Some of the smaller ANZAC marches in the Blue Mountains area of NSW have been cancelled as the communities cannot afford the extraordinary security measures which are now deemed necessary for public gatherings:
Anzac Day marches across the Mountains have been cancelled this year because of the additional costs of anti-terrorism measures imposed by local police.
These include the use of water-filled barriers to close roads, initiated in the wake of the Nice attack last July.
David White, spokesman for the Mountains ex-services organisations, said the decision to cancel marches in Katoomba, Blackheath, Springwood and Glenbrook was taken with a heavy heart.
So the streets around my home aren’t safe to walk at night (Dandenong, VIC), my local New Years fireworks had vehicle barriers and a notable ‘external’ security presence, ie not just security in case people got drunk inside the party area, but security watching for outsiders coming towards the party area… presumably at high-speed in a truck… and now we’re cancelling some of our most significant cultural events… why?
You know why.
I know why.
So why can’t we say it? The moment I utter the words, or in fact it’s already too late, the moment I alluded to there being a problem I became guilty of ‘dog whistling’, of racism, of being just another uncaring white person guilty of oppression.
Well screw that. Here’s the problem: We have welcomed into our country people who have no intention of ever being ‘part’ of our country. We continue to welcome people who will always identify more with the ‘home’ they fled than the ‘home’ that gave them refuge. We tolerate and excuse people who hate us despite being extended every courtesy, an education, a welfare system, healthcare, and enormous opportunity… but we’re ‘oppressing’ them… supposedly. And when they lash out and attack, it’s still somehow ‘our’ fault.
Now let me spell this out: Immigration is a subject over which I personally feel the greatest internal conflict. I firmly and genuinely believe that the world would be a better place if people could more freely from one country to another, get jobs and work anywhere at any price they deem acceptable, ship goods around the globe without barriers or tariffs, and all without needing bits of paper or a bureaucrats ‘permission’… The world would be wealthier, happier, and more peaceful if only we were free to move and mingle…
In fact Australia is wealthier and better because of the immigrants that came here over the centuries, starting with the British and Irish, the Chinese in the gold rush, the post WWII European migration, the 10 pound Poms in the 70s, and the Vietnamese and other people who have arrived in significant numbers in the last 60 years. I don’t say this out of lip service or to ‘prove I’m not a racist’ (lets be honest, anyone who thinks I am on the basis of this article is never going to be convinced otherwise, so why would I bother?) but rather I say this because I hold it to be absolutely true: We are better off thanks to their arrivals than we would have been without them.
Except…
Except here we are cancelling public events out of fear that we will see on our streets the kind of carnage we’ve mostly just seen on the news so far. And if we’re honest with ourselves we have a pretty good idea already that the attackers we fear are from one of a handful of countries, and 1st or 2nd generation Australians. They or their fathers have been welcomed into this country in the last 20 years, and you may cry and howl ‘racist’ about it but it’s true.
I happen to know people who work directly for the government in anti-terror efforts, and none of the people they’re watching are 3rd generation Aussies, and none of them emigrated from Canada or Israel to name just two examples…
So what is a libertarian like me to do? Leave your reasoned thoughts in the comments. This is genuinely vexing for me and I’m looking for intelligent and reasoned responses. Is there a way that the libertarian ideal of ‘no borders’ can actually be achieved without making us vulnerable to the violent? Are we in fact no more vulnerable to ‘outsiders’ than we are to our own criminal element, and is the solution against both the same: Individual self defence? Does a belief in open borders have to cost us our ANZAC marches and who knows what else in future?
And if you don’t believe in open borders, then tell me if there is there a way to discern against the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ arrivals without resorting to methods that fly in the face of everything a libertarian believes in, meaning the presumption of innocence, treating everyone as an individual rather than part of a ‘group’, and a belief that every human has equal innate rights that stem from their humanity and cannot be ‘voted’ or legislated away…
What’s the answer here?
Follow Topher:
Website: topherfield.net
Facebook: Facebook.com/topherfield
Instagram: @topherfield
Twitter: @topherfield
Youtube: Youtube.com/topherfield
Subscribestar: Subscribestar.com/topherfield
The answer is that the ideal cannot be achieved. It assumes we all want the same thing, that we all think alike, that we are all peaceful, caring and sharing. We are tribal, that is how we are made. That doesn’t necessarily mean we stick with skin colour, we stick with like minded people and all people are not like minded. There are people who want to rule the world and they will stop at nothing to achieve it. It is unfortunate but it is as it is and unless we want to bow down to others we will have to fight, they don’t want to or are incapable of reasoning. What annoys me is that we are bowing down, we are not fighting. We are told not to let the terrorists win but that is exactly what we are doing when we cancel things like Anzac day marches. It should not come down to excuses like money, they must go ahead.
Topher….. Do you prefer that we comment here, or on your site?
Anyway, I’m commenting here for a start. I used to consider myself Libertarian, until I ran into the Libertarian stream that did not consider results. There seems to be an ideology that all humans are the same, regardless of the influence of culture and the evidence of difference worldwide.
To start with, there is not a lot New in what we are seeing. A prime example is atheism Kelly Gang. Myths to the contrary, these first-generation Australians were not forced into criminal activity by poverty or oppression. Ned’s cousins were amongst the largest landowners in the immediate area and the family were close. Rather – and he boasted of it later – stealing was more fun than honest work. It’s hard to argue that the Irish were “oppressed” when there were more Irish-born in the Police party at Stringybark Creek, than in the Kelly gang. The Judge who presided over Ned’s trial was Irish-born, and in the same year that Ned was hanged, Irish-born Peter Lalor (of the Eureka Stockade) was elected to the position of Speaker of the Upper House of the Victorian Parliament. Yet “oppression” is the excuse that Ned used.
So yeah, it’s not new. Perhaps at least part of the problem is that both Ned’s father and mother were not people of good character.
How do we deal with this?
I believe that the start is to respect the Right of Australians to determine who enters Australia and under what conditions. There seems to be an argument among Libertarians that there are individual rights, but no collective right. Why is this? Why do the people who have – arguably – built Australia and made it a safe, comfortable and prosperous place to live, not have the right to determine what qualifies people to join us?
What does “open borders” mean for any country relatively rich in resources but low in population? Kuwait could possibly give us an answer. Or Israel.
If we are going to have self-determination for people groups (“ethnos”, from which word we get both “ethnic” and “nation” ) then such groups must be able to set rules regarding who is and is not a part of that group. To deny that is to deny the Right of Association.
It also denies – for example – the collective Right to own resources. Any resource – whether land, mineral, water or wildlife – belongs to whoever first claims it. This may have made America wealthy in the 19th century (and collective ownership can have its own problems ) but we can still see some of the damage that was done.
If I were asked, I would argue that the primary qualification for citizenship would be a willingness to respect our laws contribute to the nation. When we don’t ask this, people will conclude that we don’t value either our laws, our culture or our society. That will undoubtedly exclude some people whose loyalty is elsewhere. I don’t think that unreasonable. Freedom does not require us to commit national suicide. Freedom does not require us to accept the destruction of the system that creates freedom.
Freedom is not free. It is freedom of choice, not freedom from consequences. Those who argue for the economic benefits of open borders need to reflect carefully whether they are, in fact, selling their freedom for gold.
A bit of a ramble, but perhaps you can make sense of it.
Peter.
Who would want to let people, who were not invited, into his own home? Who would want to extend hospitality to people who do not respect the rules of the house or do not behave in a civilized, our civilized, manner?.