Military Technocracy

On overpopulation:

I notice you mention China as an example. In communism, population MUST be controlled (as must every major aspect of human life). This is because in communism, everyone is their brother's keeper, and every new person is a burden for the population as a whole.

Overpopulation is simply not a concern in a capitalistic society. The reason for this should be self-evident: if everyone carries their own weight, and no one else's, then only the people who can afford it will have children. Population is controlled non-coercively through supply and capital.

Post 81

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 6:02pm

On CFCs:

Some degree of environment protection is needed. This is in no way "altruistic" or contrary to any part of Objectivism. If you pollute the air, or cause a hole in the ozone that allows for dangerous solar rays to "invade" MY personal property, you are in effect, a trespasser, and must be held accountable as such.

Post 82

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 6:19pm

Here in South Africa many native families don't have jobs and yet have many children, they can scarcely support one child in the normal sense, but they have upwards of six children. Such kids end up living on the street or such and become a burden on society.

You say that in a capitalist society only those who can afford children will have children. I assure you, many people don't think that far. They don't use rational thought to any degree. They have children regardless of being able to support them.

There is a grant here for poor families, which is more for more children. Many familes keep on having babies to recieve the grants. These people aren't rational. The population only gets levelled in this case due to diseases like malaria or aids or starvation.

People often excuse things like over-fishing by saying it is the participants only manner of getting income. The problem there are so many people wanting income that the supplies get exhausted. The food will become less, resulting in starving people. If there is too many people, starving results. People talk about the individual's right to food and such, but if the economics of the situation dictate otherwise, as in there isn't enough to go around, that right makes way for reality.

Reality is the master that needs to be obeyed. It seems that the reality of the situation is that the population is getting gargantuan, and it is having devastating effects on our planet. That is of everybody's concern.

Post 83

Friday, January 2, 2004 - 6:42pm

You spoke of grants. Government grants would not exist in a capitalist society. Grants for having children when you can't afford them only reward irrationality and perpetuate the problem. Get rid of the grants and you get rid of the problem.

Please clarify what you mean when you say you have a "RIGHT to food"? Does this mean you can force a grocer to supply you with food based on your NEED?

On overfishing: It is to the best interest of the fishing industry to keep a supply of fish around for their own sake and livelihood. If they foolishly squander the fish resources of the world, they are punished with losing all their business. Food production shifts to a better equipped industry.

Post 84

Sunday, January 4, 2004 - 11:05am

Note I said specifically "People talk about the individual's right to food". In no way does this imply I believe we have a right to food. Rights don't mean a damn unless you can enforce them. Reality doesn't care for rights. I think you misjudged me there.

On overfishing, people are just stupid enough to squander it. You say let them, right? It's a pity we won't have any fish to eat though. We feel the effect of their foolishness, so isn't it in our own interest to limit their fishing? Or should we accept the disappearance of fish on the menu, because it is their liberty to squander the fish population?

Post 85

Sunday, January 4, 2004 - 9:17pm

I would most certainly be at a loss if fish ran out. I enjoy fish. Maybe if such a thing starts to happen (and I have enough money), I will buy a lake and fish it myself.

What if the airline industry was being managed poorly? Would you advocate government intervention then? What if they were being managed so poorly that it was likely that they would go bankrupt. No more commercial airlines.

I don't have a right to tell airlines how to run, just as I don't have a right to tell fishermen how to fish. It is to their own best interest that they survive, and that's that. I was guarenteed neither fish nor planes when I entered this world, nor should I be.

"...isn't it in our own interest to limit their fishing?"

It might be in your interest, sure. Why don't you pay them to stop? Or pay them to fish less? It is NEVER in my interest to use force on an industry or an individual to get what I want, because I don't want force used on me.

Post 86

Monday, January 5, 2004 - 8:29am

Tommy: Too bad we don't have an "Ignore" button for this turkey. He doesn't even try to answer his own questions.

If there's a shortage of fish, in a free society innovators, entrepreneurs and capitalists will find a way to profit from the shortage and provide fish. Example ... huge floating fish farms in the unpolluted Atlantic.

On another thread Vertigo said, "To be truly free is to not be coerced in any way. Can anybody be truly free?" Obviously he doesn't value freedom and he doesn't even want to try to be free.

This guy is terminal. Replies to him just encourage him. "Blowing off" those of his ilk is a valid strategy as they are actively trying to destroy out individual freedoms. I don't take that kindly.

Paul

Post 87

Monday, January 5, 2004 - 12:04pm

Quote: "This guy is terminal. Replies to him just encourage him. 'Blowing off' those of his ilk is a valid strategy as they are actively trying to destroy out individual freedoms."

That's not true. I'm not actively trying to destroy individual freedoms, I'm am trying to weed out people's opinions regarding it. The reason is that people campaign for strange things like homosexuality, but I am not pretentious enough to assume I know better. Therefore I may make strange comments but they are to produce the desired response. This shows I want to hear people's opinions on this site. Surely that's a good thing.

I see Tommy's point now. Necessity is the mother of invention. If an airline industry is being badly mismanaged, it is better to wait for a more capable person to offer a better service than have the government help out. With a better person doing the job, we are better off in the long run. This information came straight from Tommy's response, and I'm glad he responded to my annoying posts.

Its still hard for me to accept that allowing people to become drug addicts is a good thing. Hopefully after more replies I will see the reasons for allowing this.

'Do unto others' seems a pretty good maxim. Nobody wants force to be used on them, so I suppose it makes sense to say it isn't worth using force against others, as you have said. However, following this train of thought, it then means that removing Saddam by force was a bad thing, but I can't say at the moment that it was. Maybe you have thoughts on this.

Thanks Tommy, bear with me.

Post 88

Monday, January 5, 2004 - 1:27pm