Replies

I had a chart of howm uch land is infact habitable, and it was a large % of the land-

Well for heaven sakes man why have you been keeping this chart a secret? Why haven't you shown it to the people of Los Angeles and to the people of Las Vegas begging for water? Why haven't you shown it to the people who are sitting in traffic jams in New Jersey for hours in commutes? The truth is there is very little habitable and attractive land with good climate where people want to live. The idea that you're going to put 9 billion people in the wastes of West Texas is too absurd to debate.

But let us consider the idea of installing 9 billion people in one state and I will show you a dystopia rivaling our worst prisons. State control of everything would be mandatory; there will be no liberty. Everything, and I mean everything including air, light, water and exercise space for children would be rationed. The more density the less quality of life, the more density the less liberty.

The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources. Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims. Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc. Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.

This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials. I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives. Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion? Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control? Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?

The idea of Jeffersonian democracy, the idea of the New England Cracker Barrel democracy, only works when there is sufficient space for man to live independent both of his neighbor and the government. Double your population and halve your liberties

[[Well for heaven sakes man why have you been keeping this chart a secret? Why haven’t you shown it to the people of Los Angeles and to the people of Las Vegas begging for water? Why haven’t you shown it to the people who are sitting in traffic jams in New Jersey for hours in commutes? ]]

And small areas of crowding refute wide open spaces how again? You are missing htep oint- Whiel people may decide to crowd into tiny areas- the fact still remains that the vast majority of this country is open- and peo[pel do not have to live in such crowded areas-

[[The idea that you’re going to put 9 billion people in the wastes of West Texas is too absurd to debate.]]

Again you miss the point completely- I stand by my last post- The point isn’t about whether we should do this- the whole point, whi9ch should be obvious, but apparently isn’t- is that this world is NOT over-run by people- I would have thought the example would have sufficed but I guess not-

I’ll let the rest of your liberal rant speak for itself

Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion?

**********************

I was fairly certain that was going to be a part of your argument.

But let us consider the idea of installing 9 billion people in one state and I will show you a dystopia rivaling our worst prisons. State control of everything would be mandatory; there will be no liberty. Everything, and I mean everything including air, light, water and exercise space for children would be rationed. The more density the less quality of life, the more density the less liberty.

However, nobody is suggesting this. Nevertheless, your use of the term dystopia is remarkably ironic.

Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.

Really? You think the nanny state soda ban in NYC has something to do with a shortage of soda? Have you got a single shred of data to back this up?

This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials.

There is absolutely NOTHING conservative about your views.

I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives.

Because NO CIVILIZATION in the history of the world has survived without population growth.

Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion?

What PRECISELY is the predicate that "allows" for the slaughter of 60 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS? Please explain how the American Holocaust has been beneficial.

I am curious, in light of your screen name, which babies do you think should be predicated for termination in your dystopian fantasy?

Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control?

Prior to the 1930s NO CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION supported contraception. Then, in the early 20th century, very wealthy and powerful elites embraced eugenics and decided that they could create a ~~utopian~~ dystopian new world order if they could eliminate large segments of non-Caucasian and "feeble-minded" persons.

Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?

There is a huge difference between curtailing illegal immigration and eugenic population control.

The idea of Jeffersonian democracy, the idea of the New England Cracker Barrel democracy, only works when there is sufficient space for man to live independent both of his neighbor and the government.

I know this will outrage someone with a screen name such as yours; but, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY, the United States of America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - there is a difference.

Double your population and halve your liberties

Really? Does halving the population double your liberties? Because that seems to be the governing theory behind your dystopian fantasy.