Perhaps you should consider a cuppa and a little lie down, Jardine; you seem to be foaming at the mouth there.
I can see now I was terribly inconsiderate in comparison to your impeccable manners; I did after all use the nasty vicious term “irrational”.
Whereas you so delicately rejoined with:
“Hatred of freedom” (please substantiate)
“Sarcastic bile” (me?)
“...circularity and blind worship of arbitrary power and violence” (please substantiate)
“intellectual incompetence”
“bitter twisted misrepresentations for actual logically valid propositions.”
“ blind worship of.... blah blah etc

and then of course, is the question of “intellectual integrity”
My favourite quote:
“The reason the leftists are coming out to criticise this article, is because it offends their ideology that someone should dare to suggest that the powers of government should be limited”
The very first mention of the word “government” -closely followed by “total government” in this forum was...
Jardine's.
I must confess my shocking ignorance. I had no idea the ability to put words in other people's mouths, articles and posts was actually intellectual integrity.
Yes I can see now my nasty use of the word “irrational” was completely uncalled for.
I shall endeavour in future to restrict myself to the more measured responses that you have so ably demonstrated.
As to the 'name calling', I'm sorry I just get confused. You've used so many different monika's over the years in your staunch defence of Mises et al. I have trouble keeping track.

JKJ,

"Oh, so at last you recognise that name-calling is not legitimate argument. Since mine was only provoked by Grim’s..."

Pull the other one...you spend a goodly dollop of your time on this forum impugning your opponents and calling them names.

I was highlighting your hypocrisy in citing "integrity" - when it's clear that yours is often wanting.

Hi Poirot,

Well, your last comment seemed to have drained the shallow pool of pseudo-Left wit and wisdom.

Any chance of getting back to topic ?

As it happens, when it comes to population control and reduction - if that is one of the topics raised here - I'm confident that universal women's education (I don't really care so much about men's education, they'll be okay) to the highest levels, will massively impact on population growth.

Of course, for universal women's education to happen, many male-supremacist ideologies will have to be combatted, Islam for example, Hinduism, in fact pretty much all religions.

Educated women marry later, have fewer children, and tend to raise them with a much better outlook vis-à-vis gender equality, not to mention having much better sex.

So, once various fascist ideologies are defeated and women can be liberated across the Third World and gain access to education to the highest levels, populations will stabilise (say, one or two generations after UWE) and then start to decline (after, say, three or four generations).

Of course, this is little more than a pipe-dream unless we can unite to defeat the current fascist ideology sweeping across a certain part of the world, from China to the Atlantic. What do you reckon, Poirot ?

Joe

Completely agree Loudmouth.

I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth so thank you, Grim :)

Glancing back, I see I owe sincere apologies to Poirot; I certainly didn't agree with that part of Loudmouth's post. Your support was of course deeply appreciated.
As a Pragmatist who tries to eschew ideology as much as possible (apart from basic ethics) universal education is a proven population control. Alleviating poverty though, is the obvious first step.
Text books should be read, not eaten.