From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: RightWing Dogma and Overpopulation
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:53:23 GMT

In article <1ejubeINNl73@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>>>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>There's too many people here already.
>>>>
>>There is no overpopulation problem.
>>
>>Of course, those who push the population problem usually have an
>>agenda which requires it. For example, many leftists are weded to
>>the idea of controlling population because it is a convenient
>>bridge to controlling people, generally.
>>
>>Do your part for the human race. Have as many kids as you can afford.
>>Teach them to acquire and defend wealth through peaceful commerce with
>>their fellow man.
>>
>>(Except for you leftist socialists out there. You people should
>>definitely refrain from propogating yourselves.)
>
>I love a great fiction story that is filled with brave men conquering
>the world, gaining for themselves as much as they can.
>
>This is a crock.

This is how civilization is built. Mr. Sam Walton, may he rest in peace
was an American hero of historic proportions. But the more modest
accomplishments of the average person should also be celebrated.

>If you had been listening lately a panel of scientist have come out and
>said that we need to look at population as a serious problem and a threat
>to our well being.

Oh, no. Another "panel of scientists"!

>I like this statement-  
>
>>Teach them to acquire and defend wealth through peaceful commerce with
>>their fellow man.
>
>And defend through peaceful means???  Come on what planet are you from, haven't
>been here long?  

For the common-sense impaired I was, of course, referring to the right
to defend life, liberty, and property. By peacefuly, I meant simply
the non-initiation of force, not pacificism. I shed no tears for any
occupational hazzards criminals might face.

>Private property has been one of the main foundational structures for war in this
>world.  The have nots will always being trying to get what the haves have.  This is
>a long and ingrained process that has been going on for 1000's of years.

This is a crock.

Private property has been one of the main foundational structures of
human progress. War's have been fought, almost without exception, over
governmental juridiction to leech off of the wealth that commerce
creates. This is a long and ingrained phenomenon that has been going
on since the dawn of trade.

>And what is the point of all this 'materialism', do you think you'll get into
>haven easier?

If "getting into heaven easily" was the objective, we'd all be
inventing new ways to die like Etheopians.

>  If the only reason you are alive is to gain for yourself materially
>then I would say you should show up for heaven eariler- because you're not much
>use here.

Interesting straw man. Suffice it to say that while it may be easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (etc, etc, etc) nobody
is stopping you from giving your wealth away to the needy.

As for the rest of us, we are all better off when our fellow man succeeds,
materially or otherwise.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc