Why, indeed? I am taking austrolibertarians less and less seriously.
I’m not so much talking about the usuall poverty arguments here, I’m more focussed on the old fashoined no room to stand arguments.
.
Again, I’m not really addressing the discrepancy between food production and population rather, the issue of how can liberty survive when there is no room to excersise it?
I think I understand what most people’s answer here has to be now. Faith in the market. So in the free market there could never be too many people, only the market determined level of people.
I still can’t help thinking that as the supply of people increases, the marginal value of each decreases.
I am certain however that we would all agree with the situation as it stands now however. Namely that the varied governments of the word subsidises child birth beyond the level that the free market would support (I’m thinking of governemt breakdown of cultural values, the welfare state, mandatory eduction up to various ages, and a whole host of other interventions).
I would genuinely be interested in hearing why. Personally I think the rationalist aspect of ‘austro-libertarianism’ (or Misesianism) is philosophically unsustainable, even though I would consider myself a libertarian through a nd through (just with a few methodological disagreements).
So please believe my sincerity when I ask you about your thoughts on this. I think the movement could only be made stronger by discussing these issues openly.
It has never existed in the history of the species and if current trends continue, it probably won’t happen even within six or more lifetimes (of the average human being). So, the argument itself is essentially null and void due to the fact that it’s a life-boat situation that you’ve setup then, and to which all normal factors are excluded.
Meaning, that the argument against liberty cannot be made from it either as that would assume that lifeboat situations are the norm, and not the exception in the range of human situations. Thus, we can disregard the “no room to stand” argument totally and utterly.
With all due respect I think this is a terrible way to dismiss an argument. Liberty itself is a lifeboat situation according to your reasoning. And besides, even if you’re lifeboat argument stood, I don’t think that this:
…is enough to declare something ‘lifeboat’.
Things in the future never happen in normal (present) everyday life, therefore, according to your argument everything in the future is a lifeboat situation. Lifeboat situations test the logical rigidity of an argument and are not external to said logic. I think that even though my argument does not seem to be lifeboat in nature, even if it was it shuold still be considered.
From where did get you anti-lifeboat ideas anyway?
No. The government subsidize old people at the expense of the young. Mandatory education is to keep the young out of the work force up to a certain age and the welfare state is mainly for the old.
In any case, the sun give us more energy in an hour than we can consume in an entire year. So population growth, for now, isn’t an issue assuming that keep up with technologies.
I think that this idea of overpopulation and population control and even population reduction is very interesting. I think that it’s very important to demonstrate what organizations and people or governments are concerned about population control or reduction and prove that this is the case. Otherwise it is just a “conspiracy theory”. I am incredibly open minded, but I have seen very few actual published asserting views that advocate widespread population reduction. I know of NSSM 200 by Kissinger that advocates strict population control in the third world. I also know of the Georgia Guidestones and find them very fascinating. I have also heard rumors of something called the “global 2000 agenda” but have never actual seen anything other than hear theories about it.
This is hardly proof of elites conspiring to reduce the world’s population as some assert. Are there real documents somewhere that suggest such a thing? Where did these ideas of world elites wanting drastic population reduction come from? I think this is very important. Otherwise, what are we even talking about here? Are we to be labeled that dreaded term “conspiracy theorists”, or are we open minded rational philosophers and thinkers that require hard evidence?
No to what?
I’m not talking about poverty im talking about living space.
I think the libertarian stance seems to come down to this though; overpopulation could not occur in a free society as the cost would be too high. Does this seem fair? (Open question)
Occam’s Razor: The simplest explaination often suffice. There is no vast complex conspiracy to reduce population by elite members of society.
You will have to show me evidence to show otherwise.
You said government subsidize birthrate. I refute it by pointing out how much young people are at a disadvantage as so much to discourage baby making.
Even if the living space is limited, it will take a while for us to occupy everything. We still didn’t colonize the ocean, nevermind underwater. We also overwhlemly occupied a small proportion of land(The rest are mountain, desert, etc). There is space to colonize too.
I’m not sure where this came from and I’m not asking about this. You think population control isn’t on the cards, I think it is. I’m not however asking about this, I only mentioned this to give some context as to why I’m suddenly interested in this area of libertarian thought.
My question was given exponential population growth, how can a free society function. The libertarian answer seems to be what I suspected (namely what I resort to saying when questioned by non-libertarians), that is; that the free-market would not allow exponential population growth indefinately (given the idea that the endgame is infact unprofitable).
I wasn’t even responding to you at all. I was expressing my disbelief about the existence of a conspiracy.
Okay, I did not realise. It just seemed that way as it seemed to be a response to my over population question: