However, nobody is suggesting this. Nevertheless, your use of the term dystopia is remarkably ironic.
Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.
Really? You think the nanny state soda ban in NYC has something to do with a shortage of soda? Have you got a single shred of data to back this up?
This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials.
There is absolutely NOTHING conservative about your views.
I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives.
Because NO CIVILIZATION in the history of the world has survived without population growth.
Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion?
What PRECISELY is the predicate that "allows" for the slaughter of 60 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS? Please explain how the American Holocaust has been beneficial.
I am curious, in light of your screen name, which babies do you think should be predicated for termination in your dystopian fantasy?
Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control?
Prior to the 1930s NO CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION supported contraception. Then, in the early 20th century, very wealthy and powerful elites embraced eugenics and decided that they could create a utopian dystopian new world order if they could eliminate large segments of non-Caucasian and "feeble-minded" persons.
Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?
There is a huge difference between curtailing illegal immigration and eugenic population control.
The idea of Jeffersonian democracy, the idea of the New England Cracker Barrel democracy, only works when there is sufficient space for man to live independent both of his neighbor and the government.
I know this will outrage someone with a screen name such as yours; but, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY, the United States of America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - there is a difference.
Double your population and halve your liberties
Really? Does halving the population double your liberties? Because that seems to be the governing theory behind your dystopian fantasy.
Early on, God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply.
He told us to subdue the earth.
At their core, population control advocates simply don’t trust God to put His blessing on the fruit of what He has commanded.
Without faith it is impossible to please Him. And without faith it is impossible to enjoy God’s richest blessings, in the here and now, and unto eternity.
We distrust and disobey God at our own peril, and to our own great disadvantage.
I'm going to mostly sit back and watch. People can be misunderstood, and may say things which reflect views for which they haven't thought out the consequences. But it certainly does seem that someone who takes a founder of the Klan for his online avatar may have more problems than an unfortunate avatar.
People who advocate population control, whether voluntary or involuntary, open themselves to all sorts of opportunities for accusations that there are certain parts of the population which are undesirable and whose growth should be controlled. Certainly that is not a conservative view.
But I've said things before which were misunderstood, and I'm raising this in the hope that this is a misunderstanding.