High Treason, on 03 January 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:
That doesn't make any sense.
Crowded housing is the result of people having too many children. Often they have children to get more money from the government so they can drink, buy plasma TVs and the latest smart phone. The only way to solve it now is euthanasia or a generation that won't reproduce... As it happens, the newest generation is so dickless that it wouldn't surprise me if that happened.
I agree that there is not such thing as over-population. Not even close.
Your statement is true, and the problem is "the government" then, not overpopulation at all. Overpopulation is just a manifestation of my government stealing money from me at gun point (try not paying ALL of your taxes and see if people with firearms don't show up) to give to others as they see fit, which I did not vote on and will never be allowed to vote on. Maybe the problem is citizens who have lost control of their government long ago.
Nature handles this with all other species by supply and demand basically. Humans, unlike most species can choose to not reproduce... in a world where people (government) didn't steal from productive people to give to peoples who will vote ANY way to keep their Couch Potato positions, this wouldn't be the issue.
There are far too many who COULD have earned what they have, but didn't. It was taken from others. If people/governments at least used nature as a guideline for balance, issues like you describe could be avoided. The problem lies within the government... where in nature is it one creatures job to distribute anything to others who do not earn it? It is my opinion, as animals, our motivations should begin with food/survival. If a private individual or organization wishes to save the worlds lazy people, then I would not try to stop them... but a government has conflict of interest to deal with and should not be allowed to interfere with medical care, housing, or feeding anyone who is capable of earning these things "just like the rest of us do". In other words, saving the world is almost always done with involuntary money for a reason. There are some excellent groups out there that operate and help millions of people in different ways and I think that is great, mostly because they are optional and I can help directly or financially... the way it should be.
The above view excludes people who actually are not able to earn what they need to survive, but beyond survival, I wish my support for them to be optional. I am not against "helping" others... I do more of that than most people will ever know, but I believe that I have earned what I have, and sharing that with others should be my option, not forced by people who can not possibly value it, because they have never really "worked for" or earned what they have.
MrBlackCat