Why rich smart attractive males avoid marriage? Why religions teach you to get married? Why feminazis prevent consenting females from accepting high paying jobs and escaping patriarchal oppression? Why force and deceit are often more politically correct than consent in getting a mate? What should you do to help your self?
Look let’s shorten this one at a time.
Google money tree is bad (at least for many). People do not agree to pay $80 per month. There is no way they would agree to pay $80 per month. But somehow they are presumed to agree anyway based on statements not readily available buried deep within TOS.
Marriage is bad (at least for many). Men do not agree to keep paying alimony to girls that are already riding someone else’ cock. Men do not agree to support someone else’ kids. Beatty Chadwick do not agree to pay $2.5 million dollar and prefer to go to jail for 14 years instead of it. But somehow they are presumed to agree anyway based on some statements not readily available buried deep within marital laws.
FTC demands that those terms must be explicitly stated near the OK button.
So why not demand all marriage couple to explicitly agree to support bastard child, keep paying huge alimony, etc. during marital vow?
Not a rhetorical question.
|
Originally Posted by nickster
 Although not exactly eloquent the OP is actually very right. Why should there be clear instructions next to the buy button that make sure that suckers and morons don’t purchase the product without all the pertinent facts. Surely the fact that they are in the terms and conditions should be enough in the same way that when you get married you are not being made aware that if you decide to “return” you will not be getting a refund but a shakedown. and the main difference is the money is not $80 when it comes to divorce, more like 1000s or 10,000s times that amount. More of a reason to make full disclosure at the alter a legal requirement.
Although the above is rather tongue in cheek I do agree with the sentiment. |
That is exactly my point 
.
It’s not a rethorical question. The answer lies deep in the very structure of humans’ political structure.
I’d say it’s the following. Laws are not there to protect justice. Laws are there to protect the interests of whoever makes the law, which may include maintaining illusion or perception of justice, sometimes truthfully. I got the idea from an interview of PETA (indonesian’s troops under japanese occupation) members. The guy said that when Japs rule, the japs said that they ain’t care if people are stealing and robbing. They care about anti japs sentiments.
The same way US governments don’t really care whether a trade is consensual or not. Maybe they do a little bit. They care for their own interests, namely maximizing controls of the everyone. Google money tree don’t pay up enough to congress. That’s the issue.
Also humans have many zero sum games aspects of life. We’re actually by nature, enemies or competitors. We just don’t talk about it. After all not everyone is “THEM”. There have to be enough “US” to fight “THEM” whoever that US and THEM is. Many divisions are indeed Nash equlibrium and certain people prefer certain division more than another. KKK, for example, prefer race. Libertarian, for example, prefer non victimless criminals as “Them”. Muslims prefers faith as divisor. It’s only till recently the dividing line is ideology. Free market is winning.
So we don’t talk about the zero sum game aspect among “US”. We don’t question why marriage must be monogamy (women acquisition is zero sum game). We don’t question why MDMA is illegal despite being saver than cigarette (power is zero sum game). Also why Government screw e-gold, rather than aiming for the actual ponzy’s (well, dollar is not backed by gold, again control of economy is zero sum game).
What we don’t talk honestly, is what we don’t understand. All of us are lying to each other. It’s the realm of religion, superstition, and government. If I am an emperor, I would say God made me an emperor, to confuse other emperor wannabe. I wouldn’t say a more realistic theory that I become an emperor because I stab the former one in the back and can bullshit my way out to the population after ling chi -ing a few that disagree.
It never is about the interest of the consenting parties. It’s the interest of those that want to control the parties. It never is about honesty. It’s about confusing and lying to everyone else. Unfortunately by embracing lies and faith, we ended up lying to our self too.
Perhaps, as Budha says, enlightment is indeed a way out of this stupid cycle. Hail Adam Smith, for enlightening us that humans are selfish.