You can have a libertarian society that is anything but multiculturalist, you can even have a closed off isolated, culturally rigid, libertarian society.
Absolutely not. That is what evolution is all about. There is no way that a system as open as libertarian philosophy will not evolve diversity, even if by some magic it started from both physical and mental clones. It is not a static system.
No system is completely static. Nothing lasts forever and many things change before they cease.
If you remove government control from the culture it can more easily evolve, but you could have a society with very strict ideas, perhaps religiously derived, but who also chooses not to implement those ideas as a matter of law or by the use of force. Such a society could possibly be very stable. People who strongly disagree would leave or perhaps be shunned, or at least have a very bad reputation.
Such a situation would not be the norm. Most rigid societies have little problem with imposing their philosophy and culture by law or otherwise by using force, but it is possible.
But Manhattan is a democracy, and the rules and regulations in place there arise from a democratic process.
Its not like libertarianism is enjoying enormous political success outside of the cities either. The fact that an idea might not win the political battle, doesn't mean it is impossible for the idea to be a viable, even superior, way to organize society.
That just comes back to my original statement, which I still stand by, which is for whatever reasons, high population density results in left/collective thinking,
You seemed to be implying more than that. That not just that high density areas tended to vote for more left/collective ideas, but that such areas never are relatively libertarian and that libertarianism couldn't work in such areas.
If you are only observing the tendency of cities to be more leftist/collectivist, then I think I would agree with the observation, at least to an extent.
Tim |
