Anarchofeminism? Insurance, Security, etc?

[tz1]

Our host often notes that women depend on the state, and only upon its collapse would they again depend on men.

 

Yet I've read many articles on how anarchocapitalism would provide the same protections the state does.

A woman with an Insurance, Security, and Arbitration company needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle?

(Why doesn't anyone ever say a man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish?)

Since this should apply equally to the things a woman historically required a man to provide, why would women in an anarchy not choose to simply buy arm's length security, and even if they wanted children simply pay for daycare and such?  There wouldn't be any welfare single moms, but the turning point where the stigma was destroyed was Murphy Brown around 1990 - a career woman.

 

My deeper point is if you convince women to be traditional wives and mothers, especially having many children, then they must be dependent on men as they aren't earning income and children need Fathers too.  But if you don't convince them of this, wouldn't the free market provide a path to continuing to do what they are doing now, at least the wealthier women?  Having formula instead of breastmilk in a day-care might be less than optimal for the child, but that is going on now, and I don't see something changing it, even for couples that might prefer two incomes especially when there are no tax disadvantages.

 

[Mister Mister]

a free society would incentivize people to have kids under the best circumstances, and parent towards the best outcomes.  as far as we can tell, this means not circumcising, not spanking, breastfeeding, and having parents around to form a stable bond with the child and demonstrate good values.  indeed, this is the foundation of a free society, not just one mundane aspect of it.  why do you bring up this subject?

[Guest Gee]

I think insurance is for things that happen to you, not for things you choose.

[Tweak]

Our host often notes that women depend on the state, and only upon its collapse would they again depend on men.

 

Yet I've read many articles on how anarchocapitalism would provide the same protections the state does.

A woman with an Insurance, Security, and Arbitration company needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle?

(Why doesn't anyone ever say a man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish?)

Since this should apply equally to the things a woman historically required a man to provide, why would women in an anarchy not choose to simply buy arm's length security, and even if they wanted children simply pay for daycare and such?  There wouldn't be any welfare single moms, but the turning point where the stigma was destroyed was Murphy Brown around 1990 - a career woman.

 

My deeper point is if you convince women to be traditional wives and mothers, especially having many children, then they must be dependent on men as they aren't earning income and children need Fathers too.  But if you don't convince them of this, wouldn't the free market provide a path to continuing to do what they are doing now, at least the wealthier women?  Having formula instead of breastmilk in a day-care might be less than optimal for the child, but that is going on now, and I don't see something changing it, even for couples that might prefer two incomes especially when there are no tax disadvantages.

You are looking through the lens of totalitarianism. In a free society (anarcho- capitalism) the woman could choose to have an insurance if you will, towards bad judgement for her not choosing the right man to provide for her.

 

You are not deep. You are a regurgitation of all media input when it comes to family, gender and so on. The choice is up to the women. It has nothing of convincing to do.

 

When it comes to the increase in wealth for couples when they both work... Well the only reason you would feel the need, financially, for both of you and your wife  to work is coz the banking industry together with the mighty state have made the situation in witch you and your hypothetical family live in. In an anarcho- capitalist society I can easily see you, wife and child living together in a house with white pigged fence.

[dsayers]

why would women in an anarchy not choose to simply buy arm's length security, and even if they wanted children simply pay for daycare and such?

Presumably, a free society is only possible by way of peaceful parenting and rational thought. As such, daycare wouldn't be an ongoing thing and would be provided by way of an individual's support network and then only in rare times of need.

 

But if you don't convince them of this, wouldn't the free market provide a path to continuing to do what they are doing now, at least the wealthier women?  Having formula instead of breastmilk in a day-care might be less than optimal for the child

I think the negative effects on children would make such things unfavorable to the point of being ostracized. People aren't going to let individuals poison the well if they say "but it's just a tiny drop!"

[shirgall]

I think insurance is for things that happen to you, not for things you choose.

 

Handling risk is a deep topic. There's nothing inherently unfree about getting insurance.

 

Insurance is not always used to deal with things that happen to you, but can also be used to cover the things that happen because of you. My wife has liability insurance because, as a nurse, there is always the chance of making a mistake. Sometimes it's worth it to get insurance just because it's worth having a company and its lawyers in your corner if something goes wrong and you get sued.

 

The concept of insurance is used to cover the costs of events that could happen, not events that necessarily will.

 

And not only that, there's also the possibility of upside risk as well as downside. For example, imagine you intended to test market a product. You might take out some form insurance for the possibility that your product was more successful than expected, and could therefore cover the costs of higher growth lest your product fizzle in the marketplace due to unavailability.

 

A rainy day fund is even a form of insurance, even if you cram it in your mattress.

[nickhk]

Are husband and wife pairings not part of the free market?

 

Is there some economically advantageous thing/things to do other than have a partner?

[J-William]

Murphy Brown around 1990 - a career woman.

 

My deeper point is if you convince women to be traditional wives and mothers, especially having many children, then they must be dependent on men as they aren't earning income and children need Fathers too.

What if there's no convincing needed? What if women actually want to be mothers and this single or working mother thing is all just propaganda and necessity? When the burden of the state is gone or diminished then people can afford to have a single income family.

 

You're forgetting social pressures that would be brought to bear on people behaving in an antisocial way.

 

Also don't go crazy with the career women that are making lots of money, actual single mothers that could be self sufficient without the state are so rare they aren't worth talking about.

[AncapFTW]

Our host often notes that women depend on the state, and only upon its collapse would they again depend on men.

 

Yet I've read many articles on how anarchocapitalism would provide the same protections the state does.

A woman with an Insurance, Security, and Arbitration company needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle?

(Why doesn't anyone ever say a man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish?)

Since this should apply equally to the things a woman historically required a man to provide, why would women in an anarchy not choose to simply buy arm's length security, and even if they wanted children simply pay for daycare and such?  There wouldn't be any welfare single moms, but the turning point where the stigma was destroyed was Murphy Brown around 1990 - a career woman.

 

My deeper point is if you convince women to be traditional wives and mothers, especially having many children, then they must be dependent on men as they aren't earning income and children need Fathers too.  But if you don't convince them of this, wouldn't the free market provide a path to continuing to do what they are doing now, at least the wealthier women?  Having formula instead of breastmilk in a day-care might be less than optimal for the child, but that is going on now, and I don't see something changing it, even for couples that might prefer two incomes especially when there are no tax disadvantages.

Sure, wealthier women could raise kids on their own.  Windows have raised kids on their own too, but it wouldn't be incentivized.  In fact, because people would have to take responsibility for their actions and children raised by two parents end up better off, people would be incentivized to raise kids with more than one parent.

 

Daycare wouldn't be a substitute for parenting, just a way to handle situations where the parent can't watch their kid.  I think that abusing the daycare system by having them basically raise your child would be stigmatized, as it would be inferior parenting.

[tz1]

a free society would incentivize people to have kids under the best circumstances, and parent towards the best outcomes.  as far as we can tell, this means not circumcising, not spanking, breastfeeding, and having parents around to form a stable bond with the child and demonstrate good values.  indeed, this is the foundation of a free society, not just one mundane aspect of it.  why do you bring up this subject?

How can a society be both free and incentivize the actual having of kids.  I can see incentivising the raising of children properly (you don't want members who lack reason or self control either via coming of age or immigration).

More specifically, you have to incentivize the Woman to become a wife and mother which is not an easy job.  The choice is the pedestal or the rat race.  Some choose the rat race.  There's also the problem of sterility (especially coming out of the current culture - even the "mild" Chlamydia has a 1 in 4 chance of causing a woman sterility per infection, and there are incurable viral infections).

 

What if there's no convincing needed? What if women actually want to be mothers and this single or working mother thing is all just propaganda and necessity? When the burden of the state is gone or diminished then people can afford to have a single income family.

The propaganda is working to overcome reason.

The problem with social pressures is they tend to work both ways - a Gun can be used to rob or to defend yourself from robbery.

 

People aren't going to let individuals poison the well if they say "but it's just a tiny drop!"

If ostracism is sufficient.  Economically, this is the Public Goods, or Externality problem depending on how you look at it.  It benefits everyone to have proper parenting, but because it is hard work to do that, individuals will seek alternatives or slack off.  A child is a decade or more burden.  It wasn't sufficient when the "burn in hell" myth was used.  I'm not sure how far you can go without violating the NAP to force people to act reasonably.

 

I think insurance is for things that happen to you, not for things you choose.

If you don't include the Motherhood, women are generally still dependent on Men for protection - you want someone bigger and stronger and capable of keeping you from being raped by the immigrant hordes.  While it is true that I agree 100% with the parenting ideas presented here, what about Women who aren't daughters raised in that model.  I'm speaking more toward Stephan's "islam is the cure for feminism".  Women currently have the state to protect them.  I think I overloaded the post, since in this I was talking about the protection aspect alone.  They need protection, not necessarily a Husband.

In an Anarchist society, there are two sources of protection - self-protection (have a gun and know how to and be willing to use it) - and buying protection on a market.

 

It seems that having lots of women raped and stabbed to death in Europe is still not sufficient to convince them even of the failure of the State.  I'm not quite sure what ostracism has to offer which would be more convincing that they not merely need to stop depending on the false idol of the State to protect them, but more than that, need to be protected by a Man within a traditional family.

[AMR]

 Women will have the choice, to be a career woman or have a family and be there for her children. 

I am a house wife now, I feel like my quality of life is higher now than it was when I was working. Income will be less of priority for women in a free society. If people truly get personal responsiblity as a held value and we come upon a free society, day care will not be common. 

[dsayers]

I'm not sure how far you can go without violating the NAP to force people to act reasonably.

This sentence contradicts itself so many times, I thought you were quoting Monty Python.

[Frosty]

If there's significant demand for something in an anarchocapitalist society then it would almost certainly be provided. If women demand some kind of insurance related to having kids then I'm sure that would be provided. The big difference though is that they would have to pay for that directly rather than socializing the costs across an entire population.

 

Also if it's any kind of insurance type scheme where many people are pooled together and security is dished out as and when it's needed then your own individual choices and behaviours would affect what sort of premium you'd pay on your insurance. So for example if you're insuring against the man leaving the mother and child then you'd expect to see many different factors go into what kind of premium you pay, if you have priors for spousal abuse or other factors that increase the risk of separation then you'd expect to pay more.

 

The great thing about the free market is that it makes people pay for their bad choices and bad behaviour, whereas with government you get a safety net at the expense of other people, there's no incentive for anyone to actually make good choices.

[Mister Mister]

How can a society be both free and incentivize the actual having of kids.  I can see incentivising the raising of children properly (you don't want members who lack reason or self control either via coming of age or immigration).

More specifically, you have to incentivize the Woman to become a wife and mother which is not an easy job.  The choice is the pedestal or the rat race.  Some choose the rat race.  There's also the problem of sterility (especially coming out of the current culture - even the "mild" Chlamydia has a 1 in 4 chance of causing a woman sterility per infection, and there are incurable viral infections).

  Sorry I don't understand the question.  In the absence of a State, you can incentivize things through economic rewards and ostracism.  The same way we incentivize restaurants to have good service, and for people not to say "nigger", even though there are no laws for or against these things.  DOes that make sense?

 

 Sorry, I realize, my language was not that clear.  I don't have to incentivize women to do anything.  Most of them have a biological instinct to reproduce. To be clear, what I meant was not that we would incentivize people to have kids, but that IF they choose to have kids, they would be incentivized by the society to do so in the circumstances that are best for the children.  This would be done most likely through a combination of social forces, as I described, and financial rewards, through a DRO or some other kind of insurance.  In the same way that not smoking and exercising gives you better health outcomes, and would decrease your health insurance fees, not hitting your kids or leaving them in daycare, gives the kids better outcomes and the cost of insurance would reflect that.

 

  But the other point I was making, was that, healthy, stable, peaceful, voluntary families, are the foundation of a healthy, stable, peaceful, voluntary society.  It happens from the bottom up, not the other way around.  So I think you kind of have it backwards...