whoa whoa whoa. you talk about radical sh!t like forced sterilization and mandated 1 child policies but have issues with WAR. That a great population control effort because it limits the amount of young males in the population. kinda of like buck season.
Yeah, right. Killing people is the same as forced sterilization.
let's assume for a moment that our political 'leaders' want to assert much more govt control over the population. They know they would most likely be violently resisted so, they ship the best opposition fighters, young patriotic males to fight and die oversees clearing the way for an easier takeover.
It is not worth my time. You are too libertarian to discuss this in a rational way.
forced sterilization is rational??? So let's get rational. you think too many people are a major problem. a rational person SHOULD conclude that they should remove themselves from the population hence my initial comment about suicide. if you REALLY believe what you say that that is your only option.
The welfare & the entitlement programs are way outta hand, no dispute there. But it's the politicians that have made it so; they want the votes & they'll trade your ever-increasing tax dollars for underwriting the entitlement programs to get those votes. They'll also turn around & blame "the wealthy" (whatever the heck that is anymore) for the nation's ills.
Want to know where all of this has its roots...? No, no, not Marx or Lenin or socialist hoo-hah.
France. 1785. The French Revolution was the result of ticked off people who were hammered by ever-higher taxes, skyrocketing food prices, a sense of elitism / exclusivity from the ruling class, endemic corruption amongst the government, a war that drove the country deeply into massive debt & starving poor people. France was the premier economic power of Europe in the 1770's. By the 1785-ish range, they were broke & failing quickly.
Result in today's America...? Well, modern politicians are a lot things, mostly bad, but they ain't stoopid. They read the history books & they always make public policy to ensure their own sustainability.
Ergo, welfare, food stamps & the rest. Because without those programs, where do you think those destitute, starving hundreds of thousands of people will end up? Well, in France they rioted. Big-time. Bread prices went up 67%, people couldn't afford bread, they rioted. And they ended up on the front steps of government as well as in front of the homes of the haves. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Modern-day pols want no part of that. If they abolished food stamps, welfare & the rest of it, they'd actually have to do their jobs, i.e, improve the schools & the general economic climate for business in the USA. And we all know that's pretty unlikely. People, without free food & other 'free' things from the government would have only the other option to turn to; that's the option that scares the pols to death.
So, the pols of both political parties publicly flog the programs for waste & mis-management but they always fund those programs.
I'm not siding with anyone or any position; that's just the historical perspective as to why this country is doing what its doing with those programs to this day.
wow. thank you for that bit of truth. And knowing how people like to pin the term "insensitive" or "racist" on anyone wishing to do away with wasteful welfare spending, I'd like to make it clear that I don't blame or find fault in anyone who takes advantage of a welfare program. Afterall They have ZERO control over how these programs are run or how their "votes", whether Democrat or Republican, are deciphered or are treated once the electoral process runs its course. Just as I don't have any control really on say, how well the next Fed Chairman will be able to print money ad infinitum. If anyone believes that they have ANY control or say from pulling a lever every 4 years for some guy in a suit , they don't understand history esp recent history. Politicians write these abominable welfare laws and media focus groups keep the public overly concerned with them. Its a brilliant herding mechanism.
my question is, would you throw the first stone cause thats the way it is?
when a society doesn't protect everyone's rights, whats the point of the society?
I am not denying there is an overpop prob, I'm admitting I dont have any answers and anyone who thinks they do have answers just might be a monster.