Ilived in England for 10 years and might as well be considered British in the sense that if I met someone from the isles and I chose they woudn't have a clue otherwise. In addition I've lived in Italy and spent extensive time in Danmark, Germany and France, as well as Spain and Sweden. So there are my credentials... oh it was Chalfont St Giles Bucks if you want to know where.
GilesStratton: The British are a thuggish, uncivilized, state worshipping, high time preference, politically correct people.
Have you been to America? I hardly ever see Brits wave their flag with the exceptions of sports or when a Navy ship departs. So as for state worshipping....meh I think that word is too strong. in relation to the U.S I would say apart from Libertarians and the like, most people fall into that category, conservatives and liberals alike. The politically correct part...yes and no. I wouldn't say its particularly worse than anywhere. It's merely that each culture picks and chooses. e.g Violence is acceptable in U.S but not Danmark. Nudity is Visa Versa (T.V wise). So it's not really that one is more politcally correct then the other, its just the issues.
GilesStratton:Now, from other places I've live(d) I can tell you the US is better in all those regards,
Yes so from the above (after living in the U.S for 8 years and UK 10) I just don't think the US is that much better in those regards. They really aren't more freedom loving or resistant to the state. They just constantly scream it as empty rhetoric. They are just as clueless to those terms as anyone in Britain or Europe.
GilesStratton:Europeans tend not to give a damn about the state whenever they don't have to, using it for their own advantage occasionally, but besides that doing their best to ignore it . Most people from Western Europe would far rather live their lives around their family and God than the state, appreciating good food, drink and the company of their friends and family.
Yes they are more "cultured" but I have no idea why. For the Nordic countries I'm going to disagree with the God part. It's really just a traditional cultural custom, they are not devout. However, I once discussed the issue of self ownership with my cousins and they readily stated that in part the state owned them. I think that is carried throughout all cultures...how prevelant it is...I do not know.
GilesStratton: Rather than going out getting drunk off their faces as the English tend to do. Look at the general clothing of an adult anywhere in Europe and you'll see they dress smarter, use less bad language and are generally far more civil, polite and friendly than the English.
Binge drinking is prevalent all over Europe. People in Danmark go through that stage at about 15-19. They definetly dress smarter.
Politer...yes and no ... have you been to Paris and been unable to speak French? Their arrogance is on par with Americans. The only difference is that depending upon where you are in the states, some regions tend to be friendlier.
So in conclusion I'm not saying your completely wrong, but I do think your overstating your case. And we all tend to romanticize foreign areas in relation to our own. I did that when I was in the UK. I couldnt wait to move back the US.
And then I did, and tbh I really don't like Colorado. Or the U.S. These people are blood thirsty, morally self righteous and hypocritical its unbelievable (christianity + Warrior Democracy spreaders??? LOLZ ). They have a ridiculous zeal for the state with their flag waving, etc its no patriotism its down right nationalism. They are incredibly ignorant of foreign cultures. They live in a crazy fantasy land. I really can't stand the foreign intervention part. At least the europeans have abandoned imperialism of the the military kind. As I said, freedom isn't really more prevalent they just like to say Freedom! *fuck yeah* LIBERTY! *fuck yeah* but they might as well say Slavery! *fuck yeah* .
Everyone thinks the Liberty movement birth, home and future is the U.S but I am not so certain.
GilesStratton: liberty student:You would win. I would also say that you experience bias because you lack the perspective of someone who has lived and traveled throughout the Americas. That's quite an assumption there, also an incorrect one.
liberty student:You would win. I would also say that you experience bias because you lack the perspective of someone who has lived and traveled throughout the Americas.
That's quite an assumption there, also an incorrect one.
How so?
GilesStratton: liberty student:This is not to condemn Euros, I like you guys. You're funny with your fish and chips, dark beers and boulangeries. But Niccolo would make these silly arguments about how Italians were libertarian and they resisted the state as open agorists, and the whole thing was ridiculous on it's face. Niccolo was correct to some extent, I'm not saying the Italians are agorists but it's got a far better chance of being successful in Italy than in the states, and especially the UK. (As for dark beer, European beer is a million times better than American or UK beer).
liberty student:This is not to condemn Euros, I like you guys. You're funny with your fish and chips, dark beers and boulangeries. But Niccolo would make these silly arguments about how Italians were libertarian and they resisted the state as open agorists, and the whole thing was ridiculous on it's face.
Niccolo was correct to some extent, I'm not saying the Italians are agorists but it's got a far better chance of being successful in Italy than in the states, and especially the UK. (As for dark beer, European beer is a million times better than American or UK beer).
Successful at what? Rioting like the Greeks? Killing a few local politicians? Organizing into gangs? Forming a union? Attacking cops?
The Americans have 3 things that place them head and shoulders above everyone else in the competition for liberty, despite the fact that a good # of them are fat, dull and lazy.
1. They are armed.
2. They have a history of revolution and emancipation.
3. They have an entrepreneurial spirit. There is a reason why the Mises Institute is in Alabama, and not Vienna.
GilesStratton:They also care far less about the state, they're more concerned with being with family and friends or going to church.
Right. They are far more concerned with other things that state encroachment. Which is why there is an EU, and within a couple years of the NAU becoming a serious topic, the US Congress had passed legislation from Virgil Goode to put a stop to it.
I live in a parliamentary democracy. It is a bureaucratic farce masquerading as democracy. The American Republic is trending this way, but it's not a systemic issue, it's one of vigilance.
GilesStratton:(As for dark beer, European beer is a million times better than American or UK beer).
Europeans don't even drink beer
They drink lager
The UK is the last bastion for beer (real ale) and it's something we actually do well
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
GilesStratton: Thedesolateone: MatthewWilliam: I agree with Giles about culture completely. Damn you despise a lot of minority groups... I'm guessing by his signature he's Irish, do you really expect him to cheer the English?
Thedesolateone: MatthewWilliam: I agree with Giles about culture completely. Damn you despise a lot of minority groups...
MatthewWilliam: I agree with Giles about culture completely.
I agree with Giles about culture completely.
Damn you despise a lot of minority groups...
I'm guessing by his signature he's Irish, do you really expect him to cheer the English?
I was talking about your hatred of gays, blacks etc
liberty student:How so?
I've lived in the US, that's how.
liberty student: 1. They are armed. 2. They have a history of revolution and emancipation. 3. They have an entrepreneurial spirit. There is a reason why the Mises Institute is in Alabama, and not Vienna.
Remind me, where did capitalism originate, silly me thinking it was Europe.
liberty student:Right. They are far more concerned with other things that state encroachment.
Yes, thank you for repeating what I've already said. That said Europeans have far less of a statist mindset, moreover, the state is less prominent in their lives than in that of the average English person, I can't say about America because I didn't live their for too long.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Thedesolateone:I was talking about your hatred of gays, blacks etc
Funny, I don't remember hating blacks.
Thedesolateone:The UK is the last bastion for beer (real ale) and it's something we actually do well
Even if it is warm.
GilesStratton:Remind me, where did capitalism originate, silly me thinking it was Europe.
Capitalism is man's natural condition, so why not just ask something silly like, "Where did man originate?"
GilesStratton:That said Europeans have far less of a statist mindset, moreover, the state is less prominent in their lives than in that of the average English person
EU.
loweleif:Ilived in England for 10 years and might as well be considered British in the sense that if I met someone from the isles and I chose they woudn't have a clue otherwise. In addition I've lived in Italy and spent extensive time in Danmark, Germany and France, as well as Spain and Sweden. So there are my credentials... oh it was Chalfont St Giles Bucks if you want to know where.
Good to know somebody is speaking about the subject who has a clue about it.
By politically correct I meant the anti racism, pro environmentalism agenda, tell a European to say "African American" and they'll laugh. Make a racist joke and by and large they'll laugh.
Not so for the English, they'll look at you like you wish to burn all the jews in the world and enslave the blacks.
loweleif:Yes so from the above (after living in the U.S for 8 years and UK 10) I just don't think the US is that much better in those regards. They really aren't more freedom loving or resistant to the state. They just constantly scream it as empty rhetoric. They are just as clueless to those terms as anyone in Britain or Europe.
Well Europeans are very statist in rhetoric, in action they often show they couldn't care less. The English are statist in rhetoric and action, moreover, they're very self righteous about it.
loweleif:For the Nordic countries I'm going to disagree with the God part.
Yeah, I have a Swedish friend who says the same thing. He told me that where he's from you're forced to register as a protestant upon being born or something like that, but few practise it.
loweleif:Binge drinking is prevalent all overEurope. People in Danmark go through that stage at about 15-19. They definetly dress smarter.
Well, yes, I agree. Although, the mentality is different. I'd say on the continent it's more of a matter of going out with your friends and drinking some beer as the night goes on. On the other hand the English are more keen on downing two bottles of cheap wine before going out.
liberty student:Capitalism is man's natural condition, so why not just ask something silly like, "Where did man originate?"
What are you talking about? Capitalism originated in Europe, Italy specifically.
GilesStratton:What are you talking about?
I made it clear.
liberty student: GilesStratton:What are you talking about? I made it clear.
And it doesn't make sense, or square with the facts. I hate to break it to you but before capitalism man still existed, they were just largely self sufficient.
Whatever. You'll have to find someone else to indulge your need for attention. This was pointless about 4 posts ago.
GilesStratton: Thedesolateone:I was talking about your hatred of gays, blacks etc Funny, I don't remember hating blacks.
OK, OK, what you actually said is that you would prefer not to associate with them
Although you do have a mixed race friend
Could we keep discussion of GS's personal preferences to PMs? They have nothing to do with this thread.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
yessir:Let me just give 1 example. If you watched the daily show a couple days ago, you saw that apparantly the biggest pop star in Sweden, lives in an appartment that an average family can afford with a smaller TV than I have. Could you EVER imagine that happening in the united states. Could you imagine 50 cent going yeah like I don't mind people taxing me to death, its for the national good???
Your argument is completely one sided, ignoring the arguments I presented multiple times in this thread. Sweden does have an oppressive tax system, but they do have lower corporate income taxes and less regulations than the United States. This removes many barriers to economic growth, making living in Sweden bearable for the average person.
Also I am not saying that the culture or social values were changed. I am saying that from the beginning they were much more egalitarian. In fact the only recent complaints I have heard about the welfare states from my dutch friends, have always had atleast a slightly racists undertone. "most of those immigrants are just on welfware while we work" (and these are not nationalistic people at all) How about this from a theoretical point of view. If everyone in a nation has the exact same goals, a govermenmt can operate much more easily since they are simply combining the efforts of all people for those same goals. They will waste much less money than when each groups tries to take a little bit for themselves (as in affirmative action or w.e)
How about this from a theoretical point of view. If everyone in a nation has the exact same goals, a govermenmt can operate much more easily since they are simply combining the efforts of all people for those same goals. They will waste much less money than when each groups tries to take a little bit for themselves (as in affirmative action or w.e)
The problem is that nobody in a nation has the exact same goals. Even if they all agreed on greater welfare, it would not change the fact that they would experience lower economic growth than otherwise possible because of their welfare state.
Political Atheists Blog
I was born in Sweden and the fact that 20 % of the population is foreingborn does not mean that they are muslim. Of the 20 % half was born by European parents and the other half is designated as of non European extraction. Most of them come from the Middle East but a lfarly large protion are Christian. However they are all tribal, extremely social conservative, religious fundamentalists and/or political extremists.
Sweden has now the same problems as does the US a polarizarion is arising between the majority and the minorities. Sweden will in the next election have a xenophobic, nationalistic and semi fascist/socialdemocrat party voted into parliament, the SwedenDemocrats, SverigeDemokraterna.
I'm fascinated by, but haven't reached any sort of conclusion in the subject of the Anglophone world's (I mean UK, US, Canada, Australia) culture and relation to statism. One might think the Anglophone world is generally more libertarian at first glance, but digging deeper, perhaps Anglophones only have the "loudest yelps," for liberty as was said in the American Revolution. Reading Rothbard one would be lead to believe the US was "conceived in liberty," but reading Nock or Kuehnelt-Leddhin one might think more highly of Poland, Italy, Germanic & Norse countries etc.
Anglophone culture certainly has it's share of beastly aspects: disgusting aesthetic sense in general, in particular- architecturally, lack of decent culinary traditions, belief in alcoholism as a desirable lifestyle, seeming inability to distinguish quantity from quality, and more-- you see a lot of this lamented by Nock and lampooned by Mencken. Whether or not this has a strong relation to statism I'm not sure.
I'm not sure if Rothbard ever compared countries culturally, or praised one above the other.
loweleif: I'm not sure if Rothbard ever compared countries culturally, or praised one above the other.
That's true for the most part, but Rothbard did seem to have a bit of a "libertarian American exceptionalism," if you will. What I'm saying isn't really supposed to be about Rothbard, but libertarians in general; most libertarians do seem to view America as the cradle of liberty. Perhaps for this reason I should have avoided mentioning specific names at all.
I got ya.
No, this certainly isn't about Rothbard. Whether not that was his view, that is definetly a pervading trait of VMLI, after all, it is based in the U.S.
However I question whether or not U.S will be the birthplace of future freedom.
Shall we start this in a separate thread? Definitely something Im interested in.
I wonder about that as well. Awareness of libertarianism and the spread of various libertarian memes (RP, end the fed) is at an all time high. Tough times and big changes are coming as they do in any economic collapse. I do think it's extremely unlikely that the US will not have at least a serious challenge to the current (and likely rapidly accelerating) encroachments of statism. Perhaps it will be a revolution of sorts or perhaps the political class will wise up and back off a bit before that point is reached. The question, I think, is whether we will have a traditional (violent mob) revolution or a revolution, in which ideas and memes, and subsequently power structures are rearranged without excessive destruction of infrastructure (whether in human life or property) needed to ensure the new power structures can be relatively stable.
majevska: Anglophone culture certainly has it's share of beastly aspects: disgusting aesthetic sense in general, in particular- architecturally, lack of decent culinary traditions, belief in alcoholism as a desirable lifestyle, seeming inability to distinguish quantity from quality, and more-- you see a lot of this lamented by Nock and lampooned by Mencken. Whether or not this has a strong relation to statism I'm not sure.
Excellent point! States that tend to swirl around Statism, meaning, their attention is brought to to nationalistic and uniform thinking (which quantitative methods lay claim to being able to achieve), then yes, the quality in the culture dulls. The fervent life and fruitful creativity of the unique individual is suppressed for the masses. Public schools in the U.S. are terrible and thus good at killing creativity. More and more generic tests for the mass students take up the time of teachers and the individual gets suppressed in the state's murmur.
Good points!
So Nock and Mencken write about this stuff? I've recently finished a book and wouldn't mind reading one of their that tend to focus on this topic.
Mencken's essay "Libido for the Ugly," is good: http://www.bizbag.com/mencken/menklibid.htm
Nock's memoirs are full of comparisons of his time in America with his time in Europe; for the most part he prefers Europe. He thinks "economism"-- the view that the purpose of life consists solely in the production, distribution and acquisition of material goods-- is much stronger in America and Britain than Continental Europe. He notes that good food, music, and general happiness seems to be much higher in Europe.
This piece "European Morals and Our Own," by Nock points out another aspect he and Mencken thought the Anglophone world had in excess compared with Europe: namely, puritanism.
[/url]http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/FultonsLair/013/nock/european_morals.html[/url]
majevska: Mencken's essay "Libido for the Ugly," is good: http://www.bizbag.com/mencken/menklibid.htm Nock's memoirs are full of comparisons of his time in America with his time in Europe; for the most part he prefers Europe. He thinks "economism"-- the view that the purpose of life consists solely in the production, distribution and acquisition of material goods-- is much stronger in America and Britain than Continental Europe. He notes that good food, music, and general happiness seems to be much higher in Europe. This piece "European Morals and Our Own," by Nock points out another aspect he and Mencken thought the Anglophone world had in excess compared with Europe: namely, puritanism. [/url]http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/FultonsLair/013/nock/european_morals.html[/url]
Thanks, starting to read Mencken's "Libido..." First sentence really caught my attention already. I live near what he's describing and I've heard stories from my parents and grandparents and other relatives about when they grew up in this region:
"On a Winter day some years ago, coming out of Pittsburgh on one of the expresses of the Pennsylvania Railroad, I rolled eastward for an hour through the coal and steel towns of Westmoreland county."
Very familiar, thus, very interesting personally so far! Thanks!
Never spent a lot of time in that area myself, but my grandparents on my father's side are from around the Pittsburgh/Northern West VA area so I've heard the same sort of stories.
I can only speak from my experience with foreign born people, there is a great divide, between the young and old as the appreciation of socialist nations (most experience with French and English). The young that are part of the college program where I work are very unhappy here in the US, the only thing they like about it is that our products are cheaper here than at home, but they would rather have all the services their home country provides. The older people that immigrated from the same countries claim it was horrible, and would only return to visit family, but would never immigrate back. The only understanding I can glean from this is that the college kids up until entering the program have had no employment and have not paid for the services they receive, and the adults have...
I hope this helps people understand what socialist ideals always start with the younger generations...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you base this on? Norway has actually passed Sweden in absolute GDP during the first quarter of 2009, even though Sweden has a population two times larger than the Norwegian. I.e. the GDP per capita in Norway is twice the one in Sweden, and the larger than any of the Nordic countries (or any country in the world, except luxembourg etc).
Whether this is because of the fact that Norway has large oil resources is a valid question, but I think it is completely wrong to characterize it as the least successful nordic nation. I'd rather say it is the most successful economically.
How are the Norwegian and the Swedish GDPs calculated?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Knowing that Austrians reject the use of GDP, I assume this is a critical question rather than searching question (if not, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp)
Even if there are better ways in measuring the wealth of a country, it still means something that a country has a GDP per capita that is twice the size of another. Unemployment and and foreign debt in Norway has also been a lot lower than that of Sweden.
Can anyone show that Sweden (or any other nordic country) is doing better than Norway economically at the moment?
If you look at a list of countries by GDP per capita, you'll notice that Norway comes after countries like Luxembourg and Liechtenstein. Whilst Norway is able to piggy back on the fact that it is the best piece of real estate in the world, with oil, natural gas, minerals, abundant wildlife, etc., Luxembourg and Liechtenstein have no abundant natural resources. If Norway were to run out of its natural resources tomorrow, the country would be permanently in ruin unless the government greatly scaled back its operations.
Some other interesting facts about Norway are:1. Norway has a lower corporate tax than the USA: 28% vs. 35%.2. Norway has a lower payroll tax than the USA: 14% vs. 15.3%.3. Norway is much more deregulated than commonly assumed. For example, according to the Heritage Foundation, the USA has business freedom of 91.9 while Norway has business freedom of 88.1.4. Norway also has a very high savings rate, which helps spur economic growth by increasing capital formation. The USA, on the other hand, had a negative savings rate through some parts of the 2000s due to reckless monetary policy.5. Norway has a sensible central bank, as opposed to the USA. Between September, 2003 and June, 2008, the Norwegian Krone rose nearly 50% against the US Dollar. Strong currencies also help countries keep positive trade balances.
Kaju that only illustrates the point that reasonable progressive (small p: govt exists to protect and nourish the society) systems of governance will lead to a deregulated free economy. Investing in your base (the "people") is how so-called Golden Ages are born. I can think not of one culture that's Golden Age wasnt accompanied by strong public investment in the working majority; against the better interests of the wealthy elites. I know thats the last thing the shruggians want to hear but, i see no reason to believe it is false.
"You think these people exist to provide you with things. I think you exist to provide them with freedom (Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness)..." From Braveheart about feudal overlords; but it means just the same to our current corporate overlords.
Hermes on the day of your death:"You think these people exist to provide you with things. I think you exist to provide them with freedom (Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness)..." From Braveheart about feudal overlords; but it means just the same to our current corporate overlords.
Well that is an absurd statement because it preassumes that freedom is an alienable state. That a class of individuals are necessary to provide that which is already instilled within an individual. I think it can be equated to: We need dogs to breathe.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Kaju that only illustrates the point that reasonable progressive (small p: govt exists to protect and nourish the society) systems of governance will lead to a deregulated free economy.
Or, maybe it demonstrates that if they were not to allow freedom in certain areas they'd be crippled, stifled and collapse... so that the only reason they're still doing well is because they allow a certain amount of economic freedom.
Funny, the feudal overlords were like government, well they were government , odd, do you think corporations are like government????
What about the rest of the quote, your snippet says, you think the government provides you with things, but you exist to keep the government free....
Hermes on the day of your death:Kaju that only illustrates the point that reasonable progressive (small p: govt exists to protect and nourish the society) systems of governance will lead to a deregulated free economy.
No, reread the post. It illustrates that there are multiple factors that effect economic growth. It also shows that Norway is in someways freer than other countries.
Investing in your base (the "people") is how so-called Golden Ages are born. I can think not of one culture that's Golden Age wasnt accompanied by strong public investment in the working majority; against the better interests of the wealthy elites.
One word: Renaissance.
You are wrong.
I know thats the last thing the shruggians want to hear
You do realize that most people here are not Randroids, right?
i see no reason to believe it is false.
Besides the fact that no socialist country ever had a golden age.
Jon Irenicus:Or, maybe it demonstrates that if they were not to allow freedom in certain areas they'd be crippled, stifled and collapse... so that the only reason they're still doing well is because they allow a certain amount of economic freedom.
This.
Who are the socialist again?
STOCKHOLM (AFP) — The Swedish government has ruled out a takeover of the country's beleaguered automaker Volvo Cars if its owner, US group Ford, decides to sell it, daily Dagens Nyheter reported on Tuesday. "It's not in our industrial policy to own carmakers and we will not jeopardise taxpayers' money," Enterprise and Energy Minister Maud Olofsson told Sweden's newspaper of reference on the sidelines of a meeting in Brussels. The centre-right government has on the contrary pursued a policy of selling state assets since it came to power in 2006. "We need to look at what the government can do without jeopardising taxpayers' money," she added. Among possible buyers seen for Volvo are Germany's BMW and France's Renault. "But selling car companies in the midst of this financial crisis is hard," Olofsson acknowledged. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt recalled that Volvo and Sweden's other carmaker Saab, owned by General Motors, have appealed to the government for various forms of state aid. "We are not an emergency bank where companies can get money when things take a turn for the worse. That would just be a misappropriation of taxpayers' money," he told Dagens Nyhete
STOCKHOLM (AFP) — The Swedish government has ruled out a takeover of the country's beleaguered automaker Volvo Cars if its owner, US group Ford, decides to sell it, daily Dagens Nyheter reported on Tuesday.
"It's not in our industrial policy to own carmakers and we will not jeopardise taxpayers' money," Enterprise and Energy Minister Maud Olofsson told Sweden's newspaper of reference on the sidelines of a meeting in Brussels.
The centre-right government has on the contrary pursued a policy of selling state assets since it came to power in 2006.
"We need to look at what the government can do without jeopardising taxpayers' money," she added.
Among possible buyers seen for Volvo are Germany's BMW and France's Renault.
"But selling car companies in the midst of this financial crisis is hard," Olofsson acknowledged.
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt recalled that Volvo and Sweden's other carmaker Saab, owned by General Motors, have appealed to the government for various forms of state aid.
"We are not an emergency bank where companies can get money when things take a turn for the worse. That would just be a misappropriation of taxpayers' money," he told Dagens Nyhete
There is an interesting mix of social welfare with free-market policies as I see. It's pretty much like Hayek's version of social democracy.
Jon Irenicus: Kaju that only illustrates the point that reasonable progressive (small p: govt exists to protect and nourish the society) systems of governance will lead to a deregulated free economy. Or, maybe it demonstrates that if they were not to allow freedom in certain areas they'd be crippled, stifled and collapse... so that the only reason they're still doing well is because they allow a certain amount of economic freedom.
Exactly. That is what Im saying. Any person who thinks of planning for the future in governance should know that the freedom to express oneself (AS LONG AS IT DOESN"T HARM MY EXPRESSION) is crucial the a flourishing culture. And a flourishing memorable culture is the cornerstone of an "advanced" civilization; what we call superpowers like Rome, Greece, post Rome Arabic lands, Renessaince Europe, The Han period of China, Mayans, Incans, those things. (And yes, they had their own barbaric practices, but you cant deny that the era out of which your libertarian theories developed doesn't owe much to these cultures).
How can you say the Renessaince wasn't accompanied by a fourishing middle class. Remember all the merchants that developed; intermediate between Nobles and peasants... middle class. Im not talking of socialism. Im talking of not rewarding rich people for being rich; they have their reward; aka Shrugganism. My stance is that the drivers and creators of our culture exist for the betterment fo the general people; you don't create products just to make money, you create them to fix a problem and ease the struggles of the populace. And they, in turn, pay you accordingly.