John Pratt
Physics, being a hard science, does not supply the value judgments. It does not, by itself, justify any policy argument.

Policy does not necessarily mean being run by totalitarian dictators, but it does necessarily mean using police to force people to do what they otherwise wouldn't do.

I'm all for getting rid of the baby bonus and welfare payments to families with more than two children. But not because they are the 'right' decision: because "we" are not justified in using police to force people into complying with "our" opinion, when, left to their own devices, they are not hurting anyone.

Democracies are no guarantee of correct decisions. Majorities can be just as wrong as individuals.

"What principles of economics apply whether I like it or not?"
All of them. For example:
- principle of self-ownership: you own yourself
- action: you take action
- action consists of preferring A to B, C, D etc.
- division of labour: labour in co-operation is more productive than labour in isolation
- law of marginal utility: you sacrifice the least valuable satisfaction when deciding which of a series of similar units of a thing to sacrifice when you exchange it for something more valuable
- time preference: your time on earth is limited. Other things being equal, you prefer a given satisfaction earlier than later; if I offer you $100 now or in 50 years' time, which do you choose?
- etc. etc. etc.

It is from these axioms, and conclusions logically derived from them, that the entire body of economic theory is built up, which goes on to explain capital, interest, prices, profit, loss, wages, etc.

The principles of economic science, like the principles of physical science, describe particular limitations on human action owing to the scarcity of resources.

"I am arguing for less government interference not more."

To that extent, I completely agree with you. Just as you don't want government interference being use to *promote* population growth, I don't want it to be used *either* to promote it, or to reduce it. I say the use of police, and therefore policy, to settle the question is not justified.

Let me ask you a question of ethics. Suppose 100 percent of the human population would die if they continue on their current course, but we could save 50 percent by killing the other 50. Could it be ethically justified?

Remember, there is up down and left and right, and a whole lot more I can not release.

I can not say what I have found, but we must wait. Faith maybe the conclusion.

lets just back off for a while and clean up this planet!

What have you got to loose.

EVO