Generally presumed, amongst even the far right, is that families are somehow exempt from the rules of economic theory; or else that their miniature size- relative to nations- places the optimum strategy for their governance inherently at odds with the traditional format; or else that the special benefits of family are strengthened- in a spiritual sense- by communal allocation. The purpose of this post is to dispel these claims as illusory, and to state the case for household privatization in accordance with my own conceptions.
First, consider the claim that economics doesn't apply to families- weak by any standard. Perceiving the relevance of rational choice theory, and by extension its implications, takes only the brainpower to recognize family members as thinking actors whose actions are motivated by self-interest. One can argue that children act irrationally, and though contribute insignificantly to the workings of a global economy are of prime importance within a family, but this diverts attention from the heart of the matter: that they are rational to some extent. It is nonsense to assert that the actions of a child are entirely unpredictable at any given age, as our own actions towards them are evidence to the contrary. Why place the suckling babe in position to obtain sustenance if we did not expect it- by motivation of survival- to feed? Why attend to the needs of a crying infant if we did not expect that it does so to gain our attention and care? It is constructed evolutionarily into the fabric of one's being: the drive to act in ways that maximize personal gain. Without it, our species would perish. One may raise contentions as to the capability of children, at given stages of life, to act appropriately on such a drive as result of insufficient information or brainpower, but this only implies a level of needed ramification to our traditional models. To suggest they are outright inapplicable is a statement of ignorance at best.
Second, the claim that the family's size invalidates what works on a national scale is only convincing to a degree. A common argument is that the primary flaws of centralization manifest when the coordinators have too much to coordinate, which is dissimilar to two parents managing the trifles of a few kids. One problem with this is that it's dependent on the number of children, the number of parents and also the amount of time parents have or want to spend on their children. Another problem is that it doesn't necessitate communal living as better than privatization- just as less-bad by comparison, which isn't saying too much. Various profound issues with central planning- most notably defective incentives and the problem of economic calculation- remain in full force at the family size, and the boons of such a system are decidedly lackluster.
Third, to associate privatization with familial disenchantment is probably to mistake the results of a system switch. Most people want the same sorts of things for their children- a well-functioning home, plenty of food, happiness, comfort, a sense of freedom, preparedness for 'the real world.' These are the sorts of things I expect. Unfortunately, there seems also to be a widespread gut-feeling that involving capitalist ideals in a family setting reduces some higher form of relationship between kin to 'mere economic transactions.' What they fail to realize is that all human interactions are wrapped within the confines of rational action, and that they are all, in this sense, precisely the same. The only meaningful difference is that some have more desirable consequences. It is my hope that by portraying a theoretical privatized household, the instincts of repulsion felt by some can be tempered.
In part two, I will illustrate how a privatized household might predictably function, and make the case for its implementation.
No comments:
Post a Comment