Tuesday, February 12, 2013

“Let them come”

New Zealanders and Australians like to think they are charitable folk. They like to think they are caring, sharing and good hearted towards others. They sit warm and self-satisfied in that thought, right up until the point that those “others” come to our places by boat—and right at that point these good-hearted folk are happy to have these other folk, these other human beings escaping desperate situations, held up at the point of a gun and thrown into detention centres that are little more than concentration camps.

So much for the virtue of benevolence.

It seems benevolence ends where the welfare state begins.

The Welfare State forces every person to be responsible for every other person, whether they like it or not. And like it or not, those who pick up the cheque for New Zealand's welfare state resent that forced imposition.

The Welfare State dehumanises people—forcing us to view another human being as either a wallet or a mouth—upsetting those with the wallets at the prospect of many more mouths being fed at their expense.

The existence of the Welfare State means that instead of seeing every other human being as a potential gain to ourselves, which is what they are, instead we see them as just another mouth to feed and a family to house.

This is criminally wrong.

This is the way the Welfare State is. It is a State in which every human being is set against every other human being.

What we should abhor is not the existence of “boat people”—people in a desperate situation yearning to breathe free, whom we dehumanise by that disgraceful epithet—but the existence of this “forced charity.”

It is all force, and no charity.

There is a better way to deal with immigrants and refugees than with guns, camps and a death sentence.

As author Robert Heinlein suggested, successful immigrants demonstrate just by their choice and gumption in choosing a new life that they are worthy of respect. So why can’t we?

Why not simply let people look after them voluntarily?

This shouldn’t be difficult. Every time an issue like this comes to light, many charitable New Zealanders and Australians raise their voices in support of the embattled minority; so why not take these calls literally?

Instead of announcing that New Zealand is about to buy into Australian inhumanity, Prime Ministers Key and Gillard could instead have announced that between them they will accept whoever arrives on our shores, but only as long as a sufficient number of charitable Australians and New Zealanders can be found to take full responsibility for them until they are on their feet. People who will offer their own voluntary welfare and 'naturalisation services' to help these people start their new life.

Who could possibly, or reasonably, object to that?

Finding a sufficient number should not be a problem. Even the numbers gleefully posted every week by xenophobes like new-Australian Andrew Bolt  only measure in their hundreds--a “flood” of several-hundred souls at most trying to “pour” into a country of 20-million people and a thousand-million empty acres.

And given the initiative refugees will have already shown in getting down here, I would expect that getting on their feet will not take them very long.

This solution demonstrates the stark contrast between generosity and enforced charity, and the simple benevolence at the heart of the libertarian philosophy.

Compulsory 'charity' is a misnomer - it dehumanises both taxpayer and recipient. But when charity is voluntary, people are set free to be benevolent again.

The Welfare State is a killer for benevolence, for the human spirit, for open immigration, and a literal killer for immigrants and refugees braving dangerous waters and the integrity of unscrupulous people-smugglers.

I say set these people free through the generosity of benevolent New Zealanders—while taking a good hard look at what the Welfare State does to people.

I say that the simple libertarian philosophy be adopted with all immigrants, including refugees: that until the Welfare State we endure is permanently dismantled we simply allow all peaceful people to pass freely just as long as they make no claim at all on our enforced charity.

I say Let Them Come.

The principle of individual rights demands it.

Labels:

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is only one thing that I can see wrong with your analysis, and that is that in previous eras, migrants to NZ (for example) were expected to become and perhaps happy to become NZers. Nowadays, they want to bring Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia with them. And of course there is a government funded industry to support them in their choices to remain Somalis in NZ etc.
JeffW

2/12/2013 09:25:00 am  
Blogger Dinther said...

I brought my Dutch heritage along. I work hard, always keep my word and am very opinionated. Also I eat Dutch treats such as salty licorice.

Sorry to have offended you JeffW I will stick with BBQ, sausages and Rugby from now on.

2/12/2013 10:11:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have to agree with JeffW. My father was a refugee in 1959 from Communist Southern Europe (he was 15 years old ). He wanted to be in NZ & wanted to be a Kiwi. He taught himself English (his 3rd Language) by reading the NZ Herald (before it became a tabloid) He absorbed NZ Culture & Sport, he wanted his kids to be Kiwis, he didn’t teach us his native tongue (although his Granddaughter is now learning French- his second language). He has NEVER asked for or received a Government hand-out. Dad is a proud Kiwi, a diehard Black Caps & All Black supporter. His brothers & sisters were also Refugees- they went to Australia in 1960. They don’t want to be Aussies- they still cannot speak more than a few words of English- they have no interest in Australian sport or politics- they still retain all of the ‘home country’ culture & crap. Unfortunately, many ‘refugees are like my Dads brothers & sisters- do we really want this type of refugee? I don’t!!

IvanK

2/12/2013 10:42:00 am  
Anonymous Mark said...

If you think refugees can come to this country without making any claim to welfare you are hopelessly deluded.

2/12/2013 01:10:00 pm  
Blogger thor42 said...

No more Muslims.

We have *got* to learn from the UK and Europeans (who stupidly opened the immigration floodgates and ended up with cesspits like Malmo and Tower Hamlets (London). )

The allegiance of Muslims will *always* be to "Allah" - NOT to the country that allows them in.

There is no escaping the politically-incorrect fact -
Islam is incompatible with Western values, ideals and freedoms.
That is how it is.
End of story.

2/12/2013 01:35:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Um, some of the comments seem to overlook what NPC is saying: no welfare, but open borders. If we didn't have welfare, we possibly wouldn't be targeted to the same extent. Except by the Dutch, eh Dinther?

2/12/2013 02:04:00 pm  
Blogger gregster said...

I agree, Muslims are a future problem. Their text is a threat to freedoms. A threat of force is force. They promise the threat once they have any numbers. Democracy has failure built-in, and cannot prevent the hordes from imposing Sharia Law, over time. You'll all have to just wait and see - because nothing is being done to prevent this situation.

2/12/2013 07:14:00 pm  
Blogger gregster said...

Muslims are already a problem - the future referred to Australasia.

2/12/2013 07:17:00 pm  
Anonymous Real Kiwi said...

If it were up to me there would be no borders and everyone could go wherever they liked. The problem is the only places people want to move to are Western Europe, North America, and Australasia. The white, Western democracies.
No one is going the other way.
Twenty countries in the world to live in, 180 countries people trying to escape from.

2/13/2013 06:09:00 am  
Blogger Mark said...

@ Real Kiwi: And that's a problem for us why exactly?

You would only think of this as a problem if you regarded other human beings coming to your country (bringing their productive capacity) as a liability rather than a benefit.

As for the other commenters above and the supposed problem of people bringing their different cultures; again, why is this a problem? You could have used the same arguments with equal validity for earlier immigration.

For instance my grandmother brought a lot of her Italian culture to Australia when she migrated in the 1950's (including believe it or not a respect for Mussolini!), but I've got no doubt the benefits she and her descendents have brought to this corner of the world far exceed any downside - and it didn't result in any movement towards Italian style fascism as far as I know. Walk down Lygon St in Melbourne and then try to tell me the Italian culture they brought is a problem.

The only thing that's fundamentally changed since then is the welfare state. But PC is suggesting a solution to this problem, so why is no-one adressing that rather than re-stating their prejudice?

2/13/2013 02:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no need for Borg-like "assimilation" as Jeff W and Ivan seem to think.

If one is not a burden on the taxpayer and accepts the laws of the country who cares if they "assimilate" or not.

2/15/2013 02:35:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home