I'm curious about the population numbers to begin with, because apparently during the Cold War they were provably inflated. (Provably through such measures as infrastructure; the numbers they claimed could not have been supported by the roads, rails, and rivers they had.)

So with that being the case, when were they adjusted to reflect reality? Or have they ever officially adjusted, with correct numbers given without context to the previous incorrect numbers?

In other words, when did Russia's population seem to take a huge hit, and did anybody care?

John,

I don't think libertarianism really stands for as much as you think it does.

Of course, there are lots of factions with the Libertarian Party, just as there are lots of factions within the Republican and Democratic parties.

I think when you boil down libertarianism to its essentials, you arrive at the notion of the "night-watchman" state: that the government should only do those things necessary for the public safety, tax people only to the extent needed to fund its public-safety efforts, and otherwise just butt the hell out of people's lives.

That way, people are left free to do the things that they want to do, or to not do the things that they don't want to do. Want an abortion? Fine, go get one. Just don't ask me to pay for it. You're a homosexual, and want to marry your partner? Great! I wish you much joy. And it's probably better that you marry your partner be faithful in your marital duties-- if nothing else, it will ease the public-health burdens of society by reducing the spread of STDs and AIDS. And by not being pressured into marrying someone you're not attracted to, that leaves the field open to others, who might want to have children and can produce them......And so on and so forth.

I think you get my point, John. A lot of the social ills you rail against aren't really something the government can do much about, either to encourage or discourage. And when it does try to "manage" society, it runs into something called "the Law of Unintended Consequences" (just like the rest of do), and the workings of that Law become all the more vicious because government action is hard to evade or reverse-- people and their dreams get ground into powder by the sheer dead-weight and inertia of state power.

.... Just like what's happening in Russia right now. The dead hand of the state still weighs heavily on the minds, hearts, and lives of the Russian people, making their world an unfriendly place. I can't blame them for thinking two or three times about bringing children into such a world, and finally deciding that it's not worth it.

While I'm at it......

The reason "red staters" seem to be reproducing themselves pretty vigorously compared to "blue staters" lies in the point I made about the Russians.

I think to "blue staters", the world's an unfriendly, even dangerous place. [sarcasm alert] Even when terrorists aren't plowing airliners into office towers, there's still those awful Rethuglikkkans to worry about (They'll turn this country into a police state! Just watch them!) or the awful injustices of actually having to pay for the goods and services you consume (Socialized Medicine, NOW!), and let's not even mention that religious nut-case who sits in the White House right now (God must be whispering in he ear right now, "Nuke Iran!"). And to top it all off, the world as we know it will end in a few generations in a cataclysm of pollution, starvation and resource-exhaustion. [end sarcasm] And so it's no wonder they can be reluctant to bring children into the world.

By comparison, the world-view of the "red staters" is more cheerful. Because, for them, the world is a reasonably friendly place, where a man can make his own way, take care of others, and leave it a better place than he found it, they're willing to bring children into it.

And I think it's no accident, John, that folks in "flyover country" are friendlier to libertarian ideas than the "bi-coastal elites" are. Red staters know that they can live in a "night-watchman" state-- they more or less do so already. It's the blue staters who are fearful-- their great god "the State" is failing, they dread its imminent demise, and can't imagine living like red staters do-- pulling their own weight, and extending (gasp!) a real, personal, helping hand to those icky neighbors (Not Our Class, Dear) in the "wrong" neighborhoods a few blocks away.

And yes, religious faith does play a role, if for no other reason that, for blue staters, the State to some extent replaced God as Architect of the Universe. Red staters never were infected that badly by that particular philosophical/religious disease, so they have less to unlearn in the years ahead.