Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
What follows is a five-year-old reply submitted to change the reflexive attitude entertained by many conservatives, especially faux conservatives at places like the Wall Street Journal, who hold that only an ever increasing population in an age of technological revolution the like of which the world has never seen is necessary for growth and prosperity:

Well for heaven sakes man why have you been keeping this chart a secret? Why haven't you shown it [ a chart maintaining that the entire growing population in the world could be comfortably ensconced in West Texas] 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


19 posted on 01/10/2020 12:42:29 AM PST by nathanbedford (attack, repeat, attack! Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


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

It is not necessary that the population increase, but you can't have an aging population without younger folk coming up along behind them to help support them. Unfortunately, with increased affluence, it has become quite apparent that you also get decreased birthrates. This is fine as long as it doesn't drop below replacement rate, especially if longevity continues to increase, if you are going to also maintain a welfare state for the aged, which is essentially what 'social security' is.

Drop 'social security', and you can have a reduction in population, that will be painful, but not catastrophic.

Without younger folk to hold the system up, demographics will kill an advanced society, just as surely as plague. I really do not see how folks expect to have a person spend 18-25 years as essentially an unproductive citizen, who then works for 40 years (from 25-65), then retires for 30 years or more.

24 posted on 01/10/2020 8:00:56 AM PST by zeugma (I sure wish I lived in a country where the rule of law actually applied to those in power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson