Women and free market

[herzmeister]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

[1715228627]

1715228627

[Matthew N. Wright]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

Sounds logical.

[myrkul]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

You make a good point, I don't think any system really handles maternity very well innately. But inside almost any system, a way to handle maternity leave and pregnancy in a humane and fairly can be set up.

[Matthew N. Wright]

GAIZ..I HAVE A THEORY.


We're born and raised under a communist dictatorship, we're shoved out into the free market, then we become libertarians, finally dying as defeatists.

The reason why there is no perfect system probably is because more than one system is required.

[muyuu]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

There is no contradiction between free markets and negotiated benefit conditions. The same goes for pensions. It's a matter of saving up and negotiating with your employer where it may apply. A female who would only commit in company endeavours short term because she will retire to have children, cannot expect the same treatment as one who wouldn't, because they don't have the same market value and forcing it will only devalue the net sum of them all. This can be securitised (maternity insurance).

But they'd rather have the rest of the society pay for it. Also, the raising of children is not an expense for females. It's an expense for the whole family and it has been so for centuries.

[herzmeister]

@Matthew Yup: Thesis · Antithesis · Synthesis. Funnily, many leftists claim their idea of "socialism" is already a synthesis, and I struggle to explain them it isn't. Some kind of multi-faceted society where we'd form voluntary collectives maybe is, but I'm not sure if and how this would work out in the long-term.

@muyuu So you're essentially saying that because women have to negotiate more "off-time" than men, they'd either be incentivized to not  have any children at all, which would result in the human species to become extinct, or they are disadvantaged, as I said in my OP. "And it has been so for centuries", this is the patriarchy that many "progressives" want to get away from.

[JoelKatz]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

[vampire]

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

Don't have kids if you can't afford it.

[nedbert9]

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

Don't have kids if you can't afford it.

Yeah, only the socially advantaged should have kids.  So, in a few generations we can weed out the dead weight.

  kidding

Honestly, I think there should be some objective standards for allowing reproduction.  I'm not so sure about freedom of reproduction if it results in suffering.

sry for the hijack.

[speeder]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

And I like it this way.


If you take a look, women always worked when they had to, and always do not worked when they don't had to.

Today is the exception, and it is resulting mostly in negative things instead of positive...

Also, I know a bunch of very old company owners, they all claim that they hired women without problems 50 years ago or so, because there was no benefits for them different from men except for 6 month paid leave for pregnancy. Now they invent all sorts of excuses to get rid of women on the HR because of all the "rights" women won, making them too dangerous to hire (ie: fire a woman, get sued for discrimination... and this is only to start...).

While before women could do whatever they wanted if they were qualified, they are now being forced in positions that already have lots of women (middle managment, HR, school work, hospital work). The women that LIKE those positions claim that they have a great victory (And indeed, in some parts for them it is, middle managment already have 70% of it female and research in the US show that women aged from 20 to 30 get 110% the wages of the male counterparts), but what about women that for example wanted to work  as forklift operador? (I know one! she is very funny and nice)



Remember, some things will not change about humans, doing laws regarding those things tend to have the effects opposite... There are even a scientific paper (later I will see if I find it) from a feminist that is wondering why the pay gap is getting WIDER in nordic countries, and she concluded that the state intervention to give more rights to women is making women there more dependant on the state and that companies are fighting the state and paying women less and hiring less.

[Hunterbunter]

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

Don't have kids if you can't afford it.

Clearly the world has imbibed this rule to the revel of a thousand sons.

[muyuu]

@muyuu So you're essentially saying that because women have to negotiate more "off-time" than men, they'd either be incentivized to not  have any children at all, which would result in the human species to become extinct, or they are disadvantaged, as I said in my OP. "And it has been so for centuries", this is the patriarchy that many "progressives" want to get away from.

That premise is completely false from the start. Women don't raise children alone and haven't done so for centuries. Family is the foundation of society. It doesn't cost her more than her partner, who's equally as liable for family expenses as her (usually more).

Taking care of the disadvantaged is a whole different story. We are talking about socialising child care here, or not, which is not an emergency/exceptional issue.

Humans, if anything, have too much natural drive to procreate until they deplete their available resources. They don't need any incentives, quite to the contrary.

[caveden]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

+1. They have a choice men don't have. I'd never call that a "disadvantage". By the way, in developed nations, there's no significant difference between men and childless women, in what concerns career, salaries etc.

Also, OP should read some of Wendy McElroy texts if he believes free markets are unfair to women.

[Hunterbunter]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

[muyuu]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

And both have to deal with the consequences instead of passing the bill to the taxpayer.

[myrkul]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

And do you have a vagina to back that up?

[Hunterbunter]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

And do you have a vagina to back that up?

Why would I need one? It's obvious. Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.

[JoelKatz]

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".

[myrkul]

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".

lol... I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up.

Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.

Oh yeah, guys never do that, and women always do. Please. Put the shovel down before you dig yourself into a hole.

[muyuu]

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".

lol... I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up.

Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.

Oh yeah, guys never do that, and women always do. Please. Put the shovel down before you dig yourself into a hole.

I agree with you women are not that inferior that they need a massive net welfare operation coming from men's pockets. They can do just fine.

Also, they cannot be supposed to pay for children all by themselves. This has always been a shared expense in family and I believe it has to continue that way.

[herzmeister]

A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Yes, I also believe not every woman weighs everything in a way as rational as you do. I'm seeing the side of the employer here. You can see unequal wages even today where these things are supposed to be more "regulated" in that concern.

That premise is completely false from the start. Women don't raise children alone and haven't done so for centuries. Family is the foundation of society. It doesn't cost her more than her partner, who's equally as liable for family expenses as her (usually more).

As I said in the OP, women feel more connected and responsible for their children, and it's more often the men who run away, so it's the woman who carries more risk. So you can either disagree with this observation, or you can blame women for their motherly feelings being in the way of their career.

Taking care of the disadvantaged is a whole different story. We are talking about socialising child care here, or not, which is not an emergency/exceptional issue.

I didn't mean "disabled" with "disadvantaged" if you misunderstood here, and generally, I'm also looking for solutions here which are not "socialist", but will still convince even left-leaning folks. I'm playing their advocate here.

Humans, if anything, have too much natural drive to procreate until they deplete their available resources. They don't need any incentives, quite to the contrary.

Still, more risk for women in this game.

[muyuu]

That premise is completely false from the start. Women don't raise children alone and haven't done so for centuries. Family is the foundation of society. It doesn't cost her more than her partner, who's equally as liable for family expenses as her (usually more).

As I said in the OP, women feel more connected and responsible for their children, and it's more often the men who run away, so it's the woman who carries more risk. So you can either disagree with this observation, or you can blame women for their motherly feelings being in the way of their career.

I'm not against some benefits in exceptionally unlucky cases, for both single mothers or fathers (unlucky != reckless). However systematically subsidising half of the population is a different story.

Humans, if anything, have too much natural drive to procreate until they deplete their available resources. They don't need any incentives, quite to the contrary.

Still, more risk for women in this game.

Men face more risk in other situations. Individual risk needs to be managed by individuals. Compulsory insurance about absolutely any situation as a feature of the State is neither effective nor desirable.

All policies that directly or indirectly reward irresponsibility are to be avoided in principle.

[Brunic]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

+1

That's why we need a neutral entity (in that case, the governement) to provides protections for that. Free market is completely inapt to take care of that situation since they only follow private profit. Children can only be a social profit and cannot generate individual profit until many years later.

Anyway, it's not really a problem anymore. Developed countries usually offer around 1 complete year of parental leave, with some time reserved for the mother, some time reserved for the father. The Scandinavian model is the reference with the best being the Swedish one, offering 16 months paid at 80% or something of the salary. It doesn't hinder their development, far from it, it's probably the best thing you can do. Give a chance to the parents, give complete free education up to the university and bingo! You produce wonderful and skillful citizens to compete on the free market.

[AntiCap]

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".

lol... I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up.

Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.

Oh yeah, guys never do that, and women always do. Please. Put the shovel down before you dig yourself into a hole.

Ha. I know there were things we agreed upon. Well put.

[herzmeister]

@Brunic I'm for more equality of wealth as well, but still I'm looking for better solutions than a central state. Sweden is a nice and cozy country, but certain other nations do worse things with the centralization and power they're given.

@muyuu Yes "Individual risk needs to be managed by individuals", but still, what if risks are different naturally by gender? You won't win anyone new over with this kind of attitude.   Hence what I said that ancap would remain an "utopia".

The problem is maybe a tragedy of the commons. We *all* want children to be raised properly in order for the human race to continue, and under the premise that women should not face more risks than men, there is no mechanism in a free market that expresses this desire and in order to set things in motion properly by itself. Or would we willing to donate voluntarily into a "social jar" that mitigates women's risks, and will it be enough?

[nevafuse]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market.

Couldn't disagree with you more.  Being pregnant is a choice.  It could even be a revenue stream depending on the profitability of adoptions.  If anything, I'd argue current governments create disadvantages for women.  Women couldn't even vote until a 100 years ago causing mass under representation to start.  Prostitution is a large, almost female only industry that is illegal in many countries.  Militaries have only recently been removing restrictions for women.  Abortions lack taxpayer funding given to other medical ventures.  Birth control is prescription only which requires extra money to visit a doctor which lowers demand & raises prices.

[RodeoX]

You guys know different women than I do. Needing more security and having kids? That is sooo 20th. century.

[Hunterbunter]

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".

lol... I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up.

Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.

Oh yeah, guys never do that, and women always do. Please. Put the shovel down before you dig yourself into a hole.

lol what shovel?

I was responding to this:

A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

By saying that there are biological urges that compel women to have babies, as strongly as every man's urge to fuck anything that moves. That quote implies women have more control over their bodies than men do, which I think is untrue. Both have very weak control on their bodies. How many rape victims still abort their babies?

[Hunterbunter]

You guys know different women than I do. Needing more security and having kids? That is sooo 20th. century.

Out of curiosity, how old are the women you know?

[muyuu]

@muyuu Yes "Individual risk needs to be managed by individuals", but still, what if risks are different naturally by gender? You won't win anyone new over with this kind of attitude.   Hence what I said that ancap would remain an "utopia".

Can't see why should it matter. Each person has his or her own set or advantages and limitations. Gender-based affirmative action is an atrocity.

[myrkul]

By saying that there are biological urges that compel women to have babies, as strongly as every man's urge to fuck anything that moves. That quote implies women have more control over their bodies than men do, which I think is untrue. Both have very weak control on their bodies. How many rape victims still abort their babies?

Women can take medication which prevents conception entirely. If they do not desire children, then they do not have to have them. Men, on the other hand, have only a fragile rubber sheath. Seriously, put down the shovel.

[bb113]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

Free market solves this problem elegantly by discouraging women from having children just as you have described. It is not wise to try to remove the various negative feedbacks nature has placed on population growth and economic activity.

[Hunterbunter]

By saying that there are biological urges that compel women to have babies, as strongly as every man's urge to fuck anything that moves. That quote implies women have more control over their bodies than men do, which I think is untrue. Both have very weak control on their bodies. How many rape victims still abort their babies?

Women can take medication which prevents conception entirely. If they do not desire children, then they do not have to have them. Men, on the other hand, have only a fragile rubber sheath. Seriously, put down the shovel.

snip.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I came back to this thread because I thought it said "Women are free market". Sadly, only dudes here.

[JoelKatz]

Yes, I also believe not every woman weighs everything in a way as rational as you do.

That's fine. There's no requirement that you weigh things rationally. I just don't want to give people incentives to weigh things irrationally. I'm not suggesting that if people have children they can't afford to feed, we should arrange things so that the children starve. I am saying that if people have children, that requires certain sacrifices. Many people have children for bad reasons, and then they wind up making sacrifices they possibly shouldn't have made -- men and women both.

I'm seeing the side of the employer here. You can see unequal wages even today where these things are supposed to be more "regulated" in that concern.

I don't really have any problem with that, at least in the case of non-government employees. If employers can pay women less for the same work, they'll prefer to hire women over men. Men will have to reduce their wages to stay competitive. My grandfather was a labor leader in a tool and die union in the South. He was instrumental in getting the union to allow blacks to join at a time when that was almost unheard of. His basic argument to other white labor leaders was this -- if the company can pay a black man less than you for the same work, who's he going to hire when he needs more workers and who's he going to fire when he has too many?

Being willing to work for less money is a huge advantage when it comes to trying to get a job. Government does people no favors when it takes their competitive advantages away. "Equal pay for equal work" is basically just a way to restrict competition over wages.

[myrkul]

By saying that there are biological urges that compel women to have babies, as strongly as every man's urge to fuck anything that moves. That quote implies women have more control over their bodies than men do, which I think is untrue. Both have very weak control on their bodies. How many rape victims still abort their babies?

Women can take medication which prevents conception entirely. If they do not desire children, then they do not have to have them. Men, on the other hand, have only a fragile rubber sheath. Seriously, put down the shovel.

snip.

Women have that same option. They also have numerous less permanent options. What are the boy's less permanent options? Flimsy rubber sheath.

[Domrada]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

+1

[Hunterbunter]

By saying that there are biological urges that compel women to have babies, as strongly as every man's urge to fuck anything that moves. That quote implies women have more control over their bodies than men do, which I think is untrue. Both have very weak control on their bodies. How many rape victims still abort their babies?

Women can take medication which prevents conception entirely. If they do not desire children, then they do not have to have them. Men, on the other hand, have only a fragile rubber sheath. Seriously, put down the shovel.

snip.

Women have that same option. They also have numerous less permanent options. What are the boy's less permanent options? Flimsy rubber sheath.

Men can still be physiologically satisfied by said rubber sheath, because all they're really physiologically driven to is to orgasm. Women are physiologically driven to want babies, which nothing can satisfy except having or adopting one. I suppose they could adopt a man and they'd essentially have one too.

[myrkul]

Men can still be physiologically satisfied by said rubber sheath, because all they're really physiologically driven to is to orgasm. Women are physiologically driven to want babies, which nothing can satisfy except having or adopting one. I suppose they could adopt a man and they'd essentially have one too.

First off, if you can be satisfied by a condom alone, I feel sorry for your dates. Secondly, if you don't have the vagina or the scientific studies to back that statement up, I call misogynistic asshole.

The question was whether or not women had more choice in the matter of parenthood, and the fact that they do, simply by virtue of their reproductive system being the easiest to manipulate, cannot be disputed.

[Hunterbunter]

Men can still be physiologically satisfied by said rubber sheath, because all they're really physiologically driven to is to orgasm. Women are physiologically driven to want babies, which nothing can satisfy except having or adopting one. I suppose they could adopt a man and they'd essentially have one too.

First off, if you can be satisfied by a condom alone, I feel sorry for your dates. Secondly, if you don't have the vagina or the scientific studies to back that statement up, I call misogynistic asshole.

The question was whether or not women had more choice in the matter of parenthood, and the fact that they do, simply by virtue of their reproductive system being the easiest to manipulate, cannot be disputed.

Men can be satisfied by their party of five.

I'm surrounded by enough vaginas to back that statement up.

As for me being a misogynist, you're an idiot.

It's a binary decision. Either a person wants kids and does everything in their power to have them, or a person does not want kids and does everything in their power to not have them. Gender is irrelevant.

[myrkul]

Men can still be physiologically satisfied by said rubber sheath, because all they're really physiologically driven to is to orgasm. Women are physiologically driven to want babies, which nothing can satisfy except having or adopting one. I suppose they could adopt a man and they'd essentially have one too.

First off, if you can be satisfied by a condom alone, I feel sorry for your dates. Secondly, if you don't have the vagina or the scientific studies to back that statement up, I call misogynistic asshole.

The question was whether or not women had more choice in the matter of parenthood, and the fact that they do, simply by virtue of their reproductive system being the easiest to manipulate, cannot be disputed.

Men can be satisfied by their party of five.

I'm surrounded by enough vagina's to back that statement up.

As for me being a misogynist, you're an idiot.

Protip: When insulting someone's intelligence, spelling and grammar are important, lest you appear to be speaking to a mirror. The correct pluralization of vagina is "vaginae," or the more common "vaginas." An apostrophe before the s makes it possessive.

Now that you've successfully dug yourself into a pit, you may wish to produce that scientific study to back up your claim, so as to try and dig yourself out. In the mean time, here's the lid on your hole:

Contraceptive choices:

Women:

Permanent:
Hysterectomy;
Tubal ligation (may be reversible);

Non-permanent:
IUD;
Hormonal implant;
Spermicidal sponge;
Diaphragm;
"The pill";

Emergency:
Abortion;
Plan B;


Men:

Permanent:
Testicular removal (also kills sex drive);
Vasectomy (may be reversible);

Non-permanent:
Condom;

Emergency:
Run!

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

[JoelKatz]

Men can still be physiologically satisfied by said rubber sheath, because all they're really physiologically driven to is to orgasm. Women are physiologically driven to want babies, which nothing can satisfy except having or adopting one. I suppose they could adopt a man and they'd essentially have one too.

Even if this was true, no civilized society should base policy on this. We've made the decision not to act on people's "tendencies" based on biological groups they belong to but instead to consider them as individuals.

Say we found a group of people we could identify by DNA who were physiologically driven to steal, but individuals were quite capable of not stealing despite this gene. We wouldn't exclude such people from positions of trust just based on their having this gene. In fact, we wouldn't treat such people differently at all. So long as it's ultimately an action with an individual's conscious control, we care what they choose to do as individuals, not what their biology "pressures" them to do.

A civilized society focuses on individual's chosen actions, not the biologic forces driving those actions. Many women choose not to have children and have no children. They shouldn't be treated differently because they had to make that choice.

[Hunterbunter]

Protip: When insulting someone's intelligence, spelling and grammar are important, lest you appear to be speaking to a mirror. The correct pluralization of vagina is "vaginae," or the more common "vaginas." An apostrophe before the s makes it possessive.

At least I got one thing right; you're still an idiot.

Men can still be physiologically satisfied by said rubber sheath, because all they're really physiologically driven to is to orgasm. Women are physiologically driven to want babies, which nothing can satisfy except having or adopting one. I suppose they could adopt a man and they'd essentially have one too.

Even if this was true, no civilized society should base policy on this. We've made the decision not to act on people's "tendencies" based on biological groups they belong to but instead to consider them as individuals.

Say we found a group of people we could identify by DNA who were physiologically driven to steal, but individuals were quite capable of not stealing despite this gene. We wouldn't exclude such people from positions of trust just based on their having this gene. In fact, we wouldn't treat such people differently at all. So long as it's ultimately an action with an individual's conscious control, we care what they choose to do as individuals, not what their biology "pressures" them to do.

A civilized society focuses on individual's chosen actions, not the biologic forces driving those actions. Many women choose not to have children and have no children. They shouldn't be treated differently because they had to make that choice.

I'm actually arguing this. I'm pointing out that both genders have equal biological cravings that trivialize the decision process so much that we have to focus on their consequences, and not the mental processes behind a decision. The fact that women have more ways to not have a baby is a bystander to the fact that their decision to have one has little to do with the level of contraception available. It started here:

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

I have two problems with what you've said:

1) Men don't have an option to become pregnant. While they don't themselves, they can get a willing partner pregnant easily enough, and this can easily become a reason to become less productive at work - or at least, less able and willing to put in overtime. Were you saying women were lucky they got pregnant so they didn't have to work? Are you married with kids by any chance?

2) That women are any different to men when it comes to decision making. Your statement is unnecessarily sexist. "A man does not have to impregnate his wife unless he believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" works perfectly well also.

[RB26DETT]

I see women and free, same sentence

lets talk business.

[muyuu]

I'd appreciate more the post if you guys didn't stoop into categorical generalisations. I'm a male, I'd like to have kids too, and I'm definitely as animalistic as you guys portrait males. Should I ask for benefits?

Individual responsibility, chaps.

[JoelKatz]

I have two problems with what you've said:

When you're responding to a one-sided view, "X, not Y", you show how the same facts allow you to argue "Y, not X". Of course, you don't actually believe "Y, not X". The whole point of showing someone how the arguments can be made just as strongly one-sided the other way is to show them that the truth is not one-sided.

[Strider Hiryu]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

The solution to this problem was invented thousands of years ago at the dawn of human civilization: marriage.  The real 'till death do us part' kind, not the current completely unenforced version.  Marriage is simply a voluntarily entered contract that solves exactly this problem.  And a libertarian/ancap 'utopia' would have no problem enforcing any custom marriage contract.

What happened is that the left decided that instead of a private solution to this they would destroy marriage to force a public solution, hence the big government nanny state.

[speeder]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

The solution to this problem was invented thousands of years ago at the dawn of human civilization: marriage.  The real 'till death do us part' kind, not the current completely unenforced version.  Marriage is simply a voluntarily entered contract that solves exactly this problem.  And a libertarian/ancap 'utopia' would have no problem enforcing any custom marriage contract.

What happened is that the left decided that instead of a private solution to this they would destroy marriage to force a public solution, hence the big government nanny state.

+1000 to you sir

[muyuu]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".

The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

The solution to this problem was invented thousands of years ago at the dawn of human civilization: marriage.  The real 'till death do us part' kind, not the current completely unenforced version.  Marriage is simply a voluntarily entered contract that solves exactly this problem.  And a libertarian/ancap 'utopia' would have no problem enforcing any custom marriage contract.

What happened is that the left decided that instead of a private solution to this they would destroy marriage to force a public solution, hence the big government nanny state.

I responded something to this effect earlier and was labelled patriarchal and a right winger. Family as a contract is perfectly ancap in my view, and proven to work for thousands of years.

[bb113]

So what about child abuse (or even just spanking), etc? Where does a child's rights begin? Do neighbors/community ever have a right to interfere?

[dree12]

I think the views discussed in this thread are far too prohibitive, freedom-destroying, and contractual. Why should family be a contract? Families work well in all parts of the world, regardless of government, without contracts today. If anything, a contract destroys the natural evolutionary bonds that hold families together.

[JoelKatz]

So what about child abuse (or even just spanking), etc? Where does a child's rights begin? Do neighbors/community ever have a right to interfere?

IMO, there's a right to interfere once there's an individualized showing of abuse or neglect. I think it's also reasonable to require that for some extreme cases, a showing that something is not abuse or neglect be required in advance.

However, in general, I see children as the property of their parents, to raise as they see fit. I don't believe the community is likely to be able to do a better job, no matter how well-intentioned its interference is.

I'm a bit torn about parental obligations towards children. The last time I really thought about it, my position was that parents should be free to abandon their children at any time they please and others are free to adopt those children if they please. There might be an obligation to give others a fair chance to support your children if they please. It's not so much that I like this result, it's that I can't see a justification for imposing obligations. (And I would hope that this would be rare, others would step in when it happened, and social and business ostracism and blacklisting would punish those who take advantage of it.)

Fortunately, I'm not ruler of the world. So I don't have to get this right.

[dree12]

So what about child abuse (or even just spanking), etc? Where does a child's rights begin? Do neighbors/community ever have a right to interfere?

IMO, there's a right to interfere once there's an individualized showing of abuse or neglect. I think it's also reasonable to require that for some extreme cases, a showing that something is not abuse or neglect be required in advance.

However, in general, I see children as the property of their parents, to raise as they see fit. I don't believe the community is likely to be able to do a better job, no matter how well-intentioned its interference is.

I'm a bit torn about parental obligations towards children. The last time I really thought about it, my position was that parents should be free to abandon their children at any time they please and others are free to adopt those children if they please. There might be an obligation to give others a fair chance to support your children if they please. It's not so much that I like this result, it's that I can't see a justification for imposing obligations. (And I would hope that this would be rare, others would step in when it happened, and social and business ostracism and blacklisting would punish those who take advantage of it.)

Fortunately, I'm not ruler of the world. So I don't have to get this right.

Cavemen got family right, without such thing as obligations. Why our society fails at this baffles me.

[myrkul]

Protip: When insulting someone's intelligence, spelling and grammar are important, lest you appear to be speaking to a mirror. The correct pluralization of vagina is "vaginae," or the more common "vaginas." An apostrophe before the s makes it possessive.

At least I got one thing right; you're still an idiot.

ad hominem, the surest sign of a lost argument. I warned you not to dig that hole. You didn't listen.

[herzmeister]

Saw this study today, seems relevant to this thread:

Also to this thread. 

[caveden]

Saw this study today, seems relevant to this thread:

Such image shows quite well how "mainstream economics" is everything but scientific.

[muyuu]

It's hard to find reasonable women. No big news here 

[Richy_T]

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

You will never have a libertarian Utopia because libertarians are not Utopianists, that's just some Statist projection going on.

[VogueBlackheart]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market.

Am I too late to this thread to join in rejecting the premise?

[Atlas]

The OP's premise is inherently misogynistic. It's really hilarious.

Women are apparently so weak, they need men to help them to become more equal in society.

[herzmeister]

Am I too late to this thread to join in rejecting the premise?

never  

The OP's premise is inherently misogynistic. It's really hilarious.

Women are apparently so weak, they need men to help them to become more equal in society.

The observation is rational and objective that due to biological reasons, women are more likely to conceive than men. A woman has to invest time and resources during childbearing that she cannot freely choose. The free market does not compensate this undoubtedly indispensable service to society.

[JoelKatz]

The observation is rational and objective that due to biological reasons, women are more likely to conceive than men. A woman has to invest time and resources during childbearing that she cannot freely choose. The free market does not compensate this undoubtedly indispensable service to society.

She doesn't "have to" do anything she doesn't wish to. If she thinks the costs outweigh the benefits, she need not get pregnant or she need not carry the pregnancy to term. However, women have the option of conceiving if they think the benefits outweigh the costs, a choice men don't have.

The idea that this is somehow a disadvantage to women is only sensible if you see women as slaves to their biology who are powerless to make sensible choices. I utterly reject that premise.

[Topazan]

The free market does not compensate this undoubtedly indispensable service to society.

Throughout history and across cultures, societies have successfully created collectives to pool resources in support of this indispensable service.  They're called "families", and they're perfectly capable of existing in a free market.

[herzmeister]

She doesn't "have to" do anything she doesn't wish to. If she thinks the costs outweigh the benefits, she need not get pregnant or she need not carry the pregnancy to term. However, women have the option of conceiving if they think the benefits outweigh the costs, a choice men don't have.

The idea that this is somehow a disadvantage to women is only sensible if you see women as slaves to their biology who are powerless to make sensible choices. I utterly reject that premise.

So there'd be insurances to compensate her temporary inability to carry out a job in the marketplace, insurances that a man would not have to contract. Then what are the (material) benefits anyway? The child owns itself. The emotional factor doesn't mean powerlessness "to make sensible choices", that's exaggerated. The bottom line still is that the market does not incentivize procreation in any form.

Throughout history and across cultures, societies have successfully created collectives to pool resources in support of this indispensable service.  They're called "families", and they're perfectly capable of existing in a free market.

There is no guarantee that a guy would stay and form a family, especially in these modern times.

Look, the more primitive a civilization is, the more patriarchal it tends to be. And this is exactly what "progressives" want to get away from.

[Topazan]

There is no guarantee that a guy would stay and form a family, especially in these modern times.

Look, the more primitive a civilization is, the more patriarchal it tends to be. And this is exactly what "progressives" want to get away from.

There could be a contract.  Ideally, one drawn up by the individuals involved in the compact, not one handed down by the state.  I think the current deal offered by the state has serious shortcomings, but that's another tangent.

I do hope you realize that women are perfectly capable of breaking familial commitments as well.

If they want to get away from the time-proven solutions, that's fine, but they have to come up with an alternative on their own.  Passing the cost onto society should not be among the options to consider.

[memvola]

The bottom line still is that the market does not incentivize procreation in any form.

Exactly. Is that a bad thing?

I have two kids. My wife's salary almost doubles the first year and has to work less when we have a baby. As if our actions benefit anyone else. In turn, we have to submit the kid to an education program determined by the State, so I guess that's to ensure at least some benefit to society.

In the ideal free market circumstances, rational people would only procreate when the situation is manageable in itself. And I think it's a good thing.

Would it work though? Not automatically. Absolutely not. Poor people would become poorer by making tens of children, women would get more oppressed by men, the usual story. However, if we don't have nation states to impose some sort of status quo, then these problems would be solved in mere generations.

[caveden]

The observation is rational and objective that due to biological reasons, women are more likely to conceive than men. A woman has to invest time and resources during childbearing that she cannot freely choose. The free market does not compensate this undoubtedly indispensable service to society.

She doesn't "have to" do anything she doesn't wish to. If she thinks the costs outweigh the benefits, she need not get pregnant or she need not carry the pregnancy to term. However, women have the option of conceiving if they think the benefits outweigh the costs, a choice men don't have.

+1
It's not that hard to understand. They actually have an advantage, a choice men don't have.

So there'd be insurances to compensate her temporary inability to carry out a job in the marketplace, insurances that a man would not have to contract.

Nor women! Nobody would have to contract them, since nobody would have to be a mother.

Then what are the (material) benefits anyway? The child owns itself.

Here you make it clear why having a kid is a "disadvantage" under your values.

The bottom line still is that the market does not incentivize procreation in any form.

Try to understand something before criticizing it. Visibly you don't really get how market incentives work.
Market incentives will push people to satisfy others with their actions, in order to have themselves satisfied. Market will "incentivize procreation" as long as people believe such procreation satisfy them.

Relax, the human race will not voluntarily extinguish itself, despite some environmentalists outcries.

There is no guarantee that a guy would stay and form a family, especially in these modern times.

In a free society, contracts could be made to give that guarantee, if that makes people feel better. These contract could foresee things like pensions, sharing of rights/responsibilities, conditions under which one of the parents would lose his parental rights etc. All this can be foresee in an enforceable contract. But it must be contractual (i.e., voluntary). Nobody should be forced to be a parent.

[JoelKatz]

She doesn't "have to" do anything she doesn't wish to. If she thinks the costs outweigh the benefits, she need not get pregnant or she need not carry the pregnancy to term. However, women have the option of conceiving if they think the benefits outweigh the costs, a choice men don't have.

The idea that this is somehow a disadvantage to women is only sensible if you see women as slaves to their biology who are powerless to make sensible choices. I utterly reject that premise.

So there'd be insurances to compensate her temporary inability to carry out a job in the marketplace, insurances that a man would not have to contract.

If you have some kind of point, you're going to have to make some effort to tell me what it is. I'm not going to try to figure out how this could possibly be a point of some kind. Women have the free choice to procreate if they wish to or not to if they don't wish to. I cannot see how having a choice can be a bad thing. But if you can, you're going to have to explain it.

Then what are the (material) benefits anyway? The child owns itself. The emotional factor doesn't mean powerlessness "to make sensible choices", that's exaggerated. The bottom line still is that the market does not incentivize procreation in any form.

Even assuming this is true, so what? Is there some need to incentivize procreation? Is the human race in danger of extinction? Is your point that if people are free they will do what they want to do and they won't do what *you* want them to do? If so, I say great. People aren't yours to experiment on and social and biological pressures shouldn't force them to do things that aren't in their interest. If that means less procreation, that's fine with me. If it means more, that's fine with me too. I don't share your need to manage how people choose to live their own lives.

[herzmeister]

I do hope you realize that women are perfectly capable of breaking familial commitments as well.

Not during pregnancy. About (late) abortion, even libertarians are divided.

In the ideal free market circumstances, rational people would only procreate when the situation is manageable in itself. And I think it's a good thing.

Would it work though? Not automatically. Absolutely not. Poor people would become poorer by making tens of children, women would get more oppressed by men, the usual story. However, if we don't have nation states to impose some sort of status quo, then these problems would be solved in mere generations.

Don't say that too loud. 

Here you make it clear why having a kid is a "disadvantage" under your values.

Not *my* values, but the values the market enforces. That's exactly my point.

Try to understand something before criticizing it. Visibly you don't really get how market incentives work.
Market incentives will push people to satisfy others with their actions, in order to have themselves satisfied.

Relax, the human race will not voluntarily extinguish itself, despite some environmentalists outcries.

A woman who temporarily cannot offer her service in the marketplace cannot satisfy others, although as said, bearing a child is a service to society, but is left uncompensated, although undoubtedly, most people would agree it's a necessary service for humanity. Hence, there is a tragedy of the commons of the market here.

In a free society, contracts could be made to give that guarantee, if that makes people feel better. These contract could foresee things like pensions, sharing of rights/responsibilities, conditions under which one of the parents would lose his parental rights etc. All this can be foresee in an enforceable contract. But it must be contractual (i.e., voluntary). Nobody should be forced to be a parent.

In such contracts, the woman is still in a disadvantaged position, i.e. has more to lose, which may manifest in the contract's terms in one way or another.

If you have some kind of point, you're going to have to make some effort to tell me what it is. I'm not going to try to figure out how this could possibly be a point of some kind. Women have the free choice to procreate if they wish to or not to if they don't wish to. I cannot see how having a choice can be a bad thing. But if you can, you're going to have to explain it.

Your thinking is too black and white here. The choice is not an easy choice, like going to the cinema tonight or not. But the biological clock women feel ticking does not mean they're enslaved to their instincts either. They of course mostly make a conscious choice. I merely state they may prefer to live in a society where they feel more secure and more rewarded for taking on this endeavor.

Even assuming this is true, so what? Is there some need to incentivize procreation? Is the human race in danger of extinction?

In western countries, birth rates have long been stagnating at best. States seem to see the need to incentivize with tax reliefs, family allowances etc. Overpopulation occurs in poorer countries, which mostly are also more patriarchal.

Is your point that if people are free they will do what they want to do and they won't do what *you* want them to do? If so, I say great. People aren't yours to experiment on and social and biological pressures shouldn't force them to do things that aren't in their interest. If that means less procreation, that's fine with me. If it means more, that's fine with me too. I don't share your need to manage how people choose to live their own lives.

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.

[JoelKatz]

Your thinking is too black and white here. The choice is not an easy choice, like going to the cinema tonight or not. But the biological clock women feel ticking does not mean they're enslaved to their instincts either. They of course mostly make a conscious choice. I merely state they may prefer to live in a society where they feel more secure and more rewarded for taking on this endeavor.

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.

In western countries, birth rates have long been stagnating at best. States seem to see the need to incentivize with tax reliefs, family allowances etc. Overpopulation occurs in poorer countries, which mostly are also more patriarchal.

I don't see any reason to incentivize procreation, until and unless the human race is facing extinction. If the incentives aren't sufficient naturally, then why should people procreate? If people aren't procreating because they prefer to do other things, that's fine with me.

Is your point that if people are free they will do what they want to do and they won't do what *you* want them to do? If so, I say great. People aren't yours to experiment on and social and biological pressures shouldn't force them to do things that aren't in their interest. If that means less procreation, that's fine with me. If it means more, that's fine with me too. I don't share your need to manage how people choose to live their own lives.

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.

Then I think you'll have to make your points more clearly, because I'm having an awfully hard time figuring out what they are. It might be a failing on my part. If so, please indulge me by stating them.

[caveden]

Not *my* values, but the values the market enforces. That's exactly my point.

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

bearing a child is a service to society

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

most people would agree it's a necessary service for humanity.

Nope, it's not.

Hence, there is a tragedy of the commons of the market here.

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.

In such contracts, the woman is still in a disadvantaged position, i.e. has more to lose, which may manifest in the contract's terms in one way or another.

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.

I merely state they may prefer to live in a society where they feel more secure and more rewarded for taking on this endeavor.

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).

In western countries, birth rates have long been stagnating at best. States seem to see the need to incentivize with tax reliefs, family allowances etc.

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.

Joel, don't go strawman and false dilemma. *I* don't want to force anyone to do anything.

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.

[Topazan]

I do hope you realize that women are perfectly capable of breaking familial commitments as well.

Not during pregnancy. About (late) abortion, even libertarians are divided.

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.

[bb113]

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?

[420]

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

[herzmeister]

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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

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. [...] But having a choice is pretty much always better than not having a choice.

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.

Then I think you'll have to make your points more clearly, because I'm having an awfully hard time figuring out what they are. It might be a failing on my part. If so, please indulge me by stating them.

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.  

[Richy_T]

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

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.

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?

[JoelKatz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[herzmeister]

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?

[Richy_T]

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?

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.

[caveden]

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!  

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...

maybe I merely mean to say that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have to try harder to preach their gospel.

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.

[JoelKatz]

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?

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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

[Richy_T]

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.

[herzmeister]

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. 

[myrkul]

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.

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

[muyuu]

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.

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

[JoelKatz]

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.

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

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.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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

[muyuu]

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.

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

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.

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.