18 Aug
2012
18 Aug
'12
10:45 p.m.
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:47:51 +1000
From: Rohan McLeod <rhn(a)jeack.com.au>
Subject: Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951
convention?
Cc: luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au>
Message-ID: <502EE637.5010002(a)jeack.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Russell Coker wrote:
with the
Yes. Thank you Rohan.
All I am asking for is "Here is my proposed policy, and here is the
evidence I have seriously thought through the consequences, including
indirect consequences".
Not "It is obvious that accepting anyone who shows up is the RIGHT THING
TO DO and therefore the consequences must be OK".
Not "Here is evidence Tony Abbott is a hypocrite and a liar!!!!!!!!!!".
I am 57 years old. I am well aware that the vast majority of politicians
are talented and experienced liars and thieves.
Russel Coker said: "As previous analysis on this list has shown the cost
would be less than the current policy no matter what you do." Can you
point me at this "previous analysis"? I could not readily find it. As I
said in my first post I did search in vain for evidence of a
well-thought out alternative policy.
As regards immigration as a solution to the so-called demographic time
bomb, the studies I have seen suggest that the level of immigration
required to substantially change this situation are extremely high and
is not in prospect. Our current policies based on paying pensions using
high population growth are basically a Ponzi scheme that must come to an
end.
I included the material by Charlie Munger as an *example* of second
order effects. [Munger has made billions of dollars by understanding
them. Whatever you might say about him, he is not silly and he is a lot
smarted than most of the people on this list but that is not relevant to
the issue of refugees].
Tim Josling
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, tim
josling<tej(a)melbpc.org.au> wrote:
.......snip
> I don't want to provoke an argument about
this. I would just like
to
know has
someone actually thought through the implications of
alternative policies.
If you don't want to have an argument then do some
research and stop leading questions.
Well I certainly
understood Tim's questions as examples of what would
be
considered in a "coherent' policy
To quote Tim:
"Can someone point me at a coherent explanation and analysis of an
alternative policy?
I have searched in vain. The ALP searched high and low for
something
better and
failed to find it. If they could have found something better than
reverting to the hated
Howard policy I am sure they would have taken it. I don't mean
platitudes a la the Green's web
site which basically says "be kind to refugees" & "Labor and
Liberal
are mean". I mean....:"
So he is not asking for answers to the questions literally , but
rather
a policy which addresses them !
regards Rohan McLeod 
21 Aug
21 Aug
11:28 a.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
tim josling <tej(a)melbpc.org.au> wrote:
All I am asking for is "Here is my proposed
policy, and here is the
evidence I have seriously thought through the consequences, including
indirect consequences".
Not "It is obvious that accepting anyone who shows up is the RIGHT THING
TO DO and therefore the consequences must be OK".
I don't think anybody seriously entertains the above. However, accepting
refugees who arrive (subject to assessment of refugee status) is the correct
response, because it's the only response that respects the rights of the
refugees.
One of the central tenets of human rights is that they aren't subject to
utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses: if a person has a right, then it must be
respected even if it's costly and inconvenient to do so.
I think the same policy can be argued for on utilitarian grounds, since
sending someone back into a dangerous situation in which they are at risk of
torture, assassination etc., is worse than incurring the costs of
resettlement, even if the latter are high.
Thus a good policy has several elements:
1. Acceptance and settlement of refugees who arrive, by whatever means of
transport.
2. Pursuit of international agreements to improve the resettlement prospects
of refugees and the processing system so that people don't find it necessary
to undertake dangerous journeys by boat to reach a country that will respect
their rights as refugees.
11:58 a.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
On 21 August 2012 11:28, Jason White <jason(a)jasonjgw.net> wrote:
I don't think anybody seriously entertains the
above. However, accepting
refugees who arrive (subject to assessment of refugee status) is the
correct
response, because it's the only response that respects the rights of the
refugees.
One of the central tenets of human rights is that they aren't subject to
utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses: if a person has a right, then it must
be
respected even if it's costly and inconvenient to do so.
But these rights aren't real rights, they aren't natural rights, they are
rights determined arbitrarily by the UN. They contradict natural rights.
For instance, the right to private property is a natural right, but if
people are being taxed against their will in order to finance the
indulgence of various arbitrary 'rights' then the right to private property
is being violated.
These UN ordained 'rights' are more correctly called claims. Claims against
the resources of others.
I agree resettlement of refugees would be a better solution on utilitarian
grounds. Therefore remove the welfare state and allow people to manage
their own affairs, the result will be that things progress towards the most
utilitarian solution.
12:13 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
Alex Hutton wrote:
On 21 August 2012 11:28, Jason White
<jason(a)jasonjgw.net> wrote:
...rights Australia promised to uphold, as you will recall from Petr's
original post that started this thread. If you don't like it, either
find another nation-state, or petition your representatives to have
Australia back out of that promise.
I don't think anybody seriously entertains
the above. However,
accepting refugees who arrive (subject to assessment of refugee
status) is the correct response, because it's the only response
that respects the rights of the refugees.
One of the central tenets of human rights is that they aren't
subject to utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses: if a person has a
right, then it must be respected even if it's costly and
inconvenient to do so.
But these rights aren't real rights, they aren't natural rights, they are
rights determined arbitrarily by the UN.
12:26 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
...rights Australia promised to uphold, as you will
recall from Petr's
original post that started this thread. If you don't like it, either
find another nation-state, or petition your representatives to have
Australia back out of that promise.
And there are good moral reasons for upholding those rights, too. While I
agree that the legal issue is important, the moral arguments in favour of
resettling refugees are the most important considerations. This is why the
rights established by the Convention are not "arbitrary".
12:37 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
On 21 August 2012 12:26, Jason White <jason(a)jasonjgw.net> wrote:
And there are good moral reasons for upholding those rights, too. While I
agree that the legal issue is important, the moral arguments in favour of
resettling refugees are the most important considerations. This is why the
rights established by the Convention are not "arbitrary".
It is not moral to force people, under threat of violence or death, to
abide by your morals. I have no problem with helping refugees so long as it
is not compulsory to do so.
12:33 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
On 21 August 2012 12:13, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
...rights Australia promised to uphold, as you will recall from Petr's
original post that started this thread. If you don't like it, either
find another nation-state, or petition your representatives to have
Australia back out of that promise.
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate
me into fulfilling them?
12:52 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The politicians who were elected (including your vote) have the right to
determine government policy. Feel free to move to a different country if the
majority of Australian citizens vote for things you don't like.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub(a)gmail.com> wrote:
...rights
Australia promised to uphold, as you will recall from Petr's
original post that started this thread. If you don't like it, either
find another nation-state, or petition your representatives to have
Australia back out of that promise.
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate
me into fulfilling them? But these rights aren't real rights, they
aren't natural rights, they are
rights determined arbitrarily by the UN. They contradict natural rights.
Of course if you thought about this issue for a few minutes then you would
support human rights.
Don't assume that because you have a job now you will always have one. Don't
assume that your local community will be happy to support you if you lose your
job or become unable to work - it could be that everyone in your region loses
their job (as has happened to parts of the US in recent times).
If you ever find yourself on the losing end of the employment game you want to
have the option of welfare. Consider the small portion of your income tax
that goes towards welfare as being insurance against that.
Don't assume that Australia will always be a dominant regional power and don't
assume that there will never be any form of insurrection or civil strife here.
Don't assume that the US will protect us, contrary to American propaganda they
have NEVER done so in the past, all American wars have served American
interests (or at least the interests of some Americans).
When UN conventions protect the rights of refugees it has the potential to
protect YOU if things ever go badly in Australia.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
3:09 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
On 21 August 2012 12:33, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate
me into fulfilling them?
The fact that it is a government and you choose to live and work here, thus
paying taxes. This is so self-evident that I am questioning whether you are
genuine in asking. And if you don't like this arrangement, the simple
answer is to find yourself a better deal.
3:25 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
thelionroars <thelionroars1337(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 August 2012 12:33, Alex Hutton
<highspeeddub(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And there isn't one, if absence of obligations imposed by the state is what
you want, except perhaps Somalia, where there hasn't been an effective
government since 1991. Of course, there are strong reasons not to live
there...
Governments impose obligations on citizens as a necessary condition of
conferring the benefits that they provide. That's the nature of the state, and
it includes powers of taxation for public purposes, including purposes taht
you, personally, might not approve.
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate
me into fulfilling them?
The fact that it is a government and you choose to live and work here, thus
paying taxes. This is so self-evident that I am questioning whether you are
genuine in asking. And if you don't like this arrangement, the simple
answer is to find yourself a better deal.
4:04 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
Jason White wrote:
thelionroars <thelionroars1337(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
He could potentially live in international waters or a micronation
(e.g. sealand) -- I don't know offhand what kind of government
"interference" he'd be subjected to in such cases.
Likewise he could go to some shitty little island where the effective
level of government is negligible, if only because the president is
Fred Nurk who is a farmer by day and only does the presidenting on
saturday afternoons, etc. If any of those still exist, and are
recognized by the rest of the world as being legitimate nation-states
(cf. e.g. Hutt River Province).
On 21 August 2012 12:33, Alex Hutton
<highspeeddub(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And there isn't one, if absence of obligations imposed by the state is what
you want, except perhaps Somalia, where there hasn't been an effective
government since 1991. Of course, there are strong reasons not to live
there...
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate
me into fulfilling them?
The fact that it is a government and you choose to live and work here, thus
paying taxes. This is so self-evident that I am questioning whether you are
genuine in asking. And if you don't like this arrangement, the simple
answer is to find yourself a better deal.
6:35 p.m.
New subject: What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If you don't want income tax then one legal option is to move regularly and
spend less than 3 months of the year in every country. Some years ago I was
advised by an accountant that international tax agreements (which cover the
EU, Australia, the US, and probably every other place you want to visit) mean
that if you spend less than 3 months in a country in a tax year you aren't
subject to income tax.
This of course requires that you have some fairly specialised skills that
aren't location dependent. For example a fiction author could travel the
world while writing or someone working from remote for a computer company
could periodically move between countries with good net access.
Of course the TeaBaggers lack such skills so they have to pay tax no matter
where they are.
Also there is sales tax which applies pretty much everywhere you would want to
buy something.
And there
isn't one, if absence of obligations imposed by the state is
what you want, except perhaps Somalia, where there hasn't been an
effective government since 1991. Of course, there are strong reasons not
to live there...
He could potentially live in international waters or a micronation
(e.g. sealand) -- I don't know offhand what kind of government
"interference" he'd be subjected to in such cases. Likewise he could go to some shitty little island
where the effective
level of government is negligible, if only because the president is
Fred Nurk who is a farmer by day and only does the presidenting on
saturday afternoons, etc. If any of those still exist, and are
recognized by the rest of the world as being legitimate nation-states
(cf. e.g. Hutt River Province).
UAE is a somewhat developed country that has almost no tax. However it's
long-term future doesn't look good (if nothing else tax will be needed once
the oil runs out) and it has an appalling human rights record. I definitely
wouldn't want to be subject to their "justice" system.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
3874
days inactive
3877
days old
11 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alex Hutton -
Jason White -
Russell Coker -
thelionroars -
tim josling -
Trent W. Buck