both will reach their peaks soon, and then start leveling out.
both are cases of extreme government meddling with child birth rates.
brute recommends the book "The Coming Population Crash".
both will reach their peaks soon, and then start leveling out.
I read an interview of the author on Salon, and he raised a number of goods points. But one thing that seem rather weak concerned Africa. He noted that contraception was weak there, and implied that cultural changes in the West (feminism + female labor participation) was weak there, thereby leading the higher birthrates. Yet he didn't mention (in the article I read, anyway) ways that could be helpful in reducing fertility rates there. Did he mention more in the book?
I am clearly not doing a very good job of making my point. I tested as being even more Libertarian than you or Riggerjack I am definitely not in favor of extension of authority. However, I have spent a good deal of time in caretaker roles or dealing with the general population, as opposed to just other members of the adult work-force. So, my perspective is absolutely that self-aware, self-care is first priority. Put on your own oxygen mask first, of course, but then what? What do you do second?BRUTE" wrote:and has 7Wannabe5 thought about what the alternative would be? a system in which humans are made to have children because some authority determined they're not having enough?
brute is doubtful. brute was more libertarian than the test.
Agreed. The ideal of personal responsibility is not worth much if everyone is dead. Although the current Libertarian Party platform is of the drill baby drill mantra. Not reasonable of the supposedly “reasonable” party.
I disagree with the non-interventionist/non-violent-at-all-costs policy of libertarianism as it is understood. It lacks understanding of the necessity of force in Realpolitik. Not only are conflicts unavoidable between nation-states, but they are constantly occurring within them amongst groups and individuals. The whole world would have to be one country, and the proportion of personal responsibility idealists as a contingent of the whole population would have to increase dramatically.
only in self defense or when a credible threat is posed.
the wild west wasn't actually very violent. guns and bullets were far too expensive. most humans diet from poverty more than from being riddled by bad humans with guns.Mister Imperceptible wrote: Unless you consider a Wild Wild West preferable.
Preemptive action is often necessitated. Rome’s dominance of the Italian Peninsula was really just the result of trying to survive against rival cities. They had to destroy Carthage- if they did not, Carthage would have destroyed them. They didn’t want Gaul but were constantly having to keep the Gauls at bay (see sack of 390BCE). The Romans wanted no part of Greece but were forced to take it because the region was constantly unstable and the Selucids were encroaching.
https://www.preceden.com/timelines/71548-european-warsMister Imperceptible wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:53 amCredible threats arise ceaselessly. I wish there was another way.
brute is not convinced this is true.
brute thinks this is an important point that most humans that are not libertarians get confused on, including most of the modern pro-Euro humans.Mister Imperceptible wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:53 amI do not know what we are moving toward. If not mutual annihilation as a result of war or species extinction as a result of climate change, the alternative is the entire world becoming one nation-state, likely under some oppressive and horrific hive mind.
as mentioned by DLj, economic interdependence or trade leads to peace. this is because trade is a positive-sum game. both parties of a voluntary transaction benefit from it, otherwise it would not happen. it is thus in both parties' egoistic interest not to start a war with the other side.Bastiat wrote:If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will.