JasonC SBB

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.

Mach929

iTrader: (3)

aids and hustler, population control the natural way

curly

iTrader: (25)

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

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I'm not saying kill them after the fact retard, and none of my family would be effected because everyone in my family is hard working and smart . Well, I have an uncle who is a meth head and should be shot in the face, so it would be nice if they would go ahead and take him out of the gene pool. Sad that he has already had 3 kids.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Didn't say it was, I just said imagine if 1/4 of the population, the ones that were probably born in poverty by a mother who couldn't afford to have them, who fell into a life of crime and became a piece of **** human beings, were gone. I'm not saying I'm someone who would support all of this, just bringing up points. I would like having less shitty people to deal with. I wish I could remember what comedian it was I saw talking about this. I'm also not thinking as deep into this as some of you butt hurts are. Everyone on the internet has to be so serious.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

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.

l_bader

The thought of less than 10 percent of the population (actually closer to 5 percent) paying nearly 50 percent of their earnings to fund 40(+) percent of the population that does not contribute to the tax base is abhorrent.

The producers should not become (remain) the fertilizer (victims) for the leeches...

- L

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

JasonC SBB

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?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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. The sum total of human happiness goes up.

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.



They already do this. It's called congress.

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.


You end up with a representative democracy.

My honest opinion: the best form of government is a non-hereditary Aristocracy.

DragonsMaw

iTrader: (3)

That's not really an aristocracy then but whatever. Are you saying this because the people in power would have a longer term outlook? Would you still have some mechanism for ousting them if they perform poorly? Oversight, checks and balances are kind of necessary no matter what form of government exists in order to keep a system from, well, systematically devolving.

JasonC SBB

Why do you think the educational status of the bottom half of this country is so bad? Public schools aka government schools. No competition between schools = poor performance.

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.

I didn't say "eliminate the bottom 99%", I said control them, in a similar manner that some posters here want to control and sterilize the bottom 10%.

LOL did you read the book that makes a case that Democracy is far inferior to a benevolent Aristocracy?:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765808684

The problem with a pure democracy is that 51% can vote to take away the rights of 49%. Voters can vote to ban miatas and turbos, or to sterilize 10% of the population.
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

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Sure it is. Aristocracy simply defines the state of rule by a small and elite group, presumed to be wise and benevolent. Hereditary monarchies are one form of aristocracy, but they are not the only possible form. One extreme example would be the theocratic governments which are not uncommon in Islamic states, where a small group of religious elders constitute both the head of the church and the head of state. From the point of view of a person who is a faithful member of the religion in question, said government would constitute an aristocracy.


Long-term outlook, immunity from partisan political pressure, immunity from the pressures of approval / re-election, immunity from the influence of corporations re: campaign contributions / lobbyists, etc.

Politics in America is a popularity contest. Think back to high school- who were the popular kids? Not the smart ones.



Not needed. A diverse and benevolent ruling class will inherently act to protect its own integrity against the occasional malignant member. You just run into the problem of how to find the perfect benevolent dictator.

JasonC SBB

And therein lies the rub. For every 1 benevolent megalomaniac who wants a position of power, there are 10 psychopathic megalomaniacs.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I expect you're being generous at that. Those most qualified to govern are those least likely to seek office. Nothing new there- neither the prom king nor queen back in high school were likely the valedictorian.

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.

JasonC SBB

I agree the average voter is naive - easily misled with slogans and logical fallacies. (no doubt in part due to the poor educational system, one which doesn't even teach critical thinking)

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.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

I love this one. I wear my pants a little low, not excessively, but just a tiny bit. Every so often I'll bend over and show a little panty and my parents will ask why I show my underwear.

I reply: "Would you rather see my underwear or my ***?"

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

You're asking that question on this forum?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Devil's Advocate: Fine & well, but it doesn't address the problem of people being lazy, stupid, criminalistic, xenophobic, redneck ********.

JasonC SBB

The vast majority of human beings will work towards bettering themselves if a system of incentives are in place - i.e. they don't get handouts if they're lazy, and get to keep their earnings if they're not. You can't legislate stupidity out, but the government school system sure guarantees it. Catching crimininals is a valid function of government, provided the government doesn't write laws just to create victimless criminals - e.g. speed limits too low, unnecessary stop signs. Government is not the right institution to address bigotry and assholeness.

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 ******** 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.