Fw: Fw: Re: [overpopulation2] Re: GET LOCAL!!!
- So was anybody here inspired by the idea of an ovepopulation town?
model population policy in one town? What small town or county do you
think has the highest proportion of overpopulation activists? Of these
which do you think would be affordable to overpopulation activists moving
in to build a majority?
My thoughts are Mound House NV, which has 4 legal brothels and thus could
not be church dominated, but it has zoning, thus making activist influx
less affordable, and is not incorporated thus required either
incorporation or taking over the county. Other possibilities include
Antelope OR, previouly taken over by Rajneeshes and thus possibly
defensive, Takilma OR, also not yet incorporated and digressively
environmentalist, Santa Cruz CA (too big too take over and expensive to
move in, plus trouble rejecting state childcare taxes/funding). Or
joining the Free County Project in Loving County TX, which would involve
disputes on points where libertarianism does not help overpopulation,
such a contraception taxes/funding. But has common ground on
cannibalism, childcare and schools.
Any overpopulation activists out there living in very small, cheap,
incorporated towns? If not then why not?
The basic problem with influencing China or India is that I am not a
citizen of either and so do not have a vote in either. Furthermore,
overpopulation people are a tiny minority on the federal level and policy
is entirely controlled by the majority giving us no binding influence
whatsoever. Only in selected municipalities can overpopulation activists
hope to build a majority and thus control or even significantly influence
Furthermore, unlike most progressive policies, which are economically
ruinous on the local level because they attract the disabled and repel
the skilled until you have a whole town full of disabled people, a local
contraception policy does just the opposite. It saves local education
dollars, thus attracting DINKS (dual income no kids) and repels large
welfare families and produces a local economic miracle. This can be
done in isolation and the resulting economic miracle can set an example
to the nation and world.
The town with the lowest percentage of children is Provincetown MA, at
8% in 2000, which is mostly gay and RICH. The town with the Most is
Colorado City AZ (62%) and then Maywood CA (35%), which are polygamous
and Hispanic respectively and are therefore POOR. Contraception is
unlike Kyoto in that it is SO cost effective that one town actually CAN
act effectively in isolation. Contraception does not share that problem
so your example does not follow. Contraception is the great exception.
However, other environmental stuff, whether pulling weeds or regulating
co2, is a similar waste of time beside population and amounts to another
digression. Contraception can and should completely replace all other
environmental efforts in terms of both time and money on the part of
activists, organizations and governments. Overpopulation work is by
orders of magnitude more cost and time effective than any other
environmental effort or response.
I actually oppose most environmental proposals as digressions and vote
against them. On Eath Day, I walked around with a T shirt that read
"ONLY birth control can save the world" this was a protest against earth
day activities, not a participation in them.
As for federal voting, yes I vote, but no it is not a priority. For
example, I don't know if I will be voting for Clinton or Guliani in the
2008 primary and won't know until I find out who is running for County
Commission in the same primary so I can decide whether to take a
Democratic or Republican ballot. I will not know which ballot I will be
taking until I know which LOCAL candidates will be on which one, over a
year from now. I will not allow the presidency to decide which ballot I
take. I will choose parties based primarily on their LOCAL policies. It
is the local candidates that will bring me to the voting booth in
November 2008. I will only vote for president since I am there anyway.
The presidency will not cause me to burn the gasoline necessary to get to
the voting booth. Those gasoline dollars are for the LOCAL candidates,
as is my time. Selected localities are also the ONLY places in the US
where 3rd parties can get established, they are hopeless at the federal
Message from discussion overpopulation town project
Alan View profile
More options Oct 23 2006, 5:05 am
Hi. I am writing because I am interested in overpopulation activists
in small towns. I am hoping that if overpopulation activists
concentrate forces like the Libertarians of the Free Town Project,
http://freetownproject.com/ we can build a majority that can replace
public school, playground, ballfield, and childcare funding with
contraception and abortion funding and end up saving a great deal of
money especially since Social Security and Medicare funding are mostly
federal and can be imported. Housing unit size could also be limited
to crowd large families but regular zoning is a big problem because it
makes it expensive for overpopulation activists to move in and build a
majority. Anyway, what do you think? Can such a majority be built in
your hometown. NYC is the only municipality I know of that funds
abortions and it is too overcrowded and thus difficult and expensive to
move to or build a majority in. And NYC's abortion funding is still
only a tiny fraction of their education funding.
Three groups likely to be allied in this municipal cause are
especially conservative gays like Log Cabin Republicans, retirees, who
would be hypocrites because they usually have grown children and
grandchildren but these grandchildren often live in different towns and
would be unaffected by local education cuts, and Libertarians who are
ideologically committed to small government.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:58:20 -0400
Subject: My speech to County Commission
I'm Alan Ditmore of Leicester and I came accross a shocking
In America, and by inference in Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents
are so environmentally callous that they would turn down even
subsidized contraception and squeeze out babies anyway; which calls
into question the ability of local contraception funding to save the
planet from overpopulation.
But in that case there is something else a county can do and that
to stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the
responsibility to fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields
lies exclusively with parents. So how is it fair that I, as a
taxpaying nonparent, should be subsidizing such reproductive
activities? There is no ethical construct by which that is fair.
So since none of you seem to be funding contraception anyway, I
as well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while contraception
and abortion are so cost effective that funds can be raised privately.
And of course that would, and does, switch me to the true party of the
environment, affordable housing and direct democracy, the Republicans.
The Republicans help the environment by cutting or attempting to cut
parental subsidies like playgrounds, childcare, ballfields and public
schools, which is effective against overpopulation in a society in
which most babies are planned. Local Republicans oppose zoning which
is bad for affordable housing, and Nathan Ramsey alone proposed a
direct democratic referndum on zoning, which makes the Republicans the
party of direct democracy.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:30:07 -0400
Subject: succeeding in spite of efforts
To the Editor:
Contrary to most political alliances and strategies, LGBTQ people
to be making the most progress in the profit driven corporate world led
by Log Cabin Republicans and HRC. To see why, one need only look at
the economics of LGBTQ communities like Provincetown MA. According to
the 2000 census, Provincetown had only 8% children, compared to about
25% for the nation and 31% for the generally politically allied city of
Detroit. This means LGBTQ communities are fundamentally different from
most other minority communities in a way that is massively under
appreciated, totally politically incorrect, and lies at the very heart
of economic conservatism. You are largely nonparents, with the
economic interests of nonparents.
And despite all the political rhetoric, what the corporations can
is that so far liberal government subsidies have done far more to
transfer wealth from nonparents to parents than to move wealth from
rich to poor adults; and when nonparents, like me, form communities
and more specifically school districts, we are relieved of huge tax
burdens and consequently experience economic (and environmental) booms.
It may behoove nonparents to better understand and acknowledge this
huge and inherently conservative factor and perhaps use it to rethink
some political alliances with minority parents versus those with
Alan Ditmore, Leicester
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:01:35 -0000 "Kenneth Robertson"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, aditmore@... wrote:
> > Good luck managing your time and especially your money,
> > and organizational budgets, in which priorities are fundamental.
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:21:24 -0000 "m19mike55" <m19mike55@...>
> > writes:
> > > > > I totally disagree. We cannot put anything on the back
> > > Every
> > > pertinent federal, state and local bill and policy must be
> > > addressed.
> Gentlemen, I think a middle ground must be found. Alan has a point
> that to be truly effective on a worldwide scale takes more resorces
> than most countries can afford and yet Mike would have to agree that
> to ignor all but local issues could have and adverse effect even on
> that local level. My have learned here in California that even if
> pass very progressive measures, that Federal trumps State or City.
> Bush argues that he need not support an international standard on
> because it does not make China also meet those standards. The logic
> of this is lost on me, but I am cynical enough to believe that his
> resistance is rewarded by the "big business" lobby. My point is that
> we must be aware of as much that is going on as possable and how it
> relates to population, even if we are not active in each and every
> issue, that we can effectively counter nay-sayers and disseminate
> truth (who knows, maybe the very person we talk to will have the
> ability to make possitive change where we are not able).
> Alan, I would assume that though your work is mostly at a local
> level, that you vote on national issues each November? To everything
> there is a season. Mike, I do understand that the only way to tackle
> population effectively is if attitudes are changed on a worldwide
> scale and policies/standards are adopted, but often all that must be
> done can be overwhelming to the average person. I volunteer every
> weekend to do habitat restoration in my local state park. It gives
> a sense of reversing some of the impact we make on the planet. I am
> always looking to connect with others who work for change on a local
> level for more ideas of how I can be hands on about my beliefs and
> give options to others who are passionate about saving the planet,
> but can't see themselves "pulling weeds". I joined a few internet
> groups and was disapointed that most wanted to talk about China and
> India, but not Austin or Portland. I also encounter this with people
> I meet who will write e-mails about legislation or send money to
> groups for Africa or India, but have no time to support causes right
> in there own communities and I find that sad.