I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?

Sorry, but most every one of your posts I've read, directed at others as well as myself, who don't subscribe to your beliefs tend to require sarcasm included in any response.

How about simply providing the 'correct' answer instead of trying to ploy me into stating something you can manipulate?

Okay, let's concentrate solely on population growth. Is it a problem or not? If so, what can/should be done about it?

Can you respond in a way that does not promote the use of sarcasm in any response?

 

You're the expert, so why waste time asking me questions? Just provide the correct answers.

FYI: According to the U.S. census bureau, in the U.S. there is one birth every 8 seconds, one death every 14 seconds, and one international migrant every 44 seconds, producing a net gain of one person every 13 seconds, and they also show the world population growing at about 140-150 persons per second. Of course you may have more accurate data than theirs.

 

Meagain

I heartily agree and I would say not just in the US either, but in a US context I’d recommend reading

The Age of American Unreason (dumbing down and the future of democracy) by Susan Jacoby
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Age-American-Unreason-Susan-Jacoby/dp/1905847661"]The Age of American Unreason: Amazon.co.uk: Susan Jacoby: Books

*
Also it needs to be the ‘right’ type of education, the type that emphasises the need for questioning, rationality and debate. As has been highlighted many times here some people post their ideas and then seem shocked that others have criticised them, as if their views had never seriously being challenged (and sometimes it’s clear they haven’t). And then they don’t seem to know what to do, as if they had never been taught how to question their own ideas.

There seems to be this attitude that views and viewpoint are valid whatever they are and that ‘free speech’ allows people to have then and not to be challenged over them.

 

Indie

OH I’ve told you just above about your black and white thinking holding you back it’s not about ‘correct’ or ‘not correct’.

I have opinions and ideas that I think I can defend that all, I don’t claim they are correct because that is too absolute.

What I’m trying to find out here is if you are capable of producing your own opinions that you can defend. For that you have to think about the subject involved - can you do that?

Well that’s what I’m trying to get you to think about, so you can form an opinion.

I’m no expert and have never claimed to be an expert, even things I know a lot about I would not call myself an expert in, but as a conscious being I can look at things and think about them, do research and come to an opinion I think I could defend and often I can’t defend the opinion I’ve formed and so I change it to one I can.

I’m asking you questions to see if you are capable of forming an opinion where you didn’t have one before.

Well the population growth rate of the US seems to be 0.7% and seems to be going down (it was 1.7% in 1961, 1.1 in 1990)

Anyway there are very different fertility rates between countries and within countries often along socio-economic lines. So given there are differing fertility rates and you wish to work out ways that might be used to reduce population figures what do you think would be the next best step?

 

At first glance, I read "libertarians" as "librarians."

 

Me again, I'm pretty sure I never got a response a few pages back.. am I mistaken?

 

I've not claimed there to be a black and white answer to most any of the questions related to societies or government, in fact quite the opposite.

In 1910 the U.S. population growth was 2.12%, but the population only increased by 1,917,000 persons. Currently, at about .7% the U.S. population is growing by over 2,400,000 persons per year. (A much smaller rate of growth, but a larger number of persons.)

Is it your opinion that population growth is not a problem, or beyond our ability to have any control, and we should not take it into account at all when dealing with the environment?

 

Meagain,

I find it difficult to look at birth control in the same light as a disease or health related illness. In your example, if a Doctor was treating an illness, I think the Doctor should/could have made that clear to the insurance company. If unable, then that's why we have a legal system and courts.

In any event pregancy is quite easy to prevent by numerous affordable means. Insurance should provide coverage for unforseen events not simply eliminate ones responsibilities or costs by redistribution to others for what can knowingly be prevented by exercising individual and personal responsibility.

 

Indie

I’m just pointing out that you seem to think in terms of ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ answers. And several other replies you have given over your time here have hinted at that black and white way of thinking.

So growth is falling the question is can you think of any ideas to bring it down further given that your goal seems to be to lower the population?

Can you not think of any way you might find some possible answers given that there are very different fertility rates between countries and within countries?

Indie you seem to say above that you don’t know, you seem to be implying that you think population growth is a problem, but you don’t seem to know, and you have said very clearly that you haven’t a clue what to do about it even if it was a problem.

I’m trying to work with you to find out if you can think though such issues and come up with your own opinions.

As to reducing population growth we know already that there are very different fertility rates between countries and within countries…have you not got the ability to us that information somehow?

 

Bal,

Why is it you tend to answer questions with questions?

Obviously this will go no where unless you're afforded the opportunity to demean or denigrate those you converse with.

Note that I tried, unsuccessfully, to promote a rational and reasoned conversation with you in my last post, which included no sarcasm.

Perhaps others have been correct in suggesting that I simply ignore you?

 

See, although I agree that (some of) these are improvements, the government did not make these changes on their own, did they? Absolutely not. Individuals had to fight, sometimes to the death (8 hour workdays) and still didn't see many changes.

However, the government did adapt eventually, because believe it or not, the government at least somewhat have the consent of those they govern. In my opinion, the problem is that governments got involved to throw their force around. I think people recognized women were "equal" before the government did (as the majority believes gay people are equal,) yet still, we wait for the government to tell everyone it's okay for them to be married. This debate has been going on since the 1970's; is it any wonder that the government is not moving quick enough? Because it shouldn't be the job of the federal governmen t to micromanage everyones life, and tell them what they can/can't eat, smoke and marry.

Well I hardly think Gmo's and flouride "accidentally" got in our food and drinking water. And yes, the government tells us they put flouride in our water to "clean our teeth" but before we trust uncle sams one-size fits all chemicals

So why would they give us flouride?

That's right. They're purposely lowering our IQ, to keep us stupid and happy. Independent tests of our water also shows traces of prozac. This is Uncle Sams way of controlling us.

I've seen test on GMO where after just 4 months of ingestion, rats will develop huge cancerous cells; and this is food our FDA approved for us to eat! And the government passed the "monsanto protection act" which disallows anyone from suing monsanto, even if you get sick from their Modified garbage!

There's so much more i really want to say- I think Social Security is a scam. Your parents may be at the only age that will benefit from it. (But I can only imagine they've been paying for it most of their lives) I've been paying for it my ENTIRE life, and even if I make it to age 88, I highly doubt it'll benefit me more than investing all that Social Security money! And that's why people are starting to give up on government. Hell, if Social Security plans on paying us, why are they stockpiling weapons and ammo? Like everything else in government, we pay an endless stream of money into programs we only hope are working properly...( and sadly, most really aren't) imo we've been getting robbed!

 

I'm suggesting a very,very,very small government compared to what most Americans are used to. And no, we're not going to have people dying on the streets. I have been on foodstamps before, government health insurance etc. but I still don't believe government does anything better than Charaties and the free market.

Firstly, no one who works, can get foodstamps. Although obviously minimum wage (8.50) is NOT enough to live (esp in places like NY) This means the government is paying people providing that they don't work or do anything else, JUST collect from government. At the same time, people can go to charities that give cars to kids, food, housing etc etc. There are alot of wealthy people out there willing to help. (esp for tax write off's.)

I'm sorry, I said some of these things for a reason. I think we could've gotten ALL of that without government. Guess what? you can't get an 8 hour day, you can quit! And we're not protected from working overtime (my last job had me working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week) you just "get paid a little more" once you hit 40 hours! Really, I hardly see how we're being "protected by government" no one forced them to put an AC in 110+ degree weather. I think Liberals/progressives are TOO reliant on government, and don't think that strikes, protests and revolt (in extreme situations) would do much much more than government would ever be willing to do!

I'm not advocating the "law of the jungle," that's where this country is headed

No Constitution

kids imprisoned for speech crimes

Government reading our emails texts etc.

But I want to get into one last thing before I go to bed. (it's mad late, I'm usually in bed two hours ago)

I think the most dangerous thing about accepting the government to use violence, instead of people living together without force, fraud or coersion; Is we've given up on the grand experiment that was America. Our founders didn't want the government to be the big and powerful, and I can prove it..

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.¬Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.¬Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~Thomas Jefferson



I hope I got you thinking, and didn't just offend you. Have a goodnight, sir.

 

Birth control methods ARE readily available, and the abstinence method is totally free.

I don't recall claiming or insinuating that Doctors make or enforce laws.

Nor should they have to. After all they are businesses, not social welfare programs or charitable organizations.

You're mixing birth control with the example where the woman was suffering from an illness. The refusal of the insurance company to pay for drugs related to control an illness is something that should be taken to court if necessary.

And those who present higher risks should be charged higher fees. When I was much younger my auto insurance fees were much higher. Should you be able to purchase fire insurance for your home AFTER it catches fire?
Insurance is a means of reducing ones risks in the case of unexpected events , not just reduce the cost of living.

On that we agree.

Not quite redistribution, but risk sharing. The primary difference between government redistribution programs and insurance is that government mandates participation while insurance companies allow the people to freely choose.

 

StpLSD25,

Love reading the Jefferson quotes.