Quote from: caveden on October 10, 2012, 11:56:55 AM

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.

Quote from: caveden on October 10, 2012, 11:56:55 AM

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! Wink

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.

Quote from: caveden on October 10, 2012, 11:56:55 AM

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. Cool

Quote from: caveden on October 10, 2012, 11:56:55 AM

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. Cool

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 10, 2012, 11:00:10 AM

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.

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 10, 2012, 11:00:10 AM

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. Cool