I think things like say a country that starts to disappear underwater the response of culturally similar countries should be to help in terms of relocation and non culturally similar countries to help via cost and other aspects.

That's how I'd see that ideally.....similar to how we view adoption say....just on a national scale.

As for the responsibilities of this state to people outside of it. We have no direct responsibilities. I offer up help purely within the framework of humanity.....What I don't offer up is the automatic offering of equal rights and residency rights to people who have no allegiance to this country.....I've seen what doing that has done to my country. A significant proportion have done little but bite the hand that helped them.

I support the concept of immigration but only within the prism of being careful on who is admitted.....Secular would be top of my list (and yes you can have a religion and be secular).

If Britain were underwater (not something I personally believe is going to happen) I would see America as the nation that saw us as culturally similar....we founded the country in the first place. Many others would find countries more suited to them personally....whether those countries let them in would be up to them.

As for your criticism of capitalism in third world or under developed countries.....I read your view as a very one sided one.

I certainly agree that an unregulated capitalism of foreign countries within any nation can exploit and plunder it. However, I don't believe that's a fair summary of modern day practices.

If you take these companies away all you do is de-investment plus leave them to the always present exploitation from the corruption within their own societies with no hope of change.......Companies will only invest if they believe the laws with allow stability to exist. Over time that is likely to require a legally fairer set of laws from institutions....otherwise the expansion of investment is always going to be limited......So regulated capitalism slowly encourages fair societies.

I don't agree that the state of under developed countries is the fault of western ones today. Proper management of countries in select nations is showing the shallowness of this viewpoint.

The west has a blueprint on how to build successful societies. The fault as to why many nations are in poverty is due to internal cultural strife and the lack of the rule of law separate from state......In a sense the principles of classical liberalism not being popular enough nor applied.....partly due to religion and partly due to the lack of institutional foundations with any legal backing.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Feb 2018 7.58pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

in the navy it was the cabin boy who was eaten first, and I don't mean in the Funty way.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

But they did it, you didn't mention enjoyment and that may be a hard point to prove, and would be heresay at best, especially if you do not even believe genetic science.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Ah, I was not supposed to interpret your words literally. Now I understand. Does that apply to all of your posts?

Peffers, the cannibalism I have studied was not done because people were hungry.

You don't deal in facts, only emotionalism and identity dogma.

I'm not sure one can draw any parallel between eating human flesh in a struggle to survive a specific incident and the unnecessary ritualistic or tribal consumption of human meat. I'm sure there have been examples of one group eating humans for sustenance but that is also beside the point.
In reality, cannibalism was probably accecptable to many cultures until discouraged by another with a different set of values.