What is the correct approach to illegal refugees attempting to come to Australia?

20 04 2009

1) Open immigration:  No quotas. 

2) Legal process for immigrants.  ie: No illegal immigrants – some screening is of course required. 

Customs should exist to ensure immigrants are not dangerous criminals, terrorists etc and that immigrants do not carry serious contagious diseases. 

That is all. 

Rudd has just dropped immigration quotas to Australia.  Once again he is not supporting the proper role of government ie: To protect the rights of citizens to their own lives.  – In all the nauseating media attention illegal immigrants are getting lately, I have not seen one commentator discuss the fact that the Labour government just lowered immigration quotas to Australia. 

I believe objective law should properly be based on individuals and individual rights.  Because that’s what exists in reality.  Societies and races are concepts, individuals are what they are composed of in reality. 

Ideally people should be able to make their own decision about which country would be best for them, and should have the right to immigrate to that country.  Unfortunately no such system exists. 

Update – 4/5/09:

In today’s paper I note that illegal immigrants will now be treated more leniently – they will be invited to have a cup of coffee instead of being detained.  It should be noted that this was a typical newspaper article with little to no relevant facts included.  I certainly hope that there is still a mechanism to detain immigrants carrying infectious diseases and violent criminals.  I suspect there probably is. 

My prediction:  Softening treatment on illegal immigrants does not address our immigration quota issue and will not help the problem.  Immigration should be unlimited. 
I predict a rise in illegal immigration problems and it will be fun to watch the Labour party try to squirm out of them.  (Both the Liberal and Labour party policies are so pathetic that I can’t but help take some small satisfaction when they inevitably fail).

Update 30/3/2010:

The papers are awash with illegal immigration concerns lately.  Boring.  Anyway, commentators such as Andrew Bolt point out that:

Since he [Kevin Rudd, Australia’s current Prime Minister] revealed his “kinder” policies, he’s had to lock up six times the number of asylum seekers, and 53 boat people have been lured to their deaths

So I felt I should post this link to Harry Binswanger’s article “The solution to illegal immigration


Exploit the Earth Day – April 22nd

20 04 2009

Op-ed from The Objective Standard

On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day by Craig Biddle

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist? There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not. On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.

 *** Craig Biddle is the editor and publisher of The Objective Standard and the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. He can be contacted at cbiddle@theobjectivestandard.com. We encourage you to forward this op-ed to anyone you think might be interested. If you wish to be removed from the list for TOS mailings, enter your email address here and click “remove.” Copyright © 2009 by The Objective Standard. All rights reserved.

Internet censorship updates with a spin

17 04 2009


Pretty funny.

Of course I bet the author doesn’t realise that Stephen Conroy’s proposals are probably (and wrongly) quite popular.

Capitalism A Treatise on Economics – George Reisman

16 04 2009


Full book for free:


My Latest LTE – Rudd’s broadband plan

15 04 2009

Our disgusting Prime Minister is bragging about how much tax payer money he will be spending on a new high speed broadband plan. 

It seems that this network will be incredibly costly.  It also seems that by the time it is finished, in 8 years time that it will no longer be high speed. 

Anyhow, this was my letter:

I find it incredibly saddening to think that I live in a society where people believe they are somehow born with a right to receive high speed internet provided by others.  Personally I’m happy simply to have a chance at life and do not wish to wrong my fellow man.  Personally I do not believe I have the right to forcibly take other people’s hard earned money (via taxation) in a mis-guided attempt to benefit myself.  I regard productive people as highly virtuous and admirable.  Those people that do believe they have the right to another man’s property are encouraging irresponsibility, distrust and resent in our community. 

Deviant Art

14 04 2009

How did I not know about this website?

I often like finding art exhibitions on the internet ranging from realist oil paintings and sculpture, to digital art. 

However somehow this site passed me by – I guess because I’m into music and not the visual arts. 

Anyway, this is a HUGE collection of photography, digital and hand drawn art.  http://www.deviantart.com/#

This is by far the coolest web site I have seen in ages.


14 04 2009

Despite the prevailing belief in our society that humans are born evil (religious doctrine) or cannot be trusted (nanny state politics) – most people are actually good natured decent people who try to be good and responsible under the circumstances. 

I think Tweenbot is a great – fun – example.