Yuyutsu "where society is tied up with geography"

How can this not be the case?

We are physical beings located in space.
The people closest to us in physical space are going to be the ones we interact with the most.
There are geographical boundaries like oceans, deserts and mountain ranges that hinder interaction.

This will inevitably form a geographically based society, with commonly shared cultural elements.

It will also lead to biological similarity, as people breed with those available, those nearby.

There is no escape from this (though Multi is certainly trying its hardest to artificially disrupt this natural development).

"long before the creation of states" we had tribes, clans, towns, etc.

If you didn't like it, or they didn't like you, you had to *leave*.

You couldn't just be part of the Apache tribe, and live like a Tibetan.
Sorry, out!

*We* created states, and have consented to them.
We can always revolt, as has happened many times in history.

And that doesn't even take a majority.
The Maoists, Bolsheviks and Vietcong overturned their societies with a tiny group of activists (not that I support their ideology).

"I will vote for whatever party(s) that stops denying me the freedom to ride a bicycle."

Even if they're racist right-wingers?
(They're probably the only people even trying to defend personal liberty these days).

Dear Shockadelic,

Nothing prevents people of different societies from having various levels of inter-society cooperation.

What is not needed, is forcing the same administration, the same laws, the same culture, the same religion (or lack thereof), the same myths, the same values or the same identity on people who otherwise have no wish to be related by the above.

There may be minimal requirements, thus agreements, flowing from the physical need to live in geographical proximity, but these aren't extensive and do not mandate any of the above.

<<Even if they're racist right-wingers?>>

Yes, just for the next federal elections they could be red, green, blue, black, yellow, white or orange.

I may hate all their other policies, but there you are - if you have any contacts, why won't you convince your favourite politician to relax that draconian law I'm suffering from though I hurt nobody? What have they got to lose?

I can assure them that if I break my head, then all medical expenses will be on my own head - I don't want and won't accept even one cent from Medicare anyway.

Waiting much too longer I may be too old to take up cycling. I want some security that if my car breaks down or if I lose my driver's license for whatever reason, I can still remain independent and move around and be where I need to be.

Why this senseless cruelty?

Had Australia not been federated, if states were independent and smaller, then it would be more likely for me to find at least one place where they don't criminalise me for riding a bicycle!

Yuyutsu, yes we can interact with other societies as much as we want.

But we're not talking about interacting with Turks in Turkey or Thai in Thailand.

We're talking about the artificial transplantation/introduction of those and 6000 other peoples to a society that have no connection to.

You're all for choice and consent, but where is *our* choice/consent in these matters?

When did we, Australians, consent to this crazy experiment?
The "choice" is all one way.
They can choose to come here, but we have no say in it.

As for not wearing helmets, I totally agree this should not be controlled by the state.

However, I don't think federal or regional jurisdiction would make any difference.
Pollies are infected with the same mind-toxins everywhere you go.

Proportional or direct democracy would go a long way to alleviating this control-freak impulse.

But you would still end up with the same-laws-for-everyone, just less of them.
I don't think there's any way to avoid this.

Dear Shockadelic,

Thank you for your support.

So after a long detour we are now back 360 degrees on the original topic of multi-culturalism:

Certainly, Australians have a clear and legitimate choice not to accept anyone they don't like into their society, for whatever reason.

I am perplexed myself by the MC experiment: what gave past governments any right to take our money in taxes and pour it into social-engineering projects and experiments? The same would have been legitimate if done voluntarily with private/charitable funds of those who like cultural-variety, but it was not.

Where I disagree, is in translating emotions that result in the rejection of certain people from entering Australian society, into physically blocking those people from entering this continent and locking them up (subject of course to preventing health-hazards and criminal activity which threatens Australians).

Birds and fish may enter Australia freely. The fact that land-animals can't is purely geographical, so if we had terrestrial borders, then they too could enter. Then why are humans treated worse than animals?

Sure, if an animal brings disease or is likely to attack people or their livestock, then it is shot (or poisoned), but there is no justification to harm, including by locking up, those animals that are benign, unless and until shown otherwise.

Animals are not expected to become part of human society, nor does society accept animals as equal members. Further, society is not obliged to save them from drowning or to feed them. But then, we also do not interfere with their mating habits.

Naturally wild animals should not be allowed in highly-developed areas such as cities where they can cause damage (unless securely adopted by residents on their private property), but most of Australia is little-developed, so there is no justification for blocking this whole vast land from others only because they are human!

I definitely agree about proportional and direct democracy.

I may be wrong, but I think that smaller autonomous states will create competition for human-freedoms, where governments would not want to lose their best citizens due to stupid restrictions.

gee girls what have we done to poor joe?

<<i.e. opportunism ?

I was born on the Left and I'll die on Left, but it's not the same 'Left' as that of unprincipled scum like Pilger's.

Arjay praising Pilger - well, it's all anti-US, isn't it, so it must be okay.

What a bankrupt bunch. And their best effort - Poirot's and Foxy's - is 'nyah, nyah, well, you did too ...'

Sometimes I weep for a genuine, principled, thinking, Left. Those were the days.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 24 April 2014 4:36:27 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16236&page=0