Quantumleap
Is that your answer to what policies you are in favour of?

Wallumi
“I am not in favor of policies that actively promote population increase.”

Me neither.

“I am in favor of policies that engage and assist people to better understand the framework of physical reality that surrounds them. The balance between human demand and local resource capacity is one of the most vital of these realities.

What makes you think government has got a better handle on any of those issues than anyone else?

“The free market you advocate works contrary to both of these views by way of such functions as manipulative advertising, agglomeration of media ownership within limited range of very large corporate entities, general acts of self-interested socio-political thuggery by the large corporate players, etc.”

And governments don’t?

Earlier you referred to “…socio-economic violence proven to inevitably result from the indulgences taken by powerful players within unfettered capitalist markets.”

Usually when people allege the “violence” of “unfettered” capitalist markets they cannot find one single example of an unregulated market; and the only violence they can example that is not illegal under a system based on the private ownership of the means of production – capitalism - is violence by the state, not markets.

But maybe you’re different.

So what’s an example of the “violence” you allege?

And what’s an example of an unregulated capitalist market?

Wow, Hume’s a fumin’! Old Peter comes along and headbangs everyone, ‘cept Cheryl!?

Well, it has certainly spurred this debate along, so I s’pose it’s a good thing!

<< Ludwing >>

Huh! Whoo dat?

<< Who’s “we”? >>

D’ho come-on, it was perfectly obvious. Us Australians…. yes, including those who disagree with me!

So um, what do you say to my statement:

< Can you say that the quality of life in this country is better than it would have been if we’d had, say, a net zero immigration rate since 1980? No you can’t! And when you factor in our future wellbeing, we are much worse off than we would have been. >

I went looking for your strange economic calculator article again, the one that no one responded to, but there seems to be no way within the OLO setup to get to it. Can you provide a link please.

Yeah life would be better without the leftist, commie, bleeding heart nanny state.

http://www.gocomics.com/comic/explore/470760/6

We want anarchy!

When do we want it?

Now!

Peter:
"What makes you think government has got a better handle on any of those issues than anyone else?"

What makes you think I’m referring only to Government policy?
Ideally natural communities of common interest, preferably locally connected ones, will determine and enact such policy for their own benefit. In fact they will need to as both corporate government and corporate business are highly unlikely to do so. Such forms of knowledge would directly weaken the keystones of their powerbase. Notwithstanding this improbability, it is the policy genre I would advocate from them. In fact the educative process will occur less via policy as such as through a process of revolution or survival in the context of breakdown in the capacity of the current global market to adequately provide for the adult dependents it now systemically breeds. Deep dissatisfaction and anxiety will turn them restless toward their corporate guardians. Some, hopefully, will choose intelligent options of self-determination.

Peter:
"And governments don’t?"

They do and I’ve intimated as much in expressing my disdain for nanny state interventions. Corporate form and function, both public and private, is one of the most distinctly destructive mutations born of ‘free market’ capitalism. The scale and action of government and unions has escalated (too often disingenuously) to match the demands and threats, and to pursue essentially corrupting opportunities, made by corporate market activity.

wallumi,

I agree with the things you've been saying. In case you missed it, can I direct your attention to this recent article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12070

I'd be interested to read your response.

We've got some Glove Puppet responses here - one anti-pop has a hissy fit and then all of then get on line and have a hissy fit.

Remember 2001 a Space Odyssey? These guys are the apes.

So far they have failed to ascertain that $35M is too many people by 2050.
They have failed to ascertain that we'll even have $35M people by 2050.
$35 M people is what was projected back in the 1980s.
They have failed to refute that their anti-population project is simply socio-biology writ large - with all the attendant right wing/control ideology that goes with that position.
Even they admit that if their goals are not achieved, then they will resort to coercion = violence and a one child state.
Their manifesto as produced by the Sustainable Pop Party is on the one hand, totally embarassing in terms of modern economics and on the other, is anti-capitalist.
They embrace the benefits of modern capitalism, it's just the people they don't like.
Their spokesperson, Dick Smith's claim to fame is being a successful capitalist.
They have failed to mention urban design in ANY of their posts.
They look at the world through the single lens of population - they are not serious about society, economy or resource preservation. They just want less people without possessing the deep structural analysis of knowing why, beyond having a 'feeling'.
They gather, fearful whenever anyone challenges their opinion and they especially hate it when women have a go at them.

I'll leave others to say what sort of personality profile this conjures?