Now we pay 30% income tax most of which goes into wealth redistribution. What else, given that the market can provide far superior service more efficiently anyway. So we are 15 times more generous.

World GDP is 300 times it was 200 years ago. Human race is 300 times richer.

If we have the same number of fuck ups now than we have 200 years ago, non of those fuck ups will be “poor” by 1800 standard.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is the fuck ups, irresponsible, lazy, stupid, socialists bigots out breed the prudent, smart, diligent and hard working. The problem is we got smart people like HaRRo that are too willing to sacrifice himself in altar of socialism to fed the parasites. Sorry HaRRo. We got to repent.

Anyone opposing freedom want to enslave others. Yielding to their kind is like cutting our own hand throwing it to lions hoping the lions will become vegetarian. If anything, the lions will just breed and breed and kill us.

If you run the fastest you simply have to show that you too can hit the hardest.

I love poor people. Many of them work hard for me and we both make a lot of money. None of those that work hard for me work as hard as me though. But well, we’re getting somewhere.

It’s the mindset that’s wrong. We encourage the poor to breed by subsidizing those that make kids. When subsidy is given, supply and demand curve no longer meet creating surplus of humans, causing unemployment giving rise to more justification for bigger government in never ending vicious poverty cycle.

Just pay anyone that don’t have kids and legalize commercial sex so the best brightest richest (like our mods) can knock up all the hot babes. Then encourage porn so no ugly women get laid. Hell those ugly feminists can always enjoy their right becoming astronauts, programmers, scientists, or some grenade thrower in the front line anyway. I totally support affirmative action for all womyn that want to throw grenade in the front line, if they’re ugly.

Within 1 generation, all kids will have rich smart dad and hot sexy mom. No need to resort to violent to “exterminate” those we deem inferior.

But even those benign peaceful method is politically incorrect. We’re like gladiator being forced to kill each other by our leaders with their irrational faith based “morality”.

What I mean by trafficking is consensual trafficking. But as you see from the debate above, some feminists insist that trafficking are made illegal despite consent.

My understanding is that ugly feminists simply do not want to compete with cheaper (and often prettier) women from poorer countries. Moreover, poor males do not want their prettiest girls move to richer countries. It’s like smuggling or immigration or globalization in general. Those who don’t sale don’t want to compete overseas.

It seems that trafficking means non consensual for many (while the consensual one is probably called immigration).

Also what I mean by marriage is state approved sexual relationship. The pattern I see in most countries is if the state approve, it’s called marriage, and if the state doesn’t it’s called “sin”. In muslim countries, for example, polygamy and contract marriage counts as marriage and their states approve that.

I believe no consensual sex should be “approved” more than the other. It’s shouldn’t be up to the state. It should be up to individuals. So if prostitution is taxed, so should marriage. If one is illegal so should the other and via versa. That’s what I mean by destroying marriage. Of course, a better phrase would be as Wendy said it, “Get government out of marriage.” No government in the world, west or east, is in this state as far as I know.

http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2758

shows.

Yet information promoting marriage like romance were legal and information promoting free sex like porn is illegal for minor. Also many alternatives to lifelong monogamous marriage is illegal, like prostitution, contract marriage, concubinage and so on.

I know a beautiful female friend that wants a divorce. She can’t unless her husband has a mistake first. Not being rich enough to the next best competitor is not a mistake. Being able to attract other mates however are. Of course this rules favor the less competitive partner of the marriage. This is the most stupid non meritocratic rules I’ve ever seen in any contract.

We are told that when we get married we agreed to be loyal till death due us part. How do they know? Were they there when we write the contract? No. They know because that’s the only kind of contract people can make when get married.

I can spam thousands of forums. I can promote any petition. I can do anything I can help to end or at least discourage marriage ALL over the world.

Of course I know the real reason why religious bigots demand marriage institution is because they cannot get any mate if humans are free to choose their mates AND the terms of their mating.
I bet all those feminists that demand that women should fight as soldiers in front lines are ugly. I partially agree with them. If they’re ugly why not? But why prevent the pretty from being porn star?
Who’s with me?