alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>>>To show that its is a policies of govt the people are starving not excess
>>>people that you believe.
>>
>> But it shows no such thing, since you assert that government is not
>> responsible for buying food, and therefore having a smaller military
>> would not help.
>
>Of course it would, it would free up money to purchase food.

You seem to be thinking that if they had a smaller military that the
people would have more money. That does not necessarily follow.
Furthermore, if there is more money and not more goods, it just causes
inflation.

>> The statement applies equally to the people of N Korea.
>
>People in the US are free to travel to other countries,

Not without money. Not without a passport (which costs money).

>> If they aren't responsible for feeding the people, how could their
>> policies be the reason?
>
>Priorities, making sure the people are fed is way down the list as compared
>to military spending.

You just said that they weren't responsible for feeding the people.
How then does it rate any priority at all if it is not a
responsibility?

>> In the statistics in the source that he cited in the Heritage article.
>> Go look them up yourself.
>
>Lame. I take that as you have none.

I don't care. I had to look things up from a site that you forgot to
give me once. I see no reason to go back and find it again. I know I
am correct, and people who are familiar with my posting know that when
I post statistical info, I've done my homework.

>> I claimed it to be an explanation of my claim, not a proof. The proof
>> is in the numbers in the government report cited by your source.
>
>Your explaination of your claim, not that it was true.

"True" is for religious argument, and ideology (which is a form of
religious argument).

>> It certainly solves the problem temporarily. Having fewer people
>> would be a better solution.
>
>We've tried this for years and years and it hasn't gotten rid of poor people
>... the answer is always more taxes and govt programs.

Only because "we the people" want them.

>>>Just look to S Korea ... why are the people down there ok, and cross the
>>>boarder and
>>>there is extreme poverty ...
>>
>> In part because of US government policy. But largely because the
>> people there have taken responsibility for themselves.
>
>What do you think is the difference in the govt policies of North and South
>Korea.

I don't care what the difference is.

>>>>>Whats a person to do?
>>>>
>>>> Have fewer kids and use less energy. Not much else you can do.
>>>
>>>To hell with freedom/liberty
>>
>> Freedom/liberty does not come without responsibility.
>
>Then you admit that govt supporting a welfare state lessens freedom/liberty.

No. Fulfilling the responsibility that comes with freedom/liberty
does not lessen freedom/liberty.

>> The energy demand needs to drop. The only long term way to do that is
>> to drop the population.
>
>You've already said you didn't know how many people should be on the Earth
>so how do you know we should drop the population.

Because it is clearly one way to use less resources.

>> If you say so. Then it is perfectly OK for our government to decide
>> that mass transit and gas taxes, and income redistribution are vital
>> self interests?
>
>They are not vital interests,

Not your decision what it vital. It is the decision of the elected
representatives of "we the people".

>we've gotten along without both before.

You can go back and live in a stone age cave if you want. After all,
we got along with that sort of lifestyle before. I like the one we
have now, and would rather have things not change merely because you
don't like government and taxes.


>>>Well even if it was only 40% its unhealthy for the present govt. ...
>>
>> Not in the least.
>
>Sure it would be. Here is something I thougt funny but had a lot of truth
>in it.
>http://www.dotsub.com:80/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618
>What do you think?

I don't watch films on the net.

>>>My point was that this is a dangerous development.
>>
>> But it isn't.
>
>Sure it is if there is a part of your population that is serious enough to
>kill people in large numbers to get their way,

But there isn't.

>>>Its the jihadist Muslims who will profit.
>>
>> Only if they can point to "crusaders" like you.
>
>I'm not a crusader.

The way you talk about Muslims, they are justified in thinking you to
be one.

>> I don't have any especial respect for "journalist opinion".
>
>Ok. Some of what she said wasn't opinion, but things that Mr R Williams
>said that were untrue and were inflamitory.

It is her opinion that they were so. I believe him and not her.

lojbab