OK, I admit it. I'm a single-issue voter.

[Jackpine Radical]

The issue is the survival and thriving of the species.

There are a few sub-issues, though. A few examples are human rights (including LGBT & women's rights), environmental/energy issues, peace, elimination of the corporate state, building a new infrastructure, and instituting an enlightened value system as the dominant global thought pattern.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. My priorities would be a bit different, although similar.

I want the species to evolve to a point where population growth stops (barring our ability to reach other worlds to settle - we're outstripping our resources on this one) and indeed declines to maybe a few billion tops, so that denuded areas can reforest, and a variety of large species can come back from the brink of extinction, and the pollution we create no longer threatens to acidify our oceans, melt our poles, and drown our coastlines. To do that, I also think we're going to need to eschew capitalism, and other economic systems that center around greed and the hoarding of wealth. As you note, we also need universal human rights. Not just rights of citizens, or rights of the wealthy or the connected, but rights that every single person around the globe has, and that do NOT apply to legal 'entities', and that such rights must always outweigh 'corporate' rights.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Yes, population control has to be part of any rational balance.

And both capitalism and the accumulation of great wealth in a few hands would be anathema in any sustainability-oriented value system.

Actually, I'm perfectly happy with all of your suggestions.

[alp227]

3. Population control? Sigh.

Lots of people will freak out at that idea - because they've never been informed about the line where the greater good of society outweighs the individual's right to do something.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. That's why I emphasized the need for a change in the dominant value system. (nt)

[alp227]

7. I think population control is incompatible with a society of "my body, my choice",

even without unfettered capitalism.

[LisaLynne]

9. I hope you are not ...

trying to lay blame for overpopulation on women, since that phrase is used by women, especially feminists.

[alp227]

10. No, no, I'm not.

But the question is: Can population control and reproductive choice really co-exist? Because "population control" is SUCH a loaded term that most people think of China's one-child policy.

[LisaLynne]

12. I agree it's a very loaded term and that ...

right now, since we (as a society -- not us -- ) can't even discuss it for the most part, it doesn't appear likely that everybody would just decide that we need to stop reproducing at the current rate. I do like to think that at some point we will have a shift in our attitudes and general outlook on things that will make it unnecessary to regulate it from the top down, but ... I mean, look at where we are with climate change. Not encouraging.


Sorry I misunderstood your post.

[BrotherIvan]

14. They absolutely can

But the estimates are 40-49% of pregnancies are unplanned. If we had 100% effective, safe, easy- and pleasant-to-use birth control, we could cut out quite a bit. And that is in a 1st world country such as the US where many unplanned pregnancies happen just from BC failure. Think about other parts of the world with no reproductive choices, they would greatly benefit. It would take a few generations to change cultural opinion, but once women learned they didn't have to bear children until they dropped, it would change everything.

Why have BC methods not changed much since the 60s? Besides implants and perhaps rings, they are just updates. Why no breakthroughs? Why no male forms of contraception beyond condoms when male fertility is so simple and easy to manipulate compared to an entire woman's hormonal balance?

The answer is, as always, money and religion. We don't need gigantic families because infant mortality is so low compared to the past and we're not breeding farm hands anymore.

I hope that environmental groups start putting reproductive choice into their fight and get some big donors to help. The planet needs a break from us.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. There's more than one way to accomplish it.

It needn't be Draconian.

[MH1]

15. I agree with you BUT - seriously - what economic system DOESN'T center around greed?

Greed is human nature. Communism just tries to fake that it isn't about it, but there is corruption everywhere, due to - yep, GREED (which by the way is born of fear and (excessive) self-preservation).

Any system that would rely on coercion, would breed corruption and greed.

Capitalism could, at least in theory, be regulated to the point where hoarding of wealth beyond a certain level is prevented.

I think you need some element of capitalism to avoid the need for coercion. But you also need socialist aspects to provide a safety net and give people the security that alleviates the fear which would lead to greed.

JMHO. Just don't think you can ditch capitalism completely, just need to ditch the fetish some in this country have for under-regulation of it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. Well, any system

that automatically confiscates wealth or income above a certain level would. You can be greedy right up to that top level, but going beyond wouldn't 'net' you anything. Despite the fact that wealth inequality is completely out of control, though, I still wouldn't really advocate wealth confiscation - simply a total cap on transfer of that wealth to individuals. So during his lifetime, Bill Gates would still be able to become obscenely wealthy, but would be limited to transferring, say, 5 million of wealth to any given individual. If he did so during his lifetime, he would not be able to leave anything to them upon his death. Or the maximum he could transfer would be 5 million per person in inheritance. Either way, the point is to provide a limit on intergenerational wealth accumulation, not accumulation during an individual's lifetime. He'd still also be able to start any descendants out as 'rich', but they would need to continue to do some actual work on their own if they too wanted to become 'obscenely rich', not just inherit billions.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Inequality, Single Payer, No Corporate Personhood, & Free the Weed

My line in the sand on voting and what will drive my primary vote in 2016. I've had enough of corporate/DLC democrats. Stand up or speak out against any of those from here on out and I will vote up and down ticket and ignore your ass.

Neat topic.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. All those are good by me.

I haven't yet drawn any lines in the sand, though. If I lived in a safely blue state, however, I would unhesitatingly vote green if they don't run a real Democrat.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. I have the luxury of living in the northeast

Good point.

I remember an EarlG post in Meta (bookmarked link now broken) that softened me in 2012 when I was still pissed off about MMJ scheduling, Citizens United and the ACA reach-around to the for-profit insurance industry. It was an argument about bashing Hillary/Obama during the end stages of the primaries, and he said something to the effect of 'a vote with us on a critical bill is more important'. Duly noted!

[RadicalGeek]

13. I guess I would be seen the same way

I see myself as a "Social Justice" voter.

Which seems to encompass everything from a living minimum wage to background checks and magazine limits, at least to me!

[calimary]

17. 'Fraid I am too. Everything for me starts and ends with Pro-Choice.

I hate that. There are other issues that weigh heavily for me - climate change and science acknowledgement and acceptance, the unimpeded right to vote, gun controls - a LOT more of them, more corporate restrictions (including overturning Citizens United), and now, too, rolling back that religious protection stuff. But for a woman's right to choose trumps them all. I don't like it - that I'm forced into this kind of thinking - and voting. But that's where circumstances have forced me to be. And if I have to ask where some would-be representative or politician stands on the issues, THAT is where I start. If the answer is "no" on a woman's right to choose, then for me, that's where it ends. I have all I need to know about that candidate at that point.

[Kath1]

18. Same here.

I support and vote for only pro-choice politicians. I wish that wasn't the case but with the RW Republicans trying to drag us back to the 1950s, I think it is a priority. I have a daughter and I want her to have the same rights I had.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. "Environmental issues" are number one in terms of "survival of the species", though.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Of course.