this article. Impossibly unrealistic perhaps, but it doesn't hurt to express ideals.

Strangely enough, those ideals don't seem to me to be all that distant from those expressed by the annual Christmas ritual that most of us are celebrating.

Unfortunately, the function of Christmas in Australia seems to be to provide one day out of 365 where normally hateful people bury their enmities for the sake of a feast, piss-up and orgy of material consumption.

Such a shame that they can't practise 'peace on earth and goodwill to all' for the rest of the year.

Even Christmas is not complete for CJ Grogan without him pointing out that it is the one day that the haters stop hating for a day because they are too busy in an orgy of self-indulgence.
I've had a hat full of CJ Grogan's hate-filled accusations of hateful, hate-mongering haters.
I find his hypocritical hatred hateful.
Can't he restrain himself from expressing his bile towards others,
even for one day at Christmas?

Why not ask UK,Holland, Belgium,France, and Germany if they had their way again from the beginning would they have a border protection policy if it was tribal or human?

Please do not imply that it is somehow immoral or inhuman to protect what is yours
socratease

CJ Moron “Unfortunately, the function of Christmas in Australia seems to be to provide one day out of 365 where normally hateful people bury their enmities for the sake of a feast, piss-up and orgy of material consumption.”

To say nothing of the non-Christians, who presumably remain hateful all year around……

Don’t ya just love faux piety of the resident whatever

“Such a shame that they can't practise 'peace on earth and goodwill to all' for the rest of the year.”

That’s rich, coming from someone with a double degree in ad homenines and hypocrisy

HermanYutic I see you feel likewise regarding his (CJ Morons) “works”

Socratease “Why not ask UK,Holland, Belgium,France, and Germany if they had their way again from the beginning would they have a border protection policy if it was tribal or human?"

Remembering Enoch Powells warning of the 1960s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

50 years on and his prophecy is coming true

Re “Please do not imply that it is somehow immoral or inhuman to protect what is yours”

Well if there was something wrong, all these waifs and strays would not want a bar of it, yet they come in droves to debase the national social cohesion through the mockery of "multiculturalism"....

Because when they get here all they want is to practice the barbarism of the places they were supposedly "escaping refugees" from…

go figure?

I want more borders. I am all for the separation of North Queensland, not just as a separate state but as a separate country. Every place becoming a bland facsimile of everywhere else, the dominance of over crowded cities and financial markets being manipulated will increase demand for more borders, not less. I would not be surprised if the US breaks up. Humans can only be used as a science experiment for so long before they rebel. Globalisation may be good for some but mainly good for the extremely wealthy and multi-national corporations. Not good for humans.

Have you found God recently, Col? If so, what a charming advertisement for Christianity you are.

CJ Grogan,
<Have you found God recently, Col? If so, what a charming advertisement for Christianity you are.>
Your statement is offensively Christianocentric as it assumes that Col has found a Christian God.
It is also blatantly Islamophobic as it excludes the possibility that he has found an Islamic God.
From an interfaith point of view this is doubly offensive as it implicitly denies the reality that they are all the same God.
Such hate-filled, non-inclusive diatribe does not belong in this forum.
Having made my point,
I would fight to the death for your right to express your viewpoint,
but that won't stop me from pointing out how hateful you are in expressing it.

CJ Moron “Have you found God recently”

Actually, Rover, my new wife is a devout catholic and I attend church with her… not that I ascribe to that particular Christian “franchise”, too much protestant in me I guess…. (explaining to her who Guy Fawkes was and what happened to him was interesting).

As for yourself… I ponder what franchise you adhere to

the exclusive brethren? smug in their “exclusivity” and sneering at everyone else – you fit there

Or perhaps you count among those fellows who stand on street corners and proclaim bits of scripture off of pieces of recycled cardboard

“Ranters“ again it quite suits your posting style

HermanYutic “I would fight to the death for your right to express your viewpoint but that won't stop me from pointing out how hateful you are in expressing it.”

Ah so too me…. I believe the great benefit of Rovers rants is simple

(On another board I use a signature phrase, it goes)

“Freedom of Speech distinguishes the Sage from the Fool by the merit of their words.
Censorship treats them the same... “

Our resident moron definitely exposes his lack of cognitive credentials with every post he makes

Now back to people seeking entry to Australia

Both myself and my wife are immigrants, me 1983, she 1968

We were both independently tested and found acceptable for entry, having both economic resources, in-demand specialty qualifications, free of specific diseases, no criminal record and appropriate attitude to settle successfully

We accept that “genuine refugees” should be allowed but

“Genuine refugee” versus “economic refugee” merit must be determined

For a “genuine refugee”, the only difference to my application should be on the economic capacity and employability criteria… everything else should remain a test.

For economic refuges, attempting to avoid the hurdles of migration, they should be expelled and never allowed to re-apply, their conduct deeming them of bad character and disqualified for entry or settlement.

“Open borders” is just another attempt by internationalists/collectivists to debase the rights of the individual people of a country to decide who is allowed to join them

Col the Troll: << my new wife is a devout catholic and I attend church with her… not that I ascribe to that particular Christian “franchise”, too much protestant in me I guess >>

I thought as much. Hypocrite.

Like I said, you're a charming advertisement for Christianity.

<< I ponder what franchise you adhere to

the exclusive brethren? >>

I'm an atheist, actually - but I seem to recall that you were very chummy with our rseident Brethren member before he was banned.