This isn’t necessarily about the sheer size of population, and has more to do with birth rates, but this Kurzgesagt video also outlines well the need for a higher birth rate.

Almost all countries need to reduce their population.

On the contrary, actually, we need to increase our populations. Assuming that you mean an equal reduction in all demographics, the existence of productive, and hyper-productive people is mostly a game of statistics. A larger population means that more of such people will exist. Such individuals are necessary for pushing humanity forward. A nation with a larger population means a larger natural defence. A larger gloabal population decreases the chances of a mass-extinction event.

it’s stressing the system.

What specific stresses are you referring to? We have no lacking in resources, nor space. Economic activity is proportional to those acting within it.

For reference, the article does point out the following:

The United States said it was discussing with relief agencies how “safe areas” could be set up for civilians in Gaza. “One of the things that we did discuss with [Israel] was the need to protect civilian lives in Gaza, the need to establish some safe areas, where civilians could relocate to be safe from Israel’s legitimate security operations,” said a senior U.S. State Department official in briefing reporters. “So we’ve been engaged with the International Committee for the Red Cross, the UN relief agencies to work through the details of what that might look like. It’s still work that’s coming together. The Israelis are committed to it,” the official said.

The article also provides a map of the total evacuation area, which I assume was also provided to the Palestinians. Given that this evacuation area only applies to the north of the Gaza strip, I would assume that the evacuees could flee to the south. I’m not arguing that this is practical given the circumstances, but there technically are places to go.

Please correct me if there is extra information that would suggest that evacuation to the south is also not an option. There’s a lot of information out there regarding this situation, and I am not at all fully educated on the matter.

It matters because American culture currently prefers everyone to have a college degree as opposed to any other type of education. […] If this avenue was cut off then the attitude of the public would change to allow other means of education.

I completely agree that our favoring of, or requiring of post-secondary degrees for employement is an important cultural issue. I don’t agree, however, that the solution is to make the provision of loans illegal – illegalization is rarely anything else than a band-aid on top of a gaping wound. An argument could be made that the government provision of student loans should be stopped (in countries where that occurs e.g. Canada), but I don’t think the solution is to simply make all student loans illegal.

and then yoke them into debt for the rest of their lives.

Hm, that is an assumption. There’s a few issues with that statement. The total cost of one’s loans are directly related to the cost of the post-secondary institution that they decide to attend. There is little reason to go to a very expensive institution. I do understand that some employers are elitist in that they won’t hire anybody outside of an ivy league school, but I would wager that that issue is not very prevalent – the free market should take up the slack. Furthermore, one’s ability to get out of such debt is related to the income that they expect from employment after attaining their degree, as well as their level of monetary responsibility, and savviness. If one decides to blindly go into student debt for studies that will offer little in return, that is one’s own risk to take. You must also not forget that there is no requirement that one must do white-collar work. Trades do not require such degrees, and are just as well-paying, if not better.

I presume that anywhere where interest-free loans are offered, they are offered by that country’s government. Canada, for example, as of April 1st 2023, offers federal student loans interest-free. Depending on the province, some may not have interest on provincial loans, as well.

What issue are you looking to solve? You state that you believe people are able to seek out, and attain their education independently through resources like the internet. So why would it matter if there are alternatives that cost money which one can pay, and receive loans for?

What is the context behind this post?

What is your rationale for making that statement?

Borg good

Perhaps the next emergent entity is not corporeal, but, instead, of the collective. A good example could be similar to what @[email protected] stated about how the movements of people in crowds are, on the “microscopic” scale, seemingly random, and unpredictable, but, on the “macroscopic” scale, can be predicted quite accurately. One could look at economies, traffic flow, entire nations, etc. as emergent entities that rely on our individual, autonomous interaction. A very interesting such example is outlined in this paper which explains how “Online communities featuring ‘anti-X’ hate and extremism” can be accurately modeled using “novel generalization of nonlinear fluid physics”.

Would you mind defining “we don’t really know how it works”?

I have found that instances that do seem to modify the source code just use the existing “Code” link and simply point it to their own repo instead.

What I like about the free-ish markets

Pehaps, you may benefit from the term “competitive free market”.

free market would punish bad actors

The free market punishing bad actors (depending on how we are defining bad actors) is inherently dependent on the morals of the consumer.

Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap

The question would then become: “Whose morals are truly virtuous?”.

What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term “capitalism”? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.

It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement

Would you mind defining “impossible to perfectly implement”? I don’t want to draw conclusions based on interperetations of that statement.

I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.

Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.

No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.

When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,

And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin.

In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.

Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?

Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.

But I have a right to say what I want to say without you hitting the disagree button.

Why? The right to the freedom of speech is not a right to not be offended.

I’m sorry my idea of freedom isn’t the same as yours maybe we should go to war over it?

I am an advocate of the use of one’s voice over the use of violence.

That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices

This is actually a very good point. I’m not sure that I have a solution for it at the moment. The lazy argument would be that information eventually leaks out, but that is not, in the slightest, a guarantee. I will have to think on that.

and has the resources to vote with their wallet

This outlines the need for a competitive free market. If a business is making an undesirable decision, then the consumer would have other options to choose from, or a competitor without those practices would enter the market to scoop up those who are disillusioned.

They are also incentivised to eliminate competition

The wilful direct elimination of competition is anti-competitive behavior, and is, therefore, incompatible with a competitive free market, and should thus be prohibited.

You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.

I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms”, I did not mean to infer “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another”. The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.

pay a child to work in a mine

I don’t believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.

schedule workers for 80+ hours a week

If one consents, then there should be no issue.

drive without speed limits

Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them – this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

use as much water out of the local river as desired

This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).

dump waste into that same river

This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.

sell unregulated, untested medicine

I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it’s efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug’s efficacy vs. mandating it’s safety.

[source] Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1962 to require that new drugs be shown effective, as well as safe, to obtain FDA approval.