Topic: Women and free market (Read 5534 times)

It's still debatable how much exactly and in which respect does DNA matter in the success of current humans in society, compared to environment.

I'm really surprised by such a dramatic difference.. what's the sample size?

The issue has nothing much to do with DNA but much more to do with learned behavior and the effect the circumstances in which children are raised have on the adults they turn into.

Fortunately, a couple generations cannot significantly change the DNA pool forged during hundreds of thousands of years of strong competition in hostile environments.

And I would predict the opposite. C'est la vie.

Yeah, that only the wealthy can and should have children is of course a point that is hard to sell and not quite politically correct.

As I don't like labels like "political correctness" either, I'm going to try for a more rational argumentation:

Some say a radical free market would result in slums on the one side, and gated communities and glassy skyscrapers on the other side of the city.

If there is some truth to this or not, I believe a society with insufficient equality will not reach and realize its full potential. Obviously, if children in the slums never get proper education, they won't be able to properly contribute to the society or economy later, even if they wanted. Hence there is a loss of resources.

If there was an experiment of setting up city states, some radical libertarian, some with a social tax (also compensating for maternity), I'd predict the latter will therefore create a higher standard of living, a better social climate, less crime, and more wealth.

What does it mean? There's a saying that people get the government they deserve. Maybe we still have to mature a bit before we deserve to get rid of it. 

And let's not forget that the current statist/socialist market incentivizes the less productive members of our society to reproduce faster while incentivizing the productive (and generally better role models) to reproduce less.

This. And there is decidedly not a population shortage. So... how is a market incentive to not have kids a problem, again?

I think that's certainly a significant factor. People absolutely do believe that if you use other people's resources to do something, it's "free". And there definitely are a lot of people who believe that society must encourage raising children often accompanied by some silly apocalyptic vision of what would happen if that wasn't done.

Personally, I think people who are sufficiently close to the edge that a social incentive will make the difference of whether they have children or not probably shouldn't have children. I don't see any need for social incentives until there's some kind of population shortage.

In a free society, you should not be free to choose how to spend other people's resources.

But anyway, I don't deny that people tend to seek places where they can better externalize the costs of their actions. All I'm arguing is that (1) it is unethical and (2) economically sub-optimal.
Once I saw something about young French citizens (men and women) who would live abroad during their youth, in places where they'd pay less taxes, collect more money, and then, when they were feeling like starting a family, come back to France where they'd get many benefits for having their children there. In other words, when they are fully productive, they search the place where they get to retain more the results of their labor. Then they come back and eventually some even become a burden to society. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that's not really a good deal to the French economy...


That's likely true.
But honestly I tend to agree with Patri Friedman when he says that we spend a lot of effort on "preaching", and if instead we'd spend more effort on "acting" we'd get better results.

Nope, there is a benefit to the individual if they can exercise power over others. Hence some individuals seek to climb the ladder of authority (and will create the ladder if it doesn't already exist). Unfortunately, there are plenty who are content to accede to such control and thus lend their power to those who seek to control.

Again, personally I don't intend to incentivize anyone with anything. Maybe let's put it this way:

Last time I checked, our society is not libertarian, and the state still kindly extends to @JoelKatz the courtesy to use part of his resources to achieve its goals.

People like Peter Schiff don't believe voluntaryism is possible because a government would always emerge.

Now could it be this is because people actually demand a government? Could it have to do something with this topic? Could it be that they do see the need for more balance and social equity?

If you think this is a big problem for markets, where people decide how to allocate their own resources for their own benefit, you should see how big a problem it is when people get to decide how to allocate other people's resources for other people's benefit.

If you like childbearing, you are welcome to encourage it with any resources at your disposal. I just ask that you don't attempt to commandeer other people's resources to use in your social experiments. There is nothing inherently good about a constant population. Some may have good reasons to prefer an increasing population, others a decreasing one. You are welcome to use your resources to achieve your goals, just please extend to me the courtesy to use my resources to achieve my goals.

I have no objection to others incentivizing or dis-incentivizing childbearing as they please. So long as you get others to go along with you by the strength of your arguments rather than the size of your gang, you have my full support.

Why do you want to "incentivize" women to breed and not leave that up to their own reasoned out choice? Why not incentivize them to be barefoot and in the kitchen while you're about it?

Markets encourage some behaviors and discourage others, which may be not always in the best interest for themselves and everybody else in the long-term, because individuals often think and act too short-sightedly. That's all I meant.


What I meant is if a typical woman of today would have a choice to join society A where she gets maternity benefits or society B where everything is handled by the market, she would choose A. Free to choose!   Also reflected somewhat in the political elections of these days of course, maybe I merely mean to say that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have to try harder to preach their gospel.


Yeah well, so women won't sign these contracts then, and men have would no reason to do so to begin with, and we're back at the starting point. Those contracts were your idea anyway. Think of something better then.  


Yes, I'm against these horrible schemes also. If I'm not completely with you it doesn't mean I'm against you.  


Maybe the root of our divergent assessments is that you believe it is a choice like many others. I rather feel that childbearing is a permanent and important aspect of a society. Statistically, every woman needs to give birth to slightly more than 2.0 children in order for a population to remain constant.


Let's say I'm a devil's advocate. I'm just questioning things. Or a diplomat, because I want to bring different views together. If people are wondering why libertarianism isn't more popular, the issue of this topic is one of them, regardless if folks here realize it or not. Another motivation for this topic was that I was discussing (electronic) barter networks for a more primitive, more local economy (perhaps post peak-oil) the other day, and someone asked me the question what a women would do during pregnancy and early maternity. I answered if there is a common agreement in the community about it, the network could easily be configured to compensate for maternity just like for any other service. Still voluntary, no evil gov socialism you see.  

anyone that it is hard to raise children for; it is not necessary for society that that woman have children

Society not compensating women for having children is a tragedy of the commons?

Isn't the compensation the joy of having and raising a child, plus the benefits of having another human being around who will likely look out for your interests? If not, why did they do it?

I was objecting to your statement that "There is no guarantee that a guy would stay and form a family, especially in these modern times."  I wasn't sure if you were implying the idea that all women and only women are good parents, which is a sexist and harmful stereotype.  Libertarians and society may be divided about abortion, but there are still women who will pursue the option when its available.  Most divorces are initiated by women.

Speaking of abortion and relative advantage, what do you think of the fact that under our current code of law, women are given all the power in this decision?  If a woman decides to have an abortion, the father can't do anything about it.  If a woman decides to keep the child, the father can't do anything and may have to pay child support.  Is this the kind of solution to the problem that you would support?

I reject the premise that childbearing is a service to "society".  It is a service to the biological parents, because it fulfills a biological urge, and to the child's family, because it provides a possible continuance of their culture and values.  I have no vested interest in the children of people who are unrelated to me biologically and culturally.  They might grow up to contribute to society in the form of labor, but if there's a labor shortage more can always be imported.

Again you show you don't understand what you criticize. Th market can't "enforce" anything.


That's your opinion, your value. Some think quite the opposite.


Nope, it's not.


Quite on the contrary, the tragedy happens when people don't pay the costs of their decisions. State-sponsored kids are a tragedy, as those who decide to have kids don't pay all the costs of their decision.
Actually, the very concept of "family" has everything to do with internalizing costs. You should read this excellent text, On the origin of private property and family.


This doesn't even make sense. A contract is voluntary, if you feel the contract puts you in a disadvantaged position, simply don't sign it.


Of course every individual appreciates when they may externalize the costs of their decisions to others, if that's what you mean. But that's unethical and economically sub-optimal (society progress better and faster when those who make a decision are those who fully pay for its costs and fully enjoy its benefits).


Besides stupidity, the main reason for such state actions is the fact that most of these states created long ago a coercive and massive ponzy scheme called "social security", which depends on a constantly growing input of young workers to pay for those retired. Such monstrosity would never exist in a free market.


If you support states which force people to pay "allowances" and other benefits to those who have children, then you definetly want to force people to do something.

Of course people would prefer to live in a society that rewards them for doing what they want to do. Choosing between courses of action with differing costs and benefits can certainly be difficult. But having a choice is pretty much always better than not having a choice.


Joel, don't go strawman and false dilemma. *I* don't want to force anyone to do anything. I'm merely an observer and wondering (or not) why all those libertarian conventions and festivals are essentially sausage fests.