Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy
(Post 431146)
Exactly, would you miss them if they hadn't been born? ;) Imagine 1/4 of the population gone, all of those types of people. Would fix unemployment, poverty,
|
aids and hustler, population control the natural way
|
I hate to break it y'all, but a lot of the population problems have NOTHING to do with the general intelligence level of man kind. As much as I agree with quite a few of those [b][/ b]'d statements, we're simply sucking up all of the planet's natural resources faster than it can replenish them. I remember discussing it for a week or two in environmental science, back in high school. A lot of the facts are pretty scary.
edit: searched for a few minutes to find some good facts by a reputable source, finally found one seconds after I posted of course. NA6C-guy seems to be right on the money. http://www.populationinstitute.org/p...sues/index.php |
Originally Posted by Fireindc
(Post 431298)
If this were to happen, many of your loved ones would be dead. 1/4 of the population is alot, you make me sick. The ideal you just stated is completely lucifarian.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 431306)
Myth. Unemployment and poverty isn't caused by "overpopulation". When the earth's population was 25% less years ago, the worldwide average standards of living were actually lower. Standards are continually increasing.
|
Well the problem really is that no politician can ever say anything about responsible self-control with regard to having babies or they might as well sign their death sentence.
|
Originally Posted by hustler
(Post 431225)
...they don't want to live through the pacifist, satan-worshiping, child-killing, SOCIALIST agenda.
The producers should not become (remain) the fertilizer (victims) for the leeches... - L |
Originally Posted by everybody
Nature vs. nurture
Seriously though. I'm not sure how secretly sterilizing the whole population would be a good move (as you're just wiping out your own tax base) but to really step back and look at the situation objectively, I honestly have to say that the rest of those ideas sound like they'd tend to improve the overall quality of life in the US. |
Since noone has brought up the obvious, I will.
Those of you who say "Sterilize the scum!" (against their will), may be say, in the top 20% on an intelligence scale, talking about the bottom 10%. Now what do you think the top 0.01% (in terms of wealth and power), are thinking about the 99% of us? Don't you think they feel superior and think along the same lines and wish to pass laws that will enable them to do things against our will? How does that make you feel now? If you wish for a government or law to impose your will and violate the individual rights of those you feel are "beneath" you, this same government will allow those "above" you to control YOU. What do you end up with? Brave New World. Capiche? |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 431940)
Those of you who say "Sterilize the scum!" (against their will), may be say, in the top 20% on an intelligence scale, talking about the bottom 10%.
Now what do you think the top 0.01% (in terms of wealth and power), are thinking about the 99% of us? Eliminate the "bottom 99%" and you more or less destroy all of civilization, wipe out the economy, etc. Not really a practical thing to do. Don't you think they feel superior and think along the same lines and wish to pass laws that will enable them to do things against our will? How does that make you feel now? If you wish for a government or law to impose your will and violate the individual rights of those you feel are "beneath" you, this same government will allow those "above" you to control YOU. Most people are fools. I don't mean that in the sense that they can't tie their own shoes, but they certainly cannot be trusted to make important decisions concerning monetary policy, foreign relations, healthcare, etc. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I'm probably not qualified to be running the Federal Reserve or negotiating trade agreements with China, and I sure as hell don't want to see my redneck neighbor doing it either. What do you end up with? Brave New World. My honest opinion: the best form of government is a non-hereditary Aristocracy. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 431978)
You end up with a representative democracy. My honest opinion: the best form of government is a non-hereditary Aristocracy. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 431978)
Eliminate the "bottom 10%" and you eliminate at least 50% (and probably > 75%) of violent crime, welfare recipients, incarcerated prisoners, and other people who generally drain away the resources of society w/o contributing anything.
There will always be a tiny fraction who are psychopathic lowlifes. The purpose of the government's justice system is to catch them. There will also be a tiny fraction who are psychopaths but are intelligent and megalomanic. These are the scum who are attracted to positions of power aka the government. The only way to prevent government from being a magnet for these megalomaniacs it to prevent gov't from acquiring power beyond what is needed to protect individual rights. Eliminate the "bottom 99%" and you more or less destroy all of civilization, wipe out the economy, etc. Not really a practical thing to do. My honest opinion: the best form of government is a non-hereditary Aristocracy. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765808684 You end up with a representative democracy. Pure democracy is inimical to freedom. In a Republic that protects individual rights, 99% cannot vote to take away the rights of any minority or individual. An individual is free to do as he pleases provided he does not violate any other individual's rights. The purpose of government is to protect those rights and enforce private contracts. The other bigger problem or a Democracy that doesn't protect individual rights is that the ruling elite can convince the public that "this is what the majority want" or "this is for the common good", in order to get what the politically connected want. For example, the Mother of All Banker Bailouts was sold as being necessary... just look up how much Goldman Sachs got in the first bailout under Paulson and read this recent hard-hitting Taibbi article on Rolling Stone about them: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...bubble_machine By allowing government to take on more and more power "in the name of the common good" and violating individual rights, it will become a bigger and bigger magnet for the .01% who are intelligent psychopathic scum. BTW here's a book that says that 1% of the population are psychopaths, and executive positions in the Corporate structure attracts them. The rate of psychopathy among execs is much higher than the general population. Because of the revolving door between gov't and Big Business, by extension the gov't also has a much higher % of psychopaths than the general population. The solution is NOT to "have the right people in government", it's to prevent the system of government from taking on power that attracts these scum. Book: Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-W.../dp/0060837721 |
Originally Posted by DragonsMaw
(Post 431996)
That's not really an aristocracy then but whatever.
Are you saying this because the people in power would have a longer term outlook? Politics in America is a popularity contest. Think back to high school- who were the popular kids? Not the smart ones. Would you still have some mechanism for ousting them if they perform poorly? |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 432016)
. You just run into the problem of how to find the perfect benevolent dictator.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 432018)
And therein lies the rub. For every 1 benevolent megalomaniac who wants a position of power, there are 10 psychopathic megalomaniacs.
My biggest problem with representative democracy however aren't the representatives- it's the represented. "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Churchill said that, and I agree. If we were ruled by people (both executive and legislative) who didn't have to worry about campaigns, elections, pandering to voters, etc., they might be able to be slightly more effective. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 432036)
My biggest problem with representative democracy however aren't the representatives- it's the represented.
Now consider that (according to the book I linked), that 1% of the population are psychopaths (it's a gene defect like color blindness). The definition of psychopathy is lack of empathy. If 1% of that 1% were very intelligent and megalomanic (there would be 30,000 such individuals in this country), then it stands to reason that THEY would rise to positions of power, and manipulate the average voter to believe in giving the government more power "for the common good". The book explains that such individuals can turn on the charm and seem empathetic. This would explain what Thomas Jefferson warned about - that power tends to concentrate and grow, and that a government system reliant on "good people" is guaranteed to become tyrannical over time, because bad people *will* rise to power. Again the solution is to strictly limit the power of government, limit the types of laws it can pass. IOW follow the philosophy of the Founding Fathers of Individual Liberty. Based on a lot of the postings in this thread, a lot of voters do not understand Freedom and the principles and philosophy behind limited government. They can be easily misled by megalomaniacs to pass laws which they think are in their interests when in reality it's in the ruling class's. |
Originally Posted by levnubhin
(Post 431150)
I especially hate the ones who walk around with their fucking underwear exposed. WTF would you want to wear your pants around your thighs?
I reply: "Would you rather see my underwear or my ass?" |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 432053)
I reply: "Would you rather see my underwear or my ass?"
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 432050)
Again the solution is to strictly limit the power of government, limit the types of laws it can pass.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 432102)
Devil's Advocate: Fine & well, but it doesn't address the problem of people being lazy, stupid, criminalistic, xenophobic, redneck assholes.
Having freedom isn't perfect, and won't create a utopia. Freedom comes with personal responsiblity, and allowing people to make mistakes and act like assholes is part of it. Trying to change people's attitudes and making them "better" is social engineering whose philosophical background is the same as fascism. Similar to Nazism, striving to make society homogenous and thinking alike, is like turning humans into the Borg. All dissent is quashed, resistance is futile. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands