FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response


Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:
Freedom's the Answer,... What was the Question again?

Without individual self determination and the respect of individual rights _any_ 'solution' will accompany oppression, tyranny and death on a massive scale (and solve that pesky population thing in the process).

A culture built around the protection of individual rights will produce solutions as well. 'Solutionsssss' (plural). Death and procreation limits (for _them_ of course) isn't a 'solution' I consider healthy to contemplate for humanity.

Freedom is always a solution, it allows for the most creative and often subtle methods of achieving a desired result. But I know the likely response to such thoughts, "Wake Up",... well my friend L. Neil Smith said it best...

“Wake up America ,” you demand? America doesn’t need to “wake up” – by which of course, you mean pay attention to whatever you think is important. If America weren’t already awake, paying attention to what each individual thinks is important, your milk wouldn’t have gotten delivered this morning, and you wouldn’t have any electricity this afternoon. - L. Neil Smith

We take so much for granted that we don't understand the true power of freedom.

No Fear,
Ernest Hancock


Comment by Frosty Wooldridge
Entered on:
Ernie,

Thank you for your excellence! Nothing like a little controversy to carry the discussion to a higher level. As you know, I am a kind, warm and loving human being. Words like hatred or racist or other terms do not apply to my work. I am in this for the betterment of humanity.
Thanks,
Frosty


Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:
Oh, and don't you think that the Earth's diversity of life that created a species capable of protecting it from the destruction of space collisions might be of benefit to the planet?

Protection of individuals' property rights is what takes a crowded and poverty stricken cardboard shanty town and converts it into a thriving community. More people are not the problem, the attempt to top down control is the problem.

The entire planet is under the control of something or someone. Try to make use of any valuable land or resource and you'll discover that (with the use of Aircraft Carriers if it is required by the 'real _owners_')

Advocating the reduction of the planet's human pop. to 500 million isn't going to solve anything if those humans are not allowed to be human. Freedom is a natural state, and the planet needs us to be free or it is destined to eventually not be able to come back from one of the space body impacts that plague it.

Ironically, it is Terry Bressi (opposed to CheckPoints) that is one of the defenders of the planet as an astronomer at Kitt Peak for SpaceWatch that is tracking as many of the asteroids and other bodies that may be a planetary threat. His duties take him from the University of Arizona to Kitt Peak a couple of times a week. This is why he is so sensitive about the check points he must travel through constantly on his way to work,.. to save the planet!


Comment by Frosty Wooldridge
Entered on:

Ernie,
Excellent thoughts!
At the same time, we can dance around the gorilla in the kitchen, but it's still a gorilla and it's growing by 77 million 'humans' annually. It's growing by 3.1 million in the USA annually. That 'gorilla' constitutes human overload. If we fail to stabilize it worldwide, all the talk, all the freedom, all the ideals and all the 'words' in the world will not save us from grave consequences. You cannot write words or enjoy lofty thoughts if you don't have water to drink or a sustainable planet. We either come into line with sustainability or nature will kick our butts back into the Stone Age. In the end, USA maintains a stable population and we can be a beacon for the rest of the world or we can become like the rest of the overpopulated world. The choice is simple: be smart and thrive or be dumb and suffer. FW


Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:
Overloaded? Propaganda man!

There is soooo much unused resources and land. The negative side effects of human industry can and should be solved through property rights enforcement.

When environmental activists really started using the courts to protect property right from industrial pollution in the 60's the Nixon administration created the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to protect _the polluters_. 'Legal' levels of pollution were created, without regard to damage done... just a number that was acceptable to those with power.

Filthy water, air and earth is as beneficial to collectivists' plans as Global Warming is. Control is the goal, "If you are not under our control... then you are "Out of Control" ". And the Big Bad Guys can't have a bunch of free individuals running around having their property rights protected, it wouldn't be as profitable for THEM.

Every problem that you define is addressed in my mind by more freedom and the protection of individual/property rights. The Earth demands it :)


Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

I liked the hurling-of-insults part. Are we going to get back to that?


Comment by Frosty Wooldridge
Entered on:

Gentlemen:
It's not about land. It's about carrying capacity. It's about living within our limits on a finite planet. We're gouging Nature beyond repair. We're overwhelming the animals world with our numbers to the extent of 100 species extinctions per day. It's not about how many humans we can reproduce on this planet. It's about quality of life and maintaining the planet for future generations of humans and animals. It's about personal freedoms via personal responsibilities as to the numbers of humans. At some point, and that point, in fact, has been reached, we 'overshoot' the planet's ability to sustain us. We're already past our own energy resources and steal from other continents. We're already in trouble with water shortages, so we cannot keep adding more humans. Again, I state without a doubt, we cannot continue adding population if we expect to remain a viable civilization. It's all about too many people and too little resources. FW


Comment by Brock
Entered on:
Mr. Woolridge, all of the problems you identify, if they exist, are economic problems with economic solutions. All of the problems you identify, if they exist, are the direct result of uneconomic solutions to non-problems.

You insist on anthropomorphizing the collective. We have done such and such. We own this or that problem.

Yet, I have done none of those things. And, if I had, I could have only done them to my own property. To the extent that I harm my property, I only hurt myself. To the extent that I have harmed the property of others, I bear the responsibility to make them whole.

Given your professed ecological sensitivity, I assume you have not done any of those things, either. So, if the We does not include me and it does not include you, it's not much of a We, is it?

I suppose you might come from the standpoint that billions of tiny, unmeasurable impacts aggregate into a large impact. The problem is, that's not how data and stats work. You (and your selected reading list) are starting with a hypothesis and going out to find data to support it, but the first two rules of data collection and analysis are not to introduce biased data sets and not to aggregate.

To use your example, it's like a college professor proving that algebra is wrong using a survey conducted in a third-grade classroom.

But, again, conceding it all, the solution is still individual freedom. I can understand why someone would migrate from an overpopulated area to a less-populated area. You should encourage that, as it would tend to balance the impact and give the overpopulated area a chance to recover. At the same time, you should encourage the reverse migration of ingenious entrepreneurs who can make their fortunes cleaning and reforming the impacts of overpopulation.

Individual actors making rational decisions about the consumption and disposal of the resources they own, including themselves, is the solution to every problem you identified. And, as a bonus, it is entirely peaceful even as it is competitive.

Not one person has to be deprived of their life, liberty, or property.


Comment by Biker-Chick
Entered on:
..
Wow ! Great comments.

Freedom is indeed the key. Without Freedom, the rest is degraded.

Responsibility is part of Freedom.

While we are free to dessicrate Mother Earth, that's a drag.

The USA does indeed have many wonderful open areas. There is a way to have Freedom and open spaces and gentle space for humans and natural growth to coexist.

Why not have a semblance of a reasonable plan ? Why not exercise our Freedom to carry out that sensible plan ?

Seems like you guys have more upon which to agree than is mentioned here ??
..


Comment by Frosty Wooldridge
Entered on:

Mr. Lorber,
Your words show that you are out of your league. You do not understand carrying capacity, overshoot and sustainability. You lack basic mathematical understandings and you obviously exist in a separate and unrealistic paradigm. You might move to China, India, Mexico City, San Paulo, Bangladesh for a year and then, write your nonsense. Quit making a fool of yourself by explaining your ineptness. You drive yourself further into your foolishness. FW

Make a Comment