>the more liberal country gets,the stronger its economy gets
>the more liberal country gets,the lower its birth rate gets
>the more liberal country gets,the more it depends on immigration
Where would immigrants come from in the best case scenario for the left where whole world was liberal?
Other urls found in this thread:
ideally, by then we would have an economic alternative to social security so we don't depend on positive population growth to support our country.
>ideally
Also,you're just gonna ignore the fact that if the whole world was liberal,human population would die out year after year?
>the more liberal country gets,the stronger its economy gets
wrong
Give me one poor country that is also very liberal.
That's not how population works.
What's this thread doing on our board?
not die out, just decrease. Our population is massive, having a lower one would bring less scarcity of resources, higher standards of living, fewer poor people, and less environmental degradation.
our existing financial structure relies on constant population growth to fuel itself, which is kinda disastrous to think about. If such a set of rules were never replaced, you would always have to take immigrants, and almost always have to take immigrants poorer than yourself and your current countrymen.
Yours
Someone from pol probably wants us to see how liberalism would destroy the universe.
really?tell me how it works then.
>not die out, just decrease
decrease of long period of time means die out.
>our existing financial structure relies on constant population growth to fuel itself
>If such a set of rules were never replaced
our current system follows the laws of nature.I'm waiting on you to give me an idea how to change them.
I'm all for restructuring social security and those kinds of programs. But to think humans will literally die out from liberalism is retarded.
funny how you can't come up with any solution to my question.
>But to think humans will literally die out from liberalism is retarded.
But I never said that.Obviously that would be a retarded thing to say.
The right thing to say would be that over time,if society was to stay liberal,it would die out.UNLESS,it became,LESS LIBERAL,of course.
I can give you a rich country that's very conservative, if you're okay with it?
literally le pol boogeyman
No need,I never argued against that.
>The right thing to say would be that over time,if society was to stay liberal,it would die out.UNLESS,it became,LESS LIBERAL,of course.
Sorry, but that's equally as retarded.
god shes perfect
>Sorry,but I don't see any arguments.
Surly I expected to be challenged on the science board if anything.
I argue with non-retarded assertations. Not retarded ones.
Maybe it's the other way around.
>The stronger a country's economy gets, the more liberal the country gets.
That makes more sense, as cities tend to be more liberal, and cities are where economic growth is made. This would mean that liberalism is not a guarantee of wealth.
Any South American country.
My man.
youtube.com
It's actually sad how you can argue back and forth over who's a retard but you can't argue the case.
>The stronger a country's economy gets, the more liberal the country gets.
It doesn't change equation at all.
>Any South American country.
But they're not liberal.
>It doesn't change equation at all.
It does. If strong economy is a cause of liberalism, this would not entail the converse. You could be liberal and still be in a poor country.
>South American countries are not liberal.
If by liberal you mean left winged, then they are, as are some of the poorest countries in Europe, such as Spain and Greece. Otherwise, clarify what you mean by liberal, as this term tends to have many non-intersecting uses.
>It doesn't change equation at all
>implying switching the x and the y doesn't change the equation
Taller people tend to do better at basketball, but that doesn't mean that practicing and getting good at basketball makes you taller. It's critical to understand cause and effect, not just the existence of some sort of correlation.
>If by liberal you mean left winged
Of course I fucking don't.
By liberal I mean SOCIALLY liberal.
If strong economy is a cause of liberalism, this would not entail the converse.
When I read my inital post,yeah I see that I made a mistake because it makes it seem like liberalism is causing stronger economy,which is wrong.It should have been the other way around.
>implying switching the x and the y doesn't change the equation
The thing is,it doesn't change the point I made.
The point isn't that liberalism causes stronger economy.
Social Liberalism is what is understood as left wing economic politics in capitalist countries, i.e. welfare states.
The words you are looking for is "white people" "liberals" countries only do good because of the white majority in them, replace them with mexicans and blacks ant those countries would third world in no time.
We should replace the workforce with robots, close the borders (whites only) and send out killing robots to massacre the brown masses. I am Hungaria.
>The thing is,it doesn't change the point I made.
But it does. Rather than more liberal societies producing stronger economies it's entirely possible that a strong economy results in more liberal values as every day is not a struggle to stay afloat anymore. You see a correlation and immediately assume a causal relationship and then assume that you know which way it goes. You're the kind of guy that starts playing basketball to become taller because basketball players tend to be tall.
I already corrected myself and said that in my original post,I made a mistake in forming the premise.
What you said is true.But again,my point wasn't that liberalism causes stronger economy.It was just one of the premises,that lead to a point.
^^^^^^^^^
Never intended to bother with your question.
They're not the boogeyman, they're a homeless guy you can't kick out.
What do you mean by "liberal", redistributionist or socially liberal? South American countries are redistributionist, but not successful or socially liberal. Most socially liberal countries are successful, but they're also almost all majority North/West European countries with a relatively high average IQ.
you dumbfucks have no idea what 'liberal' means