As much as I admire free societies(or more free societies), I see one big problem with it. After women have many opportunities, after society becomes prosperous and there are more opportunities for women, the reality is that women will stop having many children.
Contrary to what you've heard, you can't blame the low birth rate on socialism. Socialism does make the problem worse, by promoting affirmative action for women and making it more costly for them to stop and have children.
But socialism isn't the whole story. The birthrate for Russians went down after communism fell. The birth rate for whites in less-socialist US is only slightly higher than for the French in more-socialist France.
The reality is that women who work have to forgo a lot of income to have children. So many of them choose not to do so, or they only do it once or twice.
It has occurred to me that in an anarcho-capitalist society, large institutions might be able to revive gender imbalances through determined use of the exclusion principal to keep women marginalized in the work place. But I don't see that happening.
So the irony is that a free society ends up destroying the very genes that created it. So maybe we can take comfort that our ideas will live on even after our genes die out. That's comforting... I think.
I doubt that there is a tendency for freedom to destroy families, anymore than freedom has a tendency to eliminate business. The institution changes and shifts according to needs so this could result in less or more children -depending on need. For instance, the market has substitutes to birth like adoption.
The vast majority of women in a free socitey would be relegated to the house. A free socitey is an upstanding socitey.
The vast majority of women in a free socitey would be relegated to the house.
Nonsense.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Welfare acts as a child-bearing subsidy, it produces over-population, not under-population. This is one reason why welfare states must have such stringent immigration controls, almost every woman in the world wants to come to a welfare state, have children and get paid for it without having to put up with a husband.
Contrary to what you've heard, you can't blame the low birth rate on socialism. Socialism does make the problem worse, by promoting affirmative action for women and making it more costly for them to stop and have children. But socialism isn't the whole story. The birthrate for Russians went down after communism fell. The birth rate for whites in less-socialist US is only slightly higher than for the French in more-socialist France. The reality is that women who work have to forgo a lot of income to have children. So many of them choose not to do so, or they only do it once or twice. It has occurred to me that in an anarcho-capitalist society, large institutions might be able to revive gender imbalances through determined use of the exclusion principal to keep women marginalized in the work place. But I don't see that happening. So the irony is that a free society ends up destroying the very genes that created it. So maybe we can take comfort that our ideas will live on even after our genes die out. That's comforting... I think.
No, you're upside-down on this. Welfare causes over-population, not under-population. The problem is that you are thinking of women as consumers of children when they are, in fact, primarily producers of children. A woman's customer is the man she reproduces with. While she (genetically) has an equal interest in producing offspring, due to the nature of what biologists call "reproductive anisogamy" in mammals*, women are virtually guaranteed to reproduce whereas men face a much wider range of reproductive success, from zero to many, many children if they reproduce with many women. Women compete weakly for access to the most genetically excellent and wealthy men. But men compete strongly for access to women at all and their genetic success ceiling is much higher (a woman can have, at most, 20 or so children, a man can have hundreds). The fiercer competition between men for access to wombs means that they have to provide incentives to attract mates, usually through the provision of goods and services for their mates. Fundamentally, the age old exchange between a man and a woman is sex for stuff or, more accurately, children for stuff. As a rule, the man is the net beneficiary from the opportunity to reproduce, so it is the man who must exchange something of value to the women in return for it.
The social structure which generally regulates this exchange between men and women is marriage. Marriage is a contract specifying what happens to the children and assets of the household in the event of separation (divorce). The prevailing terms of such contracts and the circumstances under which they are made (bride price, dowry, etc.) set a kind of "market price" for the exchange of reproduction vice the productivity of a man.
Like any price, supply and demand vary with the price. When the price is high, that is, when men are paying dearly for reproductive access to wombs, supply will increase (more women will choose to marry and reproduce) and demand will decrease (fewer men will choose to marry and provide a household) and vice-versa when the price is low.
In the West, the State has, over the last couple centuries, taken over the arbitration of marriage contracts, that is, divorce. Typically, divorce has been the domain of religion and, therefore, it is religious law which has been dominant in setting the terms of marriage contracts and (by extension) the price of reproduction. Sharia law is still the arbiter of marriage and divorce in Muslim countries.
The result has been the same kind of effects we see in any realm of central planning. The legal system attempts to impose one-size-fits-all solutions onto the population with devastating results. We can conclude from observing the low birth rate in Western nations that the net effect of statutory divorce laws has been to raise the price of reproduction. This is manifestly the case. Women in Western nations of comparable social status to their counterparts in non-Western nations are fatter, do less housework, have more leisure time and are more well-dressed and well-appointed in every other way. This is a consequence of the terms of divorce facing their husbands should their husbands grow tired of their excessive consumption of the household wealth... the draconian terms of child-support and spousal support as well as large property awards and controlling interest in the children's custody grant almost every possible privilege to the woman in a divorce.
The net result is that fewer men choose to marry or seek to reproduce with Western women. Note that many men from Western nations are marrying women from overseas. The simple reason for this is that foreign women have not been schooled in their "rights" under Western law and are more amenable to sensible marriage terms (terms of divorce). Western men are not ceasing to reproduce, they're just reproducing with other women.
So, no, the low birth rates are not directly connected to socialism (and negatively correlate with welfare), they have everything to do with our legal system's artificial price supports on the price of reproduction. It just costs too much to get married, the terms are far too restrictive, so most men are choosing to forego marriage and many of the ones who do marry are marrying women from other countries and cultures or taking out an ironclad pre-nup.
It's insane to marry a Western woman without a pre-nup.
Clayton -
*Reproductive anisogamy basically means that it's a hell of a lot harder to be pregnant and give birth than it is to get someone pregnant
In a free society, you have no right to force women not to have a full-time job and earn her own money.
My guess is truly 'free' societies would be more conservative. People would tend to smaller groups and stricter standards within the groups, though there could be a large variety of standards between groups though. People tend to want to live with 'their own', however that's defined. Many would separate by race I think since that seems so linked with cultural background. Also by income level, religious belief or lack thereof, etc.
The real question is, and the answer can only be discovered, which societies would be more successful, the more inclusive 'cosmopolitan' ones, or the more exclusive 'conservative' ones? It would really put to the test whether or not our differences truly are our strengths. I tend to believe they are, but they also divide us on certain levels that seem fairly extreme in many cases.
Clayton,
Although the legal restrictions you describe around marriage are true, I don't believe they are a cause of declining birth rates for the simple reason that the terms were even more restrictive in the past when the marriage contract was primarily under the purview of religion. Yes, the state has managed to insert itself and administer the process. However, as that has happened, the rate of divorce has gone up, not down. Remember that just a generation ago, due to moral considerations and social stigma, divorce was simply "not an option" to the bulk of the population. For most people, you quite literally were locked in "for better or worse", for life. Today it is easier than ever before to end a marriage. So I don't believe it is an "artificially high price" that is the culprit.
I submit that there are 2 key factors contributing to declining populations in the West - availability/knowledge of birth control, and a massive shift toward atheism/agnosticism.
Effective birth control is a relatively new phenomena in the history of man and was simply not available in centuries past. Even if external conditions pushed toward smaller families, it was near impossible for most couples to effectively implement.
That technology, coupled with the increasing marginalization of any religious ethos (other than politically correct agnosticism) has driven people to increasingly focus on themselves and forego the headaches of raising children. Children are no longer seen as a blessing and miracle, but a burden and restriction on our supposed "right" to live free of obligations.
The birthrate for Russians went down after communism fell because their economy also went down the drain. When one does not know what she will eat tomorrow, having children is not as high a priority. That assuming that after the fall of communism Russia became a free society... Looking at history, women were quite eager to stay home in free societies. US in 1960s was more free than it is now and most women stayed home and had more babies. Having to produce a second income for the family just might have been related to the encroachment of government in all spheres, especially economy. Also, when domestic help, housing and childcare are less expensive to procure - which would be likely without government interference, women would have no problem having and rasing children while engaging in a challenging career. Quite a few women work and have many children right now.
You're right. However, it wouldn't be me doing the forcing. Economic laws are no different than laws of nature; as a convention of speech, one doesn't accuse gravity of infringing your right to soar as you jump off a cliff or curse the second law thermodynamics because your kitchen didn't clean itself. Women are demonstrably less productive in the professional, scientific and artistic world. This doesn’t diminish woman’s contribution to society in any way. I only suggest that specialization begets prosperity.
Looking at history, women were quite eager to stay home in free societies. US in 1960s was more free than it is now and most women stayed home and had more babies. Having to produce a second income for the family just might have been related to the encroachment of government in all spheres, especially economy.
And yet, people are better off than they've ever been. You may not like it but I'd say that the change in fertility rates can be explained by a shift in preferences, culture and technology, not much to do with state intervention in the economy.
Children are no longer seen as a blessing and miracle, but a burden and restriction on our supposed "right" to live free of obligations.
I say this as a Christian, but I'm not really sure how the shift away from Christianity would mean that children aren't seen as a "blessing", much less so since people inevitably do continue to have children.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Clayton, Although the legal restrictions you describe around marriage are true, I don't believe they are a cause of declining birth rates for the simple reason that the terms were even more restrictive in the past when the marriage contract was primarily under the purview of religion.
Although the legal restrictions you describe around marriage are true, I don't believe they are a cause of declining birth rates for the simple reason that the terms were even more restrictive in the past when the marriage contract was primarily under the purview of religion.
I disagree. Exit from marriage was more difficult for women which would mean that it was a better deal for men, generally. If you beat your wife or cheated on her, etc. it was difficult or impossible for her to leave. The best way to avoid being beaten and cheated on was to keep your husband happy. I'm not condoning it, just describing it.
Yes, the state has managed to insert itself and administer the process. However, as that has happened, the rate of divorce has gone up, not down.
Exactly. As the price of marriage is rising, more men are "bailing" before things get even worse and fewer and fewer men are signing on in the first place. How many single women have you heard complain of the difficulty of finding a man willing to commit? Why are men so unwilling to commit to marriage these days? Is it really the case that male humans are suddenly being born with greater promiscuity than ever in history? I doubt that very much.
Remember that just a generation ago, due to moral considerations and social stigma, divorce was simply "not an option" to the bulk of the population.
Well, as noted above, that's a two-edged sword. The primary reasons men want divorces is to stop having to pay for their wife's lifestyle and to be freed of sexual exclusivity with her. In patriarchal society with no exit from marriage, the man only had to stop forking over his paycheck to take care of the first problem and visit a whorehouse to take care of the second problem. If a woman wasn't satisfied with her husband's level of material support and didn't like him visiting the whorehouse, there wasn't much she could do about it because, as you said, divorce wasn't really an option.
Again, not condoning it, just describing it.
For most people, you quite literally were locked in "for better or worse", for life. Today it is easier than ever before to end a marriage. So I don't believe it is an "artificially high price" that is the culprit.
That's because you are looking at the old-fashioned system as a way of locking men in to marriage when it was really about locking women in to marriage... and, to an extent, men as well.
I submit that there are 2 key factors contributing to declining populations in the West - availability/knowledge of birth control, and a massive shift toward atheism/agnosticism. Effective birth control is a relatively new phenomena in the history of man and was simply not available in centuries past. Even if external conditions pushed toward smaller families, it was near impossible for most couples to effectively implement.
This is pure myth. People have always controlled the births in their family through a variety of methods. Mankind has always had withdrawal and non-vaginal sex as birth control options. Calendric methods have also been used. Even before the rubber condom, there were other birth control devices. Abstinence was a much bigger part of life because the difficulty of transportation often meant that men had to be away from the home for extended periods of time to earn the money. And the restrictions on prostitution were much lower. The Malthusian garbage about everybody having 20 babies through the inability to keep themselves from copulating in a manner sure to cause conception is downright silly.
Any social meme which is counter-reproductive will be swiftly selected out of the population. Selection 101.
Our fucked-up divorce law is the root cause of the declining marriage rate and the declining marriage rate is correlative with the declining birth rate (how do you make children without any kind of material agreement on how to feed and clothe them?)
- "hayekianxyz: And yet, people are better off than they've ever been."
Better off than they've ever been? Really? People living in unsustainable economy way beyong the point of no return, sickly, overveight, popping anti-depressants like they were candies - are better than ever?
- "hayekianxyz: You may not like it but I'd say that the change in fertility rates can be explained by a shift in preferences, culture and technology, not much to do with state intervention in the economy."
You think that preferences and culture are not affected by state intervention and can be considered independently?
Clayton, I just want to take issue with one thing you said. Men are not bailing out on mairrage. 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women.
Men prefer to just become "less into" our wives, rather than file for divorce. Sometimes that means cheating, often it means just focusing on our career or hobbies etc and less on the relationship.
Michael most studies show a clear pattern that people in 1st world countries are happier than people in 3rd world countries. Wealth does make people happier, but there is a point of diminishing returns.
Paleo,
You're right, religion is a factor. But I just question how much can be done in a free and prosperous society. The birth rates for whites in Mormon Utah is higher than the birth rate for whites in any other part of the country..but still barely above 2 children. Not vey impressive compared to Mali.
Michael, the Russian birth rate hasn't bounced back since the oil boom lifted the Russian economy. The economy has little to do with it.
On the other hand, many people do use their percieved lack of ecconomic success as an excuse for not having children in Russia.
This article also suggests that many Russians are sterilizing themselves from abortion.
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-190-1.cfm
- "PirateRothbard: Michael most studies show a clear pattern that people in 1st world countries are happier than people in 3rd world countries. Wealth does make people happier, but there is a point of diminishing returns." First, 3rd world countries are hell-holes, it's only natural people would not be very happy there.
Second, we only have government's word on how happy their subjects are.
Third, there is quite a difference between various 1st world countries. Some are quite sustainable and not about to collapse into devastating famine and ruin, others are. Curiously, it's the former ones that are grumpy and the latter who are extatic.
Fourth, your original contention was not that people are "happier", but that they are "better off". Happines comes in a bottle of pills nowdays. Prosperity and sustainabilitry not so much...
-"Pills don't make people happy. That's like saying tutoring turns stupid people into MIT material."
It's not like that. Intelligence cannot be improved while emotions can change from minute to minute and are subject to chemical control.
- "Pills can help the miserable learn to find life barely tolerable." That has not been my experience with people taking pills.
In any case, people may be happy and yet about to suffer greatly, even die en-masse, if they are dumb and/or ignorant enough not to see what the future brings. People about to suffer and die can hardly be considered "well off", no matter how delusional or medicated they are or how fast they go through their remaining wealth and credit...
thought I remember learning/reading that urbanization played a big part in bringing down family sizes.
You don't need as many kids to help out with the farm, and less space. I would think religion would play a role as well. Very few people would consider it a duty to have children for God or anything like that anymore. Although I guess it would be hard to tell how much that played a role in societies past.
Hayekianxyz: I say this as a Christian, but I'm not really sure how the shift away from Christianity would mean that children aren't seen as a "blessing", much less so since people inevitably do continue to have children.
We are quickly moving to a generally pagan society which natural follows postmodernity- the idea all beliefs are equally valid leads to forms polytheism. Now since there's no true metanarrative all we have left is sensation, and thus the intensity over profundity principle. Children get in the way of this since they require nurture and parental responsibility which gets in the way of sensationism. Further historically pagan societies seem to demonstrate a demonic hatred of children which ultimately leads to child sacrifice eg the Canaanites. G K Chesterton makes this observation in the Everlasting Man. For more on the intensity over profundity point see my thread here.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat