http://fora.tv/2010/09/05/Eric_Kaufmann_Shall_the_Religious_Inherit_the_Earth
This video and Kaufmanns book tell us interesting things about our future in current century. Religious fundamentalists from Christianity, Islam and Judaism keep up with their very high fertility rates as secular families are under the 2.0, which is a rate that keeps population stable. Secular families are facing huge shrinking with their 1.1. or lower fertility. Kaufmann states that we are not going to have islamisation as many people claim, but US is going to face new christianisation from Quiverfull-movement and an united front from all three fundamentalist groups on social issues.
Some secularists claim that there is no worry, because only friction of those people will stay in movements. Well, only 1/20 of Amish are leaving and numbers are low with other movements too. One main reason is that these populations have their own "culture", which removes the weapons from the secular culture and makes it possible for people to stay in their groups.
Main question - what does this mean to free market economics and libertarianism? The amount of secular people is going to shrink, and what use there is for free market literature if anyone isn't going to read it? Or should we join these movements? Serious talk is needed, because this will certainly affect our future.
Chyd3nius: Main question - what does this mean to free market economics and libertarianism? The amount of secular people is going to shrink, and what use there is for free market literature if anyone isn't going to read it? Or should we join these movements? Serious talk is needed, because this will certainly affect our future.
It means nothing to Free market Economics. There is nothing in Austrian economic theory that conflicts with any of the religions you mention, that would keep any member of them from embracing free market principles.
Chyd3nius: ...a united front from all three fundamentalist groups on social issues.
...a united front from all three fundamentalist groups on social issues.
Now if by libertarianism you mean a type of egalitarianism, then yes there will be an impact, if the numbers sway the way you fear for some reason.
What type of impact do you fear?
Do you think your fears are realistic – and in what way?
I'm concerned how willing fundamentalists will be for free market. Mises was atheist, after all. If they are willing, how should we prepare for upcoming years? Main point of this thread is to get people aware of upcoming demographic change.
Are you looking for patterns? I feel that on a whole it's irrelevant, that of Mises being atheist and people being fundamentalist of some sort doesn't change human action as a reality. I assume you are trying to find something in the groups themselves, but the boundaries that tie these groups together are abstract, it's only a religious persuasion.
Another thing on Mises being atheist, there are Christians involved with the LvMI, J Tucker is Catholic for example.
Quite something in terms of strategy for us there. Very interesting vid!
Historically the secularists are the progressives, so even if Mises and Rothbard and many of their followers are irreligious, that's a far cry from secularists being their allies.
It seems the social Darwinists have forgotten how evolution works. If they want to breed themselves out of society, I guess that's the price for their "rationality".
.500NE:It means nothing to Free market Economics. There is nothing in Austrian economic theory that conflicts with any of the religions you mention, that would keep any member of them from embracing free market principles.
Evidence:
Jeffrey Tucker - Catholic
Tom Woods - Catholic
Robert Murphy - Christian (not sure of the denomination)
Ron Paul - Baptist
Stephan Kinsella - (pretty sure) Christian (almost positive he had his son Christened.)
Jesús Huerta de Soto - Spanish (i.e. 76% chance he's Catholic)
Gary North - Presbyterian
Chyd3nius:I'm concerned how willing fundamentalists will be for free market. Mises was atheist, after all.
So because you have one example of a free market adherent being non-religious, that automatically means religious people won't take to free market ideas?
a) See above for examples of how wrong you are
b) Most Republicans already identify as Christian...and they already identify and agree with the notion of "free market" (sure they don't fully understand it, but at least they are already of the belief that they are in favor of a free market)
Chyd3nius:Main point of this thread is to get people aware of upcoming demographic change.
Upcoming demographic change?
78.4% of Americans already identify as Christian. Sure that's down from times past, but even as late as 1990 it was as high as 86.4%....and the market was arguably in many ways free-er back then. Are you honestly trying to argue that we should be afraid of such an envrionment? That somehow 90% or 95% Christian would just be catastrophic? What the hell are you even arguing? And where is your evidence?
Upcoming demographic change? 78.4% of Americans already identify as Christian. Sure that's down from times past, but even as late as 1990 it was as high as 86.4%....and the market was arguably in many ways free-er back then. Are you honestly trying to argue that we should be afraid of such an envrionment? That somehow 90% or 95% Christian would just be catastrophic? What the hell are you even arguing? And where is your evidence?
Did you watch the video? Point isn't how many Americans indentify themselves as Christians, it's high fertility rates of fundamentalist Christians and their high "movement staying rates" compared to very low fertility of secular and moderate Christians.
No, I wanted to raise some conversation. Modern Austrian economics is quite well prepared for rising amount of fundamental Christians, but I'm not sure what example Quiverfull movement thinks about economics. These demographic changes certainly affect the strategies of free market supporters, and I think that Rothbard did good job when he started to say that libertarians should stop being so hateful for religions and start to respect them.
As an aside Kinsella stated on a now graveyarded thread he used to be Catholic but is no longer. If you look at his facebook links he's a pretty staunch atheist now.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Chyd3nius:Did you watch the video? Point isn't how many Americans indentify themselves as Christians, it's high fertility rates of fundamentalist Christians and their high "movement staying rates" compared to very low fertility of secular and moderate Christians.
...to what end? How saturated the country becomes with these people...right?? If you're now arguing that what percent of the population fits into this demographic doesn't matter, then what the hell is your point?
I thought the entire purpose of worrying about fertility rates and "movement staying rates" was the fear that eventually they would overtake everything else...meaning there would be less and less "secular people"...as in a smaller and smaller percentage of them and a larger percentage of these Christians. Right? I mean, if I'm not getting this correct, please set me straight. If there's something I said that isn't accurate, by all means, let me know.
Apparently I got this all wrong because you're telling me now that percentages don't matter.
Modern Austrian economics is quite well prepared for rising amount of fundamental Christians, but I'm not sure what example Quiverfull movement thinks about economics.
That sentence makes absolutely no sense. I think you left some words out or something.
I'm not sure what people in Quiverfull-movement think about economics. But it seems that there is quite much of religious people in Austrian movement, which might be helpful with fundamental Christians. Does it make sense now?
There is different groups in people identifying themselves as Christians, and the fundamental segment is having high fertility rates compared to atheists and moderate Christians. So it's one segment from the American Christians vs. other Christian segment + non-religious, not all Christians vs. non-religious.
Main point of this thread was to make people more aware of that fundamentals are rising in numbers much faster than people might actually think. I'm not sure how aware people are about it in America, but in Europe many generally think that religions are going to die off in this century.
Chyd3nius:I'm not sure what people in Quiverfull-movement think about economics. But it seems that there is quite much of religious people in Austrian movement, which might be helpful with fundamental Christians. Does it make sense now?
No, it doesn't make sense now, because it sounds like you just supported the opposite of your entire premise about being afraid.
So what percentage of the 78% is that?
That's not what you said. You essentially stated your concern was how this affects free market economics...implying that this growing segment of the population was against, or at least less likely to buy into free market ideas. I'm still waiting for evidence of this.
My original point wasn't to imply that fundamental Christians are against free market economics, sorry if I gave such an impression. I wanted to bring this thing up for conversation if there is anything strategic use for this demographic information.
EDIT: Hmm yes indeed, my original post seems to be quite worried after I re-read it.
I'm not sure about exact percents, it's few days since I saw the video and I haven't got the book yet. But some numbers, Evangelical protestants make 26.3%, Quiverfull has thousands of families and Amish population is 249 000.
Irrelevant either way. We don't need to convert everything that moves. To establish a free society we just need for us to be allowed to opt out. We don't need to overthrow the existing system for 300 million Americans, which would indeed require converting gazillions of people. Whether fundamentalists would be open to becoming libertarians is far less relevant than whether they would be more, or less open to letting us go our way than secularists, or perhaps more realisticaly, whether they would be more, or less able to prevent us from going our way. I don't particularly hold high hopes for much to be able to be realized in circumstances as they are now, so I am welcoming of change such as this. The more interesting times, the more things are turned upside down, the bigger the chances there's an opportunity for us. At the end of the day we are revolutionaries of a sort, so even worse can be better (if you take into account our narrowminded, "sectarian" interests alone).
The main source of secularism is not birth. It's the realization that religion is stupid. That's why religion is actually going downhill despite birth rates.