Replies

"Let me call to your attention that neither Europe nor the US has a minimum population replacement birth rate of 2.1 births per native female (although the US is close)."

I admit that you've got a point there. I'm not sure that means our nation would eventually die without immigration, but I'm interested in your analysis of the reasons for that replacement value. FWIW, my wife and I raised 2 kids. We'd have had more though, had it not been a risk to her health.

OTOH, most of our immigrants these days are Latin, which should mean the birth rate could go up.

A reality that sometimes occurs to me, and also did to our founding fathers, is the possibility that this experiment in liberty may not end up successfully. It is hard to argue that our liberty has not and is not eroding. But my point is more towards such things as you mentioned, self destructive behavior, etc. It's obvious enough that if Americans do not behave "virtuously," as the founding fathers put it, that our freedom will never last. I guess I'm saying that if we get to the point that the state must direct things like productivity and procreation, our freedom is already lost. 'Course there are plenty of other examples.

I'm OK with the tem practical libertarian, I'm just used to the classical liberal one. Also, I truly enjoy driving modern "liberals" crazy with it.

…but I'm interested in your analysis of the reasons for that replacement value.

I presume you mean the lack of replacement… The 2.1 figure instead of 2.0 is an adjustment to compensate for infant mortality and/or later infertility.

My analysis for the failure of native born females to achieve that minimum rate is rooted in two things:

1. The advent of the birth control pill and subsequent rise of modern feminism.

2. The advent of legalized, non-stigmatized, relatively cheap and easily obtainable abortions.

Relative to item 1 above, the birth control pill freed women from the inevitable consequence of promiscuous sex (pregnancy). With that freedom women were no longer bound to the inevitable and potentially unpredictable duties of motherhood. Consequently, women were no longer dependent upon a male for financial support and assistance in caring for the young. Therefore, the logic continued, that women should not longer be restricted by any other social restraint.

Modern feminism challenging many, if not all, social restraints based upon sex, arose on the tide of the sexual revolution stemming from the birth control pill. Since females could, in theory, control their fertility and the timing of children, they could engage in careers that were previously shut to them because of requirements of continuity or cumulative experience, i.e., the requirements that unplanned pregnancy and child bearing/rearing interrupted. For a number of women the lure of career forestalled their biological urge to reproduce until too late for child birth lowering the birth rate.

However, relative to item 2 above, not every woman availed themselves of the pill prior to engaging in sexual activity and, even for those who did, it is not 100% reliable. Consequently, when the Supreme Court invented the right to an abortion the “perfect storm” existed for stifling the native citizen birth rate.

To tie this little dissertation into our discussion on libertarianism and the “required interference” of a government into matters of personal liberty, we must examine the impacts of traditional values and the role that government has in promoting those. However, that is another discussion.

It's obvious enough that if Americans do not behave "virtuously," as the founding fathers put it, that our freedom will never last.

See the quote by John Adams about suitability of the American form of government for a certain type of people and its lack of such for those not possessing certain qualities.