My perfect utopia

[konradv]

They have more education and more free time for political activity. If one wants to lessen their influence, the way to go is public financing of elections. Lessening the impact of money would go a long way towards breaking the power of incumbency and allowing new voices to be heard.

Actually, the opposite is true...the guy in office would have all the advantages over the guy trying to fight him with limited money...also...why on earth would you want to give your hard earned tax money to help greedy, corrupt people get into political office...make them pay their own way...

If you want to break the power of incumbency...get rid of campaign finance laws...that way a good man, with a sponser who had money could fight against the bad guys who have money and the system behind them...the problem now is that joe the teacher, the plumber, the cop...can't get the money they would need to make a real run at the office...if you had public financing...the guy in office would still have all the advantage...

Incumbency is an advantage, but it would be lessened, if they didn't have access to the pocketbooks of special interests who don't care about politics, but power. Many will support whomever is in power because a sure thing is better than a maybe, if you're trying to get favorable legislation. As for paying the way for people you don't like, you're doing it already. The cost is figured into most things you buy

 

[2aguy]

Try this...ask a lefty friend if they think the world is over populated...when the lefty says yes...ask them if they would think cheap, safe, plentiful energy that would help increase the population level would be a good idea...

I dare you...

 

[2aguy]

Incumbency is an advantage,

It is a huge advantage...and can't be cured by limiting money to challengers...and those who want government to work for them by buying politicians will still get money to the incumbent...that will never change...

 

[2aguy]

Some reasons to oppose public funding of elections...politicians will always find ways around these laws...and do you really want to have public funding of racist hate groups...besides the democrats that is...

Reason Foundation - Public Funding of Campaigns Would Violate Your Rights

The damage of government funding of campaigns is not limited to violating our rights and empowering campaign consultants who specialize in dirty tricks. Statewide campaigns in California cost hundreds of millions of dollars each election. Local government campaigns cost hundreds of millions more. Where are we going to cut spending to pay for campaigns? Fewer teachers? Fewer roads? Less health care? Is a futile attempt to fix the problems of politics and greed more important than basic quality of life issues?

- See more at: Reason Foundation - Public Funding of Campaigns Would Violate Your Rights

 

[deltex1]

There will soon be utopia in Kobani and the Anbar province. Allahu Akbar.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Try this...ask a lefty friend if they think the world is over populated...when the lefty says yes...ask them if they would think cheap, safe, plentiful energy that would help increase the population level would be a good idea...

I dare you...

Wrld isn't anywhere near overpopulated. And before global population levels out, it's going to go up to about 9.6 billion by 2050 according to UN and PEW Research models.
10 projections for the global population in 2050 Pew Research Center

Fact that it seems overpopulated is due to how most people like living near water, as with the coastal areas being the most populated. Pleanty of space in the interior of Australia and the Desert Southwest of the US, but most don't wanna live there.

Food production isn't a problem either so much as food availability since sustaining human beings for free because it's moral isn't how capitalism works being immoral.

 

[konradv]

You really have nothing to add to this discussion. You're just using it as a way to bash people you disagree with. Using your logic, for the good of the world, I hope you become very comfortable.

No, I'm pointing out an observation of leftists and how they view the world...try it sometime...ask your lefty friends about cheap plentiful energy...and see how they react to the idea that more people could live in the world...try it...I dare you...

As to comfort leading to reduced populations...it's not me...it's statistics...look at the social welfare countries...they can't keep their birth rate up to replacement levels...that is why all the European countries are importing immigrants...to do the jobs they don't want to do and to help prop up the welfare state with more people...sadly, those new immigrants are just jumping onto the welfare system and doing the same thing the natives are...

If the energy is cheap, clean and nearly limitless, I don't see many but the Luddites objecting. It would go a long way towards solving the problem of over-population. There are plenty of empty spaces in the world. Cheap energy would make them livable and take a lot of pressure off today's crowded cities.

As for the welfare problem, that's a completely different topic. I'd prefer to stick top the energy problem and save that for another thread.

 

[2aguy]

If the energy is cheap, clean and nearly limitless, I don't see many but the Luddites objecting. It would go a long way towards solving the problem of over-population. There are plenty of empty spaces in the world. Cheap energy would make them livable and take a lot of pressure off today's crowded cities.

I agree with everything you say here...I want more energy for people...especially in the 3rd world where this energy would change and save lives...again...ask some of your friends who are of the left...ask them if it would be a good idea to have cheap energy if it meant there would be more people...

 

[2aguy]

Wrld isn't anywhere near overpopulated. And before global population levels out, it's going to go up to about 9.6 billion by 2050 according to UN and PEW Research models.
10 projections for the global population in 2050 Pew Research Center

Fact that it seems overpopulated is due to how most people like living near water, as with the coastal areas being the most populated. Pleanty of space in the interior of Australia and the Desert Southwest of the US, but most don't wanna live there.

Food production isn't a problem either so much as food availability since sustaining human beings for free because it's moral isn't how capitalism works being immoral.

I agree with everything you posted...except about capitalism...that is why we have so much food...just look at the famines and shortages in controlled economies...

I challenge you as well...ask the people of the left if they like the idea of increasing human population due to cheap energy...see what they say...

 

[Toro]

Living on a deserted island as the only male with 100 Victoria Secret models.

OK, nothing but females would drive me crazy, so there'd be a few other guys, but they'd be much uglier than me.

 

[konradv]

I challenge you as well...ask the people of the left if they like the idea of increasing human population due to cheap energy...see what they say...

Why would anyone object, if there was enough energy to take care of the bad effects of high population? There are plenty of lefties here. Where are those who object?

 

[Toro]

Living on a deserted island as the only male with 100 Victoria Secret models.

OK, nothing but females would drive me crazy, so there'd be a few other guys, but they'd be much uglier than me.

Edit - And there'd be satellite TV with all the sports channels in the world.

Edit #2 - And a fine collection of fine scotches, wines and beers.

 

[Toro]

And a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse.