-Calls for One Child and One World Government

There is an excellent chance that I make more money than you. So I doubt YOU are paying for ME or mine.

It is quite likely that your perks, like roads, and health care, and a military and police, and regular garbage collection, are probably be paid for by me and the other people in my tax bracket.

Good luck on living in a First World Nation, when you don't pay taxes. All those perks, and others like a skilled worker base, you benefit from all of them.

You are TOTALLY welcome to move to Somalia if you prefer a total Libertarian government. I mean, *I* wouldn't, but if you think that it is a great system please feel free.

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by Aeons

 

You haven't addressed my point, which is, how do you plan to support your kids, without relying on other taxpayer's money?

To me, I feel like I shouldn't be paying any taxes, but I still have to. No one can do whatever they please.

And your kids are going to cost me, unless the government keeps going into debt.

[edit on 2009/12/14 by Aeons]

reply to post by Aeons


I highly doubt that you make more than me, but that's not the point. The point is even if you can support them, what about the people who can't?
From a theoreotical point of view, the need to limit kids is clearly something that needs to be emphasized.

As far as me moving to Somalia, well I could just say the same to you, move to Somalia, if you want to overbreed.

Hey, this country is working just fine. There is no overbreeding here.

You benefit from children. You benefit from all the things taxation and Human Rights brings.

Just because you hate children, doesn't mean you get to do away with Human Rights or make females into a luxury item.

You people who are going to just get old and suck off of all the benefits without even putting in one well brought up child to continue on a group that cares about Human Rights, democracy, and the Western way of life of a form of societal cancer.

But I respect that you can choose to be a societal cancer. It's your right.

And unlike you, I won't take your Human Right to not breed away from you.


The one who controls fertile women controls society. In our society fertile women control themselves, because in our society people have individual rights and each individual is the base level of the government.

Canada has a population DEFICIT.

But that isn't good enough - because this guy, he wants to control women instead. Every other society throughout time, and in the modern era that allows men to control women's fertility, has a population problem. The societies that have women controlling their own fertility do not.

Interesting isn't it.

Even when his stated goal is to reduce population, he acts and supports controls in a manner that consistently leads to overpopulation. Even in an area that does not have the problem he is talking about.

So ask yourselves. If there isn't a population problem in Canada. And it can be proven beyond any doubt that females controlling their own fertility consistently leads to them as a group bringing population numbers to at least level with the current population. And this is all apparent, because these people LIVE in this environment......

Aren't they really acting out of an instinct to control fertility of women, so that they favour their own control and genetics?

The answer to these people's problems is already here. And it is working. Too well. They live it every day. Their solution consistently through out all societies through time has proven out to lead to the exact opposite effect.

If one's actions do not match one's goals - then their real goal is either hidden, or instinctual.

In these guy's case, it is instinctual. They want to reduce their closest competitors. You and me.

We compete with them for resources, and we are way closer to them than some person in India or Africa. So they want to use the force of law and regulation - which is a form of force - to prevent us from competing with them.

EVEN WHEN THEIR IS NO POPULATION PROBLEM IN THIS AREA. Even when we need the people we have to float the works we do that allow us to thrive here.

These guys are nothing but a bunch of talking bits of cancerous DNA.

[edit on 2009/12/14 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The one thing that has contributed most to human overpopulation is the advent of immunization against disease. Which is a completely unnatural and harmful branch of Science. Disease serves a purpose on planet Earth — perhaps the most important purpose of all — it kills off the weak

Don't be idiotic. Quality of life should go up, but reproduction should be managed in a sensible and responsible manner. Disease is not the answer, reproductive limitation is. Unless ofcourse you prefer backward undeveloped society full of disease and rampant early death (go move to one).

reply to post by Aeons


You assume too much in saying that I hate children. As far as the China reference, poor countries tend to have more kids, period. Look at India, no restriction and their population is projected to surpass China by 2030. The Chinese were smart to adopt the one kid per couple law.

Anyway, I never said that we should adopt it as law, only as a guideline. However, you can't expect other countries to follow if you don't make an example. And no, you can't just say it's none of our business, because once China modernizes, the effects on the environment will be exponential.

Originally posted by SteveR
Don't be idiotic. Quality of life should go up, but reproduction should be managed in a sensible and responsible manner. Disease is not the answer, reproductive limitation is. Unless ofcourse you prefer backward undeveloped society full of disease and rampant early death (go move to one).

You can show me no society or civilization, in the entire recorded history of Mankind, that has successfully implemented "reproductive limitation," whatever the hell that is. Thus, you are arguing for yet another idiotic utopian fantasy that has no basis in reality.

"Reproductive limitation" goes right along with "equality for all" and "peace on Earth" for monopolar fantasy.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 12/15/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Again, ignored that there is no problem in Canada with population.

If anything, Canada has the opposite problem.

But we should set an example. Which doesn't need to be set, because Canada is already below population replacement.

See how they consistently ignore facts in order to try and promote this ideology?

A country that actually has a population deficit should limit their breeding so that other countries (who don't care) will follow suit.

In long run, all this does is allow for the current population of Canada to be replaced by people from over-populated areas.

These guys want to regulate the Canadian population to disappear, and be replaced by people who culturally and religiously breed many children. So make the population not breed - then bring in immigrants who do not subscribe to this, have them become the majority, then they undo this regulation and TA-DA! New Culture.

This is a concept that literally withers on the vine.

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by Aeons

 

You assume too much in saying that I hate children. As far as the China reference, poor countries tend to have more kids, period. Look at India, no restriction and their population is projected to surpass China by 2030. The Chinese were smart to adopt the one kid per couple law.

Anyway, I never said that we should adopt it as law, only as a guideline. However, you can't expect other countries to follow if you don't make an example. And no, you can't just say it's none of our business, because once China modernizes, the effects on the environment will be exponential.

Damn canadians!!! (rofl jk), ummmm thats a bit sketchy.....i undrstand we are overpopulated but its looking like the good ol british government is trying to gain control over who gets to breed