Posts Tagged Child Support

Why rich people make fewer kids?

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/10/the-rich-vs-poor-debate-are-kids-normal-or-inferior-goods/

 

It says that kids are inferior goods because richer parents buy less kids.

However, definition of inferior goods are goods you buy less as you get richer. Does it presume that the price is constant?

If the price is constant irrelevant of the wealth of the parent, and richer parents tend to have less kids, then yes, kids are inferior goods.

However, the price is not constant.

The price for raising kids are way higher for the poor than for the rich. Rich people simply spend more money for their kids.

Why?

Well, governments’ market distortion. Raising kids usually require marriage or at least some committed relationship. Alimony and child support, for example, are more expensive for the rich and the poor. Governments make reproduction expensive for the rich.

What happen when the cost is constant? Well before 1850, the rich are more fertile than the poor.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Marriage is like Concentration Camp?

In mid 20th century there was these highly industrious smart, productive, ancient and wise people called the jews.

They’re endangered species now. These people underestimated their government’s hatred against them.

The same way today, there are capitalists. Most of those underestimate others’ hatred over them.

The jews underestimated Nazis’ hatred toward them. They think they won’t get screwed. “We are useful to them. Why would they kill us?” They said to themselves. They failed to realize that:

1. The mediocre hate the smart. That’s why Nazis hated jews.

2. The lazy hate the diligent.

3. The unproductive hate the productive.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from reaching their full potential.

The same way most people fail to realize that:

1. Mediocre men do not want women to only pick the rich. That’s why they prohibit prostitution.

2. Singles do not want people with mates to keep getting mates. That’s why they prohibit group marriage, polyandry and polygamy.

3. Ugly women do not want women to be judged by their beauty. That’s why they prohibit porn.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them or have potential to do so. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from achieving their full potential.

All these are half obvious already. Yet most people don’t know.

The fascists justified killing jews by claiming that the jews are inferior anyway. If it were true, why not just let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Inferiority is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

The fascists also justify prohibition of prostitution by claiming that prostitution is such a bad deal no women could possibly want that anyway. If it were true, why not let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Bad deal is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

So the Nazis pulled out a trick.  “Work will set you free,” said bigots. “Just register your arms and wear star of David band for ease of identification,” said the Nazi.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something was suspicious. What business government has in identifying who were jewish and who were not? They should have asked.

The same way, religious bigots and feminazis are pulling tricks. “Get married first before having sex,” said religious bigots. “Women are not sex objects and should not be judged solely by their beauty,” said ugly feminazis.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something is suspicious. What business does government have in regulating marriage?

What business does ugly women have in controlling how we think? When men think of women as sex object, we usually mean the pretty right? So why the ugly care?

But many jews didn’t see that the Nazi wanted their extermination. What else could they have wanted? By registering their guns they are easy to disarm. By wearing stars they are easy to identify. And by being in concentration camp they are easy to exterminate.

The same way many of us do not see that those wanting us to get married want nothing but our extermination and suffering. What else do they want?

By getting married government has power to define what marriage mean. Government can ration mates in equal share for everyone by allowing people to only pick singles.

By getting married judges have justification to prosecute the rich with hefty alimony. The justification, as ridiculous as it sound, is that you agreed to that indirectly when you get married.

By getting married people make it easy for government to screw them.

Little did the jews know that hatred against them would matter far more in concentration camp than outside.

Outside concentration camp, hatred against jews matter much less. The jews can still fight, flee, or run.

Inside concentration camp, they’re toasted. Literally.

The same way, little people know, that hatred of those who are not competitive are far less influential outside marriage than inside marriage.

Outside marriage, you decide terms of your mating.

You can change partners, and hence providing intensive for the other side to behave fairly toward you. You can decide your own contract. You can share a more desirable partner, or be shared. It’s up to you.

Women typically can aim at far richer males outside marriage. Richer smart men can aim at more women outside marriage. It’s happening anyway thanks to higher and fairer income disparity globalization bring here.

Inside marriage, the will of all those bigots matters. A girl will have harder time aiming for the rich inside marriage. Rich males are afraid of having to pay big alimony and will not marry unless the women are smoking hot if at all. All those alimony laws are destructive only to the rich. Think about it.

Fascists ensure that rich men that still get married are pretty much screwed, hence ensuring that only the poor are available to marrying women.

Hence, the result

Read more about Beatty Chadwick here.

Check more here for more horror stories.

If you are a beautiful woman, getting laid by rich smart males willing to support you in exchange of sex or reproductive service is very easy. The richer the male, the more he wants you. Finding a male that are willing to risk going through those horrors for nothing is obviously difficult. The richer the male, the less likely he wants marriage.

Notice that genocide pictures I showed you above is quite typical. Most concentration camps’ Nazis to jews relationship does end up badly, for the jews. The experience are different. Some get burned, others get shot, another get gassed etc.

Notice that Beatty Chadwick’s case is quite typical. Most marriage does end up badly, for the productive. Experience varies. Some go to jail, others paid huge lifetime alimony, etc.

Perhaps the jews think that outside concentration camp, fascists can still kill them anyway. True.

But it’s much harder to kill them outside than inside.

As more and more are outside, fascism will starve and get weaker.

The same way many think that outside marriage, fascists can still control their life anyway. True.

Fascists can still prohibit prostitution. Fascist can still declare that cohabiting partners are married, hence effectively instituting forced marriage. Fascist can still prohibit prostitution. But fascists will have much harder time running your life outside marriage.

As more and more babies are born outside marriage, fascism will starve and get weaker.

A lot of hatred was there in the design of concentration camp. They got gas chambers, they got chains, they got guards with guns. Concentration camps were there to kill jews. Shouldn’t jews be suspicious?

The same way, a lot of hatred is there in the design of marital laws. They got life time alimony proportional to men’s income. They got judges ordering males to support kids that are not biologically his. Marriage laws are there to bankrupt rich smart males. Shouldn’t all rich males be suspicious?

Trust your government?

Remember genocide. Remember Beatty Chadwick.

Never again! we let fascists influencing who should stay in the gene pool. Yes in both cases (I am tired of writing the same thing twice), many will deny that.

Do not trust your government. The same government that claim to define what’s best for your kids are the same one that would send those same kids to ovens and roast them slowly. Just ask any holocaust survivor or Beatty Chadwick.

Never forget. Government sucks. Free market is awesome. Free market forever.

Incoming search terms:

  • afghan eyes
  • freemarket forever prostitution genocide
  • marriages in concentration camps
  • ugly women benefit feminism
  • uglywomen

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Do Christians believe that they cannot have sex outside civil marriage?

Under US laws, anyone agreeing to get civil marriage agree that:
1. He doesn’t have right to have sex with his wife. Marital rape is illegal. So it’s not part of the contract. Financial support is part of the contract though irrelevant of wife’s performance.
2. His wife has right to have sex with anyone else because that’s legal.
3. His wife can divorce him any time she wants. No fault divorce is the law now.
4. Should his wife produce children that’s not his, he is responsible to support that child.
5. Should his wife get a divorce and cohabit with other males, he still has to keep supporting that wife in life alimony.

That is the justification that government used to extort life time alimony and child support from suckers. Government main argument is, “Well, you agreed to all these when you get married.”

Do Christians really think that God want us to agree to all those terms before we can have sex?

Most christian believe that they have to get married before sex. Well there are many kind of marriage. Civil marriage, contract marriage, group marriage, sham marriage, secret marriage, and so on. All of which are significantly different than biblical marriage, with civil marriage possibly be the most different. Do Christians believe that they have to pick civil marriage out of all those different marriage? Why?

Incoming search terms:

  • contract marriage indonesia

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are there correlation between attractiveness and moral values?

Please verify my answer. I think it’s true. I haven’t actually done any statistic but I do observe some. Not exactly double blind tests. Just observing.

We all are sex objects and we all wanna be ones. Well 99% of us at least. Well me at least would do anything to have all hot women think of me as sex object. Men usually pay for it. While women usually get paid.

So things get complicated because attraction is often more than what you are but also what you offer to get sex.

We would support a value that benefit us and prevent value that benefit those who are different than us.

I predict that, in general, more attractive people are more likely to be pro market when it comes to sex. While less attractive people are more likely to be pro states.

This is quite vague because 40% of attraction for males are political power. The way politically powerful males get laid are often through force rather than attraction.

A welfare recipient, for example, can attract women by prohibiting prostitution. Even though women would prefer mating with a richer paying males, she chose to mate with a death beat poor guy instead because that death beat poor guy can vote richer males out of mating market by prohibiting prostitution and ensuring that marriage terms would bankcrupt rich males. Also, poor guys can use his voting power to enslave productive individuals to support all his kids.

In western civilization, child support is proportional to income. Hence welfare recipients can actually “afford” even more kids than a billionaire. What he lacks in money, he have that in power over the oppressed billionaire. Women instinctively want to max out the number of grand children and pick the poor.

Should we count this as attraction or force, is arguable.

In general I would see that there is a strong causal and correlation between value and attractiveness. In fact, I see that there will be strong causal and correlation between moral value and how a person become attractive.

Beautiful women are more likely to be pro porn, sexy clothes, and sexual freedom

Unattractive women are more likely to be pro emancipation. Unattractive women are more likely to be lesbians and affirmative action is more important for them than the hotties.

Studs are less likely to oppose sex outside marriage. Singles are more likely to support monogamy and prohibition of sex outside marriage. That way they can kick out all non singles out of mating market.

In democratic countries monogamy are norms way more than in monarchy. That’s because in democratic countries singles’ opinion matters more. Sultan that sleep with different girls everyday will obviously oppose democracy and prohibition of polygamy.

Rich men are more likely to support legalization of prostitution. Poor men are more likely to prohibit that. Politically powerful men are more likely to support polygamy and oppose sex outside mariage (sex without their approval).

Poor handsome males would more likely oppose marriage. They’re more likely to think that adultery should be legal and cuckold husbands should pay for the kids nevertheless. Looking at the laws in western countries nowadays, I bet white males are pretty handsome. Also poor handsome males would oppose prostitution also to kick paying males out of mating market.

Ugly women are more likely to be pro burqha and sexy “endowed” women are more likely to support top free rules.

Ugly women in rich countries are more likely to oppose legalization of consensual women trafficking. The same way poorer males in poor countries will oppose that.

Richer males will think that consensual women trafficking are just key to resolve global poverty.

This is just prediction. Can anyone please verify? Yes, I based this on causality. What we think to be moral is whatever give us edge over others :)

Please help me verify rather than just voting up or down.

Oh ya, in general men prefer the pretty and women prefer the rich and powerful. So you may want to take that into account. In western civilization looks may count more than wealth due to welfare. Welfare program are then effectively genocide against rich ugly males which are more likely to vote conservatives.

But that’s what makes our species unique. Winners are those who can knock off competitors and bullshit their way to do it, and sugar coat the shit. That’s how we became the smartest species on planet. We’re full of… you know, holy, sacred, sacrosanct, absolute truth, ideas, especially those regulating sex.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How to Create More Jobs With Less Government

Due to lack of death penalty the world is not getting any saver.

Furthermore, lack of commitment toward market mechanism leave poverty and misery every where.

Poverty

The truth is it’s hard to blame even the bad guy because being good just doesn’t pay a lot. C’mon. We’re all sinners. All sin must be prohibited. We prohibit that through laws. So all of us break laws. Laws are there so we broke it. Hence all of us are criminals. So laws really are not on our side quite often.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Men and Women Get Married?

Man and women get married because government prohibits MOST of the better popular alternatives. In Afganistan, for example, women can’t even work and the only alternative is get married or starved to death. Marriage is the only government approved prostitution. That’s pretty bad for a person whose main asset is her cunt that’ll expire when she’s 35.

In Western country you can do free sex. However, that means she doesn’t get financial support, which is just not her market price is. I

Yes contract should be honored. This is a grey area. And I understand that most males in US hate no force divorce. With no fault divorce and laws against marital rape, marriage simply means she got your money and screw someone else and you’re at her mercy. In US, I won’t get married. However, most women in US have other choice. Free sex. Your money is still useful, namely to signal gene quality and pay child support (or you can do cohabitation agreement). In Indonesia, though not technically illegal, free sex is dangerous.

Let’s put it this way. Say you’re a doctor. The only way you can sell your medical expertise is in government’s hospital. Does that mean government force you to work for government? Marriage is more like that. Hot girls got a cunt, the only way they can sell their cunt is in marriage in conservative country. That’s in a sense like forced marriage isn’t it?

In western civilization they can’t even do that because sex is not part of marriage contract. What’s the point of having one of the most desirable resources in the world (cunt) if you can’t rent or sell it? Of course in US it simply means most males don’t want to marry. A good progress in my opinion. Most males don’t get married means many of those jerks that can’t compete won’t get laid and will go extinct. Be an omega males guy. The alpha males are dying. Either left or right, be winners, don’t be whining losers.

I see that you all blamed hot girls for not being fair. Can they be fair? Can they agree to a fair contract with you? They can’t.

Do you write your marriage contract?

Are material terms of marriage contract explicit? I know it’s your fault for not reading contract before signing it. However, it’s what almost everyone do. We simply agree to get married and society decides what it really means. From what I see in this forum, most of us, including you, do not like societies’ marriage terms right? You don’t like society’s terms, so why you get married?

What about alternative contracts? Are you free to make a better more straight forward contract? For example, the muslims have polygamy and short term marriage? Can you do that instead? What about prostitution? That’s a contract to. Can you make that instead? What about cohabitation agreement (you should do this instead, last time I check it’s still legal).

That’s why marriage contracts are not like usual contract. Virtually all other options are full with governments’ created problem.

Whether men and women should have a right to make that kind of lifetime commitment is a little grey. It’s like whether you have a right to sell your self as a slave. One thing for sure is I do not see why that right should be more cherished or important than women’s right to be a prostitute or to commit to a short term marriage, polygamy, polyandry, orgy, stripper, or go oversea to find richer smarter males.

Maybe it’s hard to free that TO1. However, I think it’s pretty libertarian to ensure that other options besides life long monogamous marriage gets “equal treatment” and protection too. When that happen, I do not think marriage will be popular.

Incoming search terms:

  • hot girls at market

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If it’s my money and women prefer me, why should it be someone else’s cock

Quote:
Originally Posted by luizeba View Post
This year, my family will ‘adopt’ a children for the Christmas and New Year week…it’ll be a 12 y.o girl
She has parents, but she’s living in a State House due problems with her parents (probably in jail, I don’t know)

It’ll be a great experience *-*

I got a better idea. Why not tell Dad to attract more women so you can have your own biological sister.

I mean if it’s his money that’s going to take care of her, why must it be someone else’s cock?

If I am paying, and the hot women prefer me, why should it be other man’s cock? If the women is not hot, I wouldn’t want to mate with her, nor would I want to raise her kid.

Oh because if women pick the rich, there are laws against polygamy, prostitution, pre conceive child support agreement, and so on and so on. But if some unproductive welfare parasites want to make kids, it’s human’s right. Yea some right. Right to rob taxpayers all their money.

Doesn’t make sense.

Once I am as rich as Bill Gates, I too will support millions of kids. All of which must be mine.

Heh… And capitalism is great folks. People in Africa and many part in Asia got poor because they don’t embrace capitalism to the fullest. Just import their prettiest women to be sex workers in rich countries and poof, there goes poverty. With porn, ugly women won’t get laid and the pretty will go somewhere. All the males in those countries will fight toe and nails for free market and everyone will get rich. Lest they go extinct.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Marriage Obsolette

Anything endorsed by government outside prohibition of fraud and force is most likely obsolete, from traditional market to public education and to marriage. If it’s not obsolete, government does not need to endorse it. The market would promote whatever system that would provide the best option for the market player.

In detail:

In ancient time marriage serves some legitimate market purpose. Rich males want to inherit their wealth. They need to know which kid is his biological child. Of course. I wouldn’t want to work hard all my life if I ended up giving money to someone else’ kids.

In ancient time, there is only one way for a male to know for sure whether the kid is his. He can only knows that by ensuring that the kids’ mother mate only with him. That then becomes marriage.

Society also has legitimate interests. Imagine if we have a child with no known father. Are we going to let the kid starve to death? I wouldn’t do it to a kitten. But if we help the kid that’s not victimless. Tax payer ended up paying. Also it encourages some males (if not eventually most) to just make kids and don’t bother supporting it. So in ancient time, requiring marriage does have a reasonable cause.

Now, those purposes mean less.

1. We can always know who the kid is by blood or DNA testing. Far more practical than say stoning wifes that mate with other man.
2. Marriage increase, rather than decrease, a male chance from having his wealth ended up supporting others’ kid. If you are not married and your mate produce a kid, you are not responsible for the child support. However, if you are married and your wife commits adultery, you are still responsible for child support. Also huge amount of socialism in all countries means that most of your earning will end up supporting those who make many kids anyway in the form of free education, free healthcare, free whatever.

Marriage also has one important aspect. This aspect will never get obsoletes. Life long monogamous marriage pretty much ration females (or males) in equal share for everyone. Hence we would expect many people that can’t get a high quality mate, will do their best to ensure that marriage is the norm.

As countries get richer, the males in those countries will have easier time to attract a mate. Those males tend to be more liberal and let the women choose, like in French or Japan, where women can walk naked on the street. The more a country is poor, the more restriction that their government will need to keep the peace. In Afgan, women can’t even work. In many poor countries women clits are cut of.

Imagine if women are as free in Afgan as they are in Japan, for example. All those women would have flaunted their naked tits openly and ended up marrying American tourists rather than local males. Quite predictably, most Afganistan males would condemn that.

If any of you want to help eliminating all governments endorsement for marriage institution (and hence making marriage truly obsolete), let me know how. I am all for it. Or please point me to a right forum. Let’s not bitch about the world. Either change our self to match the world or change the world to be a better place for us. Whichever is easier.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,