[paraclete]

At last, Australia has decided that enough is enough and suspended the processing of applications from Afghan and Sri lankan "refugees

http://www.news.com.au/national/gove...-1225851776067

This comes in the face of the arrival of a large number of boats and with Sri Lankans beginning to take the direct route.

I'm cynical however, since I think Krudd has only taken this action because he knows that illegal immigrants will sink his boat at the next election due in about six months. If there is one thing that makes Australians cranky it is queue jumpers and the attitude here is,

we don't need any more unskilled labour,

we would rather help those who have been in camps for years

Immigration is fuelling interest rate rises which means the average Australian is paying twice for refugees

and of course the classic John Howard statement we will decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come

All of this might be a little inconvenient for some but our advice is live peacefully where you are and we will try to help you

[tomder55]

Sure would be nice if the US was surrounded by a large moat.

All of this might be a little inconvenient for some but our advice is live peacefully where you are and we will try to help you

This isn't exactly the same issue. Are they immigrants looking to work or refugees?

[paraclete]

Sure would be nice if the US was surrounded by a large moat.

This isn't exactly the same issue. Are they immigrants looking to work or refugees?

Well you do have a big moat, to complete it all that is needed is to dig a deep trench on your northern and southern border, would make an excellent nation building project assuring millions of work. You could even pay the Mexicans and Canadians to do it for you, they might even do it for free. You guys don't need a big moat, all you need is some will power and backbone. You have an army, use it for more than invading someoneelse's country

Well, Tom, a high percentage of them have their applications denied so we can only judge they are economic migrants and wouldn't be allowed in under the usual rules. Let's face it when it suits them they are refugees, but they don't pass the I have left everything and have nothing test. The people from Sri Lanka are Tamils, they lost the war in Sri Lanka and it isn't convenient to stay any more but they don't want to go to India either. No, they think Australia is big and empty and streets paved with gold. Fact, is all our manufacturing industries are gone and with them the jobs. The Afghans are those who have money, ditto, etc. and like in the US there is an industry in transporting these people

[excon]

Sure would be nice if the US was surrounded by a large moat.

Hello:

Spoken like a straight white Christian fellow who (1) sees the America he grew up with changing in ways he doesn't like, (2) who demigraphically KNOWS that the white man, in short order, will no longer BE the majority, and (3) forgets that he himself is the product of immigrants to a land of brown people.

excon

[tomder55]

Well my relatives did indeed cross that moat and were legally processed in before they entered . They didn't jump fences or crawl through tunnels .

I would ask you if think a nation has a right to (1) control it's borders (2) to decide who should emigrate into it

But I already know you don't believe in nations or borders.

[excon]

but I already know you don't believe in nations or borders.

Hello again, tom:

They ARE old fashioned concepts. Borders were cool when we had a reason to keep people out - like a lack of resources... But, the world has enough resources to take care of everybody. So, the only reason to keep people out these days is to perpetuate those old fashioned ideas.

excon

[tomder55]

Well there you have it . Constitutions are universal regardless if people from other lands actually want to live under them, and nations are obsolete.

[paraclete]

Hello again, tom:

. Borders were cool when we had a reason to keep people out - like a lack of resources... They ARE old fashioned concepts But, the world has enough resources to take care of everybody. So, the only reason to keep people out these days is to perpetuate those old fashioned ideas.

excon

So ex, I can extrapolate and deduce you are in favour of one world government and no national borders, that means administration by the UN or something similar. Good bye US insurance companies, hello socialised medicine, goodbye US military, goodbye US tax system and hello higher taxes, goodbye cheap gas and hello smaller cars, goodbye guns and hello police state.

[excon]

So ex, I can extrapolate and deduce you are in favour of one world government

Hello clete:

It's not a matter of whether I'm in favor of it, or not. It's a matter of whether our old fashioned ideas work in the 21st century. In my view, we're hanging on to worn out concepts. War is just ONE of those concepts. In fact, given the state of the world, I see lots MORE problems stemming from our insistence in "conserving" the status quo, rather than adapting to change.

Additionally, whether you or I are in favor of it, or not, the world IS moving in that direction. We're better off dealing with it, instead of pretending it isn't happening. I don't necessarily see the downsides to it that you do, though. I'm an optimist.

THIS little thingy here, called the internet is a major contributor to that phenomenon. IT, all by itself, made borders obsolete.

excon

PS> Look. I'm as conservative as anybody else. I WANT things to be like they were when I was growing up. But, they ain't, and all the wishing in the world ain't going to make it so.

[smoothy]

I say round up ALL the illegals and march them to a border... or drop them off a boat on a shore nearest their land. At gunpoint. If they refuse to go... shoot them.


Those who followed the law and are here legally can stay as long as their papers are up to date. And because they followed the rules and the law, will be welcome here.

[Catsmine]

It's not a matter of whether I'm in favor of it, or not. It's a matter of whether our old fashioned ideas work in the 21st century. In my view, we're hanging on to worn out concepts. War is just ONE of those concepts.

Is that 18th -century treaty between the 13 States another?

[paraclete]

Hello clete:

It's not a matter of whether I'm in favor of it, or not. It's a matter of whether our old fashioned ideas work in the 21st century. In my view, we're hanging on to worn out concepts. .

Okay ex so you have embraced socialism and one world government but don't think the US will be that government because the history of these things tells us the powerful are submerged, and, of course, no one is going to sign on to that worn out concept of the US constitution. People want a government capable of acting not one parallised by its own parochial issues

[excon]

okay ex so you have embraced socialism and one world government

Hello again, clete:

Actually, I don't see why the one word government can't be capitalistic. Buying and selling stuff has NOTHING to do with borders.

If these changes come to pass, I'm sure that government is going to look a lot different than any we're familiar with. I'm just tired of wars. They're obsolete. Look, when we were cave men, we fought over our resources. When we were cavemen we had territories. I'm just suggesting that maybe we've grown out of that mentality.

Look, you don't have to convince me that most people don't want to be bothered with a new way of looking at things. I got it.

excon

[tomder55]

I see the world going in a different direction .If anything ,I see a movement towards smaller "tribal units " . Even here in the US we are polarizing into "red " and "blue" .Look at the EU ,I do not have strong confidence it will last ;and the UN has been next to useless as a governing body. The Russian empire fell apart and they are consolidating it again through sheer brute force .In the ummah ethnic and sectarian differences are difficult to bridge .

China is getting tremendous pressure from it's conquered nations ,and NATO appears to be on life support .

Nihilist movements like the anti-globalization have mobilized on the net .We seek our own and reenforcement of our own on the Net .Of that there is plenty .Is it really making the world smaller ?

[smoothy]

One Wold government is a lovechild of socialists... wanting to redistribute the wealth of those who earn it and give it to those who for any number of reasons don't.

Who would appoint that dictator of the planet? Vote for one? Right... China would simply take over by telling its people who they WILL vote for. They don't even elect their own leaders. India? They have a huge number of poor who would like a chunk of someone else's wealth...

Besides who anywhere should have the right to vote themselves a share of someone else's earned wealth?

One Wold Governments are a fantasy of those who want what others have earned without having to make the effort themselves.

Also popular with those who demand entitlements from a government they don't pay any taxes to.

Every country has the right to determine who can and can not cross its own borders... and to remove any who violate that law and enter anyway.

Look at the UN... they expect the USA to pay for MOST of their follies... and look how they treat us. Let their other members fund it all. THey are a worthless drain of money.

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Actually, I don't see why the one word government can't be capitalistic. Buying and selling stuff has NOTHING to do with borders.

If these changes come to pass, I'm sure that government is going to look a lot different than any we're familiar with. I'm just tired of wars. They're obsolete. Look, when we were cave men, we fought over our resources. When we were cavemen we had territories. I'm just suggesting that maybe we've grown out of that mentality.

Look, you don't have to convince me that most people don't want to be bothered with a new way of looking at things. I got it.

excon

Ex you have just demonstrated how americans have no understanding of socialist principles, there is no reason why capitalism cannot coexist with socialism. You confuse socialism which is concern for the individual with communism which is suppression of the individual. As to doing away with borders I think there are good reasons to keep different cultures apart because there are serious incompatiabilities.

[Catsmine]

Ex you have just demonstrated how americans have no understanding of socialist principles, there is no reason why capitalism cannot coexist with socialism. You confuse socialism which is concern for the individual with communism which is suppression of the individual. As to doing away with borders I think there are good reasons to keep different cultures apart because there are serious incompatiabilities.

Your definitions don't seem to match up exactly with the dictionary's, Clete.

so·cial·ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

com·mu·nism   /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Both seem to invest the means of production in public hands, rather than private. The individual doesn't seem to come into the picture very much at all.

[paraclete]

Your definitions don't seem to match up exactly with the dictionary's, Clete.

Both seem to invest the means of production in public hands, rather than private. The individual doesn't seem to come into the picture very much at all.

Sometimes definitions don't match reality and using a Marxist definition is ridiculous since such definitions carry things to extremes and we all know that is undesirable. It is often suggested I live in a socialist state but perhaps I just live in an organised economy which will no longer allow the extreme excesses of capitalism. The means of production can be in private hands so long as wages are fairly regulated and disputes settled without bully boy tactics employed in the US in the early twentieth century, however the more we export our industries the more academic owning the means of production becomes.

I prefer the definition found in wikipedia
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation;often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.[

[tomder55]

Communism is indeed a form of socialism . Both are concerned with the collective . Communism takes it a step further in that the collective is international . Nazi in contrast was a collective within the state.Therein is the primary dispute between the two forms of socialism and the reason why they are not polar "right /left "opposites as they have been so frequently portrayed .Both are left wing ideologies and both are tyranny to the degree they are practiced .

And I don't think Ex's original comment made reference to an economic system but rather to political boundries.

[excon]

And I don't think Ex's original comment made reference to an economic system but rather to political boundries.

Hello again, tom:

Exactamundo, tom. I tried to point out earlier that I found NO rules stating that one world government MUST be socialistic or tyrannical. Nobody was listening, except you. Everybody else's knees jerked. Again, I don't know why a world ruled by one government couldn't be a free, safe and prosperous world. Capitalism DOES work, after all. Indeed, capitalism even flourishes in societies where the people have "socialized" some of society's risks.

excon