Overpopulation town project
Alan
More options Oct 23 2006, 6:05 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.
http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus
http://christianexodus.org
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3401106
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.
-Alan Ditmore
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ADitm...@juno.com
To: Childfree_Pa...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:58:20 -0400
Subject: My speech to County Commission
Message-ID: <20060906.162452.-...@juno.com>
I'm Alan Ditmore of Leicester 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 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 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
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.
-Alan Ditmore
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ADitm...@juno.com
To: edi...@outinasheville.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:30:07 -0400
Subject: succeeding in spite of efforts
Message-ID: <20060912.183041.-316965.0.ADitm...@juno.com>
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 conservatism. 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.
Alan Ditmore, Leicester
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.
-Alan Ditmore
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%
children.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html
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 parties.
A libertarian county has already been chosen, Loving County in
the
west.
See, http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://christianexodus.org
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.
-Alan Ditmore
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?
Anyone
here in Nevada? AZ? NM? eastern OR? west TX?
-Alan Ditmore
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.
-Alan Ditmore
FRANCE'S HIGH BIRTH RATE PARTLY DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVE
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
woman in 1990, but in 2002, 15 counties had rates below 1.3 children
per woman, and six countries had rates between 1.3 and 1.4 children
per
woman.
According to a report released recently by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, France's birth rate of about
1.8
children per woman makes it the only European country with the
possibility of maintaining its current population through births.
France has Europe's second-highest birth rate in part because of
incentives offered by the government. Such incentives include:
Three-year paid parental leave with guaranteed job protection upon
returning to the workforce; universal, full-time preschool starting
at
age three; subsidized day care before age three; stipends for in-home
nannies; and monthly childcare allowances that increase with the
number
of children per family.
Juliette LaFont, spokesperson for the French Ministry of Family
Affairs, said that what distinguishes France from other European
countries is its "policy of giving women the choice to work or not by
giving them all of the services and financial means."
Annually, France spends $57 billion, nearly 15 per cent of its total
budget, for family and child services.
Kaiser Network 25/Sep/06
SOURCE: Kaiser Network, 25/Sep/06
Ilene Bilenky
Alan <adit...@juno.com> wrote:
> 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,
One immediate flaw I think of (and which occurred to me when a young
friend was talking about the Libertarian idea of taking over New
Hampshire or something) is that most people, at least adult people, are
already living someplace, for various reasons- relationship, job,
housing, family, etc. Relatively few people are in a position to move
somewhere simply to exert political views en masse, and those few people
are likely to be young/broke/transient, that is, have little power or
influence.
Now, I do think that towns should be funding things that town citizens
need and use. In fact, I am feeling like there shouldn't be redundant
small-town government for every town here and there. Since I live in a
small town with its own government, it's all academic. But since my town
is something like 30 percent over 65 people, then certainly services
should be more than an afterthought, and not just all funding for
palace-like schools.
Ilene B
Kenny McCormack
Dori <do...@nokids.net> wrote:
>Ilene Bilenky wrote:
>>Relatively few people are in a position to move
>>somewhere simply to exert political views en masse, and those few people
>>are likely to be young/broke/transient, that is, have little power or
>>influence.
>
>their eyes trained on a state neighboring mine.
>
> <googles>
>Nope, little success there.
>
>christianexodus dot com has been around for quite a few years now and
>hasn't made much of a dent in their goal to take over South Carolina
>and turn it into a fundie Christian domain.
Isn't it already?
meb
> Ilene Bilenky <ile...@shore.net> wrote in news:ileneb-02CF75.18043722072007
> @comcast.dca.giganews.com:
>
>> Now, I do think that towns should be funding things that town citizens
>> need and use. In fact, I am feeling like there shouldn't be redundant
>> small-town government for every town here and there. Since I live in a
>> small town with its own government, it's all academic. But since my town
>> is something like 30 percent over 65 people, then certainly services
>> should be more than an afterthought, and not just all funding for
>> palace-like schools.
>
> service providers. They tend to be more active in other states than in
> Massachusetts, right?
County-level government and services (in the U.S.) tends to be involved
with agriculture issues, but jury selection is also grouped by counties
in Mass. and other NE states. So anyone called for jury duty is probably
made aware that county government still exists.
-Mb
Alan
who take politics seriously enough for them to be more important than
place, and for those whose political differences with the majority in
their community are sufficient to interfere with the development of
community roots, who are limited in number. This is why a number of
such movements, like the Free State Project, Cascadia, and Christian
Exodus have made the mistake of picking places that are too large to
be taken over by political migrants such as counties, sizeable cities
like Greenville SC, or states like NH. Any such movement MUST start
with a small but incoporated town. If it is urban then it can be an
inner suburb like Maywood CA.
However, there is nothing stopping youth from building majorities and
they would if they would just vote in local elections in small college
towns with large colleges like Amherst MA and New Brunswick NJ.
Young transients have all the power they care to use.
And Gays have already been successful in Provincetown MA, which
had only 8% children in 2000, and several others. African Americans
have also been successful but have then faced economic problems, which
we could easily avoid. So have hispanics in Maywood CA.
Both ABC articles to which I linked show that political relocation is
already happening on a significant scale.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
On Jul 22, 7:04 pm, Ilene Bilenky <ile...@shore.net> wrote:
> In article <1185117193.050791.317...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,