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.