Report; There are simply too many of you.

And as I already said, consumption will fall in the First World with time. It will rise with time in the developing world.

You keep looking at the present without looking towards the future.

 

Just curious as to why the OP makes the statement, "there are simply too many of you", rather than "there are too many of US"?

 

im pro evict all illegals and i despise illegal immigrants in america... but lets be honest here. the reason we have so many illegals is the legal path into this country is a nightmare that can take many years. my fiance lives in Canada and it is expensive and very time consuming to get her here so we can start our life together.

also, most illegals use fake social security numbers and actually pay taxes without ever getting a refund or getting to draw from it when they retire. they arent freeloading, but they are a strain on our social programs. as i said, im all for deporting them but we really need to be honest and fix the path to legal immigration. i used to keep my head in the sand too but not anymore.

 

They believe in it with the same fervor that some dumbasses keep pushing the war on drugs.

 

Providing for the general welfare and common defense is a form of central planning that is specifically enumerated in our Constitution; a War on Drugs is not.

It really just depends on the public policy and its implementation. One would think that the being mostly well educated would in itself be conducive to better solutions to our social dilemmas in modern times; many elected representatives are or were wealthy and it was and is a reason they are even elected to public office.

 

besides that central planning is the ultimate evil?

 

Central planning cannot be the ultimate evil since our Founding Fathers even delegated central planning power to elected representatives; therefore, it must be something else that hinders our advancement as a society.

 

you care to point to that particular power? nowhere in the Constitution is the authority to mandate production.

 

Delegating the specifically enumerated and general powers to Tax and provide for the general welfare and common defense for the Union should be self-evident.

 

Did you read post #43? Did you understand it? I suspect not. The theories of Malthus, which your argument is based, have been widely debunked. His theory of population was invoked by 19th century capitalists and their apologists in order to justify paying workers their bare subsistence and no more. It seems as though there are people like you who continue to fall for the over-population myth 200 years later.

Contrary to your crude assertion, human's are not like animals insofar that we have a consciousness and hence we have the ability to construct economic, social and political systems out of which matters relating to scarcity and hunger can be attended to. The fact that we are not attending to them is not a vindication of your assertion that we are nothing more than 'survival of the fittest' Hobbesian-style pack animals. If Darwin thought that that his theories would have been abused the way people like you have abused them, he would have thought twice about publishing his 'origin of the species'.

 

So we agree that population growth in and of itself is not the primary cause for concern?

 

Government is a form of central planning in the production of law.

 

how you got telling farmers what they can grow and what factories will produce out of that is the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up twist of logic evar.

 

it's sort of the factory-it's not produced anywhere else.

 

According some, the only reason we emerged from the Great Depression as soon as we did, was due only to the Communism induced by WWII.

 

The Founding Fathers were not priests of a religion, and the Constitution is not the Written Word of some Lockean God. Unalienable rights are self-evident in the nature of human beings. If the men who wrote the Constitution attempted to alien our rights to Congress, then they were wrong, and immoral, to do so.

The Constitution has no authority, and if, as a contract, it does what you say, it attempts to strip unalienable rights and is therefore a document that should be ignored by those who value liberty. I, personally, disagree with you. I do not believe that anyone could rationally argue that the "general welfare" is served by mandating production quotas, or prohibiting the production of any good or service. Each individual serves his or her own welfare by choosing how much he or she needs and wants according to all of the priorities he or she sets by his or her own conscious. Central planning strips that unalienable right to follow one's own conscious and puts the power into the hands of a few who will serve their own interests.

If the general welfare clause equates to central planning, then it is the ultimate evil and the founding fathers, in all contradiction to the Declaration of Independence, perpetrated a greater evil on the people than any King ever did.

 

Can you explain why "central planning" is an evil in and of itself?

How was the central planning that allowed us to put a man on the moon and bring him back any form of "evil"?

 

Law can be produced elsewhere. Governments create legislation, and through legislation, they attempt to subvert and eliminate other forms of law. Laws arise when people create rules for themselves and others to follow, often times in a voluntary manner but with sanctions for those who break the rules. Sometimes those rules are elevated to legal systems with courts and security to enforce them. The Lex Mercatoria is a good example of that, and provides the foundation for the US UCC.

Allowing government to define law is dangerous. It really has no authority to do so. If you think it does, and I understand if you do, then I challenge you to explain from where it derives that authority.

 

the Great Depression would have only been a mild recession if the government hadn't (*)(*)(*)(*)ed with it. everything FDR did made it worse.

 

Well, yes.... I suppose there were others in this thread who made that emphasis, but I was just talking about consumption and how that relates to population growth both here and in the Third World.

I still think educating women in the Third World about contraception is good, but ultimately, it's the resulting consumption that matters more than the number of children born.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Ken.

Law is a basic function of government. If it's not government enforcing it, then I suppose corporations would have their own quasi-government to enforce whatever rules they'd like in place.

Ultimately, the rule of law and rights are dependent on the ability to protect rights and enforce laws -- both of which require coercion of some sort. Might doesn't make right, but it does rule things somewhat.

 

That doesn't deny or disparage the fact that is was forms of communism that ending the Great Depression and not capitalism.

 

Anyone with a brain realizes this is true. Birthrates should drop dramatically, especially minority birthrates.

 

What is a corporation but a fiction crafted by virtue of government regulation? There have been many powerful corporations in history, but none have ever existed without the agency that has a monopoly on the use of force. No corporation wants to be rid of government. They just want to have as much say in it as possible. Big corporations require centralization of power, and they are not good power centers themselves, despite the all the dystopian movies and novels based on that idea.

Legislation is a basic function of government. It creates rules, but it is not the only source of rules, nor is the originator and definer of all rules. If that were the case, then the principle that might is right would have to be the truth.

Rights can, and have been, protected and enforced absent a state with a legal monopoly on the use of force. Of course coercion is required against those who initiate aggression, but that doesn't mean that anyone in government then has the right to be the initiator.

 

replacement rate is actually 2.1 or 2.2...