 |
| Flagging a new problem | |
Border protection is an important issue in the minds of many Australians. But
border protection is normally associated with cavity-searches at airports, and
foundering asylum seekers in near Christmas Island. Not since Winston Churchill
has attention about unwanted immigration been focused on the beaches. On Sunday a gang of youths 'of middle-eastern appearance' assaulted two young
life-guards on Sydney's southern beaches. The Daily Telegraph reports that the
youths claimed to 'own' the beach, gone around kicking sand in people's faces,
and 'accidentally' hitting other beach goers with footballs. Beach goers were
outraged at the suggestion of 'ownership' of the beach - push came to shove-off,
and the fists seem to have followed. This in turn was followed by a near riot
on Wednesday, as 'the Lebs' and 'the Aussies' engaged in a turf-war (or at
least a sand war). This is unthinkable! What happened? This kind of thing is only supposed to
happen in the impoverished western suburbs. No-go zones where the streets are
ruled by middle-eastern gangs are only in areas where the proles live - it
teaches the proletariat the benefits of multiculturalism by being forced to
live in fear. Good, decent middle-class whites are supposed to be able to buy
their way out of this kind of thing (the enlightened elites are already great
fans of multiculturalism, and don't have to actually live with the outcomes of
their policies understand appreciate their benefits). No more, it seems. The problem has reached the middle-class suburbs, and now
Dad has to take the wife and kids halfway to Wollongong to avoid getting sand kicked in
his face. The NSW premier Morris Iemma showed his true cultural
relativistic colors by taking the middle ground, and preaching that solving
problems by force was unacceptable for either side. Truly a man of principle -
who stands for nothing. So what's the solution? Well, perhaps the claim of 'ownership' by the middle-easterners is worth
considering. What about privatization of the beach? An owner could charge a
fee, and would make decisions about who to allow (and who to eject), on a
profit-maximizing basis. Anyone kicking sand in someone's face would be barred
before you could say 'multicultural
utopia'. It wouldn't even be necessary to privatize all of the Sydney beaches -
just privatizing a few would give people a choice. It could even be trialled
with a five or ten-year lease, after which time we could return to the status
quo if the experiment failed. So why don't the local pollies want to try this?
Simply because they are afraid that it will succeed. This would be the thin
edge of the wedge toward privatization of many public facilities, which would
threaten the collectivist makeup of
our society, not to mention
the justification for the highest levels of tax in history. Instead they will try to employ armies of police to try to control the hordes,
and to try to disguise the failings of the tragedy of the commons. As well meaning local citizens wring their hands, bleating 'Can't we all
just get along?'.
| 
