So is it the Mises brand of libertianism you are talking about? becasuse it sounds a bit like your championing anarcho-capitalism?

Are you admitting any role for the state at all?

I hope some of the fundy fascists and neo-liberal fundamentalists loonies here listened to today's Science Show:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/01/ssw_20110108.mp3

They're talking about you!

Demographics is destiny.

Affluent nations have failed to produce children and are suiciding with declining populations (apart from immigration).

Poor countries generally produce many more children than those that die and are growing strongly.

It's only a matter of time before these huge populations squeezed into resource-poor lands say 'it's not fair' and start invading.

It happens within wealthy nations too. In French maternity hospitals there are more babies being born to French muslims than there are to French French. The welfare-dependant have many children, as they receive big increases in income from welfare. Meanwhile the professionals can't afford the children they would like.

We need to stop giving moeny for kids and instead give genererous tax reductions.

We need to make divorce fair so men stop being 'commitment-phobic'.

Our 3rd world aid, instead of wells and hospitals, needs to fund free, long-lasting contraception, so they have a chance to grow prosperous instead of growing bigger and poorer

'They're talking about you!' Yea well Sqayueers I suppose they would not be talking about their idiotic global warming predictions now that they have to face the simple fact that the once 'science' is not settled.

It's fascinating, runner, the way your particular brand of religious zeal negates the absolute imperative that for an organism to thrive, it must live in balance with the environment that supports it.
In man's case, unrestrained progress not only threatens his physical surroundings, but stunts his spirituality as well - as he is lured instead to worship at the shrine of consumerism.
Man and his habitat - you can't separate the two...even with the invention of a sky cult.

There will come a time where Western democracies will revert to a combination of government intervention and free trade. They already do it in part via subsidies.

There can never be an even playing field in free trade unless there are uniform rules about wages, subsidies and other regulatory mechanisms in relation to food quality/toxicity and governance. But that is not going to happen anytime soon and quite frankly the West does not want it.

Why are we better off if we trade with a corrupt dictator even if the food or product is cheaper? We are complicit in supporting a corrupt regime that has no interest in the wellbeing and development of their people.

Nations do not do well when they hand over all their food security to another nation and lose all but a sliver of a manufacturing industry or when they sell their raw materials OS only to buy it back and greatly inflated prices. The citizens of Africa are kept poor by a combination of corrupt leaders and greedy corporations whose intent is profit (sometimes, but not always, at any environmental or human cost).

Western nations can deal more fairly with other nations and remain affluent. But how much affluence is enough? That is the real question and at what cost to developing nations. GDP is not always an accurate indicator of wealth and does not measure the wellbeing of the majority of citizens. So if the GDP of a developing nation is growing that does not mean this wealth is being evenly distributed nor does it show that the wealth achieved by a few can be at the expense of a majority especially in relation to food security.