It should then be obvious to any truly objective observer that the experience not only of third world libertarian nations like the Philippines but also the first world nations which are all to varying degrees quite socialized that libertarianism belongs on a bookshelf gathering dust with all the other failed governmental systems of human history such as communism, fascism, and feudalism. Simply put, libertarianism is not a path to national prosperity.
But again, why are the people here happier than back in the United States? Does libertarianism, and the ubiquitous poverty seen in every libertarian nation, ensure a greater likelihood of happiness in the population? Of course not. If that were true, then the Sudan would be really high on the list of happiest nations, followed closely by Chad, Ethiopia, and Myanmar. And in case you're wondering, the type of government, whether democracy or dictatorship, doesn't really matter when the nation as a whole functions (as far as it can function at all) on libertarian principles.
So it should be obvious, then, that it's quite unlikely that libertarianism and poverty leads to a happier population. I would state, then, that the reason that the average Filipino is happier than the average American is probably because of the culture itself. As I stated above, the people here are generally more tolerant of others, no road rage, no hate crimes, no equivalent to America's war on drugs. They have some serious problems, such as the bandits who pose as rebels in the southern islands, but this is generally a local matter.
My conclusion would be, then, that the more tolerant the society, the happier that society will likely be.