Population Control - An inconvenient truth

[ColinEssex]

Doc - you'll be surprised to know I understand the situation you describe. There are some places in London I wouldn't visit at night and also some places in Bristol the same. Yet, I am perfectly happy to go most places there at night without any fear. The police here are strapped for cash too, and they do a brilliant job nonetheless and of course don't carry guns.
The difference of course is that owning a gun here is illegal (generally) so we as householders don't have that as an option. Our protection is usually confined to personal CCTV cameras and lights that come on when it detects movement - usually a cat!
If we club a burglar with a baseball bat (for example) we could be sued by the burglar for injuries and arrested for using an offensive weapon and for causing grievous bodily harm. Although since the case I mentioned earlier, a householder is allowed to used "reasonable force" to protect their property, sadly nobody is sure what reasonable force is or if you can use a weapon like a knife or cricket bat.
Your hurricane caused immense damage, I guess many people were not insured as the premiums are too high, I cannot imagine what it must have been like.

We do see only the bad things on TV re life in America plus of course the mountain of programmes from the USA depicting a lawless life with police shooting anything that moves for no reason.

Anyway, don't stress, stay safe.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thank you, Col, for recognizing that TV news is skewed towards sensationalism. We are not ALL totally idiotic here in the USA. Some of us are actually quite rational on alternate Tuesdays. Though I sometimes DO despair over the way some people drive in our area. Heck, sometimes I think we would be safer if we let them keep their guns but take away their cars.

We also have the issue of "reasonable force" and sometimes find that it takes the wisdom of King Solomon to determine whether the force used was excessive. People hear about our police shootings on TV but don't see the subsequent articles that explain that the cop accused of "excessive force" got fired, arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. We DO actually care about use of force, even by police.

As to your comment on insurance premiums, it is ALWAYS a balancing act. "Full coverage" insurance can be incredibly prohibitive when you are at a low-income level, and (I am disgusted to say) the insurance companies will use egregious methods to avoid payment anyway.

After Katrina, our homeowner's and flood carrier's people were overwhelmed so they brought in people from out of state to help. But the non-local adjusters had absolutely NO CLUE about common events in south Louisiana. We were about to sue the company ourselves when a class-action lawsuit was filed on that subject. The company took a look at the literal HORDES of lawyers getting ready to sue their pants off and realized they would probably have lost, so they relented and acknowledged liability most of the time. They sensed the onset of a feeding frenzy, I guess. They probably decided it was cheaper if they could just avoid too many lawyer fees and court costs.

But you are correct. A lot of the people in the worst areas were woefully underinsured for the level of damage that occurred.

OK, it is anecdotal but I hope sufficiently illustrative to confirm your point. "D", one of the computer operations staff was in her daughter's house on the 2nd floor. They were up to their ankles in flood water (on the 2nd floor!) and watched out the window as D's house (a one-story home) floated down the street and ended up in a drainage canal next to at least four other houses that had done the same thing. When the flooding is so bad that houses float away from their foundations and smash themselves to rubble, you have a total loss of house + contents. That requires a heck of a lot of insurance.

We had only 2 feet of water in our house but couldn't reach "full" recovery for six years because we maxed out the insurance we had. By the time I replaced all the electronics we had lost (because we had to evacuate before the roads closed and there wasn't enough time to move everything upstairs), we ran out of money before we ran out of things pending replacement. Multiply that by many tens of thousands of homeowners and you begin to see why the communities have taken so long to rebuild. And why the city of New Orleans has less money than it needs to work at maximum efficiency. Now THERE's an oxymoron for you... city-government efficiency!

 

[Frothingslosh]

Lest we believe Doc's sugar-coating of the issues the US has with unrestrained use of force by police, let me point out that there are perhaps an average of a thousand shootings per year by police. In contrast, from in the period covering 2005 through April 2017, precisely *80* officers were arrested for manslaughter or murder based on officer-involved shootings, and 28 of them were convicted. In many cases, such as the murder of Walter Scott, the officer was cleared by investigators until the video of the shooting was made public. The vast majority of the time, the police bury the videos and the public never sees them unless they clearly exonerate the police. In the Scott case, the video was taken by a third party who initially held onto it out of fear for his life. (And even here, the first trial ended in a hung jury, despite video showing him shooting Scott in the back as he ran away. He only went to jail after pleading guilty of civil rights violations in order to avoid a retrial on the murder count.)

More often, you get things like the the murderer of Eric Garner being cleared of all charges after choking him to death on video, the murderer of Philando Castle being found not guilty for shooting him as he reached for the ID he'd just been told to show, the cops involved in the death of Freddie Grey being acquitted after he magically suffered a lethal neck injury while in police custody, the murderer of Michael Brown going uncharged after shooting him 12 times (with witnesses saying he had his hands up well before the shooting ended), oh, and let's not forget Tamir Rice, killed approximately a second and a half after the shooting officers arrived on-scene (again, as shown on witness video), and yet they were cleared of all charges.

Yes, police do face trial for killing people, but it's very, very rare and only when public outcry overwhelms the Thin Blue Line, and even then, it's exceedingly difficult to convict them save in cases egregious enough that even the prosecutors have their hands tied. (Note that in the Michael Brown case, the prosecutor obviously and deliberately threw the case during grand jury proceedings. Attorneys nationwide saw and discussed it, but nothing was done about it.)

The 'you can't understand unless you've been in their shoes' defense, which is only ever applied to police, has become a carte blanche licence to kill.

 

[Steve R.]

Getting back to the theme of this thread.

Everything I've said in this exchange was designed to get you to state how you would go about population control. You seemed very unwilling to do so despite initiating the topic.

In my very first post on this topic, I wrote:

Fortunately, once a certain standard of living is reached, the birthrate tends to drop so there is a form of "natural" population control. The problem is that we are still in the explosive population growth phase. Hence increasing environmental problems. Therefore, there may still be a need to mandate population control depending on demographic projections.

Upon doing some more research, aimed at demographic trends, there is a Wikipedia page focused on Sub-replacement fertility. In reading that page, I recognized that I had made an "error" as I had overlooked the effect of increasing longevity on population growth. (Note that my first post recognized the need to undertake demographic research before implementing solutions.) I also recognized the need for a sliding scale for implementing population control measures.

The less controversial approach is to start off with a demographic analysis to determine if the world has peaked with population growth. If not the next steps would be to encourage people to have less children. If that does not work, one needs to move-up to more aggressive means such as a license to have children and so on. A problem with any proposed solution, there will always be objectors. Will people rationally discuss this or will any proposed solutions be immediately shut-down as being too offensive?

To add some specificity, encouraging people to have less children would involve education, financial incentives, free birth control, and/or free (but not mandated) sterilizations. More aggressive approaches would involve the government mandating actions actions such as sterilizations and negative incentives (such as fines) for "extra" children. Finally and to partially quote you: "I would also try to get international consensus on ways" to implement programs to reduce family size. Both you and I believe that small family size means a higher standard of living.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My turn to ask you to be more specific. You wrote:

Encourage the redistribution of wealth and provide good quality healthcare to all at the point of use.

The redistribution of wealth to achieve a higher standard of living for the poor fails to delve into the question of what the underprivileged would be allowed to have. What should the standard of living be (for an individual or family) when government takes wealth from the rich and gives it to the underprivileged?

Food: Obviously, a person should be able to buy sufficient food to feed their family. But should they be allowed to buy any food items? (certain items, it would seem should be off-the-table (pun) such as alcohol, expensive meats, expensive fish, sugary products, etc.) Should there be a limit on the number of food calories that can be bought so that people don't waste food and don't become overweight?

Housing: What size residence should a family be allowed? Apartment or single family residence? Would they be allowed to even own a residence or must it be rented?

Cars: Should a person be allowed to own a car and what size of car should be allowed?

Accessories: Should a person be allowed to own a cell phone, computer, big screen TV, and/or playstation? What type of cellphone (dumb phone, smart phone, iphone, etc)? How much clothing should a person/family be allowed? Luxury items should not be allowed?

Drugs or other illegal products: What happens when a person receiving this monetary benefit uses it for illegal purposes? What happens when someone takes drugs and has to go to the hospital for treatment. (Seems quite unfair to give someone $$, they overdose, and then you have to get stuck paying for their hospital bill.) Should society have to pay for their hospital treatment? They have abused the "gift" society has given them.

Taking from the rich to hep the poor is very laudable, but it also opens the door for the poor to potentially misuse this "benefit". Of course, many of the poor who would receive this benefit probably won't abuse it, but the availability of "free" money does bring out the opportunists.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Oh, and let's not forget the RJ Williams case, where officer Stephen Mader was fired for NOT murdering him.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ah, Frothy. What happens here isn't sweetness and light, and there are, indeed, many egregious cases of excessive force. Yet I personally know many police officers and have found them to be reasonable, rational people. There have been many cases of officers doing the wrong things for the wrong reason - or for no discernible reason. I won't argue that point. But I refuse to paint officers with a broad brush of hatred or scorn. At the risk of starting another donneybrook, just remember: #policelivesmattertoo

 

[ColinEssex]

I think we need to take things in perspective.

a) The USA has roughly 300 million people.

b) Gun control and ownership has been out of control since the days of the Wild West.

Therefore, with so many people and so many guns it becomes difficult if not impossible for police to apprehend people not knowing if they (the felon) or anyone else watching may suddenly pull a gun.
Yes, there will be police officers who misuse their status, as there is in the UK, the snag within the USA is that it is possible for police to shoot someone out of fear or misunderstanding, or even deliberately for whatever reason. In the UK, the felon usually gets roughed up a bit.

In the USA, it seems (to an outsider) that both the felons and the police have guns so basically in many cases there can only be one outcome - someone will be shot. Also, it does seem that police will look after their own.

To my mind, if there was an answer, it would have come to pass years ago, but, with powerful lobbying (by the NRA and others) and politicians not wishing to sacrifice their lucrative positions, the issue of gun control / ownership stays on the back burner where it will still be in 10 or 20 years time.

Is that a fair summary?

Col

 

[Steve R.]

Only 2,141 more posts and we can claim first place over "Shootings in US schools". Keep-up the energy level.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

To my mind, if there was an answer, it would have come to pass years ago, but, with powerful lobbying (by the NRA and others) and politicians not wishing to sacrifice their lucrative positions, the issue of gun control / ownership stays on the back burner where it will still be in 10 or 20 years time.

Is that a fair summary?

No in that it leaves out the REAL reason people want guns, and it also points to the reason that the USA even exists. In the time before 1776. the people had guns for hunting because ranching hadn't developed enough to feed people in less developed areas. But we learned the lesson that when guns are in the hands of the people, the TRUE AND PROPER orientation of government occurs. In the movie V for Vendetaa (adapted from another medium) there is a phrase which I will mangle: The people should not fear the government. The government should fear the people.

We keep guns because on the day that the current government finally oversteps its bounds, the people will be able to stop them. It is what we did in 1776. Knowing that the UK has a gun ban, I have to say that you guys across the pond learned that lesson from a couple of hundred years ago quite well.

We would PREFER that the ballot box be used before the ammunition box because the shooting method is NEVER nice (and I am NOT advocating it). In a sense, it is why Donald Trump is president. Hillary Clinton would have offered the "same old same old" style of politics, bribery, kickbacks, and generally shady politics. The Clinton Foundation was a sham, a clearing house for garnering political influence through donations. You tell ME what that sounds like, and then tell me why the foundation shut down completely once Hillary lost.

DJT won because he represented a different way of doing some things. Had HRC won, I don't know if we would have made it to the next election without WORSE shootings. I am not accusing anyone - but I just couldn't give good odds.

 

[isladogs]

In a sense, it is why Donald Trump is president. Hillary Clinton would have offered the "same old same old" style of politics, bribery, kickbacks, and generally shady politics. The Clinton Foundation was a sham, a clearing house for garnering political influence through donations. You tell ME what that sounds like, and then tell me why the foundation shut down completely once Hillary lost.

Your views on the Clinton Foundation are clear and frequently repeated. However, it is both still in existence and active.

DJT won because he represented a different way of doing some things.

I have no doubt that those who voted Trump/Republican (who were in fact about 3 million less than those who voted Clinton/Democrat) did so partly out of a feeling of alienation with politics and politicians. Parallels have been made repeatedly between Trump's election and the Brexit referendum.

One obvious parallel is that people were voting against perceived injustices rather than for any clear vision of a new future.

What they have got is indeed a new style of government which to many appears chaotic, narrow & partisan with Trump endlessly lying, cosying up to dictatorial regimes abroad, showing hostility to the press and anyone that has a different point of view, constant belittling of regulatory checks investigating possible malpractice, ill thought out actions based on whims and more. Trump's business dealings certainly do not indicate a lack of corruption either.

So is that really the end of 'bribery, kickbacks, and generally shady politics'?

The diehard Trump supporters will of course accept none of this. Your nation appears to be more divided since Trump's election - not less. Its status abroad has certainly declined markedly

Similarly for the UK.
What the UK got following the referendum has been a more divided nation and increasing chaos as people now belatedly become more aware of the real implications of Brexit. In the guise of taking back control we have a government that has repeatedly resisted parliament's attempts to hold it to account by full disclosure of information needed to make informed judgements. The reality is that no matter what views people have about the future direction of our country, almost everyone is opposed to both the current Brexit deal and the likely outcomes. Britain's status and prosperity abroad has also declined markedly

Had HRC won, I don't know if we would have made it to the next election without WORSE shootings.

Purely hypothetical.
I do remember Trump indicating he wouldn't accept the result if he lost. Again and purely hypothetically, does that mean he would have incited his followers to defy democracy?

Neither the USA nor the UK appears to be in a good place politically

 

[Steve R.]

I do remember Trump indicating he wouldn't accept the result if he lost. Again and purely hypothetically, does that mean he would have incited his followers to defy democracy?

He didn't lose, but it is Hillary Clinton who boastfully stood-up and exposed herself as being the "threat to democracy". Furthermore, she also stated that it is perfectly acceptable to be "uncivil" to the Republicans. Follow that up with the demands of many on the left, such as Waters, to publicly "hunt-down" Republicans to harass them. The political left refuses to accept their loss and has been doing everything possible to obstruct and de-legitimize the current administration. The political left is defying democracy.

 

[isladogs]

He didn't lose, but it is Hillary Clinton who boastfully stood-up and exposed herself as being the "threat to democracy". Furthermore, she also stated that it is perfectly acceptable to be "uncivil" to the Republicans. Follow that up with the demands of many on the left, such as Waters, to publicly "hunt-down" Republicans to harass them. The political left refuses to accept their loss and has been doing everything possible to obstruct and de-legitimize the current administration. The political left is defying democracy.

No - Trump didn't lose on the electoral college votes

As for obstruction, that was also the case with the Republicans blocking almost every piece of legislation they could during the Obama administration.
Plus refusing even to hold the Supreme Count nomination hearing in the final year of Obama's presidency.

Sorry but I've no idea who Waters is or their political persuasion

Following the recent death of George Bush Snr (41), its been interesting reading the obituaries that have included comments like him being the last US president who had support that went beyond party lines.

 

[Steve R.]

As for obstruction, that was also the case with the Republicans blocking almost every piece of legislation they could during the Obama administration.

Both parties do it. But also note the example of Harry Reid, a Democrat who was in charge of the US Senate during the Obama administration who deep-sixed Republican legislation originating out of the US House of Representatives. That means that the Democrats, even during a Democratic administration, obstructed the passage of legislation.

Plus refusing even to hold the Supreme Count nomination hearing in the final year of Obama's presidency.

This Republican action was done correctly based on the rules. The Republicans had the votes to hold-up Garland's nomination. Contrast this with the Kavenaugh nomination where the Democrats used lies and character assassination as the method to derail the nomination. That was very unseemly by the Democrats.

Sorry but I've no idea who Waters is or their political persuasion

See this video: Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) encouraged supporters at a rally in Los Angeles June 23 to stand up to members of President Trump’s administration. . The Post's use of "stand up" was a really a euphemism for the word "harass".

 

[isladogs]

Coming back to my first lengthy reply to the Doc.

Both the USA & the UK have become increasingly polarised in recent years.
It is now almost impossible for any form of consensus to prevail due to the deep divisions between different sections of society. Unfortunately those divisions are becoming greater all the time.

Whatever your views about Trump & it seems clear that we disagree markedly politically, do you agree that Trump's base remains loyal precisely because he stokes up divisions with almost every public comment he makes.
He succeeds with his core base supporters by maintaining their level of anger

 

[Frothingslosh]

I would say more fear than anger.

Fear of Muslims, as with W before him.
Fear of Mexicans.
Fear of black people (but masquerading as fear of crime).
Fear of non-straight people.
Fear of the re-imposition of colonial style oppression.
But even more than that, fear of change.

The entire American conservative outlook is today based on fear, because it's one HELL of a motivator. The anger stems from that fear.

 

[ColinEssex]

The government should fear the people.

We keep guns because on the day that the current government finally oversteps its bounds, the people will be able to stop them. It is what we did in 1776.

I don't understand that. Are you saying there will be a coup of some description? Who would lead such an event?

Who is to say when the current government oversteps its bounds? Can you define these bounds?

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, I can no better predict a coup than I can predict the winning lottery ticket for the USA big-money drawings. (And hint: I haven't won a drawing yet.) As to who would lead the event? Again, I must offer a solid "I have no idea." In the past, it has been the case that when some disgruntled people find enough followers, they foment insurrection and someone steps up to lead. Some times they win. Some times they lose.

Case in point (winning): The Colonies and the Revolutionary War, 1776

Case in point (losing): The USA Civil War, 1861

Case in point (eventually winning): Prohibition, 1918 - in which gangsters violently resisted, but it was the citizens bitching to their congressmen to back off with the ban on booze. A case where the coup became unnecessary because congress saw the light.

As to who is to say when this overstepping crosses a line? We never know until it happens and even then might never fully understand. For the Civil War, the "crossed boundaries" were related to states' rights, among which the most prominent was slavery. The South lost that insurrection, obviously. But it should be noted that on SOME of the other issues (most of which were economics-related), the South was right. Slavery, they got wrong. No question, OK? I am NOT advocating slavery. But the North was using economics as a weapon and hiding behind interstate commerce rules.

But Col, back to your question: This is an OPINION and stated clearly as such. I think that what happens is that as tensions rise, eventually frustration boils over and the coup or other event happens. I think that it behaves in accordance with Chaos Theory, which is to say that the factors are in balance and then suddenly AREN'T in balance - at which point? Boom!

 

[ColinEssex]

So now we have two unknown conundrums.

a) if there is a Jesus, when will things be so bad that he'll come and sort it, but we don't know what bad means to trigger such an event.

b) if there is a coup in the USA, we don't know what bounds the government needs to step over to incur such an event. I have to say Doc, that a coup in the USA is somewhat unlikely, I reckon this geezer Jesus will make it first.

Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Merrick Garland, Hillary Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh anyone else see a pattern? For me it's all about PAY BACK plain and simple.

I think it's hilarious how CNN MSNBC and others are suddenly fanboys of the Bush's...
They had nothing but contempt for H.W.Bush while he was president. Remember the nice letter H.W.Bush penned for Clinton? When the Clinton's left office they all but defaced the oval office.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, I actually agree with you that a USA coup is HIGHLY unlikely. At the moment, our unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 49 years. Many people have jobs and can make some money. When people have money, they still might complain about how hard they have to work, but they CAN work. (P.S. - job figures are NOT based on holiday short term employees.) When people can find jobs and get paid, dissatisfaction is unlikely to reach that hypothetical boiling point. I offer a comparison with Germany after WW I, when inflation and unemployment were horrendously bad.

As to Jesus coming before we have a coup? My views on the probability of that event have been expressed in another thread.