Is prostitution victimless? What about sex outside heavily regulated life long monogamous marriage governments prescribe? Despite various institutional advantage for married couple, 50% of kids born in US are born out of wedlock suggesting that sex outside marriage surely have its attraction over marriage.

But is it victimless?

Well, in a sense yes, in a sense no. Depends on how you define “victim”.

Say cheap product comes from China. The product is cheaper and is in better quality. Then many people buy the product. Is it victimless? No force involved. No fraud involved. It’s consensual. In fact, it’s more than consensual, it’s a good deal. Is it victimless? Well, does everyone support globalization and free trade?

No. There are disgruntled envy competitors that just do not want to see YOU enjoying better deals. If better deals are available from you then you don’t need to buy from them. Those bigots then demand heavy punishments against acts that do not involve fraud or force. Often things are prohibited not because it’s bad, but because it’s TOO GOOD.

So good, it drives out governments’ endorsed alternative of competition. If government do nothing, there will be little intensive for lobbyist to spend millions of dollars to buy law makers. If you’re a law maker, what would you do?

The same way with free sex, though I won’t elaborate. I mean if the cause why people hate free trade is because of competition, it’s a very natural guess to think that people hate free sex out of the same reason too.

However, to prohibit something you need a reason. You need to convince others that somehow the prohibited things are so bad. You need to convince others. Unfortunately, wrong things cannot be proofed, by definition of proof. So you need something that makes people believe anyway DESPITE lack of evidence.

That is called faith.

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.