Women and free market

[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.

[1715427153]

1715427153

[1715427153]

1715427153

[1715427153]

1715427153

[1715427153]

1715427153

[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.