Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1Childfree Town Project

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    May 14, 2008

      Overpopulation or Childfree Town Project


      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 gays,
      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 ---------
      Subject: My speech to County Commission

      I'm Alan and I came accross a shocking statistic. 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 is to
      stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the responsibility to
      fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields lies exclusively with

      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
      might 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

      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.

      To the Editor:
      Contrary to most political alliances and strategies, LGBTQ people seem 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
      <lj-cut text="Read more">
      You are largely nonparents, with the economic interests of nonparents.
      And despite all the political rhetoric, what the corporations can see 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 corporations.


      See, I told you the ONLY answer was contraception, abortion and gay
      rights. So get on task. The main problem is that the US town with the
      smallest percentage of children is not in Cascadia. It is the gay
      community of Provincetown MA with 8% children compared to about 25%
      nationally. Does Cascadia have a gay town like Provincetown? I will be
      voting Republican because they subsidize parenthood less in the form of
      schools, childcare, TANF, playgrounds, ballfields and family leave. They
      also reduce the population more by killing more anti-choice people in the
      middle east. Also, I am in the southeast and here the Republicans are
      further from the center and therefore more likely to seceed so that you
      can be rid of them. They are more for state's rights. Also, public
      schools teach national unity, which is the real enemy of secession. So
      stop subsidizing them.

      Although I do some energy conservation work on a hands on basis, I don't
      think much of it as a political issue because direct environmentalism
      distracts attention and then funding from overpopulation and
      contraception, which is the ONLY way to actually stop global warming. The
      windmills were for electric generation, but I don't much care. Seven
      billion people just cannot live sustainably and efforts to do so are
      counterproductive and diversionary. Though we could limit yachts to 400hp
      (you lived in FL, those big semi-planers are truly absurd. It's beyond me
      why the little jet ski's get the complaints.) I'm more interested in
      defunding parenthood including public education. Did you know that
      Provincetown MA is only 8% children? San Francisco is 14%, the USA about
      25%, Detroit 31.1%, Maywood CA (a hispanic LA suburb) is 37% and Colorado
      City AZ (polygamist) is 60.4% children. What effect do you think that has
      on property taxes? especially since old age subsidies are mostly federal.
      Do you know of any towns with a larger or smaller percentage of children
      than 8% or 60.4%. If I can find a town outside the Northeast with 8%
      children, I will move there and pay the property taxes. Though Frisco is
      both too big and too expensive for my tastes. Expensive may be inevitable
      because low property taxes would cause speculation. My county is 22.2%
      I'm doing a lot of political and demographic research on localities in
      the west lately so I can figure out where I want to live. I can find very
      little reference material on comparitive municipal politics. It's badly
      neglected. There are many more towns to choose from than viable political

      A libertarian county has already been chosen, Loving County in the west.
      I oppose public education because I am not a parent and wish to stop
      subsidizing parenthood. However subsidized contraception is very
      important and far more cost effective than public education, and better
      for the environment. Texas secession might tilt the balance enough to
      make this possible in the rest of the country.

      Local governments may be doing a bunch of myopic and reactive
      environmental stuff, but they are doing almost nothing to reduce
      fertility rates and are subsidizing parenthood heavily in the form of
      childcare, playgrounds, ballfields and public schools. Do any two or
      more members of this group live in the same town? county? state?
      here in Nevada? AZ? NM? eastern OR? west TX?

      Limiting housing counts does NOTHING for fertility rates and is a myopic
      digression from overpopulation. So in that sense I am pro-development. I
      want enough housing units for everyone ESPEICIALLY domestic migrants who
      may be moving for political purposes. I have no problem with limiting the
      SIZE of houses in order to crowd large families, but I oppose any limits
      on unit counts, unit densities, or building height. An overpopulation
      town funds contraception and abortion INSTEAD OF playgrounds, ballfields,
      childcare, or schools. It has NOTHING TO DO with land use policies other
      than banning ballfields.


      France Only European Country With Replacement Level Fertility

      France's "robust birth rate," which is "bucking the trend" of declining
      European birth rates, is "could be attributed to government support for
      people who have children.

      Birth rates in European countries recently have reached a historic low,
      with the largest and most recent fall occurring in Eastern Europe. All
      European countries recorded birth rates of more than 1.3 children per