patrick.net

FortWayne says

all I hear there is that America apparently is a #1 nation of wealth inequality.

Where did you see that? I haven't seen that claim.

It's been growing for decades, but we are not #1.

We have to try harder. USA USA USA!

Vicente says

Where did you see that? I haven't seen that claim.

It's daily on NPR.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

3. Equal rights under the law.

Liberals don't want equal rights, they want equal results... just without working for it.

Bull-fucking-shit. I am the quintessential liberal. I want equal rights, not equal results. And I've worked damn hard for my income doing things that less than 1 in ten thousand people on this planet could do at all, and less than 1 in a million can do well.

I've paid my own way through college. I've worked 90+ hours a week in my early 20s and 70+ hours a week in my mid-20s and 30s. I opened my first IRA when I was 20. I spent less than 20% of my income on all my living expenses for years.

How exactly am I in favor of free-loading parasites? Where do you get that? Are all conservatives senile seniors like Clint Eastwood talking to imaginary "liberals" in empty chairs? You're perception of reality is so ridiculously off base with actual reality it seems like some kind of mental delusion.

Dan8267 says

More to the point, you would make all non-white immigration illegal.

I would make all immigration illegal. There is no excuse for letting in anyone when unemployment is this high and we are already too overcrowded.

zzyzzx says

I would make all immigration illegal. There is no excuse for letting in anyone when unemployment is this high and we are already too overcrowded.

Really? In that case the US would not exist. Unless you happen to be Native American then EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this country IS in fact an immigrant.

Think about that for at least 1/2 a second...

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

More to the point, you would make all non-white immigration illegal.

I would make all immigration illegal. There is no excuse for letting in anyone when unemployment is this high and we are already too overcrowded.

Then your problem is not with "illegal immigration", but simply immigration. At least be honest about that.

By the way, I'm in favor of net-zero immigration and negative population growth. But I don't use subterfuge to justify my position because I believe it is justifiable. Hence, no subterfuge is necessary or even helpful.

Yes, there are too many people in the word and even in America. Growth, including population growth, is not always a good thing. However, it is disingenuous to equate opposition to immigration to opposition to "illegal immigration" as if the opposition is simply due to the immigrants not playing fair or following the law.

If you are going to take a position, particularly an unpopular one, have the balls to take that position clearly and definitively.

zzyzzx says

Isn't every since comment from a liberal about wealth inequality enough?

No.

The statement "I oppose rape." is not synonymous with the statement "I oppose sex.". For the exact same reason, the statement "I oppose economic systems designed to systematically impoverish the masses to support a few rich." is not synonymous with the statement "I want every person to be equally wealthy regardless of how hard they work or how much they produce.".

In fact, the entire objection we rationalists have with our economic system is that it does not reward wealth creation. Capitalism rewards one and only one thing: bargaining power. The person producing wealth remains impoverished while the person controlling the distribution channels becomes rich by parasitically siphoning the wealth the first guy created.

The economic systems I prefer reward wealth creation, not manipulation of the system. In such systems, Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, is the richest man in the word and Lloyd Craig Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, is a bum living on the cold streets. This is the way nature intended to work weeding out the non-productive members of our species like Republicans.

edvard2 says

Really? In that case the US would not exist. Unless you happen to be Native American then EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this country IS in fact an immigrant.

Think about that for at least 1/2 a second...

Does the phrase "we are full already" mean anything to you? Are you trying to turn us into India?

Because that's what will happen to the US eventually if we continue to allow immigration.

zzyzzx says

Does the phrase "we are full already" mean anything to you?

"I got mine, so FUCK YOU!".

U.S. natural birth rate is below replacement levels. So let's depopulate and inbreed, until we are ripe for easy conquest. Great plan!

Coincidentally, Russia also appears to be in natural population decline. Births are higher, but so are death rates.

zzyzzx says

Does the phrase "we are full already" mean anything to you? Are you trying to turn us into India?

Still doesn't detract from the rather nonsensical suggestion you previously made.
Man these debates are way too easy.

zzyzzx says

Why does a problem have to get really bad before you are willing to do something about it? Overpopulation is a serious environmental problem and isn't likely to be solved if you take your approach and do nothing to stop it.

I suggest taking a road trip across the US. I did when I moved across country. 90+% of the land I drove through was almost completely devoid of people. Miles and miles and miles of... nothing. Most of the population lives crammed on the coasts. The problem isn't space or population. Any other imaginary problems you'd like to share with us?

edvard2 says

Miles and miles and miles of... nothing.

It takes more than raw land to sustain a population. If you're suggesting that overpopulation isn't a problem until homes are built as densely as Los Angeles, across every acre of the continental US, well think that through some more OK?

zzyzzx says

I would make all immigration illegal. There is no excuse for letting in anyone when unemployment is this high and we are already too overcrowded.

We have plenty of unpopulated land. The question is, do immigrants add to economic growth or detract from it?

I would say that the anti-immigrant faction has it wrong. The immigrants don't take our jobs, they help to create them.

What happened in Hazleton when they forced the immigrants out? Did their economy prosper with old Euros unable to cook or clean for themselves? Or mow their own lawns?

The old folks had no economy, but the immigrants had a vibrant one.

CL says

We have plenty of unpopulated land.

True, but where is the water and oil going to come from?

Vicente says

Yes like being told they can't make healthcare decisions for a loved one, or handle their money, or automatically inherit because they aren't married like normal people. How trivial and petty!

That fight most people would join them, if the Gay bothered to fucking ask them. Instead treating everyone like some angry homophobe because they have a growing dislike every news story, commercial, movie, song, ect... turning into some pro gay agenda. Which is supposed to be the message but it's just disgusting gratuitous gay injection or gay make out scenes. That's not how you get support or acceptance from those who you claim are intolerant, as it were.

Instead of all that, you think with all of the clout the gay community has in 99% of the media out there. They could have just once done a PSA where they laid out there case, with out it turning into a chance to showcase the song. "I kissed a girl and I liked it..." and "Born this way" crap.

The gays had bigger support up to now, more so than they gave the average human being on the planet credit for. Their gripe has not been what you said, it's about making those Conservative bastards publicly kiss them and accept 100% on international TV, or something I still haven't figured out their fucking trip. They don't care about your average well adjusted, well rounded person being put off by them. They can just Tweet shame them and call them intolerant, they want Jimmy Swagart to place the hand of God on thee and marry Hank and Frank.

They have equal rights, they have every right to be as repulsed by their behavior as I am.

Automan Empire says

It takes more than raw land to sustain a population. If you're suggesting that overpopulation isn't a problem until homes are built as densely as Los Angeles, across every acre of the continental US, well think that through some more OK?

Like I said- drive across the country. You would be amazed at how much of the country is empty. Where I grew up we lived about 30 miles from a smaller city. The city gave way to the sticks in basically 5 minutes out of town. A LOT of America is just like that, where there are perfectly self-sustaining smaller cities with an enormous amount of growth potential. The US also has the world's most developed freeway system meaning transportation and access to goods from everywhere are able to be had quickly no matter where you live.

Lastly, the single thing that would make all of those less populated areas instantly pertinent would be if every office job in the US would embrace telecommuting. The main reason people stick to major metros are the jobs and if the jobs could be done anywhere, then the 90% of the country that's barely populated would instantly become viable places to live.

We are overpopulated, and no, immigration is not the solution. Family planning and eliminating tax incentives to have more than two children is the ethical solution. And please don't go off on me on how the government shouldn't control how many children a person has, and please like the housing bulls on this site assuming I don't own a home because I am for lower home prices, please don't assume I don't have children. I say this because I think overpopulation is a real threat on many levels, and it is because of my fear of government intervention on who has children, and on how many, that makes me for eliminating tax breaks for children. Why should a single childless tax payer be paying for my child? My child will suck on plenty of tax paid for programs before he gives back to the system, like all children. That's enough of a gift to the parents for making a little citizen.

We the thinking minority have to stop fighting each other and start fighting the real danger. “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” - Thomas Jefferson. Fast forward, President Abraham Lincoln, “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.” And a letter written 1864, “We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” Fast forward to all their worst nightmares a reality. We the great inheritors of the republic must wake-up and stop fighting the wrong battles. We need campaign finance reform, or a complete elimination. We must dispose of Citizens United and WE must put sanctions on the empire living within our Republic. The empire is the Federal Reserve and the corporations. The two party system is meant to distract and divide. Voting is no longer our great power, so focus on where we still have power. Put sanctions on them. Everyone, just say no to buying from any of the major corporations that have abhorrent human rights records (which are a large majority), do your job as a citizen of a free republic and educate yourself on who those are, buy only necessities, buy fair-trade, and best of all don't buy at all unless it truly is a need. Don't purchase a home at artificially inflated prices meant to make you a debt slave. Protect our right to protest and form unions before both rights get abolished. Let us honor our admirable presidents and framers by having the courage and strength to save our Republic. We can save our republic, it's just going to mean sacrifice and work, and the empire within our fading republic is counting on our ignorance and laziness. A hero in this era is not going to be one in shiny pants with a gun or arrow, it's going to be regular people like us sacrificing and becoming educated on the system. Pass on the good news that we still have the power. No one can force us to buy a non-necessity. It's time to starve the empire within our republic out.

Vicente says

U.S. natural birth rate is below replacement levels.

True, but that's not a bad thing. The U.S. population has doubled over the past 50 years.

Meanwhile, the U.S. consumes a large percentage of the world's oil supply.

And produces a large amount of CO2 per capita. Yes, we're not the worse, but we certainly are right up there.

A smaller U.S. population would be a very good thing for the environment. It would give some relief until technology advances enough for us to maintain our energy consumption rates without polluting.

If the U.S. population were to half over the next 50 years, it would not be a bad thing.

World population is also a problem, but more so because of starvation than over-consumption and pollution.

zzyzzx says

Overpopulation is a serious environmental problem and isn't likely to be solved if you take your approach and do nothing to stop it.

True, but that's not why you're against immigration. You really are motivated by the "I got mine; fuck you" principle. Vincent was right in calling you out on that.

edvard2 says

I suggest taking a road trip across the US. I did when I moved across country. 90+% of the land I drove through was almost completely devoid of people.

And the ocean is even more vast. That doesn't mean we can't over-fish it, pollute it, alter it's feedback systems.

The problem with overpopulation has never been the physical limitations of space, but rather the physical limitations of resources and the stress on the negative feedback mechanisms in local and the global ecosystems.

The world will collapse into a barren planet incapable of supporting human life long before we run out of space to put human bodies.

Automan Empire says

It takes more than raw land to sustain a population

True. One third of the world's population does not have adequate, clean drinking water. That's one in three people endanger of health risks for lack of water, the most basic ingredient in life.

Even in many sections of the U.S., there is a water shortage and such shortages are likely to get worse. And water is just one of many depletable resources.

edvard2 says

if every office job in the US would embrace telecommuting.

Management has spoken. Telecommuting is only for outsourcing. Why make life more pleasant for the employee?

Russia has always had an authoritarian history. In a way, they have not been sufficiently prepared to handle democracy especially considering the unique blend of authoritarianism and corruption that they demonstrate. If a democracy experiment were to be fully conducted over there, it would result in a middle-east lite outcome. The only improvement would be lack of suicide bombings....sans the chechens of course.

Dan8267 says

A smaller U.S. population would be a very good thing for the environment. It would give some relief until technology advances enough for us to maintain our energy consumption rates without polluting.

If the U.S. population were to half over the next 50 years, it would not be a bad thing.

World population is also a problem, but more so because of starvation than over-consumption and pollution.

. He is absolutely right.

Dan8267 says

If the U.S. population were to half over the next 50 years, it would not be a
bad thing.

So dumb it hurts.

How pray tell are we going to continue to prop up our Ponzi Scheme entitlement programs if our population is cut in half over the next 50 years?

Look how fucked our entitlement liabilities are now just trying to deal with the Boomer population. Look at all the bankrupt cities in California (let alone Detroit) who are suffering as their towns are hollowed out by generational Democrat mismanagement and there is no one left to pay the pensions.

Do Libs have even a basic grasp of simple math?

Dan8267 says

The problem with overpopulation has never been the physical limitations of
space, but rather the physical limitations of resources and the stress on the
negative feedback mechanisms in local and the global ecosystems.

The world will collapse into a barren planet incapable of supporting human
life long before we run out of space to put human bodies.

The Malthusians Chicken Littles have been predicting this shit for over 50 years and have been shown to be completely wrong by history. Not just wrong. Spectacularly wrong!

Look up the insanity of Paul Ehrilich and "Population Bomb" which my environmental engineering professors were raving about when I was in school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

Humanity still finds a way to thrive despite our increased population numbers where we have less war, less famine and less poverty.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

If the U.S. population were to half over the next 50 years, it would not be a

bad thing.

So dumb it hurts.

How pray tell are we going to continue to prop up our Ponzi Scheme entitlement programs if our population is cut in half over the next 50 years?

Look how fucked our entitlement liabilities are now just trying to deal with the Boomer population. Look at all the bankrupt cities in California (let alone Detroit) who are suffering as their towns are hollowed out by generational Democrat mismanagement and there is no one left to pay the pensions.

Do Libs have even a basic grasp of simple math?

True, but that's why we have to do away with an entitlement/retirement system that is based on endless population explosion (aka ponzi-scheme).

dublin hillz says

Russia has always had an authoritarian history. In a way, they have not been sufficiently prepared to handle democracy especially considering the unique blend of authoritarianism and corruption that they demonstrate. If a democracy experiment were to be fully conducted over there, it would result in a middle-east lite outcome. The only improvement would be lack of suicide bombings....sans the chechens of course.

America is authoritarian too, same damn thing here, just dressed up differently.

Vicente says

(abortion and premarital sex are effectively against the law in the name of the free market)

This fragment reveals that the author is full of shit.

zzyzzx says

CL says

We have plenty of unpopulated land.

True, but where is the water and oil going to come from?

Were they not going to need water or oil where they were born? Or are we only worried about "ours"? Or are we worried that as a poor person becomes more prosperous that they will inherently use more of these resources?

Where do we get our oil and water now? What will we do about shortages? Annex Canada?

And if you were really worried about it, why not just have a one-child policy since native-borns will also consume those resources?

CaptainShuddup says

That's not how you get support or acceptance from those who you claim are intolerant, as it were.

Is support something that a citizen has to ask for from the majority? Do they have to do it a certain way, and say please? Yes ma'am?

Put another way, if this were a majority gay country and you were a hetero minority, would you feel that it would be acceptable for you to be straight, but only in the way the gay majority proscribed? What if they didn't want you acting all hetero in public....dressing THAT way, holding hands, kissing.

FortWayne says

America is authoritarian too, same damn thing here, just dressed up differently.

Indeed, but not in the way you probably mean. See above.

FortWayne says

dublin hillz says

Russia has always had an authoritarian history. In a way, they have not been sufficiently prepared to handle democracy especially considering the unique blend of authoritarianism and corruption that they demonstrate. If a democracy experiment were to be fully conducted over there, it would result in a middle-east lite outcome. The only improvement would be lack of suicide bombings....sans the chechens of course.

America is authoritarian too, same damn thing here, just dressed up differently.

Where he's right, he's right.

mell says

True, but that's why we have to do away with an entitlement/retirement system that is based on endless population explosion (aka ponzi-scheme).

Don't think anyone is advocating "endless population explosion" just replacement level birth rates to maintain stable populations to support the tax base.

It seems like it is mainly Lefties who advocate "explosive population reduction" as seen by some of the dopey comments on this thread.

The future belongs to the people who bother to show up.

socal2 says

How pray tell are we going to continue to prop up our Ponzi Scheme entitlement programs if our population is cut in half over the next 50 years?

Don't. The longer Ponzi Schemes go on, the more damage they do.

socal2 says

Do Libs have even a basic grasp of simple math?

Honey, my math skills are beyond your imagination, much like my love making skills.

socal2 says

The Malthusians Chicken Littles have been predicting this shit for over 50 years and have been shown to be completely wrong by history.

Someone makes a claim that if exponential increases in CO2 levels continue indefinitely, eventually the world's climate will become inhospitable to human life. You call this claim false based on the fact that it hasn't happen yet. And I'm the one without basic math skills?

Socal2's "thinking":
Liberals say that wearing your seat belt keeps you from dying in a car crash. Well, I've never worn my seat belt and I'm still alive. Therefore seat belts are worthless.

Better thinking:
Pollution is a form of theft. It should be tolerated no more than any other form of theft. People who are pro-pollution are pro-theft by definition. The rest of us believe in law and order. We don't tolerate criminals that burn other people's houses down because it violates property rights. Pollution violates public property rights, no different from trashing your neighbor's house.

North Korea is the Democrat's paradise.

Somalia is libertarian paradise:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/7QDv4sYwjO0

zzyzzx says

North Korea is the Democrat's paradise.

Correction: North Korea is the paradise of the imaginary versions of Democrats in the heads of Republicans.

No Democrat has every advocated North Korea as a roll model. In contrast, the very first post in this thread was FortWayne says

At the rate we are going, Russia is winning.