|
Hi A.B.L., >> "Visitors or immigrants have choice: abide by the rules we dictate to them or
>> don't bother coming." >> Yes that is true. It doesn't mean we should make them follow laws that we
>> wouldn't want to follow. Terrorists are not going to be caught out. If the
>> intelligence communtiy knows what they are up to, then the law is useless yet
>> again. Well, it doesn't mean we should or shouldn't. I'm suggesting that we can
make laws purely to benefit us - not them. >> "Why? Owning my own home confers rights that I take away from others (like the
>> ability to do what they like in it, or even come there at all). If they don't
>> like that, well, they don't have to visit. The shareholders in a company
>> collectively have the same right. If the shareholders of MacDonalds don't want
>> you in their restaurants - you have to find somewhere else to buy your
>> cholesterol." >> I just don't agree with this. People do not have a right to do as they please
>> in your home if you do not forbid them to do so. The analogy is a bit stretched
>> here. By either allowing or not allowing someone to enter your house, you are
>> not taking any rights away from them. I don't know what you mean by 'rights' here, (but feel free to check out
my definition here.
Someone does not have an inherent right to enter my home. Someone does not
have an inherent right to enter my country. >> Having the same rule the US had to try to
>> weed out communists will be ineffective, and although only in most cases an
>> academic exercise, mean that the law favours internal extremists to external
>> ones, regardless if they plan to use violenece or not. You may be right that 'applying the same rule as the US had to weed out
communism will be ineffective', however I see this as a separate (if perhaps
related) issue to 'does anyone have the right to come here'. Yes our laws will 'favor' local extremists over foreign ones, just as our
laws favor citizens over non-citizens. What to do about this? Limit the
extremists entering the country - hence reducing the problem. >> We should have the right
>> to do and say as we please as long as we don't intiiate violence. Why shouldn't
>> visitors have this right too? Why should they have the right? This is our country, we define their rights
here. My perception (and that of most of the population) is that there are some
people who constitute a risk to our health, safety, livelihoods and
sovereignty. Those people are best contained - outside the fortress. >> "And do they also have an equal right to welfare? First world medical
>> treatment? Education? Protection from crime at Australia's expense? How about
>> the right to an equal say in selecting the government?" >> Equating free speech to mooching off welfare is well, not a good comaprison. We
>> don't have first class medical treatment, it is socialised and there are many
>> shortages. I used the term 'first world', not 'first class'. I agree that the a
privatized health system would be better, but this is not actually relevant. From what I know, foreign students have to apy for university
>> education, up front, like everyone else should have to. >> Yes they should have a
>> right to be protected from crime. Unless you are going to suggest we have the
>> right to rob them and treat them a communist Government would a foreign
>> corporation. 'They have a right to be protected from crime'. Interesting. One person's
rights are another's obligations. I accept an obligation not to rob them, but
that is not what I was talking about. 'protecting' someone is a greater
obligation than just not attacking them. Hence I repeat the question - do we
have an obligation to pay for them to be protected from crime? >> As the tax system shifts to use pays, they contribute to our
>> economy which is worth protecting, and the revenues used to fund the police and
>> military. If your argument is that a particular person (or group of people)
will pay a fair share of this, then please say so. However, in my
view, someone with no skills, who can't speak English, and who is not even
literate in their own language is unlikely to make a net contribution. >> An equal say in electing the Government? I don't know why you threw
>> this one in it's obvious they shouldn't. Not so obvious to some, ABL - there is a significant section of the population
who feel that living off Australian welfare for two years instills the right to
Australian citizenship (ie voting rights). Do I disagree? Yes. >> I can't justify this fully, nor could
>> anyone saying that citizens should most of the time, get better treatment than
>> foreigners. Perhaps the threat they pose to our rights is a reflection of the
>> size of Government. We don't have to justify it, any more than I have to justify the rules I
apply to visitors in my home. >> "ou mean people who could easily be programmed by the 'true believers'? :-)" >> Err, yes. :-) >> "From your own property, yes. Frankly I would expel most members of foreign
>> political parties. They are repulsive." >> What about diplomats and ambassadors strawman? Or republicans or monarchists? I
>> don't beleive you think that either of the four parties in Federal Parliament,
>> are, on the whole protecting what should be inaliable rights. Our diplomats and ambassadors are doing the will of our democratically
elected government. Our politicians are filling the available niches in the
ignorances and prejudices of mindsets of the voting public. Yes, it's the worst
form of government except all the others which have been tried. >> "How far should someone's rights go? Do foreigners have the right to drive
>> around in vans full of ammonium nitrate? "That's fine guys, but if you pull the
>> trigger you will be breaking the law!"?" >> Come now, you know I don't agree with that, that's like other libertarians
>> claiming owning nuclear warheads is necessary for self defense. Well, I don't know that. There are people who defend that position. As soon
as you don't accept it, you are on the slippery slop of saying that
collectivism has a purpose. Personally I am happy to be on the slippery slope.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I don't see any other way. >> "and sometimes you increase freedoms by limiting them." >> Given the uselessness of such laws (e.g, s11), this would not be one of those
>> times, like limited taxation or inexclusability between the rights of two or
>> more people? I agree that few people are going to tick the "Yes, I am an Islamic
Extremist" box at US immigration, it gives the US an easy mechanism to remove
people who make a false declaration. I seem to recall that they have had a
question pertaining to Jewish hatred / Nazi groups for some time. Everyone was
quiet about that. But when they wanted to apply that to Islamic terrorists
everyone screamed. I'm not impressed. >> ".. though frankly I prefer a solution which increases freedoms to Australians
>> in Australia by limiting freedoms to foreigners in Australia. Again - if they
>> don't like that policy, they don't have to come." >> Very well, but it shouldn't take away rights like free speech and rights to a
>> fair trial, just the more dubious ones we give ourselves at the expense of
>> economic freedom,
| 
