Libertarianism

[Evariste]

deleted at the request of the original poster

[MoROmeTe]

Based on Nozick and old school liberals like Mill and Locke, is it not?

I am kind of a left leaning guy myself (well, it depends on the issue) and I think that complete economical freedom and doing everything as long as it does not interfere with another's rights is just an invitation for certain entities (big business and interest groups) to exploit man...

And there needs to be more to the state than settling disputtes, although I see the need for organization outside of the state that libertarianism promotes.

And it is just a step away from anarchy, is it not? (Don't get me wrong, there's something about anarcht that tickles my fancy...)

[Tom Paine]

Economic and personal liberty are pretty mutually exclusive. Economic liberty gives extreme manipulation &c of the personal liberties by corporate managers &c, because it allows wages prices and workers' rights to go to almost nonexistant levels whilre the companies turn huge profits for the few. Personal liberty means higher wages ands rights, therefore higher prices, but far less profit in the hands of a greatly enlarged "few". As you can see, the two are incompatible.

[Evariste]

Right, Locke is one of the, if not the most important libertarian philosopher. Him and Adam Smith are probably the top 2 guys.


Here's the thing about big business: In politics, American politics at least, politics is dominated by various lobbyists that represent interest groups and businesses. These lobbyists coerce politicians into supporting their ideals by promising money or votes. That is how government changes and morphs. How would this work with only a judicial branch? I suppose judges could be bribed, but I'm sure systems could be put into place to prevent that.

Even if a business becomes huge, why is that a bad thing? Why did that business become huge in the first place? Usually it does that by providing a quality product at an affordable price. When a business became huge, could it become complacent just because it is number one? Of course not! A free market consumer is usually pretty smart. In the 1970s in America, this exact thing happened to American car manufactures. Cars became large, shoddy, and horribly gas inefficient. When gas prices suddenly skyrocketed and consumers sought out cheaper, gas efficient Japanese cars, the complacent American manufactures suffered and barely recovered. This safeguard keeps a business from becoming too powerful.

[Evariste]

Economic and personal liberty are pretty mutually exclusive. Economic liberty gives extreme manipulation &c of the personal liberties by corporate managers &c, because it allows wages prices and workers' rights to go to almost nonexistant levels whilre the companies turn huge profits for the few. Personal liberty means higher wages ands rights, therefore higher prices, but far less profit in the hands of a greatly enlarged "few". As you can see, the two are incompatible.

Alright, let's see if I make sense here.

First of all, I've always seen personal liberties as meaning that you can do whatever you'd like to do as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. I don't believe that economic liberty means higher wages; it means the right to choose how you want to handle your economic decisions.

What rights does a worker really have when it comes down to it? When one chooses to work for a company, what do they really do? They give up their time and labor in exchange for money. What obligation does their employer have besides providing a pay check and not providing immediate physical harm? None, that's what. Workers rights consist of being able to quit a job that you don't wish to work at. You can pick and choose whatever job you want as long as you are qualified. Imagine this: A boss provides hellish working conditions for his employees. Do you think that they would continue to work there under those conditions if the pay was lousy? Of course not!

You seem like you're a proponent of minimum wage. Taken at face value, this seems like a good idea. Unfortunately, it screws up an entire economy. Setting an artificial minimum wage forces business to raise prices, it also causes inflation. You also seemed to be confused about who sets workers wages. Corporate managers do not, but the free market does. The market dictates how much a person will get paid for their labor.

Have an example: Imagine businesses providing the same product in a completely free market economy. Business 1 sets its wages well below the standard cost of living, but sets its prices very low as well. Business 2 sets its wages much higher than the standard of living, but is then forced to set its prices higher as a result. Business 3 sets its wages at a sensible rate, and thus its prices are sensible too.

Business 1 fails because, although many people are buying its products, it is plagued with underemployment. Lines are out the door to buy what it is selling but there is hardly anyone there to sell it to them. Customers eventually get frustrated, stop buying at business 1, and go elsewhere. The business folds.

Business 2 fails as well. While its wages are high and it has a pool of well qualified workers to staff it, no one is buying its high priced products. It can not turn a profit and folds.

On the other hand, business 3 succeeds because it set its prices and wages at sensible levels. All the business that would have gone to businesses 1 and 2 go to business 3 because of its fair prices and competent service.

Therefore, you can see from this simple model that wages would never be disproportionate to prices and wealth, only government interference causes those problems. The market acts as a great equalizer that balances all of these out in the end. Also, keep in mind that if you're working at a low paying job you will have a low paying life.

On a final note, I see cheap labor as this: If you choose to have a low paying job at a fast food restaurant, a factory, or something similar, you give up some things for others. If one chooses a low paying job, they are giving up their "right" to job security, since you can most likely be replaced easily. One also gives up their "right" to earn more money and have a comfortable life in exchange for an easy, simple job that probably requires little thought.

On the flip side, if one chooses to start a business, they trade a steady income and a most likely less stressful existence for the chance at huge profits, being able to set their own hours, and being able to run their business however they want, including setting wages and prices. “But wait,” someone might say, “What if they set their wages too low? Won't their employees be unable to carve out a life?” That’s right, they wouldn’t be able to, but no one’s forcing you to work there.

Do you see what I'm saying here? If companies decide to pay their workers almost nothing, then who will buy their products? An elite few at the top? How would those people get their money if no one buys what they're trying to sell? Same goes for mid level management, how would they get there if the business's entry level position pays next to nothing? Why would entry level employees even work if their wages were essentially worthless? They would carve out subsistence lives by living off the land instead of working. Their time would be more valuably spent hunting for food and building shelter than working long hours at an essentially worthless job.

Again, that's how the market is the great equalizer. Supply and demand along with a myriad of other factors exist that keep everything in check and in proportion.

Sorry for the long post.

[TheKwas]

And it is just a step away from anarchy, is it not? (Don't get me wrong, there's something about anarcht that tickles my fancy...)

American Libertarianism is for the most part, miles away from the anarchism of Proudhon, Bankunin, Goldmen, Tolstoy, ect. Although it should be noted that Libertarianism outside of North America actually refers to the anarchism for the most part, and Libertarianism is simply called Liberalism (or classical Liberalism).

Right, Locke is one of the, if not the most important libertarian philosopher. Him and Adam Smith are probably the top 2 guys.

I'm actually a big fan of Locke (I just accept the socialist critique that since natural capital/resources is naturally labourless, it is also ownerless or unownable, since one can only claim ownership over some with his labour embedded into it, and thus the only entity that can claim ownership over it is the collective), but Adam Smith pushes my buttons in all the wrong ways. "The Wealth of Nations" refers to just that, the wealth of nations. He tends to confuse the good of the nation with the good of the people, assuming the tickle-down effect will make it so that anything good for the nobels is good for the common man, which simply isn't true.

Here's the thing about big business: In politics, American politics at least, politics is dominated by various lobbyists that represent interest groups and businesses. These lobbyists coerce politicians into supporting their ideals by promising money or votes. That is how government changes and morphs. How would this work with only a judicial branch? I suppose judges could be bribed, but I'm sure systems could be put into place to prevent that.

So you elimate the government for the most part (which I have no real beef with) and only operate with a Judicial sector. The problem is that a Judicial sector is for the most part is purely an institutions for enforcement and interpretation of existing laws, and doesn't create new laws itself. It will create social stagnation within that aspect and won't be able to address new problems effectively.

Even if a business becomes huge, why is that a bad thing? Why did that business become huge in the first place? Usually it does that by providing a quality product at an affordable price. When a business became huge, could it become complacent just because it is number one? Of course not! A free market consumer is usually pretty smart.

A myth. The super-corporations of today for the most part don't actually produce anything other than an image, an ideal and an emotional connection to it's targetted-market. Take example Nike, one of the founders of the branding movement, Nike doesn't actually produce anything themselves, they pay other contracters in the 3rd world to make their products for them. What nike DOES do is produce an image and an ideal. If you ask a Nike spokesperson what Nike is, chances are they will sprout out nonsensical phases like "Nike is sport, and sport is Nike, Nike is the Philosophy of never giving up and never lowering the intensity, even when the odds are against you", what you won't hear is Nike saying they are simply a shoe company, because they reall aren't. Nike taps into the philosophies and the emotions of their targetted consumer-base (in this case, Urban based {black} athletes, which surburban athletes {white} tend to copy as well) and plays to them, they create an emotional connection between their consumer base with their ideals and their logo/image. They try to cast Nike off as more than just a company, they make Nike into a philosophy and a way of life, a philosophy and a way of life that appeals to their consumerbase in the first place. They spend Millions of dollars producing that image and that "logo-philosophy" and embedding it into peoples minds via advertising, and once that emotional connection is made, they don't need an actual product anymore, their image IS their product. Nike then simply contracts a 3rd world EPZ company to produce some 2 dollar shoe for them so they can mark up the price 500% (because the image is simply that strong and that "valued" in the capitalist sense) and sell them on 1st world markets

A good example would be in the 80s (I think) where Mircosoft almost went under because they made one nearly-fatal mistake. They thought they were actually selling computers. They promoted their computers in their advertising and talked about how powerful their machines were and how many memory it had, but it was all fruitless when apple was making emotional connections to cultural icons like George Orwell's "Big Brother". Ever since then, there has almost never been an actual computer in a Microsoft advertisment. They no longer sell computers, they sell the concept of a world community connected, the concept of progression and innovation and the concept of being on the brink of a new world.

Quality of products isn't a barrier against big buisnesses, it's just an interesting side-note. The Branding phenomenon enables corporations to reach monstrious levels without any production, creating a whole new genre of buisness, which only causes more problems that arise naturally with amoral corporations.

What rights does a worker really have when it comes down to it? When one [i]chooses to work for a company[/b]

This already assumes that wage labour is in all cases, voluntary. Which it's not. Let's compare wage labour directly with chattel slavery as a thought experiance.

First, I'll ask you what is a slavery?

I'll assume your answer will be "where one is forced to work for a master".

Secondly, I'll ask "what happens if the slave refuses to work or tries to run away?"

I'll assume that you'll answer "He will be punished harshly, perhaps even killed, although there is the rare case of a slave escaping slavery".

Thirdly, I'll ask "So how is Chattel slavery different from capitalist/hiearchist wage labour if in wage labour one is 'forced' to work for a master or face harsh punishments or even death due to poverty or starvation, and only has the slight chance of escaping through entrepreneurship?"

The only real philosophical difference is that in a well-developed country, you often have the ability to choose your 'master', but even that isn't present in numerous capitalist societies.

What rights does a worker really have when it comes down to it? When one chooses to work for a company, what do they really do? They give up their time and labor in exchange for money. What obligation does their employer have besides providing a pay check and not providing immediate physical harm? None, that's what. Workers rights consist of being able to quit a job that you don't wish to work at.

Actually, the employers have whatever obligation to the public that the public wants them to have. Let's follow Locke's own line of logic in the matter of property to examine this.

Locke argued that man has a natural right to himself, his past, and his future. And since you own yourself, you also own your labour. And when you put your labour into making a product, your labour "embeds" itself into the product, and since you have a natural right to your labour, you have a natural right to the product of your labour because your labour is physically embedded within the product (although it's arguably not a "natural" right because you don't have direct control over the product of your labour as you do with your labour, but that's a debate for another time). What Locke doesn't address, or doesn't address effectively, is that in-order for you to embed your labour into a product, you need to start out with some raw materials to morph. Your labour alone can't create anything phyisical, it can only combine and morph existing matter. For example, in order to create a castle or a stone house, you need rocks. And since rocks start out and exist in the first place without labour, they are, in the Lockean sense "un-ownable", as there is no labour embedded within them. So the only entity, by default, that CAN claim ownership over such materials is the collective. They grant the right and ability to the producer to use collective material. So any production is an agreement between the collective and the producer that this certain product is helpful to the collective and this producer can do the producing for us. Even your philosophical cousins the Geo-Libertarians accept this notion in a way, only they prefer to simply have a tax based on how much raw resources a company uses to renumerate the collective for their ability to use the resources, and then let the companies do whatever they want with it, even if it goes against public interests. However most other moderate ideologies argue that the public should only make agreements with producer that do good for the public, and if a producer is abusing the resources or negatively affecting the public, the agreements between producer and public should be regulated or simply revoked. Other ideologies such as the numerous varieties of socialism argue that the public should skip the middle-man and just take control of the means of production from the start, and then produce things that in the public's interests instead of relying on an unstable, and untrustworthy amoral company to do that for them.

So, since any form of production is an agreement between the public and the producer, the public can regulate production in any way it sees fit.

You seem like you're a proponent of minimum wage. Taken at face value, this seems like a good idea. Unfortunately, it screws up an entire economy. Setting an artificial minimum wage forces business to raise prices, it also causes inflation. You also seemed to be confused about who sets workers wages. Corporate managers do not, but the free market does. The market dictates how much a person will get paid for their labor.

I agree that wages are only as effective as the buying power behind them (aka, real wages), but I don't think that minimun wages hurt that buying power. Where you seem to be in error is that you think the market will dicatate the workers wage, which is only paritally true. It will only dictate the range within the worker's wage could fall. Consumer-Markets only directly affect the price of the item, it doesn't affect the prodution price. If a worker produces a chair every hour for 9 dollars an hour, that means the production cost of one chair is 7 dollars plus the cost in materials and perhaps advertising, which we'll estimate to be an extra 3 dollars per chair. So the overall production costs of this chari is 10 dollars, that chair could be sold at 100 dollars on the consumer market, meaning a 100% markup price, which will be going towards mainly the buisness owners pockets to either reinvest or keep. And since the buisness owner has all this extra money, he can go out and spend that money on other over-price (or over-valued) items, keeping the market demand roughly the same. It also means that a "higher-up" economy is created due to massive mark-up prices (since the rich buy mostly over-priced items, and gain the most from over-priced items) where the rich keep the economy going, but only in their favour.

A minimun wage, however, puts up production costs, meaning the mark-up price is lowered, meaning the buisness owner has less money yet market demand is still roughly the same because the same amount of money is being spent (although the demand could go up a bit since workers tend not to buy over-priced items like the rich out of nessarity, however in an unbalanced economy that just means more jobs), just by different people. Instead of the owners spending the money made from the chair, the worker will go out and spend the same amount of money.

So, what a minimun wage does is shift the same amount of spending power from the owner to the worker, which prevents the "higher-end thrive economies" from forming due to the dropin marked-up prices, which will create more jobs (because more production is needed in a market full of items priced near production value) in a unsaturated economy(which just about every economy really is when you come down to it).

Follow me?

So, in yet another conclusion, the free market doesn't equalize itself, it merely favours the rich and disfavours production and employment. Libertarianism is a valid philosophy at it's roots, but it falls apart both philosophically and economicly when attempted to be implamented in a capitalist form.

[Evariste]

Fantastically good points TheKwas!

I won't try to argue some of your points, since you're obviously much better read and experienced than I am, but here is a few things:

About the judicial branch thing, and i'm not sure if this agrees with American libertarianism. The only law would be this: If it infringes on someone else's rights, you can't do, anything else is legal. New social problems would just be applied to this simple rule of thumb. Is this too utopian?


About the Nike and microsoft things.

Yes, I'll admit that Nike is selling an idea, and Microsoft as well to a lesser extent. Is that such a bad thing? If the demand for an idea wasn't there, then Nike most likely wouldn't be as sucessful today. But it is there. The want for "image" exists and companies like Nike and Microsoft are taking advantage of that, a perfectly natural thing. Am I saying that I support buying things based on image? No. It's very vain and even halfway sensible people can usually see through that smokescreen. The people want to buy image, and so an image is produced.

I have to disagree with you about wage labor not always being voluntary. It is ALWAYS voluntary. Sure, the alternative is probably death from starvation, but it's not about dying, it's about having the choice to NOT work. You could say that in slavery the same ultimate effect happens. The slave will be killed for not working, but at least the wage laborer is not neccesarily condemned to death.

Too tired to keep arguing, but a quick question. If a laborer is a slave under capitalism, that is if they don't work they will die, what would happen to them under alternative systems, such as anarcho-communism, socialism, or traditional communism?

[Rowan11088]

In response to the rather dismal view of low-wage labor posited here, I have to disagree. The scenario suggested by TheKwas is also governed by free market rules, he's just not making it clear. Labor in itself is a product that can be purchased, and it has a supply and demand relationship as well. Yes, the workers can be abused and the type of economy TheKwas talks about can be produced, IF the supply of labor is very high compared to demand, making it possible to hire workers at very low wages. But the economy in the long run recovers from even this type of imbalance; workers living on miniscule wages have fewer children, since they cannot afford to take care of them. The supply of labor eventually dwindles until is hard enough to find that wages will increase for everyone. Now this process could take hundreds of years to equalize, especially if we're talking about a global scale like our own. And it's hindered by religious beliefs and the difficulty people have about controlling the size of their own families; but it's still an inexorable process. Look at Africa, where some of the poorest people in the world are. They continue to have children at a regular rate, but there's no money there to support them, so all the death and illness takes a huge chunk out of the growth rate. If conditions continue as they are, eventually the labor available from there will shrink in proportion to the consumer base in wealthier countries, wages will increase, and standards of livings will slowly creep upwards. It's just very unfortunate that greed and a general ability of the wealthy to ignore the suffering of 3rd world citizens prolongs the problem and makes this very, very long term solution the only viable one.

[Erik]

American Libertarianism is for the most part, miles away from the anarchism of Proudhon, Bankunin, Goldmen, Tolstoy, ect. Although it should be noted that Libertarianism outside of North America actually refers to the anarchism for the most part, and Libertarianism is simply called Liberalism (or classical Liberalism).

How is American "Libertarianism" (jeez, those americans have to come up with ever more complex names because they keep twisting the meaning of existing words) any different from European Liberalism?

I think the only real difference is that in Europe the movement has real political power, and it has so for centuries, while in America it's still theoretically.
It would be the same as saying "American communism" is very different from all other forms of communism.

Anyways IMO liberalism is a very bad idea.
It only has a short term positive effect for the wallets of a lucky few.
On the long term it is harmfull for the economy because modern day economies simply need a certain level of planning to compete with the rest of the world.
The idea that economies wil sort themselves out fine when left alone is a fairytale.

[Kanaric]

Libratarianism i've seen mostly associated with the Republicans...... most of the people who follow it are hard-core NRA nuts and people who want to have their militias out in Nebraska.... it has nothing to do with libralism what so ever. They are REAL conservatives who believe in minimal government and states rights Ironically which is what Republicans USED to be now they are the faux-conservatives with their big government, big spending, and lack of fiscal responsibility.......

Libertarianism is the hold out for people who formerly called themselves republicans and they still have a lot of Bush votes. Equating the American Libertarianism movement to liberalism is not only wrong but foolish.

Some of you guys need to learn more about the movement.

[Nationalist_Cause]

As a traditionalist conservative in the American sense, I share some beliefs in common with libertarians.

The government is indeed too big, especially in America. It seems impossible to roll back at this point. But I do feel the government should have more power than libertarians want it to have. I am against uncontrolled free trade because it opens up the common man to be exploited by big business. Not only that, but how careful, would you imagine, would big companies be about disposing of toxic chemicals if there weren't any restrictions placed on them? No, the government must have the ability to regulate big business and trade, but not enough to control and stifle it.

As far as personal freedom goes, that all depends on what we're talking about. I'm completely against the Patriot Act and everything associated with it. My privacy is valuable to me. However, people shouldn't have the freedom to walk down to the corner market and buy cocaine, LSD, or any other hardcore drug and use it in public. Isn't this taking "personal freedom" a bit too far? I mean, of course you aren't directly treading on the rights of others by engaging in these activities, but you may endanger the lives and welfare of others by violent acts or irresponsible driving while under the influence. People do enough moronic things while under the influence of alcohol, why allow the freedom to increase these problems by 100 fold?

I just can't agree with the complete personal freedom aspect of libertarianism. That basically means to me that the ideology has no moral compass, no sense of right and wrong, no sense of good and evil, and lacks the ability to identify what activities are harmful or beneficial to society.

[TheKwas]

About the judicial branch thing, and i'm not sure if this agrees with American libertarianism. The only law would be this: If it infringes on someone else's rights, you can't do, anything else is legal. New social problems would just be applied to this simple rule of thumb. Is this too utopian?

I do think it's alittle short-sighted, although I do agree with the premises. First off, I think it overlooks the issues of international involvement (including war) that is one of the issues addressed by the government (Although I know Libertarians support isolationism, I find that to be silly and short-sighted as well). I also think that it will result in a stagnation of enviroment regulation, where "preventive" enviromental regulation will be thrown out the door in favour of reactive enviromental regulation (aka, nothing being done until an individual with enough funds to take on a corporation in court complains to the courts about enviromental abuse by a certain company). The courts simply don't have the capacity to reactive stance on everything, the government or a decision making proccess of somesort needs to create preventive regulation to complament reactive punishment.

Also, that's assuming that Friedmanist/Libertarianist economics actually address economic problems in the first place, which I don't think they do.

About the Nike and microsoft things.

Yes, I'll admit that Nike is selling an idea, and Microsoft as well to a lesser extent. Is that such a bad thing? If the demand for an idea wasn't there, then Nike most likely wouldn't be as sucessful today. But it is there. The want for "image" exists and companies like Nike and Microsoft are taking advantage of that, a perfectly natural thing. Am I saying that I support buying things based on image? No. It's very vain and even halfway sensible people can usually see through that smokescreen. The people want to buy image, and so an image is produced.

You could say that the Idea is an actual product, and thus the mark-up prices associated with it are justified, but I see it more as an outsider view of what effects advertising truely has on society, and how there is literally a corporate cultural take-over in modern society. How everything that was once considered to be the public's culture is now in the hands of multi-national corporations, and ideals once held sacred by philosophers are now being commidified, morphed and transformed into everything they were once against. How with a simple emotional connection, the corporations can now not only respond to the public's demand, but start to transform the public to their interests as well. Even with all the other economic questions aside, one has to wonder what consumerism is actually doing to our culture and our outlook on life, and whether it's worth the short-term material gain.

Not to mention the whole ideal concept is pretty much a lie anyway. Starbucks doesn't actually represent community and Nike is just a shoe company and not some higher philosophy on sports.

Also, the Branding movement has a huge impact on the conditions of 3rd world factories workers as well. With mark-up pertentages reaching levels of 500%, the breakdown plays into the hands of the upper-classes and against the interests of the lower classes. Now, a two dollar production cost shoe, can be attached to a brand and be sold at a mark-up price of 500%, where as in a normal consumer market (if I have my numbers right, I could be wrong here) the mark-up price should average around 100% (due to both increase in production cost and lowering of value), most of which goes into capital reinvestment and retail. The division of product and advertising underplays (and thus, underpays) the production part of the product.

Sure, the alternative is probably death from starvation, but it's not about dying, it's about having the choice to NOT work. You could say that in slavery the same ultimate effect happens. The slave will be killed for not working, but at least the wage laborer is not neccesarily condemned to death.

Just as the slave isn't neccesarily beating/tortured to death. Some actually get away, and some just get beatings or get locked up.

If a laborer is a slave under capitalism, that is if they don't work they will die, what would happen to them under alternative systems, such as anarcho-communism, socialism, or traditional communism?

The problem isn't the choice between working and death, as in any system you have to produce SOMETHING in order to survive. The problem with capitalism, atleast in constrast to the anarcho ideologies, is that you are forced to work for a "master" or do work in a hiearchical enviroment. You have to give up your individuality to survive, which, from a libertarian POV, is unhealthy. What the Anarcho Ideologies (Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarcho-communism, ParEcon, ect) provide is a work enviroment where individuality is respected as much as possible. The workplace is ran by the means of direct-democracy with the anarchist notion of "affect when affected" or "non-initiation of force", meaning that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't negatively affects others, and once it does, you and everyone else potentially affected get an equal say in your actions in that aspect. Anarchy translates directly into "no rulers" (not to be confused with Anomie, which is no rules), and that's what the anarchists strive for, it's just that they, unlike American Libertarians, see economic rulers still as rulers.

Yes, the workers can be abused and the type of economy TheKwas talks about can be produced, IF the supply of labor is very high compared to demand, making it possible to hire workers at very low wages. But the economy in the long run recovers from even this type of imbalance; workers living on miniscule wages have fewer children, since they cannot afford to take care of them.

Actually, it's the exact oppisite. In impoverished countries where the Labour market greatly outweighs the product market, people tend to have MORE kids, despite the fact that supporting them is a huge struggle. For a random example, lets compare [url=http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/sub_content/geography/Gpop/HTMLENH/country/no.htm]Norway[/url to Iran. In Iran, the growth rate is 2.7% per year and the birth rate is 34 per 1000 every year. Now that's with the Iranian government trying to fight against the birth/growth rate. But if we take a 1st world country like Norway, the growth rate is a mere 0.3%, and the birth rate 14 per 1000 each year. Now guess which one is impoverished and which one has a flourishing economy and the highest standard of living in the world.

Now in regards to the rest of your post. The people of Iran and numerous other impoverished countries aren't dying at the rate of africans, and for the most part can scape togeather a measly living. Infact, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and numerous other impoverished countries have lower death rates than the United States or Britain.



EDIT: Adressing the last few posters:

How is American "Libertarianism" (jeez, those americans have to come up with ever more complex names because they keep twisting the meaning of existing words) any different from European Liberalism?

They really aren't for the most part. But it should be noted that Libertarianism has more roots in philosophy, and is more specfic than the label "liberalism".

Libratarianism i've seen mostly associated with the Republicans...... most of the people who follow it are hard-core NRA nuts and people who want to have their militias out in Nebraska.... it has nothing to do with libralism what so ever.

You're just operating on the Americanized version of Liberalism (which is really just moderate social democracy), the original usage of the world Liberal referred to the John Lockes and Milton Friedmans of the world. Even in America "classical Liberal" refers to those in favour of an unregulated free market.

[Rowan11088]

Actually, it's the exact oppisite. In impoverished countries where the Labour market greatly outweighs the product market, people tend to have MORE kids, despite the fact that supporting them is a huge struggle. For a random example, lets compare [url=http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/sub_content/geography/Gpop/HTMLENH/country/no.htm]Norway[/url to Iran. In Iran, the growth rate is 2.7% per year and the birth rate is 34 per 1000 every year. Now that's with the Iranian government trying to fight against the birth/growth rate. But if we take a 1st world country like Norway, the growth rate is a mere 0.3%, and the birth rate 14 per 1000 each year. Now guess which one is impoverished and which one has a flourishing economy and the highest standard of living in the world.

Now in regards to the rest of your post. The people of Iran and numerous other impoverished countries aren't dying at the rate of africans, and for the most part can scape togeather a measly living. Infact, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and numerous other impoverished countries have lower death rates than the United States or Britain.

But those two countries are both very special cases. For one, Norway has a socialist government and an unusual social structure. They have very high suicide rates, contributing to the lower population growth. Also, there's a great deal more emigration of the population since people can't just hop in a plane and leave Iran. Secondly, Iran may be impoverished, but it's not abused by corporations like many Southeastern nations are. I'm afraid that might actually hurt my point since those types of countries are probably growing even faster but Iran is still a different case I believe, mostly agrarian in nature.

And I think my point still stands, in that eventually everything has to equalize. If these labor forces aren't SO impoverished that they can't support many children, then they may not be the driving force behind economic change. But I don't think the kind of lopsided, top-heavy world economy we now have is entirely stable. I'm not talking socialist revolution, but as poorer countries industrialize and start to slowly catch up to larger ones, there will be upsets in pricing and the value of 1st world currency. That is, unless those 3rd world countries enjoy being impoverished.

[Bran Mac Born]

Kwas ,the biggest influence on American Libertarianism was not Locke-it was Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand.

[TheKwas]

But those two countries are both very special cases. For one, Norway has a socialist government and an unusual social structure. They have very high suicide rates, contributing to the lower population growth.

They also have a low murder rate. I really don't think that the suicide rate has any real bearings.

Also, I picked the countries mainly at random from that site. You can go contrast any two countries on either side of the economic scale (perhaps with the exception of China, due to their population control) and see the same results. The Birth rate is almost always lower in industrialized countries. Infact the same phenomenon is visable within industrialized countries. In America, those living in the ghetto and in poverished areas of cities, tend to have more babies, just as in Canada the Natives living on reservers or in downtown ghettos tend to have more babies as well. It's an effect (and cause, since poverity is a cycle) of poverty.

And I think my point still stands, in that eventually everything has to equalize. If these labor forces aren't SO impoverished that they can't support many children, then they may not be the driving force behind economic change.

Can you rephrase that? Because I think the meaning escaped me. If labour forces aren't impoverished, why wouldn't they be able to support children?

[Erik]

How is American "Libertarianism" (jeez, those americans have to come up with ever more complex names because they keep twisting the meaning of existing words) any different from European Liberalism?

They really aren't for the most part. But it should be noted that Libertarianism has more roots in philosophy, and is more specfic than the label "liberalism".

But isn't this because it's still a theory in America, while it is a practice in Europe?
When an ideal becomes practice it usualy looses most of it's strength.
This wil also happen in America if they would turn libertarian.
True libertarianism isn't practical or realistic, so what I think they will end up is just plain old European liberalism.

[TheKwas]

Kwas, the biggest influence on American Libertarianism was not Locke-it was Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand.

It can go either way. Lugwid Von Mises is just an outgrowth of the Lockean Liberalism, as is the entire Libertarian movement. However, Ayn Rand underlining-philosophy doesn't match up with Libertarian underlining philosophy, despite the fact they come to the same conclusions (capitalism, anti-socialism). Ayn Rand was an egoist at the core of her philosophy, where as most Libertarians tend to be outgrowths of individualistic humanism philosophies. Ayn Rand is the founder of Objectivism, which is similar to Libertarianism, but I personally know some Libertarians that take offense at the notion that the two are the same.

But isn't this because it's still a theory in America, while it is a practice in Europe?

Where exactly is it in pratice in Europe? At least in full swing?

[Erik]

Where exactly is it in pratice in Europe? At least in full swing?

When I said practice I ment most W-European countries have an active liberal party who made it into government.
I don't think any liberal party has ever got an absolute majority, but by pairing up with conservatives they can realize at least some of their agenda.

The point I tried to make was that those parties had to moderate their liberal ideals because they have REAL political responsabilities.
Everybody can yell they are going to bring back the government to a minimum but when they actually get the opportunity they have to fit their ideals into the real life.

Real liberalism/libertarianism doesn't work, just like real communism doesn't work.
But American libertarians still pretend their fairytale can one day make it into real life, while European liberals are more down to earth.
I think this is the difference between libertarianism and liberalism.

[Evariste]

Let's look at it this way:

Hong Kong: hugely sucessful, very wealthy. They have probably the freest market in the world.

India: Fantastic democracy, but extensive controls on the market, dirt poor.

I know this is incredibly simple and I would very much like for someone to debunk this.

[Erik]

Let's look at it this way:

Hong Kong: hugely sucessful, very wealthy. They have probably the freest market in the world.

India: Fantastic democracy, but extensive controls on the market, dirt poor.

I know this is incredibly simple and I would very much like for someone to debunk this.

Mali: free economy, dead poor
Denmark: socialist, rich.

A few examples say nothing.
Especially since governments often get a firm grip in poor countries BECAUSE they are poor.
For example: communist revolts only took place in countries where the people were poor, so communist countries are generally more poor.

You do have some small countries that became very rich because of free trade or low taxes.
But this is only because they attract trade from their surrounding bigger countries.
For example:
-Dubai (they have a free trade region, good for 90% of their GDP)
-Luxemburg
-Monaco (low tax rates attract very rich people)