I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?

Indie

Normally I don’t but here we are trying to see if we can think through this issue together. Questioning is an integral part of thinking something through.

And anyway look at your last post I asked you to clarify and your reply is - Is it your opinion that population growth is not a problem, or beyond our ability to have any control, and we should not take it into account at all when dealing with the environment?

Answering questions with questions?

And anyway we are looking for your opinion or rather if you can gain some opinion by thinking something through.

It seems to be going nowhere because you seem unable or unwilling to give the issues any thought.

I’m trying to give you the opportunity to shine, to show off your analytical prowess and rational reasoning.

Why not wow us?

And I answered - So growth is falling the question is can you think of any ideas to bring it down further given that your goal seems to be to lower the population?

Can you not think of any way you might find some possible answers given that there are very different fertility rates between countries and within countries?

It’s a reasonable and rational question, even if you replied that you couldn’t think of any way how to proceed would be a disappointing but at least rational and reasonable reply this constant evasion is not.

 

Indie

Well since you still seem stuck once again I’ll try and help you –

You haven’t a clue as to how to alleviate population growth so we are trying to find possible answers and solutions.

Now we seem to have discovered that fertility rates are not uniform between countries and even within countries.

So logically the question to ask would be – why the differences?

I mean if you can find out why some places (and groups) have lower fertility rates than others then you might then get some ideas on how to bring down fertility rates.

Now there are quite a number of factors, I’m sure a lot of people here can think of a few just off the top of their heads even without looking into it. Can you?

*

But let us pick one –

The role of women on fertility rates – how do you think women’s rights, education, opportunities etc could affect the rates?

 

“Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Its first known appearance in print was in 1953”

Maybe in 1787 but is that true today? A lot of European cities are rather well run, in Europe during the late 18th and early 19th century where growing quickly with all the problems that the inevitable slums that are produced can bring.

“This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson”

“Earliest known appearance in print: 1986”

But capitalism can only function on debt?

But what is meant here by - taking care of them?

“This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson”

“Earliest known appearance in print: 1913”

“This sentence comes from Thomas Jefferson's three drafts of the Virginia Constitution. The text does vary slightly in each draft:
First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."
Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"
This sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution as adopted.
Note: This sentence is often seen paired with the following: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." That sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution drafts or text as adopted, nor in any other Jefferson writings that we know of.”

“This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson”

“Earliest known appearance in print: 1989”

Why?

What ideas?

Can’t find this quote either it seems to be a knock together first appearing in one form or other in 1933 -

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

 

25

Sorry what you produced is not proof it is statements, rhetoric, misquotes and the damned right fictional.

Are you suggesting Anarchy when you say - people living together without force, fraud or coercion. If so can you explain how your system of Anarchy would work?

The USA was never an Anarchy - there are indications that it was oligarcical at the beginning (with only about 10% having the vote and fewer qualified to hold posts).

And it should be remembered that some founding fathers were also slave owners, which to me indicates a degree of coercion.

 

Yes, I'm asking you questions in an attempt to arrive at some agreeable answers which I'm finding you continually avoid.

To this point I believe all we seem to have determined is what it is that allows the population to increase. We seem to as yet make a determination of that as being a problem contributing to or making it more difficult to resolve environmental problems. In actuality this thread relates to the environment, and I put forth the idea that population growth may be a major contributing factor needing attention in trying to find solutions to environmental problems.
So my question remains, is growing population a problem? A minor contributing factor? A major contributing factor? Or irrelevant in discussing environmental problems?

 

No, 'we' are not. That was your attempt to avoid providing an answer to the question.

It's going nowhere because we have yet to agree on it being an issue requiring attention or not.

I'm quite happy to leave the wowing to you alone.

Obviously the ONLY answer to that question is for the death rate growth to exceed the birth rate growth, and unless the death rate were to exceed the birth rate the population would continue to grow.
I've not stated a goal of lowering the population, I asked if it was a contrbuting factor to our environmental problems.

Answers to what?

I'm not evading, as I'm yet to determine what we are attempting to find a solution to? If population growth is not a problem then why would there be need of trying to find a way to reduce it?

 

Okay, you picked one, where are you headed with it relative to the environment?

 

StpLSD25,

I missed the post where you suggested anarchy, but "people living together without force, fraud or coercion.", sounds to me like a well working peaceful society.

 

You can include me along with StpLSD25, as I agree totally with the minimal government concept, most especially at the Federal level. And why would you think that oil spills, or other accidents, most especially those which affect our environment would NOT be required to be cleaned up under a minimal Libertarian government? I've searched unsuccessfully to find where Libertarians promote an end to ALL regulations.

 

Indie

BUT you didn’t ask you stated -in post 161

That is a statement of opinion- you are not asking if it is or isn’t - you are stating it is.

So I asked you (post 163) if you had any ideas for tackling the problem of the ‘human population’ growing and causing the degradation the environment.

You said no Post 185

And it was then that I said I’d try and help you find some ideas.
Are you now saying that you made the statement in post 161 not having thought that through and now after our discussion you are now not sure about it?

 

Indie

Ok - you were sure human population growth was a problem but now you are not sure.

So let’s see if you can think this problem through.

First of all what changed your mind?

 

Indie

Sorry you’ve now made it clear that you are not sure about if human population growth is a problem so why do you want me to help you to find solutions to population growth (eg womans roles in fertility rates)?

Can you please work out what you want to think through?

 

Indie

We seem to be getting back to the ‘granddad myth’ problem brought up earlier. I think both meagain and I have pointed out that there seems to be a lot of talk about limited regulation but not much in the way of detail, it seems to be surface slogans that don’t stand up to scrutiny when examined.

 

I'm not yet sure we have established as fact that population is an environmental concern. And we've certainly not established as fact that we reached a point of claiming we are overpopulated. It remains only as a question asked.

I never stated that Doctors are 'able' to influence insurance companies, only that there is a difference between prescribing the same drug for contraceptive purposes in one instance and for treatment of an illness in another instance, which should be the determining difference requiring coverage by the insurance company, and should be clearly indicated on the billing sent the insurance company.

Yes, I am aware that numerous methods of birth control are freely available, at some cost of course, with abstinence remaining free.

I only raised the question of population asking if it should be considered an issue of concern relative to the environment, and regardless of the issue I feel each and every individual should take responsibility for their actions.

I have no idea of what, if any, mention of birth control is addressed in the Libertarian platform. I do however feel that it is a rarity for a responsible person(s) to have an unwanted pregnancy, considering the availability of affordable birth control methods existing today, including abstinence.

Without knowing if any Libertarians are viewing this thread, it would be misleading to state that the Libertarian response to "overpopulation and negative effects on the environment" is nothing. In fact we have yet to decide it is an issue requiring any attention, have we not?

 

Indie

But as pointed out you stated human population was a problem in post 161 you only seem to have changed your mind in the last couple of posts.

 

I see no reason why they would not.

I would expect the greatest difference would be in simplification of the laws, with intent to reduce or eliminate the availability of loopholes.
Which specific law? We first would have to read them. That alone would be an enormous undertaking from what I've downloaded from the GPO recently.

Also in my opinion, the Federal government would pass clear and concise laws applicable to all the people and States, and the States and local government would have responsibility for their enforcement, involving the Federal government in cases where more than one State becomes involved in an unresolvable dispute, or individuals or local governments can not produce an acceptable resolution at the problems source.

Once when I belonged to a labor union, grievances were frequently escalated to higher management for resolution. When our 3rd level manager was replaced, the new manager seeing this to be commonplace, immediatley held a meeting with all the 1st level supervisors and job stewards, and told them both that if grievances came to him he would be certain to resolve them to both parties dissatisfaction. So solve your own problems in a way that you can each best agree. I don't remember him ever having to become involved in a grievance after that.