On one side she says that change is bad on the other that some traditions need to be retired- the contradiction is dizzying- and that's the point- the basic message being to "do what I say"- the question is why should "I" support her?- because of fear? It's not in my interest or my families interest or my communities interest. What did Hermione do? She fought against it! But in some ways Delores was right perhaps. And so it is with war- even the innocent suffer.

"The Ministry of Magic has always considered the education of young witches and wizards to be of vital importance... Meanwhile, some old habits will be retained, and rightly so, whereas others, outmoded and outworn, must be abandoned. Let us move forward, then, into a new era of openness, effectiveness and accountability, intent on preserving what ought to be preserved, perfecting what needs to be perfected, and pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited."

What about self determination?
What about my ancestors?
What about responsibility for our own cultures? And for others responsibility for theirs?
We can't be responsible for all the countries in the world and all their problems- sometimes we need to leave them to fail and let them sort out their own problems. If a country fails and the citizen's try to go to another country should the country be required to help? If the UN for example requires them to help- is it sustainable? If nations are unable to control the chaos outside their borders due to open border policies what does that mean for the nation and it's people? Should big business be able to lobby for open borders and demonize those that disagree through the media? There are times that a philosophical disagreement has a become a licence to torture. Sadly there are those that do so in the name of humanity. Jordan Peterson has criticised socialism as a low resolution ideology perhaps he has a point.

In the philosophy of science Popper believed in inductive science, Kuhn in democratic science, Feyerabend said it's all subjective.

Subjectivism can fall into Nihilism (and perhaps individualism and full circle to globalism and universalism).

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philosopher-paul-feyerabend-really-science-s-worst-enemy/

Feyerabend’s subjective truth also apply to so called social science and governance- perhaps even more- but how do we all live without war when everyone disagrees. Perhaps the answer is partially contained in the ancient view of the hierarchy of society- as individual, family, extended family, parish, culture, state, nation, world- with balance between the various levels.

That said sometimes war is necessary- even the great communists Stalin and Mao would agree. Zorro says "when the law is unjust heroes become outlaws".

This hierarchy may lead to a future balance of concentric policy- rather than the current tendency to global dominance by austensively benign powers. You could make a good argument that dictatorships are everywhere- but personally I would prefer a dictatorship of the family than one of the world- what would you choose?

The acclaimed Marxist Revolution is a terrifying vision and irresponsible mode of policy- James Burnham's views (as well as his book "The Managerial Revolution 1941") on Socialism and so called Social Democracy perhaps are illuminating.

Often "Socialists are notably ageist" when defending progressive policy.

As to the UK and the US being among the worst impacted by Corona- outliers New York and New Jersey- France and Spain are higher per capita- still growing in Brazil, Mexico, India. State governance (as opposed to President Trump's national governance) is surely important for Corona management as 1918 Spanish case- I trust the data coming out of the US more than others. It will be interesting to see the final analysis of the crisis- most notably "the why".

There is a term that I discovered recently TDS- "Trump Derangement Syndrome". "Sealion" is another amusing one.

It seems that many of the falacies of modern governance have their roots in ancient wrongs in the times of parish and village culture- before the city state period. That being said- the Catholic church in following the Roman policy of self governing provinces did a lot to uphold the principle of "self determination".

Regarding Joe- Loudmouth's comment on the productivity and work ethic of immigrants. He also said that immigrants do the work that Australian's refuse to do.

His comments deserve some analysis.

You can always find people in the world that are so desperate that they will do anything to survive- the question is do we want Australian's to become desperate just to survive- and whose choice should it be. Did the government push through a high immigration policy or did they seek a mandate. Should people be allowed to come to Australia to work on projects such as the snowy mountain scheme- or should Australian people complete the project over a longer time period- should workers be allowed to stay after the project is completed.

Businesses are always looking to reduce costs and labour is often one of the largest costs. It would be overly simplistic to say perhaps that the reason that businesses want to reduce costs is because they aren't capable of innovation but I'm not sure that this is the full answer. There is also the issue of the continuous growth requirement of businesses that is probably unsustainable in a finite world- this has led some to favour a Communist solution- but Traditional Governance did have some aspects of Communism perhaps from certain points of view- though I'm sure the communists would disagree. Traditional communities don't need continuous growth because monetary profit is not the objective- be they still need to store for the winter. I like the Japanese penchant for representing income in terms of "bushels of rice" because rice sustains life (see Ayn Rand) in a fairly direct way and fulfills the requirement of currency as being (relatively) non-perishable.

On the comment that immigrants do the work Australian's won't-

Doesn't this ring false in view of the efficient market hypothesis the foundation of economics and the concept of price levelling. Also I would say that even if this is the case and I'm not saying that it is- the government still needs a mandate in a democracy- despite democracy's many failings due to issues of scale.

I believe that in fact many Australian students struggle due to high foreign student intakes and the low skilled nature of many new immigrants- basically open borders harm the vulnerable.

Strangely I sympathize with Joe- from memory has a farm or has been involved in farming and farms often find it difficult to maintain a sustainable operation with large supermarket chains controlling prices one one side and minimum wage rates keeping costs high on the other. Added to the mix is the problem of the work being seasonal where employees are hooked into costs that are longer term. The OHS record for farming sector is among the most problematic. Farms appear to be a prime target for factory automation and to an extent this has been done. While businesses often prefer to be industry managed rather than by government policy often industry isn't suited for the task given the vested interests.

There are potentially greater opportunities with larger markets with decreased costs so it seems that it is in established business interest to have a larger population- at least in theory- in reality immigrant populations while they initially work for lower costs often have different consumption patterns than Traditional Australians- and are often more likely to surplant their markets than enhance them.

Sadly it appears that some people with national interest at heart are required to solve this issue- but who wants to do this unrewarding work- especially when Traditional Australian's are becoming minorities in their own nation- and any effort to improve the situation will further disenfranchise their franchise.

Obviously some leadership is required here. Simple solutions sometimes work but often come back to bite you.

From memory last time I discussed immigration with Foxy (and her husband) became indignant at the idea that I was suggesting that her immigrant parents were somehow Stealing Australia given the sacrifice she felt that they had made for her and for Australia- the thing is I also feel that I have a debt to my ancestors and my descendants to protect Australia- as she believes that her view of Australia worth protecting

At least both of us seem to believe that it's important to respect our ancestors and descendants in the thread that we leave in time. Hopefully we can help each other to achieve our goals- I believe that the best way to achieve this is to reduce the population of the world and increase per capita land resources. Some globalists believe the holy grail for increasing per capita resources is to be found in technology and mass markets. We also risk the environment if there are too many people- at least this seems to be one of the drivers.

Equal opportunity policy is creating a toxic environment for disagreement with immigration policy for which there is an argument as to whether the people ever supported- then those that disagree with the policy are discredited. This has become somewhat of a trend- no one voted for speeding cameras but seem to come as a result of bureaucratic advise. It seems that being a conscientious objector is becoming a crime.

To be fair not all immigrants are equal as they come for different reasons and we have different common histories.

Some would have you believe that we should distribute the population equally over the earth discounting the fact that people need to take responsibility for their population

I'd like to reply to Canem Malum's posts with the
following link:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-28/these-are-our-core-australian-values/8476902

Enjoy.