I'm not talking about what we've got, but what we want. To the average Australian, everyone who isn't white is a dirty foreigner come to take our jobs. Hell, I'm fairly dark-skinned, so I've been called every name under the sun myself, as has my woman.
Correlation Between Population Density and Freedom?
- Thread starter attackfighter
- Start date
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
I think high population density necessitates lower individual freedom but not for the reason the OP suggests. Yes workers are demanded more if there are less workers and get more money, more perks but it is not the absolute quantity of workers that matters but the relative supply and demand of labor. There are many times more workers today than in Roman times but that doesn't mean people today are worse off or have fewer benefits than they did 2000 years ago.
The reason why high population density requires less freedom is that what you do affects more people and more people to a greater extent if there is a high population density. Smoking bans, noise ordnances, building permits(for appearance), gun laws, etc. aren't called for when there aren't many people affected by each individuals actions.
The reason why high population density requires less freedom is that what you do affects more people and more people to a greater extent if there is a high population density. Smoking bans, noise ordnances, building permits(for appearance), gun laws, etc. aren't called for when there aren't many people affected by each individuals actions.
~Corsair#01~
Deity
High population density is a major factor in poverty. This is because revenue from natural resources like oil, diamonds and agriculture doesn't really grow as the population rises, since the natural resources themselves and the machinery to gather them are much more important than the number of workers in determining levels of production. So in countries where natural resources are a major part of economy, like most African countries, a rise in population leads directly to a fall in GDP per person as production doesn't rise much (if at all) as population rises.
Poverty and in particular the failure of a country to develop a large and well-educated middle class can lead to the collapse of democracy and the establishment of governments which have no respect for individual freedoms.
But I think that the correlation is between poverty and political failure, not directly between high population density and political failure as the example of Japan demonstrates.
Poverty and in particular the failure of a country to develop a large and well-educated middle class can lead to the collapse of democracy and the establishment of governments which have no respect for individual freedoms.
But I think that the correlation is between poverty and political failure, not directly between high population density and political failure as the example of Japan demonstrates.
I've been to Darwin. Too bloody hot.
Temperature always wins. Sticks and stones may break my bones, words will never hurt me, but the heat makes me want to curl up into a little ball and cry until it gets cooler.
attackfighter, I would like to point out that you have double-termed yourself in your first post. You first argued that higher density lead to lower freedom, but then switched the argument to one of prosperity. Whether Canada is richer than the USA should have little to do with your thesis - you need to compare the political and social freedoms in Canada with those of the USA, not their relative wealth.
You have an interesting hypothesis, but be sure not to start off with an argument for freedom which gets diverted into an argument about prosperity - especially if you are going to write a college paper on the subject, where you must argue consistently without getting distracted.
You have an interesting hypothesis, but be sure not to start off with an argument for freedom which gets diverted into an argument about prosperity - especially if you are going to write a college paper on the subject, where you must argue consistently without getting distracted.
In addition to the many questions raised above about your thesis, I would argue men like Alexander Hamilton can hardly be considered "libertarian". Or any of the other big Federalists. Or anyone who ended up signing the Constitution for that matter, for it replaced an incredibly decentralized government with a more centralized federal government.
You also have to deal with feudalism, which is an example of a political-economic system that combined low population density and little freedom (well, unless you were part of that lucky 1% of the population born into the aristocracy).
Ebitdadada
Master Baiter
I'd also echo the point that if you're arguing about population density being correlated w/ freedom, not prosperity - this is kind of an offshoot you shouldn't put in your paper.
Just as important, I'd check the facts. Almost any source you look (world bank, IMF, etc.) @ will show US per capita income is actually higher than Canadian per capital GDP by about $8k per year. That said, given your thesis is about freedom, not income, I'd just get rid of that and you're good go go.
Have you looked @ Europe before & after the plauge? If my tiny little brain remembers anything, Europe actually got quite a bit better for the serfs after the plauge killed off a good portion of the population.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Better economically. There was a massive labor shortage, so even an unskilled laborer could fetch a fair price. Meanwhile there was now a suprluss of goods left around from everybody dying. However, the period after the plauge politically, was marked by centralization and the rise of absolute monarchs.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
No, he was suggesting it was expansionist, filling the void of Siberia.
But considering that the expansion was fueled by ambitious royals, in a twisted way couldn't it be considered "capitalist"? If you view the monarch's country as their "corporation".
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
By that logic, couldn't the Soviet Union be viewed as a corporation?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That's certainly how left-anarchists see it.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, it's an over-simplified analogy for the sake of easy communication. There's a lot of theory behind it.
ParkCungHee said:
That seems to have been overemphasised. Some places saw spectacular growth in wages. Others didn't see all that much, if any. This was dependant upon local factors like the ability of the nobility to stamp down on peasant demands.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Well yes. But my point was more that any benefits they saw were economic, not political.
Similar threads
