Taking a look at the historically most Libertarian and even these days somewhat Libertarian regions of the world f.e. rural America, rural Switzerland, it’s clear that Libertarian political culture is inversely proportional to population density i.e. urbanization.
When most people are independent farmers or shopkeepers or artisans in a rural area, they are naturally Libertarian-ish.
On the economic side of it, most have land or capital like a store. If they work with it, they can make a living with it. They don’t depend on jobs offered by others. The world’s first welfare state was in Rome, free wheat distributed by the state, why? Because of the urban proletarians who did not have land or shops or workshops. They depended on others for jobs, due to various governmental policies f.e. slavery, they didn’t have them. Even when there are enough jobs, employees feel more vulnerable than independent farmers and shopkeepers. The reasons and whether it is justified (usually not but often may be) I won’t investigate now: they just do feel so.
On the lifestyle liberty part of it, first, hard-working farmers and artisans don’t really become dope-smoking hippies or transvestites. They grow up fast, they get serious and mature fast. They have to. Nobody owes them a living and it is a sobering thing. Second, low population density means people’s differing lifestyles does not disturb each other much.
Taking it all into account, do you think Libertarianism can get popular in a urban civilization, where many people feel very dependent of corporations, and where high population density makes people disturb each other much?
this is completely red herring stuff, i dont see the value in this, but i see the potential for much confusion and damage fall out.
taking it all into account i think libertarianism can get popular anyhwere there are rational beings who care about playing the ‘morality’ game. if this describes the urban region you picture, the answer is yes, otherwise no. simple as.
I don’t think it’s a red herring whatsoever. As mentioned, Switzerland is a great example. If you look at Switzerland now you’ll see that the cantons pushing for bigger government are those with big cities in them Basel, Zurich, Bern, Geneva. On the other hand the more rural cantons aren’t too keen on centralization. Now, this could simply be because they realise they’ll lose it due to their inferior influence, but I don’t think it’s just that. I definately agree with the OP that there is a strange relationship between urbanization and liberty. I can think of a couple of reasons: states find it easier to control people in cities, states have encouraged the growth of cities (hence they’re more statist from the go), pre state institutions (family, church, community) are all far more important in rural areas (this is a big one, if you ask me). But I don’t know of any one reason why this would be the case, it’d be interesting to look into.
I think you’re half correct. Have you read this piece by Hoppe? It’s absolutely wonderful and may go someway towards answering your question. Now thinking about I have a better answer than my previous one. It is simply that outside of the city state conflicts are going to arise far less often than in an area with low population density (especially considering the historical nature of the city, very well accounted for by Hoppe in the piece I linked). Given that the state thrives on conflict, it is logical that this will make the size of the state increase when there are more conflicts.
@OP
I had heard that there was an uncommon level of transvestitism in the great outdoors, especially among trades like lumberjacks.
On a serious note, I suppose there is a lot of truth in what you’re saying. The problem of course comes with any intentional or unintentional implications. Do you think we should forcibly relocate the population in the cities? Do you think that there is even enough land for it to be possible for us to spread people across the globe so that the population density would be at a level you desire? Do you think this would be efficient?