Elite Eugenicists Call For Mass Depopulation, Drastic Reduction In Energy Consumption

[John F Kennedy III]

Elite Eugenicists Call For Mass Depopulation, Drastic Reduction In Energy Consumption

Royal Society study yields unsurprising results, Ecoscience co-author calls for “move to population shrinkage as humanely and as rapidly as possible”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
April 27, 2012

The Royal Society, an organisation made up of renowned eco-fascists and depopulation fanatics, has released a “major report” calling for the “stabilization” of global population and reductions in consumption in developed countries.

The report is the unsurprising result of a 21 month “objective” study on human population growth and its implications for social and economic development.

“The number of people living on the planet has never been higher, their levels of consumption are unprecedented and vast changes are taking place in the environment. We can choose to rebalance the use of resources to a more egalitarian pattern of consumption … or we can choose to do nothing and to drift into a downward spiral of economic and environmental ills leading to a more unequal and inhospitable future”, the report reads.

The report also claims that developing countries will have to build the equivalent of a city of a million people every five days from now to 2050 in order to cope with the rate of population increase .

“In material terms it will be necessary for most developed countries to abstain from certain sorts of consumption, such as CO2,” said Jules Pretty who was on the Royal Society working group.

The study argues that there should be a demand to “reduce fertility” in poorer nations, particularly in Africa.

“When we slow down population growth we empower women and provide more money for least developed countries to invest in education. The majority of women want fewer children,” Mr Pretty argued.

Renowned population alarmist Prof Paul Ehrlich weighed in on the matter, going even further than the Royal Society.

Ehrlich told the Guardian that the optimum population of Earth is 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050.

“How many you support depends on lifestyles,” Ehrlich said. “We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”

“The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there’s going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.”

Ehrlich was a co-author of “Ecoscience” with John P. Holdren, who went on to become Obama’s science czar. As we have previously noted, the notorious 1977 textbook floats the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet.

Although admitting that those notions were discussed in the book, Ehrlich has denied that he is an advocate for them.

For its part, The Royal Society is a 350 year old establishment outfit, leading members of which are manifestly obsessed with pushing a depopulation agenda. The group has also thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.

The society has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.

It was also intimately tied to the Whitewashing of the Climategate emails scandal.

One of the members of the Royal Society’s working group for their population study was Jonathon Porritt. Porritt is the former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt is also a member of The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.

When it was announced in 2010, an OPT news article on the Royal Society’s study opened with the line, “The human population is far higher than any other primate at any time in history.” This outlines exactly where these people approached their research from.

Another notable member of both the OPT and The Royal Society is Futurist and top Eco-Fascist James Lovelock.

Lovelock became a patron of the OPT in 2009. In a statement released by the trust to mark the appointment, Lovelock called on the environmental movement as a whole to “recognise the truth and speak out” on the link between rising human numbers and global warming.

Lovelock said: “Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”

He added: “How can we possibly decrease carbon emissions and land use while the number of emitters and the space they occupy remorselessly increases? When will the environmentalists who claim to be green recognise the truth and speak out?”

Lovelock also recently called for the ending of freedom in order that an overriding global power made up of “a few people with authority” can oversee the radical stemming of the planet’s human population in order to combat climate change.

In a bizarre move, and one that shows how much backlash he has encountered, Lovelock recently reversed his position entirely on global warming, admitting that he had been an alarmist.

So you begin to see how laughable it is to expect the Royal Society’s global population study, which will certainly be used as a reference by other leading institutions and global bodies, to be in any way “objective.”

The OPT and The Royal Society also boast, as a patron, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough, who has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Attenborough was also on the Royal Society’s working group for this population study. Again, it was inconceivable to expect this man’s influence to result in an “objective” study on population?

Another member of the working group was Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.

Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.

Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.

Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.

Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s study was John Sulston, a man who most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed; in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences.”

Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.

It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their population study represents anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.

It is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives, and the wider public are made aware of these facts.


rest of article here:
http://www.infowars.com/elite-eugenicists-call-for-mass-depopulation-drastic-reduction-in-energy-consumption/

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I don't see what's so bad about depopulation really, the numbers are getting too big & people, especially those that can't even feed, clothe or shelter themselves should stop reproducing at such rapid pace & subjecting their children to even worse conditions
If population continues at the current rates then before long people will start killing each other over things, already are in some places, & there will be popular communist movements rising as the idiots at large, incapable of understanding capitalism or liberty, take over & destroy everything
I think there's definitely a need for reduction in growth & VOLUNTARY mass-sterilization in some of these countries, by offering them money or any other incentives, them just continuing like this just doesn't help them, it doesn't help anyone at all
What these people need is PROPERTY-RIGHTS & RULE OF LAW & start being productive; THAT'S WHAT those f'cking NGOs should be working on, making people SELF-SUFFICIENT & with more education, we'll see some curbing of this population disaster!

And as usual the article contains the typical anti-white "nazi" "Hitler" crap insinuations that keep presenting white people as "evil" :(

[thoughtomator]

If we're going to move to reduce population, "ethicists" are first in line.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't see what's so bad about depopulation really, the numbers are getting too big & people, especially those that can't even feed, clothe or shelter themselves should stop reproducing at such rapid pace & subjecting their children to even worse conditions
If population continues at the current rates then before long people will start killing each other over things, already are in some places, & there will be popular communist movements rising as the idiots at large, incapable of understanding capitalism or liberty, take over & destroy everything
I think there's definitely a need for reduction in growth & VOLUNTARY mass-sterilization in some of these countries, by offering them money or any other incentives, them just continuing like this just doesn't help them, it doesn't help anyone at all
What these people need is PROPERTY-RIGHTS & RULE OF LAW & start being productive; THAT'S WHAT those f'cking NGOs should be working on, making people SELF-SUFFICIENT & with more education, we'll see some curbing of this population disaster!

And as usual the article contains the typical anti-white "nazi" "Hitler" crap insinuations that keep presenting white people as "evil" :(

You're buying into the propaganda.

If these people really believe in depopulation, they would lead by example and off themselves, not inflict all of the consequences of this agenda on the poor. It's always the poor that have to be the guinea pigs for "the good of society." People, don't buy into the overpopulation propaganda.

Also, who's going to pay for this purported "incentivized mass sterilization?"

[Danke]

Ehrlich told the Guardian that the optimum population of Earth is 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today...

And if you thought the housing market was bad now, just wait.

[Cowlesy]

These guys need to relax. This is why we have warfare, to thin the herd. We're due for a big one in the next 40 years or so.

[Cowlesy]

And if you thought the housing market was bad now, just wait.

You'll be able to take entire deserted neighborhoods and make it your own earldom. Import some peasants, and have your own feudal manor.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You're buying into the propaganda.

If these people really believe in depopulation, they would lead by example and off themselves, not inflict all of the consequences of this agenda on the poor. It's always the poor that have to be the guinea pigs for "the good of society." People, don't buy into the overpopulation propaganda.

Also, who's going to pay for this purported "incentivized mass sterilization?"

I'm not necessarily talking about "them" ("elite"), I'm just saying what I see, that there would be chaos in the world if it something isn't done, there will be massive communist movements allover, which will destroy everything in their path

What do you think is the point of letting people just breed limitlessly when they can't even take care of themselves, let alone their children? Would you like seeing more & more misery? If their populations become sustainable & importantly, rule of law is established then they'll be able to prosper but NO WAY like this!

And what "Guinea pigs"? Is people who can't even feed themselves, having more & more children a good thing? Why shouldn't it be curtailed if it can be done VOLUNTARILY?

As for paying for the incentives, again, it comes down people doing it through VOLUNTARY charity

What do you people want? 100 billion people? Or until every inch of the Earth is occupied by a human? WHAT WOULD THE POINT OF SUCH STUPIDITY? Mass starvation? Lawlessness, where people are killing each other for every morsel of food? Can't you realize that this simply is NOT making the world any better? So what's wrong with VOLUNTARY reduction in breeding?

You people have bought so much into conspiracies that you can't even see the obvious!

[John F Kennedy III]

Lol I just got neg repped for this thread. Keep playing pretend, but don't say you weren't warned. The global elite do exist and they do want to kill damn near all of us. That's a fact. Hopefully they don't succeed, but pretending that isn't their intention or that they don't even exist isn't going to help. Please do some research.

[FrankRep]

I don't see what's so bad about depopulation really, the numbers are getting too big & people, especially those that can't even feed(

You first.

[Henry Rogue]

Royal Society study


“How many you support depends on lifestyles,” Ehrlich said. “We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”

Do they really expect us to believe this. If the population stabilized at 4 or 5 billion, why would it be any worse than expanding it to 7 billion. We are well past 5 billion and I don't feel like I'm "kept just alive" with "minimum space and food". I wouldn't mind more eldow room, but who decides who lives and who dies. Odds are I will not win that lottery. Seems to me population growth is fast tracked by the government. the Interstate Highway System installed in the late 50s allowed for the population to spread out into the countryside, making it easy for a population boom. Perhaps some of thier enviromental concerns can be traced to the IHS as well, more traveling, more cars, more pollution.

RON PAUL ROCKS

[mczerone]

I'm not necessarily talking about "them" ("elite"), I'm just saying what I see, that there would be chaos in the world if it something isn't done, there will be massive communist movements allover, which will destroy everything in their path

What do you think is the point of letting people just breed limitlessly when they can't even take care of themselves, let alone their children? Would you like seeing more & more misery? If their populations become sustainable & importantly, rule of law is established then they'll be able to prosper but NO WAY like this!

And what "Guinea pigs"? Is people who can't even feed themselves, having more & more children a good thing? Why shouldn't it be curtailed if it can be done VOLUNTARILY?

As for paying for the incentives, again, it comes down people doing it through VOLUNTARY charity

What do you people want? 100 billion people? Or until every inch of the Earth is occupied by a human? WHAT WOULD THE POINT OF SUCH STUPIDITY? Mass starvation? Lawlessness, where people are killing each other for every morsel of food? Can't you realize that this simply is NOT making the world any better? So what's wrong with VOLUNTARY reduction in breeding?

You people have bought so much into conspiracies that you can't even see the obvious!

You have bought so much into "planning" that you can't even see the obvious: If its not your life or property; it's not your business.

Who knows how many people the Earth could healthily sustain. It could be 100,000 or it could be 1 trillion. You don't know what the optimum population is for the system, and no one does.

No one knows because each individual has a subjective value system. Many people would be perfectly happy with 300-story tenements housing the population the world over. Others might want to see vast nature preserves and people living on 100 acre ranch homes. You and I can't make a value judgement on one way or the other FOR OTHER PEOPLE. All we can do is choose how we want to live, and what kind of families we want to have.

[John F Kennedy III]

You have bought so much into "planning" that you can't even see the obvious: If its not your life or property; it's not your business.

Who knows how many people the Earth could healthily sustain. It could be 100,000 or it could be 1 trillion. You don't know what the optimum population is for the system, and no one does.

No one knows because each individual has a subjective value system. Many people would be perfectly happy with 300-story tenements housing the population the world over. Others might want to see vast nature preserves and people living on 100 acre ranch homes. You and I can't make a value judgement on one way or the other FOR OTHER PEOPLE. All we can do is choose how we want to live, and what kind of families we want to have.

+rep

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You first.

You first with what?

Are you illiterate or something? I'm NOT talking about kiling anyone but VOLUNTARY neutering of those who can't even sustain themselves, let alone having children? What's the point of it if they can't even feed themselves, they are only bringing more misery to their children?


You have bought so much into "planning" that you can't even see the obvious: If its not your life or property; it's not your business.

Who knows how many people the Earth could healthily sustain. It could be 100,000 or it could be 1 trillion. You don't know what the optimum population is for the system, and no one does.

No one knows because each individual has a subjective value system. Many people would be perfectly happy with 300-story tenements housing the population the world over. Others might want to see vast nature preserves and people living on 100 acre ranch homes. You and I can't make a value judgement on one way or the other FOR OTHER PEOPLE. All we can do is choose how we want to live, and what kind of families we want to have.

Again, can you read - VOLUNTARY? And there's NOTHING wrong with planning, even this forum is dedicated to PLANNING about a free society, so what's important is that nobody should force their plans on others, that's all!

People are starving & living in utterly miserable conditions What's the point of them bringing even more misery to others - their children! If they can't even feed themselves or their children then what's the point?

It seems some of you like misery & would gladly enjoy seeing more & more miserable people around the world The more merrier I guess! :(

As for the question of how many people Earth can sustain - well, there are billions of people living in destitute poverty so at least FOR THE MOMENT, it's not sustainable; yes, quality of life, that's how I'd measure sustainability!
So what would be good is seeing people living a much better life than what is prevelant in many parts of the world & there are many varied reasons for that but one certainly is that they keep breeding limitlessly so sustenance becomes harder & harder, not to mention, if they happen to accumulate any capital then it gets sub-divided too many parts

Again, I reiterate - VOLUNTARY

I thought people on RPF would know the meaning of such important libertarian words

[John F Kennedy III]

I say we grow the Earth's population to 100 billion and start colonizing moons and Mars. Then expand to other solar systems.

Plenty of room.

[A Son of Liberty]

The vast majority of the misery suffered on this planet is brought about as a direct consequence of 'planning'. Do you work, by all means; if you think convincing people that sterilizing themselves will bring about a better world, then spread your message. Myself, I believe in the market of ideas, which very well includes humanitarian solutions to population growth - I would NEVER urge another human being to neuter him- or herself.

Your ideas make me ill. "Environmentalists" are the lowest of the low...

[rockerrockstar]

I find this whole thing scary. Just makes you wonder if the secret elite would consider releasing a mutated bird flu virus that can be transmitted airborn. How else would they quickly go from 7 billion to 2 billion. Smaller populations are easier to control is probably part of the reason.

I don't like Agenda 21. I don't want to be controlled by a world government.

[rockerrockstar]

I always theorized that over population would push us to explore space for other places to live. I don't really think we are any where close to that yet.

[John F Kennedy III]

The vast majority of the misery suffered on this planet is brought about as a direct consequence of 'planning'. Do you work, by all means; if you think convincing people that sterilizing themselves will bring about a better world, then spread your message. Myself, I believe in the market of ideas, which very well includes humanitarian solutions to population growth - I would NEVER urge another human being to neuter him- or herself.

Your ideas make me ill. "Environmentalists" are the lowest of the low...

I find it ironic that the people who say "Save the planet, kill yourself" don't take their own advice.

[rockerrockstar]

I find it ironic that the people who say "Save the planet, kill yourself" don't take their own advice.

They want to kill other people not theirselfs or cut off other peoples nuts. I am concerned about over population but not enough to be that crazy. I really don't like Agenda 21. I also read about the horror stories about Eugenics in America's past history. The State of California actually cut nuts of teenagers off that they deemed not worthy to breed. That is sick and wrong.

Below is a link to a CNN video on what crimes the State of California did for Eugenics

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/health/california-forced-sterilizations/index.html

These Agenda 21 people are using the global warming theory to try to take over the world and get rid of our freedoms. They want a World Government that will control the population and where we can live. It will not be a democracy.

[mczerone]

You first with what?

Are you illiterate or something? I'm NOT talking about kiling anyone but VOLUNTARY neutering of those who can't even sustain themselves, let alone having children? What's the point of it if they can't even feed themselves, they are only bringing more misery to their children?



Again, can you read - VOLUNTARY? And there's NOTHING wrong with planning, even this forum is dedicated to PLANNING about a free society, so what's important is that nobody should force their plans on others, that's all!

People are starving & living in utterly miserable conditions What's the point of them bringing even more misery to others - their children! If they can't even feed themselves or their children then what's the point?

It seems some of you like misery & would gladly enjoy seeing more & more miserable people around the world The more merrier I guess! :(

As for the question of how many people Earth can sustain - well, there are billions of people living in destitute poverty so at least FOR THE MOMENT, it's not sustainable; yes, quality of life, that's how I'd measure sustainability!
So what would be good is seeing people living a much better life than what is prevelant in many parts of the world & there are many varied reasons for that but one certainly is that they keep breeding limitlessly so sustenance becomes harder & harder, not to mention, if they happen to accumulate any capital then it gets sub-divided too many parts

Again, I reiterate - VOLUNTARY

I thought people on RPF would know the meaning of such important libertarian words

I get it, but I don't think your "voluntary" solution is really voluntary. How do you propose to tell poor teenagers that they should get a vasectomy, but the rich guy down the road gets to have as many kids as he wants because he can afford kids?

And who determines if someone is wealthy enough for children? Who pays for the vasectomies?

If you really want to promote sustainable populations, you should be more focused on helping young people get off welfare and getting some valuable skills. Teach them and prep them to take care of themselves, then they will only have those kids that they want and can afford.

Don't go around yelling at people and telling them that they can't read if they disagree with you. It gives us all a bad image.

[John F Kennedy III]

I always theorized that over population would push us to explore space for other places to live. I don't really think we are any where close to that yet.

Me either. We could easily fit 20 billion. I don't see why 50 billion would be a problem either. Of course I hope we start expanding to other worlds way before that. I don't like having all our eggs in one basket.

[John F Kennedy III]

I get it, but I don't think your "voluntary" solution is really voluntary. How do you propose to tell poor teenagers that they should get a vasectomy, but the rich guy down the road gets to have as many kids as he wants because he can afford kids?

And who determines if someone is wealthy enough for children? Who pays for the vasectomies?

If you really want to promote sustainable populations, you should be more focused on helping young people get off welfare and getting some valuable skills. Teach them and prep them to take care of themselves, then they will only have those kids that they want and can afford.

Don't go around yelling at people and telling them that they can't read if they disagree with you. It gives us all a bad image.

This.

[sevin]

I'm gonna have to agree with Paul Or Nothing II. You guys are judging him too quickly. If you look at an exponential curve, it's pretty obvious that if the population grows too fast, we will literally run out of space. Sure, that's a long ways off, but it is possible. However, I don't think it will happen because population growth has already slowed down thanks to birth control. People are already voluntarily having less children than they used to. In fact, the U.N. believes the population will level off and start going down this century. I don't think we or the "elites" have anything to worry about.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/8/9/saupload_world_population_1800_2100.png

[rockerrockstar]

The main thing to be concerned with currently is if the fish are going to die in the ocean from global warming. If the scientist are correct that could be a huge impact to the everyone. Other than that if the ocean currents change do to global warming and cause weather to change long term for London and other areas. Third people that live on the coast over time will have to move.

People that live on some Islands may have to move because of flooding. Extreme weather could happen. Worst case with large populations we could get a super virus to kill a lot of us off it is mother natures way of population control. Of course the high the population the more wars and fighting for resources.

[rockerrockstar]

In america we still have many states that have low populations for the square footage of land. I don't think land is the issue in America. Resources and jobs will be. For instance the State of Wyoming is big but has a very small population. It's climate can get pretty cold in the winter and does have some big snow storms so that may be the reason. Also, there is not as many jobs there. But that could change.

I am sure the environmentalist know that we need some undeveloped land to generate oxygen and to give the animals some place to live. I just think there can be a balance.

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm gonna have to agree with Paul Or Nothing II. You guys are judging him too quickly. If you look at an exponential curve, it's pretty obvious that if the population grows too fast, we will literally run out of space. Sure, that's a long ways off, but it is possible. However, I don't think it will happen because population growth has already slowed down thanks to birth control. People are already voluntarily having less children than they used to. In fact, the U.N. believes the population will level off and start going down this century. I don't think we or the "elites" have anything to worry about.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/8/9/saupload_world_population_1800_2100.png

I'm simply saying it wouldn't be a problem. If we start approaching physics properly we could handle it much better than you might think. Plus we would be able to expand to other worlds instead of repeatedly saying we can't do it due to limitations of our current technology.

[John F Kennedy III]

Advancement in technology is key. We need to stop suppressing technology. We could be so much more advanced than we are now.

[rockerrockstar]

Lol I just got neg repped for this thread. Keep playing pretend, but don't say you weren't warned. The global elite do exist and they do want to kill damn near all of us. That's a fact. Hopefully they don't succeed, but pretending that isn't their intention or that they don't even exist isn't going to help. Please do some research.

+1 Rep point. I gave you a point because I think a thread like this was needed. And that other guy took a point away so I will give you one back to make up for it.

[rockerrockstar]

Advancement in technology is key. We need to stop suppressing technology. We could be so much more advanced than we are now.

You are right. Look up Stan Meyers on youtube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZM22750v5M


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYeI7r52Oyg

[osan]

I don't see what's so bad about depopulation really, the numbers are getting too big & people, especially those that can't even feed, clothe or shelter themselves should stop reproducing at such rapid pace & subjecting their children to even worse conditions.

I see a few problems with this position. Firstly, if we are to take "depopulation" in the same context, which is the systematic murder of what presumably and of necessity must be an unimaginably large population of our brethren, how do you support this? Many of the people here, I would gauge most even, are what I would assess as claiming to be principled people. If I further take you to be one of those people who in addition to being principled accepts the fundamental principle of human equality, how then could you possibly accept this notion of artificial culling of the population without violating those principles? If you accept this notion, who decides who lives and who dies? By what right do they make such decisions? What are the criteria? Why are those people not required to also give up their lives and those of their families for the "greater good"? Why would they not volunteer? It is easy to send others to their deaths from the comfort of a walnut paneled office, knowing your precious friends and family will be safe. How easy it must be to send the dirt and dregs of humanity to die for the greater good. I am sure all those slated to die "humanely" will see it that way as well. Why should they live when all they can succeed at is being useless eaters?

Do you believe in right and wrong? Do you believe in being ultimately accountable for the things you do and hold as true?

Also, how do you know the the numbers are getting too big? How did you come to know this? Who taught you and how do you know that they are not wrong about it?

I would be interested in knowing who, precisely, you would approve for euthanasia. Poor black African knee-grows? Chinese? Indians? Who, exactly, is less worthy of life than the rest?

Here is what I believe: if we are indeed all equal, there is no right anywhere to do such a thing even if the stated reasons for doing so are true. Easier said than done when one's children face death and if mine were I cannot say with certainty that I would not kill others for their sake. That does not mean I would be correct in so doing.


If population continues at the current rates then before long people will start killing each other over things, already are in some places, & there will be popular communist movements rising as the idiots at large, incapable of understanding capitalism or liberty, take over & destroy everything

Acting in self defense is not the same as preemptively murdering people by the billion because they might do something in the future.


I think there's definitely a need for reduction in growth & VOLUNTARY mass-sterilization in some of these countries, by offering them money or any other incentives, them just continuing like this just doesn't help them, it doesn't help anyone at all
What these people need is PROPERTY-RIGHTS & RULE OF LAW & start being productive; THAT'S WHAT those f'cking NGOs should be working on, making people SELF-SUFFICIENT & with more education, we'll see some curbing of this population disaster!

What you propose here is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE to realize. There are economic reasons for it as well as political. If you do not get the numbers you seek, you either settle with it, increase the incentives, or resort to force. There is not enough resource available to bribe enough people to get what you seek. Economic reality #1. When you don't get what you want and have not the means of getting it voluntarily, force is never far behind because those in power NEVER accept the decisions of others when it frustrates their vision and the attendant goals. Political reality #1. Add to that boundary creep - what is outrageous and unthinkable yesterday becomes tolerable today, and is demanded tomorrow. The requirements for people to sterilize themselves will INEVITABLY grow in scope and then the "social obligation" to die will arise and likewise expand until those in power are slaughtering the rest by the ship load, thinking not twice about it. Logan's run is closer than you may think, which may be fine to you so long as you are not one of those in the cross hairs.

Can you answer the questions in a well reasoned, complete, correct, and morally justifiable way?

[John F Kennedy III]

Bump

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Maybe The Royal Society can volunteer to be first to kill themselves and save the planet. The birth rate in America is pretty steady. It's the other side of the world that's rapid, anyway.

[AME3]

Finally an idea that makes sense. Technology and colonization of the seas surface and below, planets and moons....God told Abraham that his seed would number the stars in the heavens you know...
I say we grow the Earth's population to 100 billion and start colonizing moons and Mars. Then expand to other solar systems.

Plenty of room.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I say we grow the Earth's population to 100 billion and start colonizing moons and Mars. Then expand to other solar systems.

Plenty of room.

Kid, you don't know what you're talking about, stop masturbating to sci-fi & live in the REAL WORLD

And again, it's IRRELEVANT whether Earth could hold 100 billion, 100 trillion, 100 quadrillion or 100 pentillion, IRRELEVANT
The question is what's the point?? What's the point of just "existing" where they can't even feed, clothe, shelter & educate themselves??

Again, "sustainability" should be looked at from the point of QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT by how many people we can put on every inch of this planet

Which is better - to have fewer people with decent living standards (again, I NOT talking about killing so put "elite" BS aside) or more & more people but living in utter destitution?

You need to stop thinking about what the "elite" want & have an objective view of the situation


The vast majority of the misery suffered on this planet is brought about as a direct consequence of 'planning'. Do you work, by all means; if you think convincing people that sterilizing themselves will bring about a better world, then spread your message. Myself, I believe in the market of ideas, which very well includes humanitarian solutions to population growth - I would NEVER urge another human being to neuter him- or herself.

Your ideas make me ill. "Environmentalists" are the lowest of the low...

Oh so your "humanitarian" solution is to let the poor people continue to breed at a rapid rate & then there are even more poor people & even more & even more? How much misery would you feel satisfied with? Would you feel satisfied if there were 100 billion destitute people? How about 100 trillion destitute? More?

VERY "humanitarian", right!


I get it, but I don't think your "voluntary" solution is really voluntary.

I don't know may be you have some unique definition of "voluntary" but so far as I see & as most libertarians have defined, it means being FREE TO CHOOSE! So they can CHOOSE to get it if they think the incentive is enough or not if they don't want to


How do you propose to tell poor teenagers that they should get a vasectomy, but the rich guy down the road gets to have as many kids as he wants because he can afford kids?

Well, if the rich guy wants to get it done then I'm not opposed to it at all
Besides, the rich guy can at least take care of himself & his children, provide them necessities, education & so on

Do you not think people should have some mercy on their children & NOT make them go through the grinding poverty that they themselves are going through?

Again, how does having more & more poor people help?


And who determines if someone is wealthy enough for children? Who pays for the vasectomies?[/QUTOE]

Can you read? VOLUNTARY CHARITY!

And again, there's no need "determine" anything, there's a cost-benefit attached to everything so whatever the incentive may be, those who are good with it will get it done & others not

[QUOTE=mczerone;4385274]If you really want to promote sustainable populations, you should be more focused on helping young people get off welfare and getting some valuable skills. Teach them and prep them to take care of themselves, then they will only have those kids that they want and can afford.

Again, did you read my earlier posts? I've already said that NGOs & others who want to help people in poor countries should first & foremost help them establish property-rights & rule of law so that they could be self-sufficient, that's what lacking in many parts of the world - you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, you teach him how to fish & you feed him for life


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-da3CFh5g


Don't go around yelling at people and telling them that they can't read if they disagree with you. It gives us all a bad image.

Well, if people can't comprehend the word VOLUNTARY then that's not my fault, I think that's one word Paul-supporters would be expected to know very well

And let me tell you what gives "us" all a bad image - supposed Paul-supporters constantly talking about the "elite", that's going to repel people faster than anything; learning & spreading the message of Austrian Economics & voluntary action, that's what's going to help win over more people, not the conspiracy theories!


I'm gonna have to agree with Paul Or Nothing II. You guys are judging him too quickly. If you look at an exponential curve, it's pretty obvious that if the population grows too fast, we will literally run out of space. Sure, that's a long ways off, but it is possible. However, I don't think it will happen because population growth has already slowed down thanks to birth control. People are already voluntarily having less children than they used to. In fact, the U.N. believes the population will level off and start going down this century. I don't think we or the "elites" have anything to worry about.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/8/9/saupload_world_population_1800_2100.png

But the population is falling among those who are better off, not amongst those who are destitute which essentially means there are fewer & fewer people who are actually high on labor-quality, which makes prosperity possible & there are more & more people with low labor-quality; education plays a big role in sustaining labor-quality & prosperity, & when you have fewer & fewer informed people & more & more uninformed & uneducated, that doesn't augur well at all for working towards better living-standards

When people start being well off, they automatically start having less children than they otherwise would have but it's among the destitute that the birth-rates need to be lower because they can't take care of their children, can't educate them & improve the labor-quality & such prolific breeding almost ensures that they continue to remain destitute & that there are even more of them


The main thing to be concerned with currently is if the fish are going to die in the ocean from global warming. If the scientist are correct that could be a huge impact to the everyone. Other than that if the ocean currents change do to global warming and cause weather to change long term for London and other areas. Third people that live on the coast over time will have to move.

People that live on some Islands may have to move because of flooding. Extreme weather could happen. Worst case with large populations we could get a super virus to kill a lot of us off it is mother natures way of population control. Of course the high the population the more wars and fighting for resources.

Oh yeah, global warming :rolleyes:

[AME3]

Somebody needs to step on this thing before it lays eggs. How narrow-minded and plain damn evil.....


Kid, you don't know what you're talking about, stop masturbating to sci-fi & live in the REAL WORLD

And again, it's IRRELEVANT whether Earth could hold 100 billion, 100 trillion, 100 quadrillion or 100 pentillion, IRRELEVANT
The question is what's the point?? What's the point of just "existing" where they can't even feed, clothe, shelter & educate themselves??

Again, "sustainability" should be looked at from the point of QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT by how many people we can put on every inch of this planet

Which is better - to have fewer people with decent living standards (again, I NOT talking about killing so put "elite" BS aside) or more & more people but living in utter destitution?

You need to stop thinking about what the "elite" want & have an objective view of the situation



Oh so your "humanitarian" solution is to let the poor people continue to breed at a rapid rate & then there are even more poor people & even more & even more? How much misery would you feel satisfied with? Would you feel satisfied if there were 100 billion destitute people? How about 100 trillion destitute? More?

VERY "humanitarian", right!



I don't know may be you have some unique definition of "voluntary" but so far as I see & as most libertarians have defined, it means being FREE TO CHOOSE! So they can CHOOSE to get it if they think the incentive is enough or not if they don't want to



Well, if the rich guy wants to get it done then I'm not opposed to it at all
Besides, the rich guy can at least take care of himself & his children, provide them necessities, education & so on

Do you not think people should have some mercy on their children & NOT make them go through the grinding poverty that they themselves are going through?

Again, how does having more & more poor people help?

[QUOTE=mczerone;4385274]And who determines if someone is wealthy enough for children? Who pays for the vasectomies?[/QUTOE]

Can you read? VOLUNTARY CHARITY!

And again, there's no need "determine" anything, there's a cost-benefit attached to everything so whatever the incentive may be, those who are good with it will get it done & others not



Again, did you read my earlier posts? I've already said that NGOs & others who want to help people in poor countries should first & foremost help them establish property-rights & rule of law so that they could be self-sufficient, that's what lacking in many parts of the world - you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, you teach him how to fish & you feed him for life


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-da3CFh5g



Well, if people can't comprehend the word VOLUNTARY then that's not my fault, I think that's one word Paul-supporters would be expected to know very well

And let me tell you what gives "us" all a bad image - supposed Paul-supporters constantly talking about the "elite", that's going to repel people faster than anything; learning & spreading the message of Austrian Economics & voluntary action, that's what's going to help win over more people, not the conspiracy theories!



But the population is falling among those who are better off, not amongst those who are destitute which essentially means there are fewer & fewer people who are actually high on labor-quality, which makes prosperity possible & there are more & more people with low labor-quality; education plays a big role in sustaining labor-quality & prosperity, & when you have fewer & fewer informed people & more & more uninformed & uneducated, that doesn't augur well at all for working towards better living-standards

When people start being well off, they automatically start having less children than they otherwise would have but it's among the destitute that the birth-rates need to be lower because they can't take care of their children, can't educate them & improve the labor-quality & such prolific breeding almost ensures that they continue to remain destitute & that there are even more of them



Oh yeah, global warming :rolleyes:

[AME3]

A true monster, this one who calls it's self "paul or nothing II"....

[Paul Or Nothing II]

A true monster, this one who calls it's self "paul or nothing II"....

For what? For saying that people shouldn't be having more children than they can afford to provide for & educate?

I'd say people who want to see more & more misery & poverty in the world, like you, are the "monsters", who don't have compassion for all those who will be born into destitution, living a terrible life because their parents had no foresight!

Do parents not have any responsibility towards their children? What's so great about people breeding limitlessly even though they won't be able to provide for their children?

Again, some of you people need to stop masturbating about conspiracy theories & think straight for a second!

[John F Kennedy III]

Finally an idea that makes sense. Technology and colonization of the seas surface and below, planets and moons....God told Abraham that his seed would number the stars in the heavens you know...

Yes :)

[A Son of Liberty]

Oh so your "humanitarian" solution is to let the poor people continue to breed at a rapid rate & then there are even more poor people & even more & even more? How much misery would you feel satisfied with? Would you feel satisfied if there were 100 billion destitute people? How about 100 trillion destitute? More?

VERY "humanitarian", right!

You've set up a false dichotomy in your head - you take it for granted that human suffering is caused by poor people who breed. You have condensed an immense issue with likely thousands of factors down to one simple (yet unverified) cause, and now here you are on Ron Paul Forums (of all places) advocating incentivizing sterilization.

In the words of Ayn Rand, CHECK YOUR PREMISES.

[PaulConventionWV]

These guys need to relax. This is why we have warfare, to thin the herd. We're due for a big one in the next 40 years or so.

Yay! Moar war!!!

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not necessarily talking about "them" ("elite"), I'm just saying what I see, that there would be chaos in the world if it something isn't done, there will be massive communist movements allover, which will destroy everything in their path

What do you think is the point of letting people just breed limitlessly when they can't even take care of themselves, let alone their children? Would you like seeing more & more misery? If their populations become sustainable & importantly, rule of law is established then they'll be able to prosper but NO WAY like this!

And what "Guinea pigs"? Is people who can't even feed themselves, having more & more children a good thing? Why shouldn't it be curtailed if it can be done VOLUNTARILY?

As for paying for the incentives, again, it comes down people doing it through VOLUNTARY charity

What do you people want? 100 billion people? Or until every inch of the Earth is occupied by a human? WHAT WOULD THE POINT OF SUCH STUPIDITY? Mass starvation? Lawlessness, where people are killing each other for every morsel of food? Can't you realize that this simply is NOT making the world any better? So what's wrong with VOLUNTARY reduction in breeding?

You people have bought so much into conspiracies that you can't even see the obvious!

I'm just going to respond to the bolded parts and parts after that. I don't think you need to worry about 100 billion. The population will stabilize long before that. In fact, it is already beginning to stabilize. There is absolutely no chance that the earth will ever get to the point where every inch of earth is occupied. That, in itself, is the stupidity I think you were talking about.

For instance, did you know that the entire Earth's population could fit in Jacksonville, Florida... twice? Did you know that, with 20 square metres for each and every human being, we could fit them all in England? Not the UK, just England.

These "conspiracy theories" are what should be obvious to you. However, I will humor you. Why do you think it's obvious that the earth is headed for sure doom due to overpopulation? What facts could possibly make this "obvious" to anyone? Could it be all the propaganda that you keep hearing from the government-run education system, and the "scientific community" elite? Next time, why don't you try to verify these things yourself instead of just listening to what authority keeps telling you about the population. The only reason it seems obvious is because the propaganda has so permeated our culture that it lies in the subconscious of nearly everyone. Therefore, when we see that this opinion is popular and widespread, we treat opinion as "obvious" when really, it is just popular. No scientific explanation needed.

[PaulConventionWV]

You first with what?

Are you illiterate or something? I'm NOT talking about kiling anyone but VOLUNTARY neutering of those who can't even sustain themselves, let alone having children? What's the point of it if they can't even feed themselves, they are only bringing more misery to their children?



Again, can you read - VOLUNTARY? And there's NOTHING wrong with planning, even this forum is dedicated to PLANNING about a free society, so what's important is that nobody should force their plans on others, that's all!

People are starving & living in utterly miserable conditions What's the point of them bringing even more misery to others - their children! If they can't even feed themselves or their children then what's the point?

It seems some of you like misery & would gladly enjoy seeing more & more miserable people around the world The more merrier I guess! :(

As for the question of how many people Earth can sustain - well, there are billions of people living in destitute poverty so at least FOR THE MOMENT, it's not sustainable; yes, quality of life, that's how I'd measure sustainability!
So what would be good is seeing people living a much better life than what is prevelant in many parts of the world & there are many varied reasons for that but one certainly is that they keep breeding limitlessly so sustenance becomes harder & harder, not to mention, if they happen to accumulate any capital then it gets sub-divided too many parts

Again, I reiterate - VOLUNTARY

I thought people on RPF would know the meaning of such important libertarian words

It's great that you are concerned about the people in Africa. It really is. That said, we don't need to fear them having children. If they suffer because they bring children into the world that they can't support, then that's their problem. It doesn't affect us. I'm not saying we shouldn't care, but it is irrelevant in terms of world population. People in Africa are suffering because of corruption and government, not because there just isn't enough. There would be plenty if they were able to utilize it without being wracked by war all the time.

If you want to start a voluntary sterilization program on your own penny, go right ahead. Don't expect me to help you pay for it, though.

Also, it's centralized planning that's the problem, not just planning. If you have your own plan, go for it. The government should not be involved in population planning, though.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You've set up a false dichotomy in your head - you take it for granted that human suffering is caused by poor people who breed. You have condensed an immense issue with likely thousands of factors down to one simple (yet unverified) cause, and now here you are on Ron Paul Forums (of all places) advocating incentivizing sterilization.

In the words of Ayn Rand, CHECK YOUR PREMISES.

Oh boy, talk about false inferences :rolleyes:

So you think people who can't even provide for their children popping out kids at a prolific pace is a good thing? For whom? For the children? Is poverty a good thing? How does it help anyone at all?

Again, don't parents have any responsibility towards their children? Or should they just keep popping out children without any foresight about their children's future?

And my position isn't at all outside the bounds of liberty, I'm a voluntaryist; if anything, all these posts here rousing class-warfare through useless propaganda belong to communist-section of OWS or something, & I can see there are quite a few who wouldn't mind being part of OWS with all this talk of "rich elite controlling everything", this class-warfare paranoia is basically what the likes of Marx, Engels, etc rode on!

[PaulConventionWV]

I find this whole thing scary. Just makes you wonder if the secret elite would consider releasing a mutated bird flu virus that can be transmitted airborn. How else would they quickly go from 7 billion to 2 billion. Smaller populations are easier to control is probably part of the reason.

I don't like Agenda 21. I don't want to be controlled by a world government.

They would start by zoning in humans and selectively annihilating certain zones simultaneously and then weeding out the rest with concentration camps and the military and things like that. Then, they would set up their civilized colonies by having them heavily controlled and monitored. Anyone who didn't have the proper mark of identification wouldn't be allowed to participate in society, and then would probably starve or simply be an outcast for the rest of their lives.

I'm not saying that's how it's going to happen. I'm saying that's my idea of how it would go down if it did happen. It's possible to eliminate a lot of people if you can get them all in the right places.

[A Son of Liberty]

Oh boy, talk about false inferences :rolleyes:

So you think people who can't even provide for their children popping out kids at a prolific pace is a good thing? For whom? For the children? Is poverty a good thing? How does it help anyone at all?

I HAVE NO IDEA, and neither do you. For a voluntaryist, you sure do make a lot of sweeping generalizations, not to mention subjective value judgments.

Moving along, now.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm gonna have to agree with Paul Or Nothing II. You guys are judging him too quickly. If you look at an exponential curve, it's pretty obvious that if the population grows too fast, we will literally run out of space. Sure, that's a long ways off, but it is possible. However, I don't think it will happen because population growth has already slowed down thanks to birth control. People are already voluntarily having less children than they used to. In fact, the U.N. believes the population will level off and start going down this century. I don't think we or the "elites" have anything to worry about.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/8/9/saupload_world_population_1800_2100.png

First, that is the UN's projections, so I inherently distrust them. Secondly, that graph leaves A LOT of room for variation. Thirdly, that exponential curve won't be exponential much longer. The population has to even out at some point. With the evidence that it's already starting to even out, I don't see how the red line you are looking at, which shoes the current rate of increase keeping up for much longer, could reflect reality. Also, that graph is not solid evidence of anything. It basically says the population could go anywhere, drastically up OR drastically down. Thanks a lot, Sherlock.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

It's great that you are concerned about the people in Africa. It really is. That said, we don't need to fear them having children. If they suffer because they bring children into the world that they can't support, then that's their problem. It doesn't affect us. I'm not saying we shouldn't care, but it is irrelevant in terms of world population. People in Africa are suffering because of corruption and government, not because there just isn't enough. There would be plenty if they were able to utilize it without being wracked by war all the time.

If you want to start a voluntary sterilization program on your own penny, go right ahead. Don't expect me to help you pay for it, though.

Also, it's centralized planning that's the problem, not just planning. If you have your own plan, go for it. The government should not be involved in population planning, though.

My only point has been that restraining the global population isn't such a bad thing at all so long as it's done VOLUNTARILY

Unlike some, I don't think fewer people being born into destitute poverty is such a bad thing

[PaulConventionWV]

Finally an idea that makes sense. Technology and colonization of the seas surface and below, planets and moons....God told Abraham that his seed would number the stars in the heavens you know...

Yeah, but I don't think that means what you think it means. "Numbering the stars in the heavens" means there will be too many of them to count. It doesn't mean they will live among the stars or any sort of other-worldly thing like that.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm not necessarily talking about "them" ("elite"), I'm just saying what I see, that there would be chaos in the world if it something isn't done, there will be massive communist movements allover, which will destroy everything in their path

What do you think is the point of letting people just breed limitlessly when they can't even take care of themselves, let alone their children? Would you like seeing more & more misery? If their populations become sustainable & importantly, rule of law is established then they'll be able to prosper but NO WAY like this!

And what "Guinea pigs"? Is people who can't even feed themselves, having more & more children a good thing? Why shouldn't it be curtailed if it can be done VOLUNTARILY?

As for paying for the incentives, again, it comes down people doing it through VOLUNTARY charity

What do you people want? 100 billion people? Or until every inch of the Earth is occupied by a human? WHAT WOULD THE POINT OF SUCH STUPIDITY? Mass starvation? Lawlessness, where people are killing each other for every morsel of food? Can't you realize that this simply is NOT making the world any better? So what's wrong with VOLUNTARY reduction in breeding?

You people have bought so much into conspiracies that you can't even see the obvious!

Care to prove causation? In any event, if there is too many people then nature takes over. Guess what happens? Starvation. Now, that isn't what I hope to see in my lifetime, but nature has a way to prevent 'over population'. Until we reach the point where more people are dying from starvation than being born then that to me indicates we are not overpopulated. You only have some vague subjective idea of what over population means.

What you are really saying is you want to kill people because you want less humans on the planet for some eco-Nazi reason. This is why I just sigh anytime I hear 'over population'. Most people are too damn stupid to even realize that you can't have overpopulation if folks aren't starving to death in mass numbers. It's just stupid vacuous quite disgusting value system which give rise to wanting to see fellow humans die in mass so you can see nature take more of this planet.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Care to prove causation? In any event, if there is too many people then nature takes over. Guess what happens? Starvation. Now, that isn't what I hope to see in my lifetime, but nature has a way to prevent 'over population'. Until we reach the point where more people are dying from starvation than being born then that to me indicates we are not overpopulated. You only have some vague subjective idea of what over population means.

More & more people being born into destitute poverty may be seen & appreciated by some who have a some weird twisted worldview that more & more poverty is good but I think if we can ensure that fewer & fewer people are born into grinding poverty then that's a good thing


What you are really saying is you want to kill people because you want less humans on the planet for some eco-Nazi reason. This is why I just sigh anytime I hear 'over population'. Most people are too damn stupid to even realize that you can't have overpopulation if folks aren't starving to death in mass numbers. It's just stupid vacuous quite disgusting value system which give rise to wanting to see fellow humans die in mass so you can see nature take more of this planet.

Based on your posts on some of the other issues in the past, I'd thought that you are one of the smarter people on this forum but I guess I was wrong

Nowhere have I argued for killing people so next time, at least try to READ the post before posting nonsense

[PaulConventionWV]

Kid, you don't know what you're talking about, stop masturbating to sci-fi & live in the REAL WORLD

And again, it's IRRELEVANT whether Earth could hold 100 billion, 100 trillion, 100 quadrillion or 100 pentillion, IRRELEVANT
The question is what's the point?? What's the point of just "existing" where they can't even feed, clothe, shelter & educate themselves??

Again, "sustainability" should be looked at from the point of QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT by how many people we can put on every inch of this planet

Which is better - to have fewer people with decent living standards (again, I NOT talking about killing so put "elite" BS aside) or more & more people but living in utter destitution?

You need to stop thinking about what the "elite" want & have an objective view of the situation

It's funny that you talk about having an objective view when your view is based on nothing other than the propaganda that has been fed to you. The point of existing is up to each person to determine for themselves. If they think it's worth it, then they will continue to live. If they do not, then they won't. It doesn't threaten you either way.


Oh so your "humanitarian" solution is to let the poor people continue to breed at a rapid rate & then there are even more poor people & even more & even more? How much misery would you feel satisfied with? Would you feel satisfied if there were 100 billion destitute people? How about 100 trillion destitute? More?

VERY "humanitarian", right!

You're talking out of your ass. You don't even know where you got those numbers from. The earth's population will stabilize long before that. There can only be so many starving people before some of them starve to death to make room for the others. That will happen long before there are 100billion destitute people, IMO. You keep talking like letting the population grow is such a bad thing. My question to you is, what is your solution? Is it practical?


I don't know may be you have some unique definition of "voluntary" but so far as I see & as most libertarians have defined, it means being FREE TO CHOOSE! So they can CHOOSE to get it if they think the incentive is enough or not if they don't want to

I'm fine with that. If you want to bribe people to neuter themselves, then you're free to do that. Don't get the government involved, however, and don't force me to support what you're doing.


Well, if the rich guy wants to get it done then I'm not opposed to it at all
Besides, the rich guy can at least take care of himself & his children, provide them necessities, education & so on

Poor people don't have kids for no reason. In Africa, it is usually so that the parents have farm hands to help them support the family. If they can take care of themselves without a good education and just live poor minimal lives, who are you to decide that their lives aren't worth it? There are plenty of reasons people could be happy without lots of money or even the things we consider basic in America. Who are you to judge who is destitute and who is not? They may WANT more, but they might, at the same time, be satisfied with their lives with what they have.


Do you not think people should have some mercy on their children & NOT make them go through the grinding poverty that they themselves are going through?

Again, how does having more & more poor people help?

How does it hurt? You have no proof that it does, just conjecture. Again, if parents want to "have mercy" by not having children, then that is their choice. However, if they choose to have children, then it will be the child's choice to decide what they want to do with your lives. It does not concern you in any way.


And who determines if someone is wealthy enough for children? Who pays for the vasectomies?[/QUTOE]

[QUOTE]Can you read? VOLUNTARY CHARITY!

And again, there's no need "determine" anything, there's a cost-benefit attached to everything so whatever the incentive may be, those who are good with it will get it done & others not

Ok, I don't think you get it: You will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, EVER, EVER get enough people to donate to a "voluntary sterilization charity" to achieve the ends you want to meet. Most people just don't want to donate their hard-earned money to bribe a bunch of poor people to sterilize themselves. The fact that you don't see the idiocy of this idea is pretty mind-blowing. The question is, what are you going to do when your solution fails? Will you resort to force? What will you do?


Again, did you read my earlier posts? I've already said that NGOs & others who want to help people in poor countries should first & foremost help them establish property-rights & rule of law so that they could be self-sufficient, that's what lacking in many parts of the world - you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, you teach him how to fish & you feed him for life


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-da3CFh5g

That's a very good idea. Why don't you just drop the sterilization thing and stick with that?


Well, if people can't comprehend the word VOLUNTARY then that's not my fault, I think that's one word Paul-supporters would be expected to know very well

And let me tell you what gives "us" all a bad image - supposed Paul-supporters constantly talking about the "elite", that's going to repel people faster than anything; learning & spreading the message of Austrian Economics & voluntary action, that's what's going to help win over more people, not the conspiracy theories!

You will never get enough people to voluntarily donate to people who want to voluntarily sterilize themselves for money in order to create any significant change at all. What will you do when that fails?

The elite need to be talked about because the NWO and the elite are a reality, and one that we have to face.


But the population is falling among those who are better off, not amongst those who are destitute which essentially means there are fewer & fewer people who are actually high on labor-quality, which makes prosperity possible & there are more & more people with low labor-quality; education plays a big role in sustaining labor-quality & prosperity, & when you have fewer & fewer informed people & more & more uninformed & uneducated, that doesn't augur well at all for working towards better living-standards

If all the prosperous people died off, then some poor people will probably become prosperous in their place. That's how the market works. Do you believe in free markets or not?


When people start being well off, they automatically start having less children than they otherwise would have but it's among the destitute that the birth-rates need to be lower because they can't take care of their children, can't educate them & improve the labor-quality & such prolific breeding almost ensures that they continue to remain destitute & that there are even more of them

Oh yeah, global warming :rolleyes:

There will always be prosperous, and there will always be poor. If there are too many poor, then some will starve and the others will not. Problem solved. It really isn't your problem what kind of living conditions they have unless you make it your problem. The earth can reasonable support way more than it does now.

[slamhead]

I can solve population and famine in one step. Each of us should eat one person.

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh boy, talk about false inferences :rolleyes:

So you think people who can't even provide for their children popping out kids at a prolific pace is a good thing? For whom? For the children? Is poverty a good thing? How does it help anyone at all?

Again, don't parents have any responsibility towards their children? Or should they just keep popping out children without any foresight about their children's future?

And my position isn't at all outside the bounds of liberty, I'm a voluntaryist; if anything, all these posts here rousing class-warfare through useless propaganda belong to communist-section of OWS or something, & I can see there are quite a few who wouldn't mind being part of OWS with all this talk of "rich elite controlling everything", this class-warfare paranoia is basically what the likes of Marx, Engels, etc rode on!

Not all poor people are just popping out kids with "no foresight." Most of them are very able to assess their needs and their futures with or without kids. It's not up to you to decide for them, via bribing or force or any other means. Most poor people have kids for a reason. That seems to be what you don't get.

[PaulConventionWV]

More & more people being born into destitute poverty may be seen & appreciated by some who have a some weird twisted worldview that more & more poverty is good but I think if we can ensure that fewer & fewer people are born into grinding poverty then that's a good thing



Based on your posts on some of the other issues in the past, I'd thought that you are one of the smarter people on this forum but I guess I was wrong

Nowhere have I argued for killing people so next time, at least try to READ the post before posting nonsense

You need reading comprehension. He knows what you said. That's a pretty shallow view. You think people are stupid just because they disagree with you? You know, that kind of superiority complex could really come in handy when deciding which portion of the population to bribe into sterilizing themselves.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

......

Boy, I've never seen such naivety!

Look, this thread was about restraining global population & all I'm saying is if somebody wants to pay people to sterilize themselves & people are VOLUNTARITY agreeing to get it done then that's not a bad thing

There's nothing wrong with less people being born into poverty

I'm NOT asking YOU to give money, I'm NOT asking the government to give money, I'm just saying if somebody wants to do it then there's nothing bad about it & VOLUNTARY MEANS VOLUNTARY & if you still don't understand what voluntary means then look it up in the dictionary

So far as "elite" goes, such conspiracy BS rousing communist-style class-warfare suits on OWS movement, liberty-movement isn't supposed to be about Marxist class-warfare

[kcchiefs6465]

You need reading comprehension. He knows what you said. That's a pretty shallow view. You think people are stupid just because they disagree with you? You know, that kind of superiority complex could really come in handy when deciding which portion of the population to bribe into sterilizing themselves.
Can someone do the honors? (Need to spread some around) That being said it is futile to try and have a reasonable debate with () Or Nothing. (I know, I know, I'm just an idiot :rolleyes:) Your posts are making people come to your side for the wrong reasons... i.e. to sterilize you

[PaulConventionWV]

Boy, I've never seen such naivety!

Look, this thread was about restraining global population & all I'm saying is if somebody wants to pay people to sterilize themselves & people are VOLUNTARITY agreeing to get it done then that's not a bad thing

There's nothing wrong with less people being born into poverty

I'm NOT asking YOU to give money, I'm NOT asking the government to give money, I'm just saying if somebody wants to do it then there's bad about it & VOLUNTARY MEANS VOLUNTARY & if you still don't understand what voluntary means then look it up in the dictionary

So far as "elite" goes, such conspiracy BS rousing communist-style class-warfare suits on OWS movement, liberty-movement isn't supposed to be about Marxist class-warfare

Lol who said anything about Marxist class-warfare? I sure wasn't advocating anything like that.

HEY! I get it that you want it to be voluntary.

That's great. I don't have a problem with some person doing it voluntarily. However, I don't think you will ever get enough people to donate to such a cause to make any significant difference, whatsoever. All I'm saying is that the poor people should have dominion over what decisions they make, and it's none of my business if they are born into poverty. It's their decision what they want to do with their life if they are in poverty. I don't get why it's so important for me or anyone else to be concerned about their well-being as a society.

If you are saying we should do this for moral reasons, then that is a completely different discussion.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Not all poor people are just popping out kids with "no foresight." Most of them are very able to assess their needs and their futures with or without kids. It's not up to you to decide for them, via bribing or force or any other means. Most poor people have kids for a reason. That seems to be what you don't get.

I've never said "all" poor people are like that so learn to read

I've never advocated use of force so learn to read

If someone wants to pay to someone else to get sterilized & they agree then that's a voluntary transaction, now if you're against voluntary action then that's different........


You need reading comprehension. He knows what you said. That's a pretty shallow view. You think people are stupid just because they disagree with you? You know, that kind of superiority complex could really come in handy when deciding which portion of the population to bribe into sterilizing themselves.

He said I want to kill people, which is NOT what I've advocated

I've never said "I" want to decide on anything; I'm just saying if somebody wants to do it & does so without using force then that's not necessarily a bad thing

Fewer people being born into poverty is NOT a bad thing, unless of course, you like & appreciate more & more poverty & destitution, I don't know what kind of person would like that though!

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Lol who said anything about Marxist class-warfare? I sure wasn't advocating anything like that.

I didn't necessarily say you were advocating it but that class-warfare isn't what liberty-movement is supposed to be about & all the BS conspiracy theories are essentially asking for class-warfare with "evil rich elite wanting to takeover & cull the poor poor"; that's class-warfare at its face

People should be learning about philosophy liberty, Austrian Economics & spread its message & learn to argue it, there's plenty to learn; wasting time on BS conspiracy theories does NOT equate to an argument for liberty


However, I don't think you will ever get enough people to donate to such a cause to make any significant difference, whatsoever.

I don't care, I've just said, if somebody could do it, to whatever extent, then it's not necessarily a bad thing


All I'm saying is that the poor people should have dominion over what decisions they make, and it's none of my business if they are born into poverty. It's their decision what they want to do with their life if they are in poverty.

Again, you still don't seem to have grasped what voluntary means
Voluntary means that people CHOOSING FOR THEMSELVES so when they CHOOSE to get sterilized for whatever they are being offered then that means THEY'RE DECIDING FOR THEMSELVES


I don't get why it's so important for me or anyone else to be concerned about their well-being as a society.

Yes, we shouldn't be concerned about poverty at all, just let them rot, & let them bring more & more people into the world to make them rot with them


If you are saying we should do this for moral reasons, then that is a completely different discussion.

I'm not saying "we" should do it, I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with it if somebody does it so long as it's voluntary; & that having fewer poor people born into poverty isn't a bad thing

[azxd]

I get it, but I don't think your "voluntary" solution is really voluntary. How do you propose to tell poor teenagers that they should get a vasectomy, but the rich guy down the road gets to have as many kids as he wants because he can afford kids?

And who determines if someone is wealthy enough for children?
Obama will tell his followers what they need to do ;)


Who pays for the vasectomies?
All of us !!


If you really want to promote sustainable populations, you should be more focused on helping young people get off welfare and getting some valuable skills. Teach them and prep them to take care of themselves, then they will only have those kids that they want and can afford.

Don't go around yelling at people and telling them that they can't read if they disagree with you. It gives us all a bad image.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyVfnvYjjNU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUHXHZUcRfI

Not sure how other nations will deal with their populations, but the writing is on the wall, for this nation.

[azxd]

I don't think land is the issue in America. Resources and jobs will be. Nailed the key word !!!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Paul or Nothing you seem to not want anyone born into poverty, and thus advocate sterilization as a means. I have to say, that is pretty myopic. The conditions which bring about the levels of poverty have no bearing on the numbers of people involved, but has everything to do with the economic environment which produces poverty. For someone who considers themselves a Voluntaryist and not be able to see that, is a little dis-heartening.

No one wants to see poverty, but you are really taking a vapid approach imho since it never addresses the issues and problems at all. As far as class-warfare, that is absolute a must for this movement, just not Marxist. Classical Liberal class theory in one succinct statement from John Bright -- the taxpayers vs. the tax-eaters. I would really recommending reading this:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0606b.pdf

It's short and to the point.


What can libertarians do about it? First, they must themselves understand liberal class theory. They must not shy away from it because it was hijacked by the Marxists. Second, they should use whatever influence they have to raise the class-consciousness of all honest, productive people. That is, the industrious must be shown that they are daily victims of the ruling political class.

[AME3]

I agree PCWV. I wasn't interpreting the passage that way. My bad for giving that impression.
Yeah, but I don't think that means what you think it means. "Numbering the stars in the heavens" means there will be too many of them to count. It doesn't mean they will live among the stars or any sort of other-worldly thing like that.

[osan]

For what? For saying that people shouldn't be having more children than they can afford to provide for & educate?

That is not all you wrote. You precise words were:



I don't see what's so bad about depopulation really, the numbers are getting too big & people, especially those that can't even feed, clothe or shelter themselves should stop reproducing at such rapid pace & subjecting their children to even worse conditions

Here, "depopulation" expresses the broadest sense of the term as it must be taken to have been used in the same way as that in the quoted article because you gave absolutely no explicit indication otherwise. Your admonition to some people to "stop reproducing" holds no sufficiency as a qualifier upon your use of the term in question. The meaning of your statement, therefore, is that you have no argument with depopulation in the general sense and it is with this that people appear to be taking strong issue.

Even with significant levels of voluntary sterilization there is no way to slow the Titanic in time to avoid the iceberg implied through innuendo that represents the necessary time frame. I have read calls to halve the population in as little as 30 years. From a statistically valid and forceful standpoint, this is utterly impossible without the application of force, and here I am not speaking of forced sterilization, but of the retirement of lives deemed not worth living by those so much the wiser than we mere mortals. But even so, if we constrain ourselves to just sterilization, we are equally lost because the fundamental principles underlying all human decency and restraint will have been abandoned and that will truly signal the beginning of the end of things.


I'd say people who want to see more & more misery & poverty in the world,

Talk about a straw man. The underlying fallacy here is that of the implied presumption that you do in fact judge the quality of the lives of others correctly - that your standard is shared by all. Feh. You may not even know enough to judge for yourself, much less for anyone else. It is precisely this brand of thinking that has brought the real suffering and destruction upon the human race. What do you think that grand asshole Mao was thinking during his purges and his "cultural revolution"? I seriously doubt he was saying to himself, "what evil can I foist upon these human dung today?". More likely, "how do I realize my workers' paradise?" Working from the assumption that those not clearly on board with his vision must be expurgated from the body politic, he proceeded to butcher 50 million souls without a second thought. How nice for his vision. Your expressed opinions parallel this thinking exactly enough to make any differences not worth the mention. It is precisely your mode of thinking that denies children their opportunity to grow into adults and live life as we all wish. Who wishes to die? Even the very old cling to life, so much more the child.

I notice you went into some labor to respond to the posts of others at considerable length, yet have thus far failed to address my pointed and fundamentally crucial questions. I suspect this is because you have no answers that anyone with an IQ above single-digits would accept as valid and true, but please do prove me wrong.


like you, are the "monsters", who don't have compassion for all those who will be born into destitution, living a terrible life because their parents had no foresight!

I see. You hold the moral high ground on compassion. A bit full of yourself, it would appear. Once again, prove me wrong and I will concede and retract in front-page style.


Do parents not have any responsibility towards their children?

Who in hell do you think you are to judge them? Have you walked a mile in the shoes of a poor black African born into crushing poverty courtesy of all the worst elements of the imported culture that was foisted upon them? What hubris.


What's so great about people breeding limitlessly even though they won't be able to provide for their children?

You are adept at making yourself apear foolish, well intentioned or otherwise. Your apparent myopia coupled with your seemingly fathomless and arrogant sense of presumption appear to have rendered your brain incapable of seeing a larger forest for the stunted saplings that bar your vision.

This is starting to smell troll-ish.

So much for intelligent and adult discourse.

[John F Kennedy III]

Oh boy, talk about false inferences :rolleyes:

So you think people who can't even provide for their children popping out kids at a prolific pace is a good thing? For whom? For the children? Is poverty a good thing? How does it help anyone at all?

Again, don't parents have any responsibility towards their children? Or should they just keep popping out children without any foresight about their children's future?

And my position isn't at all outside the bounds of liberty, I'm a voluntaryist; if anything, all these posts here rousing class-warfare through useless propaganda belong to communist-section of OWS or something, & I can see there are quite a few who wouldn't mind being part of OWS with all this talk of "rich elite controlling everything", this class-warfare paranoia is basically what the likes of Marx, Engels, etc rode on!

Why do you keep trying to rationalize genocide?

Why do you keep pretending the Globalist Elite don't exist?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Paul or Nothing you seem to not want anyone born into poverty, and thus advocate sterilization as a means. I have to say, that is pretty myopic. The conditions which bring about the levels of poverty have no bearing on the numbers of people involved, but has everything to do with the economic environment which produces poverty. For someone who considers themselves a Voluntaryist and not be able to see that, is a little dis-heartening.

No one wants to see poverty, but you are really taking a vapid approach imho since it never addresses the issues and problems at all.

Again, should have taken the time to go through my posts to realize that I do understand what causes poverty -


Again, did you read my earlier posts? I've already said that NGOs & others who want to help people in poor countries should first & foremost help them establish property-rights & rule of law so that they could be self-sufficient, that's what lacking in many parts of the world - you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, you teach him how to fish & you feed him for life


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-da3CFh5g

But the thing is that it's not very easy to lead people to a prosperous society so until some of you enlightened ones are able to wave your magic wands & make them prosperous, I don't think VOLUNTARY sterilization is such a bad idea

It's impossible to tell how long it will take for them to reach a decent living-standard but simple logic is that when people have less children, they are able to pass on more capital per person over generations & poor, who have the least capital, are the ones who need this more than anyone


As far as class-warfare, that is absolute a must for this movement, just not Marxist. Classical Liberal class theory in one succinct statement from John Bright -- the taxpayers vs. the tax-eaters. I would really recommending reading this:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0606b.pdf

It's short and to the point.

The way you're trying to present "class-warfare" is akin to calling Ron Paul a "liberal", of course, in some sense it would be true but largely a misnomer

Obviously, I'm talking about the marxist class-warfare which is usually on the rise in times of economic distress & already is to an extent & THAT kind of thing is absolutely anti-liberty & anti-capitalism & therefore, liberty-movement must divorce itself from it otherwise it will merely turn out to be a milder version of OWS
And looking at the kind of "Paul-supporters" I've encountered at different places, the kind of lack of understanding of philosophy of liberty & Austrian Economics & the taste for all kinds of crazy conspiracy-theories, I fear liberty-movement may just end up turning into a milder version of OWS & that's not what I would like to see

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Here, "depopulation" expresses \

At worst, it means reducing the population & it doesn't necessarily mean killing, if the birth-rates fall below replacement levels then population can decrease WITHOUT killing anyone


Even with significant levels of voluntary sterilization there is no way to slow the Titanic in time to avoid the iceberg implied through innuendo that represents the necessary time frame.

You should learn to READ, what I'm saying has nothing to do with "objectives" expressed in OP, I'm just making a general point but you paranoid people are getting your panties in a bunch!


But even so, if we constrain ourselves to just sterilization, we are equally lost because the fundamental principles underlying all human decency and restraint will have been abandoned

So long as it's VOLUNTARY, I don't think it's bad at all

What's beyond "human decency" is to so many people to be knowingly born into the kind of poverty they will have to deal with


Talk about a straw man. The underlying fallacy here is that of the implied presumption that you do in fact judge the quality of the lives of others correctly - that your standard is shared by all.

You're the biggest strawman here, "I" don't have to "judge" anyone's standards, I've just said, if somebody does sterilization & it's done VOLUNTARILY, there's nothing bad about it
There's no need to "judge" anything, those who want to get it done for whatever is being offered in return can get it done & those who don't want it then that's fine

Ok, I think your whole post is based on the ASSUMPTION that I'm endorsing all the "objectives" expressed in the OP..........which is NOT the case, I'm just making a general argument so obviously your IQ isn't high enough for you to be able to read & comprehend what I've been saying all this while

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Why do you keep trying to rationalize genocide?

You're hopeless, learn to read or something & then read what I've said


Why do you keep pretending the Globalist Elite don't exist?

I don't think there's any "globalist elite" trying to take over the world as such or that if there were any, I don't give a sh!t, they won't succeed because the philosophy liberty is based on the understanding that people are self-interested INDIVIDUALS & all of their interests aren't always in line
For example, "outsiders" may think of "Paul-supporters" as a unified group but the reality is that it's not true, there are many different kinds of poeple here, anarchist & minarchists, for open-borders & against open-borders, for (some) taxes & against all taxes & so on

So even though to "outsiders", even though we may seem alike, we're not & we DON'T have the same goals & there are conflicting interests & the ONLY way for us to be able to put our policies into action is if we get significant numbers of people to understand at least some of our policies & only then will they be realized
Accordingly NOT all the rich & powerful people have the same self-interests & same goals, not to mention they often have even larger egos & aren't willing to concede very easily so they'll never be able to put all of their plans into action anyway; besides, they'll need significant shift in public opinion to make even SOME of the policies they want

This is where liberty comes in, & our job is to spread the message of liberty & sound economics & if we shift public opinion enough then we'll get at least some of our policies in & that in itself will prevent any "elite" (in the sense you presume) from controlling significant amount of public opinion anyway

It's a battle of ideas & if we want our ideas to be pushed into the public sphere then we must be able to argue for liberty & for Austrian Economics & that's what we should focus on instead of masturbating over what the "elite" are doing; again, I don't think any group of people will be able to takeover the world because there will conflicts of interests & egos that will render it impossible
But again, what anyone else is doing should be of little relevance, what's even more important is to get as much of our ideas out there amongst the public so that we could work towards our version of the world so frankly, all this talk & paranoia does NOT get us anywhere anyway other than just spreading fear



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbyebk-V-Hs&feature=related

[kcchiefs6465]

You're hopeless, learn to read or something & then read what I've said

I refuse to read another one of your posts. It always resorts to insults and stating what you have already stated. You are incapable of having a debate.. and not just because your position is idiotic. Perhaps you should take your own advice and pick up a book. You are clearly a misguided emotionally distraught individual. It really annoys me that you have the audacity to question anyone's i.q. Seriously, what is your damage?

EDIT: I read through about a dozen of some of the most ignorant responses I've seen on this site before you received a neg. And that was only because of your constant insults. Anyone else who feels () or Nothing is out of line with the majority of his posts add to the negs. I'll +rep whoever gets the retalitory neg of "idiot."

[AME3]

I too called him some names like "monster" as I was equating him to being a fascist and an advocate of outright genocide, which to me is being a monster. I harbor no ill will whatsoever to Paul or anyone else and enjoyed the differing thoughts and ideas which have been posted here. Thanks to ALL especially the originator JFK III:)
I refuse to read another one of your posts. It always resorts to insults and stating what you have already stated. You are incapable of having a debate.. and not just because your position is idiotic. Perhaps you should take your own advice and pick up a book. You are clearly a misguided emotionally distraught individual. It really annoys me that you have the audacity to question anyone's i.q. Seriously, what is your damage?

EDIT: I read through about a dozen of some of the most ignorant responses I've seen on this site before you received a neg. And that was only because of your constant insults. Anyone else who feels () or Nothing is out of line with the majority of his posts add to the negs. I'll +rep whoever gets the retalitory neg of "idiot."

[AME3]

By the way Royal Society, you can kiss this serfs hind end.

[Voluntary Man]

Royal Society study



Do they really expect us to believe this. If the population stabilized at 4 or 5 billion, why would it be any worse than expanding it to 7 billion. We are well past 5 billion and I don't feel like I'm "kept just alive" with "minimum space and food". I wouldn't mind more eldow room, but who decides who lives and who dies. Odds are I will not win that lottery. Seems to me population growth is fast tracked by the government. the Interstate Highway System installed in the late 50s allowed for the population to spread out into the countryside, making it easy for a population boom. Perhaps some of thier enviromental concerns can be traced to the IHS as well, more traveling, more cars, more pollution.

RON PAUL ROCKS

Anyone who believes this planet is overcrowded needs to step off Manhattan, and grab some binoculars. The vast majority of this planet is completely deserted. Get off the reservation, intellectual lemmings!

[Anti Federalist]

Anyone who believes this planet is overcrowded needs to step off Manhattan, and grab some binoculars. The vast majority of this planet is completely deserted. Get off the reservation, intellectual lemmings!

Some quick calculations:

There are 171,904,640 acres of land in the entire state of Texas.

Dividing that by 4 yields 687,618,560 1/4 acre lots.

A two family duplex on each lot, with 6 people each, two parents, two kids and maybe two grandparents, would result in room for over 8 and a quarter billion people.

Thus, every single person on the face of the earth could conceivably live within the borders of the state of Texas.

[Indy Vidual]

Let the free market sort things out.

[kcchiefs6465]

I too called him some names like "monster" as I was equating him to being a fascist and an advocate of outright genocide, which to me is being a monster. The references he / she made to masturbation also got me riled a little. My intent was not directed to the person ( I have no idea who that is) no, it was to the ideas being esprouted. In short, I harbor no ill will whatsoever to Paul or anyone else and enjoyed the differing thoughts and ideas which have been posted here. Thanks to ALL especially the originator JFK III:)
What really riled me up is when someone who is so clearly incapable of having an actual discussion resorts to insults on damn near every reply. Oh you don't agree with him? "Well learn to read." If he presented his arguements in a reasonable manor I would not have docked his rep. I find it funny (if not hilarious) that someone who feels they are so gifted as to question another member's intelligence can hardly make a coherent arguement. It wasn't neccessarily the fact that he was ignorant so much as the fact that he was insulting. (As if he is so f'ing smart) Not to mention he is advocating genocide. (Though now I know at worst it means voluntary strerilization)

[azxd]

Some quick calculations:

There are 171,904,640 acres of land in the entire state of Texas.

Dividing that by 4 yields 687,618,560 1/4 acre lots.

A two family duplex on each lot, with 6 people each, two parents, two kids and maybe two grandparents, would result in room for over 8 and a quarter billion people.

Thus, every single person on the face of the earth could conceivably live within the borders of the state of Texas.And have nothing but a piece of land ... Fail at logical math, you do :p

It's all about resources !!!
And those are in limited supply.

[azxd]

You're hopeless, learn to read or something & then read what I've said



I don't think there's any "globalist elite" trying to take over the world as such or that if there were any, I don't give a sh!t, they won't succeed because the philosophy liberty is based on the understanding that people are self-interested INDIVIDUALS & all of their interests aren't always in line
For example, "outsiders" may think of "Paul-supporters" as a unified group but the reality is that it's not true, there are many different kinds of poeple here, anarchist & minarchists, for open-borders & against open-borders, for (some) taxes & against all taxes & so on

So even though to "outsiders", even though we may seem alike, we're not & we DON'T have the same goals & there are conflicting interests & the ONLY way for us to be able to put our policies into action is if we get significant numbers of people to understand at least some of our policies & only then will they be realized
Accordingly NOT all the rich & powerful people have the same self-interests & same goals, not to mention they often have even larger egos & aren't willing to concede very easily so they'll never be able to put all of their plans into action anyway; besides, they'll need significant shift in public opinion to make even SOME of the policies they want

This is where liberty comes in, & our job is to spread the message of liberty & sound economics & if we shift public opinion enough then we'll get at least some of our policies in & that in itself will prevent any "elite" (in the sense you presume) from controlling significant amount of public opinion anyway

It's a battle of ideas & if we want our ideas to be pushed into the public sphere then we must be able to argue for liberty & for Austrian Economics & that's what we should focus on instead of masturbating over what the "elite" are doing; again, I don't think any group of people will be able to takeover the world because there will conflicts of interests & egos that will render it impossible
But again, what anyone else is doing should be of little relevance, what's even more important is to get as much of our ideas out there amongst the public so that we could work towards our version of the world so frankly, all this talk & paranoia does NOT get us anywhere anyway other than just spreading fear



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbyebk-V-Hs&feature=relatedYour words remind me of those who would pit one against another, to further their ideals ... Yet we are all different, and thus will not subscribe to the thoughts and ideals of others, equally.

Therefore the statement that one should
learn to read or something & then read what I've said
is actually a atstement that
You're hopelessOr something like that ;)

[Anti Federalist]

And have nothing but a piece of land ... Fail at logical math, you do :p

It's all about resources !!!
And those are in limited supply.

Ugh.

That was to point out that the surface of the earth is far from overpopulated.

It was not a practical exercise, although, with proper logistical support, it could be done.

[azxd]

Ugh.

That was to point out that the surface of the earth is far from overpopulated.

It was not a practical exercise, although, with proper logistical support, it could be done.
I'll just chalk it up to your usual method of opposition ;)

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think there's any "globalist elite" trying to take over the world as such or that if there were any, I don't give a sh!t, they won't succeed because the philosophy liberty is based on the understanding that people are self-interested INDIVIDUALS & all of their interests aren't always in line.

I have two problems with this:

A - Most people do not want liberty or freedom. They want base human desires fulfilled, and that certainly is within the realm of authoritarian government.

B - Denying that there is concerted effort toward instituting global government is ridiculous at this point. The business I'm in, as a for instance, is heavily regulated and governed by unrepresentative rules, mandates and edicts.

[donnay]

I'm not necessarily talking about "them" ("elite"), I'm just saying what I see, that there would be chaos in the world if it something isn't done, there will be massive communist movements allover, which will destroy everything in their path

What do you think is the point of letting people just breed limitlessly when they can't even take care of themselves, let alone their children? Would you like seeing more & more misery? If their populations become sustainable & importantly, rule of law is established then they'll be able to prosper but NO WAY like this!

And what "Guinea pigs"? Is people who can't even feed themselves, having more & more children a good thing? Why shouldn't it be curtailed if it can be done VOLUNTARILY?

As for paying for the incentives, again, it comes down people doing it through VOLUNTARY charity

What do you people want? 100 billion people? Or until every inch of the Earth is occupied by a human? WHAT WOULD THE POINT OF SUCH STUPIDITY? Mass starvation? Lawlessness, where people are killing each other for every morsel of food? Can't you realize that this simply is NOT making the world any better? So what's wrong with VOLUNTARY reduction in breeding?

You people have bought so much into conspiracies that you can't even see the obvious!

It's governments whom cause the misery. It is government whom have cause people to starve. It is governments whom have murdered. It is governments whom limit individuals to become self-sufficient and self-reliant. It is governments whom want to control peoples lives.

It is not up to you or anyone else to say whom can and cannot have children.

This world is far from over populated. It is the psychopath globalists who want to eliminate you and I, so they can have more for themselves. Stop buying into the lies!!!

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I too called him some names like "monster" as I was equating him to being a fascist and an advocate of outright genocide, which to me is being a monster. The references he / she made to masturbation also got me riled a little. My intent was not directed to the person ( I have no idea who that is) no, it was to the ideas being esprouted. In short, I harbor no ill will whatsoever to Paul or anyone else and enjoyed the differing thoughts and ideas which have been posted here. Thanks to ALL especially the originator JFK III:)

You're contradicting yourself, you call someone a "monster" without comprehending what's being said & then say "it wasn't directed at the person"??? :rolleyes:


Anyone who believes this planet is overcrowded needs to step off Manhattan, and grab some binoculars. The vast majority of this planet is completely deserted. Get off the reservation, intellectual lemmings!


Some quick calculations:

There are 171,904,640 acres of land in the entire state of Texas.

Dividing that by 4 yields 687,618,560 1/4 acre lots.

A two family duplex on each lot, with 6 people each, two parents, two kids and maybe two grandparents, would result in room for over 8 and a quarter billion people.

Thus, every single person on the face of the earth could conceivably live within the borders of the state of Texas.

Again, does "we've plenty of land" suffice as an argument?

Let's say you know you could provide a decent life to 2 children, would it make sense to have 5 children just because you "have more than enough space for 5 or more"? I wouldn't agree, I think if you can provide for & educate only 2 then you should have no more - & the same argument goes for the world - just because "we've plenty of space" should be irrelevant, the question should be how many of those are actually going to have a decent living-standard!

Again, I'm NOT necessarily arguing for the "objectives" in the OP, I'm NOT suggesting any "centralized" mechanism but just to make the argument that restraining population-growth isn't necessarily a bad thing if done VOLUNTARILY by private entities putting their own charity-money through VOLUNTARY interaction, it's not too bad if that helps prevent a lot of children from being born into destitution

This is where I think all this paranoia about "evil rich elite" is distracting, it causes a knee-jerk reaction, "ok, evil elite want this, then we want the opposite of that" rather than looking any given subject on its own

This is like how so many people around the world have come to hate "capitalism", they see all the big guys talking about capitalism & making all the big money while many people are poor so they automatically assume that capitalism in itself is bad just because bigger guys are advocating for it

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I have two problems with this:

A - Most people do not want liberty or freedom. They want base human desires fulfilled, and that certainly is within the realm of authoritarian government.

That's true, most people don't want liberty but it's because people are self-centered & narrow in their approach & don't mind violating others' life, liberty & property so long as they THINK it's going to confer some (even imaginary) benefit upon them - which also happens to include "fair trade policies" & tariffs, by the way :D

Authoritarian governments aren't always just born, there's often a significant amount of public opinion that leads to that & if people weren't so willing to violate others' life, liberty & property then it won't occur

Of course, the majority themselves will be unlikely to press for liberty on its own, they're usually inclined to socialism/tyranny & that's why it was liberty-minded "elite" that established America, which turned out to be the one of the freest & richest countries in the world, remember, the "elite" didn't even allow everyone the right to vote, only property-owners could vote, they possibly knew that if everyone got to vote then socialism/tyranny is inevitable as people vote to steal from those who earn it & give it to those who haven't

Anyways, making liberty popular again will be about "marketing" the ideas of liberty enough so that enough liberty-minded folks can take control of the ideological, political & economic spheres to cause a paradigm shift but that again, requires first & foremost, for those who want liberty to educate themselves about liberty & economics to be able to to successfully argue their case at every instant they can rather then wasting time on BS conspiracies


B - Denying that there is concerted effort toward instituting global government is ridiculous at this point. The business I'm in, as a for instance, is heavily regulated and governed by unrepresentative rules, mandates and edicts.

Yes, there's a move but then it only leads us back to the issue of public opinion; if enough people didn't want it then it wouldn't happen
And just because something is happening & there's an identifiable trend does NOT mean that it's "planned" by some "diabolical elite" or that there's some "evil conspiracy"

Think about the market, how people acting in their self-interests leads to a harmonic system, the market-process is so simple & yet so incomprehensible to so many as to how the market prioritizes & allocates economic resources, many laugh at the idea of "invisible hand" but it happens it DOES & it happens in a way AS IF it was........"planned"
And there is planning but from INDIVIDUALS, there's no group "evil elite" planning this symphony, it's just INDIVIDUALS they perceive to be in their interest

Similarly, yes, there's definitely a move towards more global governance but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes in globalism is "evil" neither does it mean that there's some "evil rich elite" with identical interests, it's just that individuals these days have grown accustomed to supporting big government & there are other special interests who benefit from such merging of power

After WWs & wars in general, many people don't really mind global-government as they think it will get rid of wars between nations & we'll all be "one big family", etc obviously the "side-effects" of it elude them but they are genuine in their beliefs; then there are big government socialists who genuinely believe that that's the better system & many of them are NOT "evil", even communism was pushed by the public opinion

Just think about it for a moment, about liberal-socialists looking at Paul & his supporters, for example, asking for free market & less taxes, etc & they think we're kind of "evil capitalists" because we want "tax-cuts for the rich" & "let the poor die in the streets"; I wouldn't be surprised if let's say you argued with them for capitalism & they think that you're a minion of some "evil capitalist elite"

These conspiracy theories are complete BS in my opinion, people see a trend & assume that it's planned or that just because some people believe in something that they're necessarily "evil"
Remember - Ron Paul's Biggest Supporter Is A Bilderberger, International Financier (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/ron-pauls-biggest-supporter-is-a-bilderberger)

I'm sure your fellow conspiracists elsewhere are chewing on that one & may be some who were formerly Paul-supporters aren't anymore because of that; all these conspiracy-theories are just BS, they just distract from the important issues like people learning about liberty & economics & spreading the word instead of wasting time on fearmongering & class-warfare :(


It's governments whom cause the misery. It is government whom have cause people to starve. It is governments whom have murdered. It is governments whom limit individuals to become self-sufficient and self-reliant. It is governments whom want to control peoples lives.

It is not up to you or anyone else to say whom can and cannot have children.

This world is far from over populated. It is the psychopath globalists who want to eliminate you and I, so they can have more for themselves. Stop buying into the lies!!!

Take the time to read rest of the thread, all of the above has been addressed before

[ZenBowman]

^^
I don't see why these people don't see that fearmongering and class warfare are weapons for socialism and fascism, not liberty.

[PaulConventionWV]

What really riled me up is when someone who is so clearly incapable of having an actual discussion resorts to insults on damn near every reply. Oh you don't agree with him? "Well learn to read." If he presented his arguements in a reasonable manor I would not have docked his rep. I find it funny (if not hilarious) that someone who feels they are so gifted as to question another member's intelligence can hardly make a coherent arguement. It wasn't neccessarily the fact that he was ignorant so much as the fact that he was insulting. (As if he is so f'ing smart) Not to mention he is advocating genocide. (Though now I know at worst it means voluntary strerilization)

New term: voluntary genocide

Who wants to donate to the cause of voluntary genocide?

Oh, but guys... it's voluntary

[PaulConventionWV]

That's true, most people don't want liberty but it's because people are self-centered & narrow in their approach & don't mind violating others' life, liberty & property so long as they THINK it's going to confer some (even imaginary) benefit upon them - which also happens to include "fair trade policies" & tariffs, by the way :D

Authoritarian governments aren't always just born, there's often a significant amount of public opinion that leads to that & if people weren't so willing to violate others' life, liberty & property then it won't occur

Of course, the majority themselves will be unlikely to press for liberty on its own, they're usually inclined to socialism/tyranny & that's why it was liberty-minded "elite" that established America, which turned out to be the one of the freest & richest countries in the world, remember, the "elite" didn't even allow everyone the right to vote, only property-owners could vote, they possibly knew that if everyone got to vote then socialism/tyranny is inevitable as people vote to steal from those who earn it & give it to those who haven't

Anyways, making liberty popular again will be about "marketing" the ideas of liberty enough so that enough liberty-minded folks can take control of the ideological, political & economic spheres to cause a paradigm shift but that again, requires first & foremost, for those who want liberty to educate themselves about liberty & economics to be able to to successfully argue their case at every instant they can rather then wasting time on BS conspiracies



Yes, there's a move but then it only leads us back to the issue of public opinion; if enough people didn't want it then it wouldn't happen
And just because something is happening & there's an identifiable trend does NOT mean that it's "planned" by some "diabolical elite" or that there's some "evil conspiracy"

Think about the market, how people acting in their self-interests leads to a harmonic system, the market-process is so simple & yet so incomprehensible to so many as to how the market prioritizes & allocates economic resources, many laugh at the idea of "invisible hand" but it happens it DOES & it happens in a way AS IF it was........"planned"
And there is planning but from INDIVIDUALS, there's no group "evil elite" planning this symphony, it's just INDIVIDUALS they perceive to be in their interest

Similarly, yes, there's definitely a move towards more global governance but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes in globalism is "evil" neither does it mean that there's some "evil rich elite" with identical interests, it's just that individuals these days have grown accustomed to supporting big government & there are other special interests who benefit from such merging of power

After WWs & wars in general, many people don't really mind global-government as they think it will get rid of wars between nations & we'll all be "one big family", etc obviously the "side-effects" of it elude them but they are genuine in their beliefs; then there are big government socialists who genuinely believe that that's the better system & many of them are NOT "evil", even communism was pushed by the public opinion

Just think about it for a moment, about liberal-socialists looking at Paul & his supporters, for example, asking for free market & less taxes, etc & they think we're kind of "evil capitalists" because we want "tax-cuts for the rich" & "let the poor die in the streets"; I wouldn't be surprised if let's say you argued with them for capitalism & they think that you're a minion of some "evil capitalist elite"

These conspiracy theories are complete BS in my opinion, people see a trend & assume that it's planned or that just because some people believe in something that they're necessarily "evil"
Remember - Ron Paul's Biggest Supporter Is A Bilderberger, International Financier (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/ron-pauls-biggest-supporter-is-a-bilderberger)

I'm sure your fellow conspiracists elsewhere are chewing on that one & may be some who were formerly Paul-supporters aren't anymore because of that; all these conspiracy-theories are just BS, they just distract from the important issues like people learning about liberty & economics & spreading the word instead of wasting time on fearmongering & class-warfare :(



Take the time to read rest of the thread, all of the above has been addressed before

You think public opinion is going to stop the elite? Public opinion isn't bringing the troops home. Public opinion isn't freeing up the market and lowering taxes. It's pretty obvious that whoever is in power has the capability to override public opinion. Why would you ever think that public opinion could change authority? Authority changes public opinion to suit its purposes. That's how governments arise in the first place. If public opinion was all that mattered, then we would have a free market because control simply stifles the public's ability to choose. It's not hard to do, either. Anyone who knows anything about political philosophy knows that power and authority can trump public opinion. The two have been at war since the founding of this country, and authority is winning. Public opinion is powerless to stop it. Don't be so naive as to think public opinion is going to prevent a conspiracy from happening.

Just because public opinion gave power to the ones in power, it doesn't mean public opinion can take it away. That's the whole idea of power. Once somebody's in power, they can change the rules to their liking as has been demonstrated time and time again, and there's nothing the public can do about it. If the public doesn't want it to happen, it will likely happen anyway because the public gave up their right to choose by giving power to a few elite. There's nothing wrong with calling it what it is - a conspiracy. The government has conditioned you to think conspiracies are crazy, but really, conspiracies have been happening since the beginning of history. It's normal for conspiracies to happen, not strange or weird. You just think they are unusual and strange because those in power want you to believe that there is no conspiracy so you won't do anything to prevent it.

[AME3]

Guess my first impression was right, it is a monster. A sexually oppressed one at that...
You're contradicting yourself, you call someone a "monster" without comprehending what's being said & then say "it wasn't directed at the person"??? :rolleyes:





Again, does "we've plenty of land" suffice as an argument?

Let's say you know you could provide a decent life to 2 children, would it make sense to have 5 children just because you "have more than enough space for 5 or more"? I wouldn't agree, I think if you can provide for & educate only 2 then you should have no more - & the same argument goes for the world - just because "we've plenty of space" should be irrelevant, the question should be how many of those are actually going to have a decent living-standard!

Again, I'm NOT necessarily arguing for the "objectives" in the OP, I'm NOT suggesting any "centralized" mechanism but just to make the argument that restraining population-growth isn't necessarily a bad thing if done VOLUNTARILY by private entities putting their own charity-money through VOLUNTARY interaction, it's not too bad if that helps prevent a lot of children from being born into destitution

This is where I think all this paranoia about "evil rich elite" is distracting, it causes a knee-jerk reaction, "ok, evil elite want this, then we want the opposite of that" rather than looking any given subject on its own

This is like how so many people around the world have come to hate "capitalism", they see all the big guys talking about capitalism & making all the big money while many people are poor so they automatically assume that capitalism in itself is bad just because bigger guys are advocating for it

[Anti Federalist]

Again, does "we've plenty of land" suffice as an argument?

It's neither an argument for or against.

I'm simply pointing out that, if somebody's argument for population reduction is based on the idea that we are running out of room, that the concept is demonstrably false.

[JK/SEA]

damn...everyone...watch this, and learn. Maybe send it to that idiot genocidal maniac in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA

[Anti Federalist]

Anyways, making liberty popular again will be about "marketing" the ideas of liberty enough so that enough liberty-minded folks can take control of the ideological, political & economic spheres to cause a paradigm shift but that again, requires first & foremost, for those who want liberty to educate themselves about liberty & economics to be able to to successfully argue their case at every instant they can rather then wasting time on BS conspiracies

I've found that there is nothing more effective at breaking the state's hold on person's mind than by proving a "conspiracy".

It plants the seeds of doubt that ultimately destroy faith in the state's solutions.

Certainly some "conspiracies" are bullshit, however, many others are not.

And some of them are ruthless and deadly.


Yes, there's a move but then it only leads us back to the issue of public opinion; if enough people didn't want it then it wouldn't happen

And just because something is happening & there's an identifiable trend does NOT mean that it's "planned" by some "diabolical elite" or that there's some "evil conspiracy"

To my mind there is no difference between capitalizing on such a trend or orchestrating it.

And if we can't sway public opinion within our own country, how would you propose doing it globally?

I don't even have a representative on the IMO board that is passing regulations that I must comply with.

Who do I vote for? Who do I campaign for?

This is global government.


Remember - Ron Paul's Biggest Supporter Is A Bilderberger, International Financier (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/ron-pauls-biggest-supporter-is-a-bilderberger)

I'm sure your fellow conspiracists elsewhere are chewing on that one & may be some who were formerly Paul-supporters aren't anymore because of that; all these conspiracy-theories are just BS, they just distract from the important issues like people learning about liberty & economics & spreading the word instead of wasting time on fearmongering & class-warfare :(

Not particularly, the global banking elite is not that monolithic.

[seraphson]

I wonder about the idea of whether or not a free market system (and sound money) would act as a sort of natural inherent checks and balances on human population too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this whole over population "dilema" ties back to central banking and debt based monetary systems. Theoretically, in order for our current system to stay afloat wouldn't we need perpetual debt, productivity, and growth? Wouldn't we need a constantly growing population to burden the necessary expansion of debt? Of course this assumes we break the threshold of efficiency that technology provides. I think the main problem is that our current system is unsustainable not just on a monetary manner but on many other manners as well.

[ZenBowman]

I wonder about the idea of whether or not a free market system (and sound money) would act as a sort of natural inherent checks and balances on human population too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this whole over population "dilema" ties back to central banking and debt based monetary systems. Theoretically, in order for our current system to stay afloat wouldn't we need perpetual debt, productivity, and growth? Wouldn't we need a constantly growing population to burden the necessary expansion of debt? Of course this assumes we break the threshold of efficiency that technology provides. I think the main problem is that our current system is unsustainable not just on a monetary manner but on many other manners as well.

Absolutely, they are 100% tied together.

In a free market you would not be so comfortable with having kids if you couldn't afford them, it would serve as a natural disincentive for grossly unsustainable population.

[A Son of Liberty]

I wonder how 19th century American farming families would have responded to efforts to sterilize, voluntary or otherwise?

[ZenBowman]

Not particularly, the global banking elite is not that monolithic.

That's exactly what he was saying.

[Anti Federalist]

That's exactly what he was saying.

No, he was saying they have no agenda, that they are strictly reactive and not proactive.

That is patently false, they do have an agenda and a "plan".

Just because everybody may not be in on it or agree with it, doesn't mean it does not exist.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

New term: voluntary genocide

Who wants to donate to the cause of voluntary genocide?

Oh, but guys... it's voluntary

Are you suggesting that all those who CHOOSE to get vesectamy or CHOOSE not to have children or CHOOSE to have only as many children as they can afford, are committing a "voluntary genocide"?
What a stupid argument! Clearly, you have no idea what voluntary means or what genocide means

The whole philosophy of liberty is based on VOLUNTARY interaction & CHOICES & not using force against others so anything that's voluntary is considered justifiable under liberty so when a person CHOOSES to offer something to another for getting sterilized & the other person CHOOSES to accept the offer, there's nothing wrong with it, it just means that the person values whatever is being offered more than the ability to bear more children

But I guess you're just one of many of those PINOs - Paul-supporter In Name Only - who has no understanding of philosophy of liberty or economics & chooses to waste his time on stupid conspiracies instead of learning about liberty & economics


You think public opinion is going to stop the elite? Public opinion isn't bringing the troops home. Public opinion isn't freeing up the market and lowering taxes. It's pretty obvious that whoever is in power has the capability to override public opinion. Why would you ever think that public opinion could change authority? Authority changes public opinion to suit its purposes. That's how governments arise in the first place. If public opinion was all that mattered, then we would have a free market because control simply stifles the public's ability to choose. It's not hard to do, either. Anyone who knows anything about political philosophy knows that power and authority can trump public opinion. The two have been at war since the founding of this country, and authority is winning. Public opinion is powerless to stop it. Don't be so naive as to think public opinion is going to prevent a conspiracy from happening.

Just because public opinion gave power to the ones in power, it doesn't mean public opinion can take it away. That's the whole idea of power. Once somebody's in power, they can change the rules to their liking as has been demonstrated time and time again, and there's nothing the public can do about it. If the public doesn't want it to happen, it will likely happen anyway because the public gave up their right to choose by giving power to a few elite. There's nothing wrong with calling it what it is - a conspiracy. The government has conditioned you to think conspiracies are crazy, but really, conspiracies have been happening since the beginning of history. It's normal for conspiracies to happen, not strange or weird. You just think they are unusual and strange because those in power want you to believe that there is no conspiracy so you won't do anything to prevent it.

Apparently, you don't know about many governments that have been overthrown by the popular dissent; it is precisely the reason why even dictatorial governments have to influence public opinion through propaganda because otherwise they'll be overthrown so it is only popular opinion that largely determines public policy & the nature of government

And apparently, you think Ron Paul is an idiot! Because the whole reason he ran for presidency in 1988, 2008 or even now, is SPECIFICALLY to try & cause a shift in public opinion towards less government, more liberty & sound economics; he regularly even points out the fact that there would have to a shift in public opinion for him to be able to implement some of his policies, as it is the changing public opinion that will influence the nature of Congress, Senate as well as the local legislatures

Of course, he could' choose to spend his time speaking about all sorts of mystical conspiracies but instead he chooses to focus on philosophy of liberty & understanding sound economics, blah blah blah but well he's an idiot, right? And all the conspiracy theorists are the smart people, who don't need to bother to lean the philosophy of liberty or economics, just keep blabberring some stupid conspiracy theories & that will achieve the cause of liberty, right? :rolleyes:


Guess my first impression was right, it is a monster. A sexually oppressed one at that...

Yes, my first impression was also right that you're just an idiot incapable of reading & comprehending things

So I'm a "monster" for saying that people should only have as many children as they can afford to provide for??
Well, I hope it makes you feel happy to see your 10 children living in misery, I congratulate you on your lack of foresight & continued support to sustaining poverty

And I'm the "sexually oppressed"???? While it is YOU who likes masturbating to poor people? That's why you want more & more poor people around, right?

[John F Kennedy III]

You think public opinion is going to stop the elite? Public opinion isn't bringing the troops home. Public opinion isn't freeing up the market and lowering taxes. It's pretty obvious that whoever is in power has the capability to override public opinion. Why would you ever think that public opinion could change authority? Authority changes public opinion to suit its purposes. That's how governments arise in the first place. If public opinion was all that mattered, then we would have a free market because control simply stifles the public's ability to choose. It's not hard to do, either. Anyone who knows anything about political philosophy knows that power and authority can trump public opinion. The two have been at war since the founding of this country, and authority is winning. Public opinion is powerless to stop it. Don't be so naive as to think public opinion is going to prevent a conspiracy from happening.

Just because public opinion gave power to the ones in power, it doesn't mean public opinion can take it away. That's the whole idea of power. Once somebody's in power, they can change the rules to their liking as has been demonstrated time and time again, and there's nothing the public can do about it. If the public doesn't want it to happen, it will likely happen anyway because the public gave up their right to choose by giving power to a few elite. There's nothing wrong with calling it what it is - a conspiracy. The government has conditioned you to think conspiracies are crazy, but really, conspiracies have been happening since the beginning of history. It's normal for conspiracies to happen, not strange or weird. You just think they are unusual and strange because those in power want you to believe that there is no conspiracy so you won't do anything to prevent it.

Spot on sir.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

It's neither an argument for or against.

I'm simply pointing out that, if somebody's argument for population reduction is based on the idea that we are running out of room, that the concept is demonstrably false.

Well, I agree to that extent but I'm saying "space" isn't the only denominator for "sustainability", "overpopulation" but there could be other denominators & "living-standards" is one that can be considered

I'm NOT asking for some "government effort" for it but rather that if some private entities choose to do it & do it VOLUNTARILY then it's neither that bad nor against the tenets of liberty

I don't think preventing more poor children from being born is in any way a bad thing, so long as it's voluntarily done; we apply the same logic to our houses so it's the same for the world


I've found that there is nothing more effective at breaking the state's hold on person's mind than by proving a "conspiracy".

It plants the seeds of doubt that ultimately destroy faith in the state's solutions.

Certainly some "conspiracies" are bullshit, however, many others are not.

And some of them are ruthless and deadly.

Yes, many conspiracies are BS & that's why if you base your argument on conspiracy theories then the people that you are trying to convert are just as likely to follow any other conspiracy that they feel more palatable, for example - that Ron Paul is part of the "elite" because he's getting money from Bilderberger

Now, if one had understood liberty & sound economics then they won't see it as a big deal because they'd know where Ron Paul is coming from & they'd know that he's not necessarily selling out or anything BUT if a person's understanding is based on some mystical conspiracy then they'll be more likely to fall victim to other conspiracies - because again, we're all INDIVIDUALS - & just because you personally find some conspiracies more palatable than others doesn't mean that the same will be the case for other conspiracists

Again, if one wants to make an argument for liberty then one should make an argument for liberty, simple as that, & not waste time on other things at all


To my mind there is no difference between capitalizing on such a trend or orchestrating it.

And if we can't sway public opinion within our own country, how would you propose doing it globally?

I don't even have a representative on the IMO board that is passing regulations that I must comply with.

Who do I vote for? Who do I campaign for?

This is global government.

The purpose is to influence as many people as can be done with ideas of liberty & sound economics, once they understand those things then they will likely remain steadfast to those principles
And you don't have to do it "globally", even if done locally & enough minds are changed locally then there will be a paradigm shift

Again, what the hell is Ron Paul trying to do? Why isn't he going around spouting mystical conspiracies? He's not interested in that, he ran in 88, 08 & even now, just so that he could spread the word of liberty & sound economics to as many people as can


Not particularly, the global banking elite is not that monolithic.

Exactly, they are self-interested INDIVIDUALS, they don't have the same vision, just as not all the people in the liberty-movement or OWS movement & that renders it impossible that any of those visions will be applied in their entirety, specifically, because there is no single vision but many many different & often conflicting ones intertwined with conflicting self-interests

Again, just because there's spontaneous order doesn't mean that it is planned by some homogeneous group; as I've said, look at how the markets work & the concept of "invisible hand", there's no "planning" involved on a systemic scale but rather it's the self-interested INDIVIDUALS planning & pursuing their self-interests leads to spontaneous order that almost resembles like someone has planned the whole system

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I wonder about the idea of whether or not a free market system (and sound money) would act as a sort of natural inherent checks and balances on human population too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this whole over population "dilema" ties back to central banking and debt based monetary systems. Theoretically, in order for our current system to stay afloat wouldn't we need perpetual debt, productivity, and growth? Wouldn't we need a constantly growing population to burden the necessary expansion of debt? Of course this assumes we break the threshold of efficiency that technology provides. I think the main problem is that our current system is unsustainable not just on a monetary manner but on many other manners as well.

Not necessarily, it totally depends total productivity of the society

It has to be understood that debt doesn't create additional wealth, it largely transfers existing goods & services from net-savers to net-borrowers; the problem current monetary paradigm is that it allows some people the right to transfer net-savers' production to the net-borrowers without direct consent of the net-savers

For example, if you're not in debt at all & you have X amount of savings that you have accumulated by using your mental/physical labor, whatever goods/services you can get in return for those savings is essentially your REAL production in the economy that you own; now, what expansion of moneysupply essentially does is it allows either banks or government to transfer part of production to the borrower, now if the borrower can't pay then the savers have lost out on that amount of REAL WEALTH in the economy; so an economy & the level of prosperity is determined by goods & services available, not by money or debt

There are a lot of conspiracists claiming that the "debt can't be paid" or that the whole thing is "unsustainable"
Well, the system is NOT so good but it can be "sustainable" if all the rampant spending & borrowing is stopped, so for example, if someone like Ron Paul can cause enough of a shift in public opinion & start cutting massively, let's say collects 2.5 trillion & spends 1.5 trillion & uses the saved trillion in then debt could be paid down to nothingness but the problem is that not enough people are willing to allow the government to make such cuts & that's why a shift in public opinion is integral to the whole thing - like Ron Paul says, people get the kind of government they deserve


I wonder how 19th century American farming families would have responded to efforts to sterilize, voluntary or otherwise?

Again, there's an economic cost involved but the question who would have borne the costs? Today, many parts of the world have reached a level of economic development where they can bear the cost but that mayn't always have been the case

As for the results that would have occurred, well, since America was largely free & there was an amount of Rule of Law in place, slower population growth would only have sped up the rate of growth of living-standards because simple logic will tell us that there's more intergenerational transfer of capital if someone passes on his capital to 2 children than 5 children, the quality of the labor is likely to be higher; again, that's why it's considered wiser to have only as many kids as one can provide for because then they'll inherit more capital per person & decent upbringing, possibly education, would ensure higher labor-quality in the economy than there would otherwise be


No, he was saying they have no agenda, that they are strictly reactive and not proactive.

That is patently false, they do have an agenda and a "plan".

Just because everybody may not be in on it or agree with it, doesn't mean it does not exist.

Almost EVERYONE has some "agenda", I'm sure you have one too!

And it's contradictory to say that "they have a plan" but "not everyone agrees with it" - umm, it means there are "many plans" & visions with everyone working towards their respective self-interests, that's how it works

And as I've said before, just because someone believes in centralization of power or global governance does NOT necessarily mean that they're "evil" & that holds true for the "elite" too; there are people who perceive it as a good thing as I've previously explained that they think that global governance will mean less wars & less of a "nuclear threat" to humans wiping out each other; even the famous Austrian Economist Hayek had argued for "European Integration" in order to avoid wars which only destroy productivity & to ensure free flow of goods & services which benefits everyone

So again, just because there are people pushing for it doesn't mean they're "evil" or are going to kill everyone; it's just that many people are trying to make money & achieve fame by spouting these conspiracies by preying on people's natural tendencies about fear & suspicion

Again, as Ron Paul correctly points out in this video, it's not necessarily a "sinister conspiracy" but it's just that some people believe in globalism & we believe in national sovereignty!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxOi98UZnqc&feature=related

[azxd]

Of course, he could' choose to spend his time speaking about all sorts of mystical conspiracies but instead he chooses to focus on philosophy of liberty & understanding sound economics, blah blah blah but well he's an idiot, right? And all the conspiracy theorists are the smart people, who don't need to bother to learn the philosophy of liberty or economics, just keep blabberring some stupid conspiracy theories & that will achieve the cause of liberty, right? :rolleyes:
As smart as some wish to be, IMHO this ain't never gonna work ;)

[donnay]

New term: voluntary genocide

Who wants to donate to the cause of voluntary genocide?

Oh, but guys... it's voluntary

Right... like Social Security was voluntary. :rolleyes:

[azxd]

No, he was saying they have no agenda, that they are strictly reactive and not proactive.

That is patently false, they do have an agenda and a "plan".

Just because everybody may not be in on it or agree with it, doesn't mean it does not exist.
I've found that there is nothing more effective at breaking the state's hold on person's mind than by proving a "conspiracy".


Yet you are proving nothing more than your ability to have an opinion which is different than another's.

Saying something is "patently false" does not make it a truth to another, and another is always free to reject what you think exists, even if it smacks them in the face.

[azxd]

The whole philosophy of liberty is based on VOLUNTARY interaction & CHOICES & not using force against others so anything that's voluntary is considered justifiable under liberty so when a person CHOOSES to offer something to another for getting sterilized & the other person CHOOSES to accept the offer, there's nothing wrong with it, it just means that the person values whatever is being offered more than the ability to bear more children
Thus we are all free to reject the thoughts and ideas of others ... Especially if those thoughts and ideas do not meet an individuals needs, wants, and desires.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

As smart as some wish to be, IMHO this ain't never gonna work ;)

So you're saying Ron Paul is wrong in trying to preach & emphasize on liberty & economics, & that he should instead be spouting conspiracy theories?


Right... like Social Security was voluntary. :rolleyes:

It's appalling how many people on "RonPaulforums" don't know the meaning of VOLUNTARY despite the fact that whole of Ron Paul's ideology is based on VOLUNTARY interaction between - it means without the use of force - & VOLUNTARY sterilization does NOT imply force


Thus we are all free to reject the thoughts and ideas of others ... Especially if those thoughts and ideas do not meet an individuals needs, wants, and desires.

So you're rejecting the principle of voluntary interaction?

Again, all I've said is that if some people are wiling to pay others to get sterilized & those people CHOOSE to get sterilized for whatever they are being offered in return then there's nothing wrong with it

Of course, you may reject the idea & choose not to donate to such causes but there's nothing there that contradicts liberty so long as the whole transaction is VOLUNTARY

[LadyBastiat]

I find this whole thing scary. Just makes you wonder if the secret elite would consider releasing a mutated bird flu virus that can be transmitted airborn. How else would they quickly go from 7 billion to 2 billion. Smaller populations are easier to control is probably part of the reason.

I don't like Agenda 21. I don't want to be controlled by a world government.

I said it in another thread with the same article. I'm telling you THIS is how the zombie apocalypse happens. It will be the scientific freaks like these who bring about a mutated virus that ends up infecting us all with the side affect being that when we are bitten by another dead person turned zombie or when we die of any cause, we rise up and become zombies too!

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Ron Paul's Biggest Supporter Is A Bilderberger, International Financier (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/ron-pauls-biggest-supporter-is-a-bilderberger)

Ok, let's have a look at this issue
Ok, Peter Thiel, the guy who's donated about 3 million dollars to Ron Paul, is a "Bilderberger"

What does this imply? Well, either he's part of the "evil rich elite" who want to "takeover the world & engage in mass-extermination, etc etc" or he's not

Now, if he's not a part of the "evil elite" then why would they invite him? Wouldn't it risk "outing" their "plan" if someone who doesn't support their "vicious plan" happens to alert the public about it?

And if he's part of the "elite" then why the hell would he donate 3 million to a guy whom most of the other big & rich guys supposedly hate? Is Ron Paul "in" on the "plan" too? Google it, many people are claiming it & offering justifications for it

So the conclusion remains that either Thiel & even Ron Paul are "in" on the "plan" OR there's no "evil elite" trying to kill everyone & whatever

I'm sure people will bring in new conspiracy theories to justify their positions but that's how conspiracism works, people just keep making up new stuff to justify the holes in the previous theories


^^
I don't see why these people don't see that fearmongering and class warfare are weapons for socialism and fascism, not liberty.

+1

Exactly! If we want to make an argument for liberty & sound economics then we must make that argument ON ITS OWN; talking about useless conspiracies only makes people more prone to wondering whether liberty movement is itself a form conspiracy

Just to illustrate this point, here's another conspiracy theory - Ron Paul: Gold Wolf Fleecing Sheep (http://www.abeldanger.net/2012/03/ron-paul-gold-wolf-fleecing-sheep-alex_24.html)


Ron Paul also gave public support for globalization and a one world currency, gold, in the public record.

“There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency…. The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights…. The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation.” – Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001

The writer claims that Ron Paul is working for the "elite" because he wants "one world currency" - which is TRUE, Paul wants or at least wishes for a global gold/silver-standard but of course, that's pretty much would occur AUTOMATICALLY if paper-money-scam was exposed to people around the world & there's nothing wrong with that

Moreover, he cites Ron Paul having a written "The Case for Gold" with an investment banker Lewis Lehrman so Ron Paul is "clearly" part of the banking cabal & elite & whatever else that conspiracists believe in

And what's the author's solution, paper-money issued by the Congress, of course! :rolleyes:

These are exactly the kind of conspiracies that people will fall victims to if they believe in stupid conspiracies BUT o the other hand, if people understand the philosophy of liberty & sound economics then they'd have a much more solid ground to stand on

All these conspiracies fall apart when you apply reason, they're nothing more than an avenue for some to make money off people by preying on their envy, insecurity, fear & suspicion, & as ZenBowman has rightly said, this only promotes class-warfare, socialism & fascism, NOT liberty; liberty will only spread when people learn & understand philosophy of liberty & sound economics & that's exactly why Ron Paul spends his time on preaching liberty, NOT on conspiracy theories!