“The Government earlier this year received harsh criticism from a number of charities, who pointed out that more money from the aid budget went to immigration in Sweden than to the whole of Africa put together.”
science
Young creationist
White Phosphorus
Comment: More interesting, why didn’t Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf States boycot the West?
White Privilege
To which extent had the Jews killed by Hitler white privilege? Did they get white privilege by becoming Zionists? Remember, hell is eternal.
Holocaust Deniers deserve death
Or maybe worse, maybe idiots and imbeciles like people that deny that Hitler killed a lot of Jews should be used for medical experiments.
International Conference on Population and Development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Population_and_Development
The United Nations coordinated an International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt from 5–13 September 1994. Its resulting Program of Action is the steering document for theUnited Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
Some 20,000 delegates from various governments, UN agencies, NGOs, and the media gathered for a discussion of a variety of population issues, including immigration, infant mortality, birth control, family planning, the education of women, and protection for women from unsafe abortion services.
The conference received considerable media attention due to disputes regarding the assertion of reproductive rights. The Holy See and several predominantly Islamic nations were staunch critics and U.S. President Bill Clinton received considerable criticism from conservatives for his participation. The official spokesman for the Holy See was archbishop Renato Martino.
According to the official ICPD release, the conference delegates achieved consensus on the following four qualitative and quantitative goals:[1]
- Universal education: Universal primary education in all countries by 2015. Urge countries to provide wider access to women for secondary and higher level education as well as vocational and technical training.
- Reduction of infant and child mortality: Countries should strive to reduce infant and under-5 child mortality rates by one-third or to 50-70 deaths per 1000 by the year 2000. By 2015 all countries should aim to achieve a rate below 35 per 1,000 live births and under-five mortality rate below 45 per 1,000.
- Reduction of maternal mortality: A reduction by ½ the 1990 levels by 2000 and ½ of that by 2015. Disparities in maternal mortality within countries and between geographical regions, socio-economic and ethnic groups should be narrowed.
- Access to reproductive and sexual health services including family planning: Family-planning counseling, pre-natal care, safe delivery and post-natal care, prevention and appropriate treatment of infertility, prevention of abortion and the management of the consequences of abortion, treatment of reproductive tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases and other reproductive health conditions; and education, counseling, as appropriate, on human sexuality, reproductive health and responsible parenthood. Services regarding HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, infertility, and delivery should be made available. Active discouragement of female genital mutilation (FGM).
Contents[hide]
|
ICPD and abortion
During and after the ICPD, some interested parties attempted to interpret the term ‘reproductive health’ in the sense that it implies abortion as a means of family planning or, indeed, a right to abortion. These interpretations, however, do not reflect the consensus reached at the Conference. For the European Union, where legislation on abortion is certainly less restrictive than elsewhere, the Council Presidency has clearly stated that the Council’s commitment to promote ‘reproductive health’ did not include the promotion of abortion.[2] Likewise, the European Commission, in response to a question from a Member of the European Parliament, clarified:
“The term ‘reproductive health’ was defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development. All Member States of the Union endorsed the Programme of Action adopted at Cairo. The Union has never adopted an alternative definition of ‘reproductive health’ to that given in the Programme of Action, which makes no reference to abortion.”[3]
With regard to the US, only a few days prior to the Cairo Conference, the head of the US delegation, Vice President Al Gore, had stated for the record:
“Let us get a false issue off the table: the US does not seek to establish a new international right to abortion, and we do not believe that abortion should be encouraged as a method of family planning.”[4]
Some years later, the position of the US Administration in this debate was reconfirmed by US Ambassador to the UN, Ellen Sauerbrey, when she stated at a meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women that: “nongovernmental organizations are attempting to assert that Beijing in some way creates or contributes to the creation of an internationally recognized fundamental right to abortion”.[5] She added: “There is no fundamental right to abortion. And yet it keeps coming up largely driven by NGOs trying to hijack the term and trying to make it into a definition”.[6]
See also
- ICPD Beyond 2014 official website
- Americans for UNFPA
- Commission on Population and Development
- Reproductive health
- Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition
References
- ^ “Report of the International Conference on Population and Development”, UNFPA, 1995
- ^ European Parliament, 4 December 2003: Oral Question (H-0794/03) for Question Time at the part-session in December 2003 pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure by Dana Scallon to the Council. In the written record of that session, one reads: Posselt (PPE-DE): “Does the term ‘reproductive health’ include the promotion of abortion, yes or no?” – Antonione, Council: “No.”
- ^ European Parliament, 24 October 2002: Question no 86 by Dana Scallon (H-0670/02)
- ^ Jyoti Shankar Singh, Creating a New Consensus on Population (London: Earthscan, 1998), 60
- ^ Lederer, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 1 March 2005
- ^ Leopold, Reuters, 28 February 2005
Comment: This conference has had profound consequences on demography.
Kotava
http://www.kotava.org/en/en_staaveem.php
| KOTAVA : MAIN FEATURES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Build on some simple and powerful principles :
1) An universal phonological system Kotava has a simple and flexible phonological system, restricted to the 5 basic vowels, 17 consonnants that are used in almost every language, and 3 semi-vowels.
As for the vowels Kotava doesn’t make, for instance, any distinction between brief and long vowels, though brief forms are more usual. Also, they can be pronounced more or less closed (typical case of the « o »). Kotava doesn’t use nasal vowels either. About the consonants, they are all simple consonants. Each one is a one and only phoneme. Last, Kotava is a soft language that has a vocalic rate a bit superior to 50%. Moreover, the rule of euphonic reference contributes to strengthen its harmonious aspect. 2) A phonetic language Kotava is an absolutely phonetic language, that is to say it is spelled like it is pronounced and does not tolerate any exception. Thus, for instance, in ” feralia ” you distinguish the ” i ” from the final ” a ” without making a diphtongue. Or in ” tcastaf ” the combined sound ” tch “, which is expressed with a single letter in some languages, is made by ” t ” + ” c “. As for the stressing, Kotava adopted an extremely simple system. All the words with a final vowel are stressed on the penultimate syllable. The others on the ultimate. The only exception is that of the first person singular in the verbal conjugation, which is stressed on the ultimate syllable despite of the final vowel, analogically to the other verbal forms which have a final consonant. Graphically, you can ute an accute stress to symbolize it. 3) A rich, differenced and extensible lexicon Kotava currently has a 17 000 radical lexicon, covering pratically all the domains of human thought and expression, and allowing elaborate shades.
Let’s add to this the rules of composition. Very powerful, they allow to generate new terms and concepts by combining several lexemes. 4) A simple and rigorous grammatical system Kotava has a simple and easy to apprehend grammatical system, which is very rigorous.
First, in a morphological point of view, every word can immediately be recognized. Either it is a determinative, a verbal form, an adverb or a substantive, there cannot be any confusion or doubt. One of the advantages of this is to allow a great syntaxical flexibility. Thus, for instance, there is no imposed word order. Although the most frequently used order is CSV (complement – subject – verb) expressions of different types are not rare. All the complements must be introduced by a preposition. You can use a great varety of them that answer all the needs of the expressiveness. In Kotava, there are not direct complements strictly speaking (corresponding to the accusative case in declensive langages). Object complements, or transitive complements, are introduce by the transitive « va » preposition. Thus, an isolated substantive or pronoun is inevitably a subject predicate. 5) A strong and unambiguous expressiveness Kotava has a ric hand very diversified vocabulary that allows all its speakers to always be able to express any idea or sentence. Each Kotava term carries an unique meaning, they are monosemic in a way. Furthermore, there are no homonyms and therefore never any ambguity. This monovalence of the words obviously goes with a rich system of affixing and composition that allows to express the slightest subsleties, shades and connected ideas. Kotava uses its possibilities a lot, thanks to what it offers an almost unlimited creativeness and flexibility. About the verbal system, the nouns or the determinatives, affixing rules are very simple and do not admit any exceptions. Consequently, the speaker never faces any difficulty of construction or understanding. The same way, great morphological rigour of Kotava eliminates every ambiguity as for the type and the role of each word in the sentence. Basic radicals and the whole lexicon grow regularly, in relation with the new fields of thought and expression that appear in our modern societies. The inner mechanisms, the logics and the own genius of the Kotava allows it to easily answer them and to break new ground without difficulty. Let’s bet that in the end Kotava would be a driving force in the field of new suggestions and developments which would be used by all the other languages. 6) A varied and flexible using Kotava was featured to allow speakers with very different thoughts and language systems , in one hand to understand each other of course, but also to be able to express themselves the most intuitive way possible, by using patterns of expression and construction near to their mother language. A few examples :
A Chinese speaker will be susceptible to the invariability of words. KOTAVA : MAIN ORIGINALITIES Kotava has some particular features that make of it an original and very coherent system :
7) Transitivity by preposition In most declensive languages, complements of object are expressed by the accusative case. In non-flexional languages, they are mostly rendered direcly (hence their name of direct complements of object), generally using their place in the sentence. By difference, in Kotava those complements are called “transitive” since they are introduced bytransitive verbs and must be introduced by the transitive preposition « va ». Ex. va pruva Paul estur is translated by (Paul is eating an apple) and is analyzed the following way : With this principle, the place in the sentence is minor in Kotava.The order above, CSV, is the most classical one, but any other unambiguous order is possible. 8) Plural by meaning In Kotava, substantives and pronouns are invariable and do not get any specific plural mark. Plural is expressed by context, either by conjugation or by the using of plural-meaning determinatives. Ex. bat listaf batakaf okol vulted (these beautiful white horses are running) 9) Linking conjunctions Kotava has twelve linking conjunctions that play an important part and, overall were featured in such a way they offer un great flexibility and a great accuracy in expression, with an extraordinary conciseness.
Simple conjunctive forms are used in a simple linking, within the same proposition. Ex : va atela is ilt sin estud (their are eating meat and fruit) The « -e » forms are used out of precise listings and link different propositions. Ex : karvol estur ise ulir (the cat is eating and drinking) The « -u » forms are called “distributive”. In a simple proposition, if various terms are qualified by the same determinatives, they allow to avoid repetitions and to “distribute” those determinatives. Thus the determinatives that qualify the first term are also applied to the following terms linked by a “-u” conjunction. 10) Locative prepositions The 53 locative prepositions of the Kotava play important parts. And overall make up an original group, that allows to express all the desirable shades in matter of moving and positioning in space. Each locative preposition actually has four distinctive forms, all constructed on the same logic :
11) The 4th person plural Kotava uses a 4th person plural, unknown in most of the other languages, that covers an exclusive “we”. In English, the “we” expresses two different ideas. In Kotava, you can see two persons and two differenced pronouns : « min » and « cin ». « Min » is the 1st person plural that he represents have an inclusive meaning, that is to say the speaker includes in the “we” the person or the people to whom he is talking. On the contrary, “cin” (th person plural) is exclusive – the interlocutor or locutors are excluded of it. Ex. min betlize kenubeyet (we slept anywhere). The interlocutor is included in the “we” 12) The Imperatif, complete mood In Kotava, contrary to numerous other languages, the Imperative is a complete mood and has in particular all the persons and tenses. It can also be used with every meaning, aspect and state. It is only quite incompatible with the uncertain state (as for the meaning at least). The Imperative mood is based on the Indicative, with some differences :
13) The tenses of the verb Kotava only uses three tenses : present, past, future.
All the other shades rendered in other languages by other tenses or compound ones are often expressed by the meaning or the aspects. Past and future are constructed by specific suffixes that are added to the verbal radical (with a basis « -y » for the Past and « -t » for the Future). There is no exception. Ex. in dankar (he sings) 14) The 10 aspects of the verb Next to the three tenses, Kotava has, in order to decline all the time notions, an original system which is called aspects. Ten aspects exist :
15) The 5 States of the verb Kotava have five states :
16) The 7 modalties of the verb Kotava has an original modalties system, which allows to express for every verb notions that are often rendered by separate and complexe constructions in other languages. There are sixmodalties :
17) The Movement verbs In Kotava, some verbs called movement verbs, can be made up with any locative preposition (in any form). This way, all kinds of subtleties and precisions you can think of can be expressed. Those made up verbs become transitive and thus build their object complements by the preposition « va ». The locative idea remains fully contained in the preverbalised preposition. Ex : va mona jin kolaní (I go into the house) 18) The serial pronouns In Kotava, there are 85 relative or other pronouns (demonstrative, collective, undefined, etc.), 60 of which are in pronominal series. These are based on a compound relative pronoun and a composer (on the same principle as relative adverbial series). The compounds are :
The composers are :
Ex : batcoba (this) 19) The euphonic reference Although Kotava does not have any notion of genders, which would for example depend on a termination, the « euphonic reference » rule plays a large part. All the determinatives (adjectives, articles, numerals and participles), the possessive pronouns and total suffixes are indeed submitted to this rule. It states that these must euphonically match the substantive to which they refer ; that is to say having a similar euphonic termination. This way :
Ex : listaf patctoy (a beautiful landscape) Beside the strenghening in Kotava’s harmony, this rule also allows to unambiguously express syntaxical constructions which are sometimes complex. The euphonic termination is in a way a relative pointer that clearly send to the predicate that the determinative represents. Ex : listafa mona poke savsafe iaxe vegeduyuna bak 1840 va dotagadesik ware dulapar |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comment: Even more neutral than Lidepla
Lingwa de Planeta
http://lingwadeplaneta.info/en/svodka.shtml
| Summary of LdP’s distinctive features |
|
The idea LdP’s key idea is that an optimal constructed IAL should be based on 10-12 most spoken languages of the planet, those which, according to forecasts, will only strengthen their influence in the future. Phonology The phonological system of LdP contains 17 basic consonants and 5 vowels, altogether 22 phonemes. All sounds of the system are simple for pronouncing and differ considerably between themselves. A relatively small number of phonemes (for comparison: Esperanto contains 28 phonemes) is, however, sufficient for recognizability of words imported from major languages and a bright enough distinction between words for clear comprehension of speech. There are no phonemes that differ only in voicedness/unvoicedness. Therefore, for example, [dZ] and [tS] are versions of the same phoneme, and [z] is only a variant of the phoneme /s/ (it may be voiced between vowels). An essential distinctive feature of sounds in pairs b – p, d – t, g – k is presence or absence of aspiration. Vocabulary On the whole, European lexicon prevails, however an essential part of most frequent words are of Chinese, Russian, Hindi, and Arabic origin. LdP tends to use living words of major languages, changed as little as possible. As a rule, words resembling phonetically their equivalents in other languages are taken. Often these are loanwords but not necessarily. Let’s take, for example, the word “darba” (strike). It is of the Arabic origin, however it resembles the Russian “udar” and the Chinese “da” (to strike). A remote similarity may also be found with the English “strike” and Hindi’s “prahar”. Sound symbolism is also taken into account. For example, as in most natural languages, words indicating small or closely located objects tend to use the vowel [i] while those indicating something big or far — the vowels [a] or [o]. Examples: dale far — blise near, dar there — hir here, augmentative particle gro — diminutive particle ki. Semantics LdP is created as a language intended primarily for live contact. There are no obligatory grammatical meanings (such as gender, number, tense), and the word itself bears rather a certain general idea. The exact meaning of phrase is defined substantially through context. So LdP is simple to learn and use. Grammar The grammatical system of LdP is analytical one. Grammatic meanings that a speaker may need (such as gender for a noun or tense for a verb) can be expressed by means of special particles. The form of the main word (a noun or a verb) is not changed. The word order is basically direct: Subject – Verb – Object. However, in order to stress a certain word, the order can be changed. A modifying word, as a rule, stands before the modified word. In word formation, besides compounding and particles, mostly suffixes beginning with a consonant are used. They are simply added to the main word, without changing its form or root stress. E.g.: dumi to think — dumishil thoughtful — dumishiltaa thoughtfulness. There are no obligatory endings for different parts of speech, which allows to import any international word without serious change. At the same time there are preferable ones. For example, many adjectives end in –e. But adjectives like gao (high) and lao (old) are also admissible. There are no articles.
Fo unitaa de Arda!
|
Comment: Improved Esperanto?
The double logic of the free market
- 7. LuisMaraceFrance | April 6th, 2012 at 4:20 am
As J. K Galbraith’s mordent remark highlights, “free-market” economics is based on a sentence:
that the poor don’t work hard enough because they’re paid too much and the the rich don’t work hard enough because they’re are paid too little.
Explanation:
CLASS WAR FOR IDIOTS / APRIL 5, 2012
By Yasha Levine
“…everyone but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be industrious.”
—Arthur Young; 1771
Our popular economic wisdom says that capitalism equals freedom and free societies, right? Well, if you ever suspected that the logic is full of shit, then I’d recommend checking a book called The Invention of Capitalism, written by an economic historian named Michael Perelmen, who’s been exiled to Chico State, a redneck college in rural California, for his lack of freemarket friendliness. And Perelman has been putting his time in exile to damn good use, digging deep into the works and correspondence of Adam Smith and his contemporaries to write a history of the creation of capitalism that goes beyond superficial The Wealth of Nations fairy tale and straight to the source, allowing you to read the early capitalists, economists, philosophers, clergymen and statesmen in their own words. And it ain’t pretty.
One thing that the historical record makes obviously clear is that Adam Smith and his laissez-faire buddies were a bunch of closet-case statists, who needed brutal government policies to whip the English peasantry into a good capitalistic workforce willing to accept wage slavery.
Francis Hutcheson, from whom Adam Smith learned all about the virtue of natural liberty, wrote: ”it is the one great design of civil laws to strengthen by political sanctions the several laws of nature. … The populace needs to be taught, and engaged by laws, into the best methods of managing their own affairs and exercising mechanic art.”
Yep, despite what you might have learned, the transition to a capitalistic society did not happen naturally or smoothly. See, English peasants didn’t want to give up their rural communal lifestyle, leave their land and go work for below-subsistence wages in shitty, dangerous factories being set up by a new, rich class of landowning capitalists. And for good reason, too. Using Adam Smith’s own estimates of factory wages being paid at the time in Scotland, a factory-peasant would have to toil for more than three days to buy a pair of commercially produced shoes. Or they could make their own traditional brogues using their own leather in a matter of hours, and spend the rest of the time getting wasted on ale. It’s really not much of a choice, is it?
But in order for capitalism to work, capitalists needed a pool of cheap, surplus labor. So what to do? Call in the National Guard!
Faced with a peasantry that didn’t feel like playing the role of slave, philosophers, economists, politicians, moralists and leading business figures began advocating for government action. Over time, they enacted a series of laws and measures designed to push peasants out of the old and into the new by destroying their traditional means of self-support.
“The brutal acts associated with the process of stripping the majority of the people of the means of producing for themselves might seem far removed from the laissez-faire reputation of classical political economy,” writes Perelman. “In reality, the dispossession of the majority of small-scale producers and the construction of laissez-faire are closely connected, so much so that Marx, or at least his translators, labeled this expropriation of the masses as ‘‘primitive accumulation.’’
Perelman outlines the many different policies through which peasants were forced off the land—from the enactment of so-called Game Laws that prohibited peasants from hunting, to the destruction of the peasant productivity by fencing the commons into smaller lots—but by far the most interesting parts of the book are where you get to read Adam Smith’s proto-capitalist colleagues complaining and whining about how peasants are too independent and comfortable to be properly exploited, and trying to figure out how to force them to accept a life of wage slavery.
This pamphlet from the time captures the general attitude towards successful, self-sufficient peasant farmers:
The possession of a cow or two, with a hog, and a few geese, naturally exalts the peasant. . . . In sauntering after his cattle, he acquires a habit of indolence. Quarter, half, and occasionally whole days, are imperceptibly lost. Day labour becomes disgusting; the aversion in- creases by indulgence. And at length the sale of a half-fed calf, or hog, furnishes the means of adding intemperance to idleness.
While another pamphleteer wrote:
Nor can I conceive a greater curse upon a body of people, than to be thrown upon a spot of land, where the productions for subsistence and food were, in great measure, spontaneous, and the climate required or admitted little care for raiment or covering.
John Bellers, a Quaker “philanthropist” and economic thinker saw independent peasants as a hindrance to his plan of forcing poor people into prison-factories, where they would live, work and produce a profit of 45% for aristocratic owners:
“Our Forests and great Commons (make the Poor that are upon them too much like the Indians) being a hindrance to Industry, and are Nurseries of Idleness and Insolence.”
Daniel Defoe, the novelist and trader, noted that in the Scottish Highlands “people were extremely well furnished with provisions. … venison exceedingly plentiful, and at all seasons, young or old, which they kill with their guns whenever they find it.’’
To Thomas Pennant, a botanist, this self-sufficiency was ruining a perfectly good peasant population:
“The manners of the native Highlanders may be expressed in these words: indolent to a high degree, unless roused to war, or any animating amusement.”
If having a full belly and productive land was the problem, then the solution to whipping these lazy bums into shape was obvious: kick ‘em off the land and let em starve.
Arthur Young, a popular writer and economic thinker respected by John Stuart Mill, wrote in 1771: “everyone but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be industrious.” Sir William Temple, a politician and Jonathan Swift’s boss, agreed, and suggested that food be taxed as much as possible to prevent the working class from a life of “sloth and debauchery.”
Temple also advocated putting four-year-old kids to work in the factories, writing ‘‘for by these means, we hope that the rising generation will be so habituated to constant employment that it would at length prove agreeable and entertaining to them.’’ Some thought that four was already too old. According to Perelmen, “John Locke, often seen as a philosopher of liberty, called for the commencement of work at the ripe age of three.” Child labor also excited Defoe, who was joyed at the prospect that “children after four or five years of age…could every one earn their own bread.’’ But that’s getting off topic…
Happy Faces of Productivity…
Even David Hume, that great humanist, hailed poverty and hunger as positive experiences for the lower classes, and even blamed the “poverty” of France on its good weather and fertile soil:
“‘Tis always observed, in years of scarcity, if it be not extreme, that the poor labour more, and really live better.”
Reverend Joseph Townsend believed that restricting food was the way to go:
“[Direct] legal constraint [to labor] . . . is attended with too much trouble, violence, and noise, . . . whereas hunger is not only a peaceable, silent, unremitted pressure, but as the most natural motive to industry, it calls forth the most powerful exertions. . . . Hunger will tame the fiercest animals, it will teach decency and civility, obedience and subjugation to the most brutish, the most obstinate, and the most perverse.”
Patrick Colquhoun, a merchant who set up England’s first private “preventative police“ force to prevent dock workers from supplementing their meager wages with stolen goods, provided what may be the most lucid explanation of how hunger and poverty correlate to productivity and wealth creation:
Poverty is that state and condition in society where the individual has no surplus labour in store, or, in other words, no property or means of subsistence but what is derived from the constant exercise of industry in the various occupations of life. Poverty is therefore a most necessary and indispensable ingredient in society, without which nations and communities could not exist in a state of civilization. It is the lot of man. It is the source of wealth, since without poverty, there could be no labour; there could be no riches, no refinement, no comfort, and no benefit to those who may be possessed of wealth.
Colquhoun’s summary is so on the money, it has to be repeated. Because what was true for English peasants is still just as true for us:
“Poverty is therefore a most necessary and indispensable ingredient in society…It is the source of wealth, since without poverty, there could be no labour; there could be no riches, no refinement, no comfort, and no benefit to those who may be possessed of wealth.”
***
Yasha Levine is a founding editor of The eXiled. You can reach him at levine [at] exiledonline.com.
Want to know more recovered history? Read Yasha Levine’s investigation into the life of Harry Koch, the man who spawned Charles and David Koch, the two most powerful oligarchs of our time:The Birth of the Koch Clan: It All Started In a Little Texas Town Called Quanah
Comment: So if Libertarianism would create a society in which everybody would be prosperous, it would collapse. That is why they hate a guaranteed minimum income with a passion. All the talk of more growth instead of more redistribution is fallacious. Redistribution doesn’t work because the rich sabotage it. If they have to pay too much taxes, they don’t WANT to work. They hide behind the “laws of the market” to obfuscate the choices they make with their free will. According to the Libertarians, their enemies do have free will. They can choose to let the “magic” of the market do its work, or try to thwart it, with even more unpleasant results, it is called counterproductive.
Overpopulation? Overconsumption? Maximum Age!!!
The West and the Rest accuse each other of overpopulation and overconsumption. There is one group of people who commits both. They both have too many children and use too many resources. You know whom I am talking about: oil sheiks. As reducing their birth rate leads to a lopsided population, the only solution is the institution of a maximum age by euthanasia. Those who resist euthanasia will burn in hell. Islam destroys itself in Syria.
oogenhand 