I am now seeing warnings of a coming population collapse due to rapidly declining fertility rates. Many attribute this to feminism and/or material prosperity. Could libertarianism lead to the collapse of (modern) civilization due to a collective action problem of each pursuing his own interests within a libertarian framework?
>I am now seeing warnings of a coming population collapse due to rapidly declining fertility rates. Many attribute this to feminism and/or material prosperity.
I guess it is due mainly to material prosperity combined with easy access to modern contraception and abortion. But there is also the fact that the state has crowded out much of the usefulness of families with its welfare handouts of various kinds.
>Could libertarianism lead to the collapse of (modern) civilization due to a collective action problem of each pursuing his own interests within a libertarian framework?
Perhaps I am missing the intended problem. People are pursuing their own interests when they choose to become a couple and have children together.
I meant that if not enough people choose to voluntarily have children, could demographic collapse be a “byproduct” of liberty? Also, I thought the problem with the welfare state is that it encourages illegitimate children, not fewer children.
>I meant that if not enough people choose to voluntarily have children, could demographic collapse be a “byproduct” of liberty?
I still don’t see your intended alleged causation. People have not usually been forced to have children but freely chose to do so. Why would having more liberty in other respects make them be less inclined to have children? Or do you mean that more liberty causes more wealth causes fewer children (as there are more enjoyable other things to do)? What is the implied alternative? Reduce liberty to make people reproduce more?
>Also, I thought the problem with the welfare state is that it encourages illegitimate children, not fewer children.
It does both. Single mothers can have children, a home, and income without having to put up with a man. They can also give away any unwanted children and the state will look after them. Result: more children that are fatherless or parentless. But at the same time, couples do not need to have children to help them earn much-needed income, be a form of insurance, and to look after them in later life. The state does all that. Result: couples have fewer children.
My apologies for not being clear. This was more of a thought experiment regarding the possibility that the prosperity created by liberty might lead to demographic decline (assuming it is so far mostly attributable to prosperity, birth control, etc. and not mainly state welfare). In other words, would an objection to libertarianism be that humanity might voluntarily extinguish itself?
If libertarianism showed signs of extinguishing humanity (by any means whatsoever), then that would be a reason to at least limit full libertarianism. I would not advocate libertarianism where I thought it would lead to human catastrophes. What could and should be done would depend on the issues involved—which don’t exist in a thought experiment except as hypothetically stipulated. However, in the current real world there are solutions to demographic decline that are libertarian. One possibility is to reduce income taxes on parents in direct proportion to the number of children they have. But this would not be libertarian if they proportionally increased taxes elsewhere or increased the state money supply.
I am now seeing warnings of a coming population collapse due to rapidly declining fertility rates. Many attribute this to feminism and/or material prosperity. Could libertarianism lead to the collapse of (modern) civilization due to a collective action problem of each pursuing his own interests within a libertarian framework?
>I am now seeing warnings of a coming population collapse due to rapidly declining fertility rates. Many attribute this to feminism and/or material prosperity.
I guess it is due mainly to material prosperity combined with easy access to modern contraception and abortion. But there is also the fact that the state has crowded out much of the usefulness of families with its welfare handouts of various kinds.
>Could libertarianism lead to the collapse of (modern) civilization due to a collective action problem of each pursuing his own interests within a libertarian framework?
Perhaps I am missing the intended problem. People are pursuing their own interests when they choose to become a couple and have children together.
I meant that if not enough people choose to voluntarily have children, could demographic collapse be a “byproduct” of liberty? Also, I thought the problem with the welfare state is that it encourages illegitimate children, not fewer children.
>I meant that if not enough people choose to voluntarily have children, could demographic collapse be a “byproduct” of liberty?
I still don’t see your intended alleged causation. People have not usually been forced to have children but freely chose to do so. Why would having more liberty in other respects make them be less inclined to have children? Or do you mean that more liberty causes more wealth causes fewer children (as there are more enjoyable other things to do)? What is the implied alternative? Reduce liberty to make people reproduce more?
>Also, I thought the problem with the welfare state is that it encourages illegitimate children, not fewer children.
It does both. Single mothers can have children, a home, and income without having to put up with a man. They can also give away any unwanted children and the state will look after them. Result: more children that are fatherless or parentless. But at the same time, couples do not need to have children to help them earn much-needed income, be a form of insurance, and to look after them in later life. The state does all that. Result: couples have fewer children.
My apologies for not being clear. This was more of a thought experiment regarding the possibility that the prosperity created by liberty might lead to demographic decline (assuming it is so far mostly attributable to prosperity, birth control, etc. and not mainly state welfare). In other words, would an objection to libertarianism be that humanity might voluntarily extinguish itself?
If libertarianism showed signs of extinguishing humanity (by any means whatsoever), then that would be a reason to at least limit full libertarianism. I would not advocate libertarianism where I thought it would lead to human catastrophes. What could and should be done would depend on the issues involved—which don’t exist in a thought experiment except as hypothetically stipulated. However, in the current real world there are solutions to demographic decline that are libertarian. One possibility is to reduce income taxes on parents in direct proportion to the number of children they have. But this would not be libertarian if they proportionally increased taxes elsewhere or increased the state money supply.
Just came across this. https://youtu.be/EwIeDuHwXJY?si=he5FJPNNmlOv1DAj