Email from Michael Moore

[Drewish]

If the government is truly representative of the people, of the best interests of the people, it will collect and use taxes to strive to ensure all people live with a socially prescribed minimum level of access to clean water, food, shelter, health, transport, communication and education. A people's government which takes care of the entire population is not in control of but in service to the entire population.

I do not believe that the government is capable of doing such a thing even if it wanted to. All animals (in the absence of predation) will grow in number to the capacity of the resources available to them. human beings are no different. So any attempt to provide for everyone collectively will simply result in much faster population growth until even collectively we cannot sustain ourselves.

[Hermit]

You should go through the "apostolic poverty" debate of the XIII and XIV centuries, that divided and created monastic orders.

Why? Apart from the opening paragraph - a typical example of having a bet each way - the "debate" you refer to has nothing to say about the catholic church's views on the possession or distribution of privately owned wealth, except for how it relates to the various formal religious orders under its jurisdiction. (The "debate" holds that "poverty has no intrinsic goodness, but is good only because it is useful to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of the pursuit of spiritual perfection." Thus, it appears, poverty is only applicable to those who are the pursuit of spiritual perfection. That is to say, to monks and nuns.)

The paragraph opens with: "Jesus Christ did not condemn the possession of worldly goods, or even of great wealth" and continues with: "Nevertheless it is true that Christ constantly pointed out the danger of riches", and that is basically the end of discussion, if there ever even was an attempt to have one. It's not really surprising. Capitalism was not even thought of at that time.

Like most of his recent predecessors the current pope is fulminating against greed and avarice while wearing a gemstone studded mitre the sale of which would take care of several thousand starving people, and he presides over what is possibly the wealthiest institution in the world. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Oh, and Michael Moore is a practising catholic cherry picker.

[eXcommunicate]

If the government is truly representative of the people, of the best interests of the people, it will collect and use taxes to strive to ensure all people live with a socially prescribed minimum level of access to clean water, food, shelter, health, transport, communication and education. A people's government which takes care of the entire population is not in control of but in service to the entire population.

I do not believe that the government is capable of doing such a thing even if it wanted to. All animals (in the absence of predation) will grow in number to the capacity of the resources available to them. human beings are no different. So any attempt to provide for everyone collectively will simply result in much faster population growth until even collectively we cannot sustain ourselves.

Uh, what? What are you on about? Many Western European nations do the very thing Charlou describes and they are actually losing population. Once again real world examples trample the Objectivist ideology.

[Pappa]

If the government is truly representative of the people, of the best interests of the people, it will collect and use taxes to strive to ensure all people live with a socially prescribed minimum level of access to clean water, food, shelter, health, transport, communication and education. A people's government which takes care of the entire population is not in control of but in service to the entire population.

I do not believe that the government is capable of doing such a thing even if it wanted to. All animals (in the absence of predation) will grow in number to the capacity of the resources available to them. human beings are no different. So any attempt to provide for everyone collectively will simply result in much faster population growth until even collectively we cannot sustain ourselves.

Uh, what? What are you on about? Many Western European nations do the very thing Charlou describes and they are actually losing population. Once again real world examples trample the Objectivist ideology.

Actually, it's pretty clear cut that when education, equality for women, contraceptives and heath care are all sorted.... birth rates start to decline. It happens everywhere.

[charlou]

If the government is truly representative of the people, of the best interests of the people, it will collect and use taxes to strive to ensure all people live with a socially prescribed minimum level of access to clean water, food, shelter, health, transport, communication and education. A people's government which takes care of the entire population is not in control of but in service to the entire population.

I do not believe that the government is capable of doing such a thing even if it wanted to. All animals (in the absence of predation) will grow in number to the capacity of the resources available to them. human beings are no different. So any attempt to provide for everyone collectively will simply result in much faster population growth until even collectively we cannot sustain ourselves.

Uh, what? What are you on about? Many Western European nations do the very thing Charlou describes and they are actually losing population. Once again real world examples trample the Objectivist ideology.

Actually, it's pretty clear cut that when education, equality for women, contraceptives and heath care are all sorted.... birth rates start to decline. It happens everywhere.

Ayep, unsustainable population growth is not such a problem in societies that take care to ensure the health and education of the individuals therein ... Socially neglected and under/uneducated peoples are inclined to greater rates of population growth.

[Drewish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_E ... rojections

Read it and weep. Facts are stubborn things.

[Chinaski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_E ... rojections

Read it and weep. Facts are stubborn things.

Wrong thread?

[Hermit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_E ... rojections

Read it and weep. Facts are stubborn things.

What are you driving at? Please elaborate.

[Drewish]

This article might say it better.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... ry-muslims

People here are talking about population declines in Europe as proof that I'm wrong, but that's not true when you account for immigration, and in fact the large number of children from immigrant parents. And since they sited Europe specifically, I figured I'd share the added bonus that Europe is getting for all it's open multiculturalism and public welfare programs.

[Pappa]

This article might say it better.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... ry-muslims

People here are talking about population declines in Europe as proof that I'm wrong, but that's not true when you account for immigration, and in fact the large number of children from immigrant parents. And since they sited Europe specifically, I figured I'd share the added bonus that Europe is getting for all it's open multiculturalism and public welfare programs.

The implication is though, that even Muslims stop having lots of kids when their womenfolk become better educated and have access to contraception, healthcare and general equality.

[Hermit]

This article might say it better.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... ry-muslims

Summary -- Radical Islam is spreading across Europe among descendants of Muslim immigrants. Disenfranchised and disillusioned by the failure of integration, some European Muslims have taken up jihad against the West. They are dangerous and committed -- and can enter the United States without a visa.

People here are talking about population declines in Europe as proof that I'm wrong, but that's not true when you account for immigration, and in fact the large number of children from immigrant parents. And since they sited Europe specifically, I figured I'd share the added bonus that Europe is getting for all it's open multiculturalism and public welfare programs.

I think you got the wrong article once more. We are tallking about population growth due to birth rates, methinks, rather than migration.

Socially neglected and under/uneducated peoples are inclined to greater rates of population growth.

Besides, the muslim population in Europe is at a very low base, and will remain so even if the projection of it doubling actually happens.

[Drewish]

This was all in response to the idea of stabilizing the world population. I have problems with Islam, but that's an aside here. The fact is that developed nations show birth rate decline while undeveloped nations have large birth rates and higher mortality rates. however, if people from these undeveloped nations are allowed to continually immigrate to developed nations without their home nations modernizing, then we have continued overall population growth. This was in regard to my assertion that education had failed to stave off massive population growth, and my further assertion that death by either starvation, war or disease is a horrific yet ultimately unavoidable and necessary component of population reduction.

[Trolldor]

starvation, war or disease

As opposed to... well, the death panels that Obama is trying to introduce sound hopeful.

[Drewish]

Somebody's going to lose, and the fight is about whether its governments or markets that decide who the winners and losers are.

EDIT - And the pro-government advocates are cheating (see lying) by claiming that there won't be any losers.