Free Market Forever

May 16, 2012

Be a Stud or be Rich

If I ask my feeling who should I choose, obviously wealthy. However, emotion can be misleading.

If I can choose between being wealthy and shagless or being a poor stud, I’d choose studs.

In socialized liberal western civilization being a stud can be FAR more lucrative than being wealthy.

Think about it. I do not enjoy luxury. All I care about entertainment, beside sex, is video games that’s getting cheaper and cheaper. I do not need private yach. I don’t even enjoy parties.

The main reason why I want to be rich is so my kids got good education and opportunity.

But here’s the catch. With welfare program, with every body thinking that EVERY kid should have enough chance. In a world where even the conservative says that NO CHILD should be left behind, what’s the point of being a financially responsible dad?

The government already pays for that.

Recently Obama said that salary must be enough so EVERYONE can raise a family. Again, what’s the point of working hard if EVERYONE can raise a family? Looks like in the long run, 10000 years from now, your gene pool survival is decided solely by the number of your kids you have now, each of which will have 2.1 kids irrelevant of wealth or productivity.

This is another way to think about it. Say you want to maximize your gross domestic product of your bloodline. One poor guy works hard to get rich. Another poor guy just be studs.

The poor nerdy guy that work hard to get rich will have to fight off government programs. Voters are bigotic and everybody think everybody wants to get rich. So you will see public school arranged to ensure everyone graduate slowly, you’ll see a never ending licensing requirement even for florist, you’ll see degree system made not to certify your capability but to kick out those who can’t get a degree out of competition, you got to face all those shit.

After that you’re taxed.

Now look at the studs. He just breed and breed and after one generation, all his kids will have enough chance to be a middle class, let’s say, with YOUR money.

At the end, that stud ended up having more genetic GDP by not working at all. Yea each of his kid will be poorer, but the some of wealth and power controlled by those kids will be bigger because he has more kids. Everyone would say, ah this poor guy has been oppressed and underprivileged and stuff.

Obviously the super rich can get wise and be a stud too and be both. That’ll be ideal. However, cockblocking rules are aimed mainly against this type of ideal.

And that’s what we want to learn in this thread. How to live a balance life. Get Rich Bang Bitches.

You know what, I am not interested to get laid just for getting laid sake. It’s too easy. Women are so cheap in Indonesia. You think massage therapists that’ll rub her naked body on you for $30-$50 is not pretty? You mean none of them want to be your girlfriend or mistress should you wish? It’s actually knocking up reasonably high quality women and breed high decent sons and daughters are the one more worthy to pursue.

The issue is not how to get women’s consent. It’s too easy. Just pay.. You ALWAYS pay, as my business coach once told me. Marriage is just a form of prostitution. Think about it. The issue is more of cost management, and political consideration. That’s an aspect everyone don’t pay enough attention too.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB physics test

April 2, 2012

Are Human Motives Truly Beyond Science?

Say your son is walking on the street. Then a thug stab him on his back and took his wallet. Then the thug get caught. The thug says that the he tried to do appendices surgery. Somehow the cops believe and the thug is not arrested.

Okay we got 2 theories here:

1. The thug is a robber. Simple. When caught, he simply come up with more politically correct explanation to reduce punishment.

2. The thug does want to do appendices surgery to help your son.

Which one is right?

Well, it’s not that hard to figure out.

1. Incentive, intent and result is highly correlated. The thug has incentive to get your son’s wallet. He doesn’t have any incentive to commit any appendix surgery on your son.

2. Watch how other primates behave. Does monkeys and chimps like to kill other monkeys for resources? If so, then chance is it’s the same preference that show up in humans.

3. Theory #1 can more correctly predict more data. For example, we know that most species are selfish.

4. Evolutionary psychology explains that those who like to rob others may have gene pool survival advantage rather than those who like to perform altruistic surgery.

5. His other acts, namely taking your son’s wallet, fit #1 theory.

So what a person real motive is are truly scientific and disprovable.

Now, let’s try this on something relevant.

Feminazis prohibit consensual women trafficking

Theory 1: Feminazis are usually ugly and they don’t want to compete cheaper women from poorer countries.

Theory 2:Feminazis genuinely care about the fate of trafficked women that are oppressed despite consent.

Exercise:

Use our method to see the real motives of those robbers to see motives of feminazis. What do you think?

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB girls
  • powered by phpBB alcoholism marriage
  • powered by phpBB definition of natural science
  • powered by phpBB illusion factory
  • powered by phpBB altruistic behaviour
  • powered by phpBB i want jesus to walk with me
  • powered by phpBB government pay
  • powered by phpBB what are the nature of emotions how do they differ from motives?
  • powered by phpBB cereal brands
  • powered by phpBB beauty school
  • powered by phpBB ways to knock someone out
  • powered by phpBB about alcoholism
  • powered by phpBB don\t walk away
  • powered by phpBB law abiding citizens morality of the legal system
  • powered by phpBB money for kids
  • powered by phpBB public education
  • powered by phpBB theory of change
  • syiah woman
  • naked Harem girl
  • bali prostitute
  • powered by phpBB just walk away
  • psychology that support free market
  • consenting female
  • harem girl pics
  • hypocrisy pics
  • powered by phpBB professional school of psychology
  • azkenazis not real jews

April 1, 2012

Child Abuse

You’re right; I missed that quote from gdp.  And I certainly disagree with him on that point.  I don’t think having more than 2 kids is automatically child abuse.  “Child abuse” is a slippery term, but I’d say that having kids with the intent of abandoning them qualifies.

This is far more grey than you think. In any case, like in all businesses, child abuse vs good parenting should be judge mainly based on child’s success in life. Do your kids got A? Do your offspring make tons of money? If so, you’re good parent. It shouldn’t be judge by how much time biological father spend for his child. While that itself is a good thing, there are many other factors that make good parenting.

Also I judge people based on relative standard. If the poor are abandoning their kids and breed like rabbit and actually subsidized by government, the rich should too. Gee. You can’t be much better than the rest. Libertarianism is about fairness, and not about shooting your own self. Libertarianism is about, guys, we will all be better off if we stop hurting each other. If they disagree, that means all are part of the game.

Quote

We don’t limit kids of welfare recipients, why we limit number of kids billionaires can make?

I wasn’t aware that there are any laws limiting the number of kids a billionaire can have.

I wasn’t aware either. When I was aware, I turned into what I am.

I’d say limiting, prohibiting, are all vague terms. Let’s say government artificially increase costs. See does government prohibit stealing? Well government increase cost of stealing by imposing political costs in a form of jail. Got it? Artificially increase cost can mean prohibiting, fining, taxing, discouraging, anything, but the result is we have less of the act.

Now Nazi increased the cost for jews to survive in the gene pool, say by shooting those who do not want to go to extermination camp. After that Nazi said, well you don’t need the money anyway being you’re death and all. So let me take your money.

Nowadays, government increase the cost for the rich to survive in the gene pool. Alimony, palimony, child support, are all set up proportional to man’s wealth. Virtually many alternative where the rich can consensually get laid more easily is prohibited. Sugar babies is border line illegal. Consensual sex between women and men with “authority” like her boss is illegal. Marriage is legal but that means women have to pick singles. Also richer males don’t benefit from public schools, and many subsidies the poor enjoy when they breed.

After that, government say, well you don’t need all this money, being you’re going extinct and all. So let me take your money via tax so I can encourage more reproductive success for assholes that drive you out of the gene pool.

Quote
Quote

Now a beautiful girl just block me on facebook. Again, may be I am wrong about women prefer the rich. Or maybe I am just not rich enough yet. Who knows?

I think anyone who has read more than two of your posts here can come up with an alternate theory.

The ho is arrogant. Yea, if I can be a prostitute, if there are 20 young hot busty thin rich smart young babes that want to support me as sugar babies, I would be in heaven. But alas I am male. So I got to go with plan B and be a businessman http://freemarketforever.com/2012/03/29/what-i-really-wanted-to-grow-up-be/ hiks hiks.

She, on the other hand, got 20 young, big cocked, rich smart young men, that would love to support her as sugar babies and she think I am demeaning her for thinking that women are prostitute? Tell those soldiers risking their life in afghanistan what they would do if they get hired by Britney Spears for fucking and see how many switch job.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB legal terms business english
  • powered by phpBB pictures depicting drug and alcohol addiction
  • concentration camp busty jews
  • powered by phpBB german companies

March 27, 2012

World of Warcraft Games Teach Time Managements and Rationality

I think every kids should play world of warcraft. They shouldn’t play too much, but they should play a lot.

There are important principles about life that world of warcraft teach:

1. Time management. When you want to complete quests you need to do several quests at once to max out efficiency.

2. Sometimes it’s important to have balance stats. Often it’s far more important to improve one’s talent over another.

I think number 2 need explanation. Say you are a warlock (kind of amazing how we teach our kids nowadays). You use shadow spells. Shadow spells would synchronize with talents that improve shadow damage. It doesn’t make sense to be a shadow warlock and then use gears that improve demon summoning.

In world of warcraft, each classes have a role. Yes you can be a warlock and fight hand to hand. But that would be stupid. You can. But you won’t be the best warlock for your level.

This is a very important principle in life. This is a reason why we evolve into males and females. Males can’t get pregnant. So males must be good at everything else. It doesn’t make sense to have a pregnancy capability and also spend tremenduous amount of time to study engineering, for example.

That’s of course, unless the girl want to attract rich smart engineers. Yes women can be great engineers. But that means they won’t survive well in the gene pool as much as a women that embrace her reproductive talent more.

Many of those  beautiful women just grow old and ended up sad for not having kids.

Some people are good at math and some are bad. It’s natural that the bad ones work on sales or soldiers and the good ones learn math. Why study math and then learn sales? Also why study math if you’re not good at it?

You’re not supposed to specialize on everything. Business skills, for example, is useful no matter what you do.

Of course all these will happen naturally under free market. Under central economy, huge amount of resources are spent on people not wanting it under the illusion of equality of talent.

March 25, 2012

Can what you see decide how your children looks like

We can experiment putting a big poster of the handsome milk man next door, showing six packs, in front of our wives when we mate. Then we can check what percentage of our children somehow look more like him. Alternatively we can also show pics of the young nubile school girls in front of the husbands and see how the school girls’ babies look like.

It only works if what you see actually change your mates. It doesn’t work if you just mate with the same mate and see different things.

I just want to add to Avi answer that is the most correct. You don’t need religion to explain this.

The kind of kids the sheeps will produce depends only on the genes of those sheeps. Those genes depend on the genes of the male sheeps that more successfully mate with the ewes. What kind studs the ewes end up mating with? Now that’s a function of what the ewes actually see when they are selecting mates. In sheeps, the time they select mates is not far from the time they actually mate.

In fact, ewes, like all females, want to max out the number of their grand children. If ewes see too many pattern of the same kind, those ewes will think that the pattern is the trend and be more submissive toward studs with the same pattern.

So the story as described in http://listverse.com/2008/01/31/top-10-bizarre-biblical-tales/ is correct.

In fact, if the bible just write when the ewes are selecting mates rather than when the ewes actually mates, I think most scientists would agree. Most people are not aware that ewes, unlike humans, don’t have long courting period, becoming boyfriend or girlfriends first. They pretty much mate right away after sexual selection.

I would like to add another interesting point. It works on humans too, till now :) In fact, till now, most humans would go the extra mile manipulating what other humans see so that their kind looks “better” than the rest. Those who do it better will get selected more and survive better in the gene pool. Humans would also go the xtra mile of degrading or removing the images of those they perceive as superior competitors.

Quite recently Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, get canned for arguing that black women are not attractive. Whether it’s true or not is beyond this (too politically incorrect and I want friends not enemies).

You see, humans are mostly (but not purely) monogamous. If males think that black women are not attractive, it too will decide the kind of kids that will be more common in the next generation.

Many fat women would want to remove super thin photo models from advertising for the exact same reason. When men see thin models future kids will indeed be thinner. That means the fat will go extinct by the way for failing to find a good mate.

What else? Yea feminazis would go the extra mile convincing the world that women are not sex objects. Otherwise, beautiful women that don’t mind becoming sex objects will indeed be the next generation of women. That means ugly feminazis will go extinct.

What else? Yea, single males would go the extra mile convincing everyone that no women could possibly want to share. Poor males would argue that all women that are paid for sex must have done that non consensually. Also we have images that older richer males using money to attract women are perverts. Those images is the reason why the poor actually breed more than the rich. It’s the reason why redistribution of wealth keeps getting bigger and bigger. It’s the reason why future kids are poor and violent.

If we want to change that, just put images of nice rich smart jewish bankers as studs paying thrilled hotties for quickies in sitcoms all over the world and see what future kids will look like.

Then what? Dumb blonde jokes. Many entertain that so they can get rid more attractive blonde women from mating market.

What else? Anti semitics would argue jews are inferior. As usual, the truth is usually the opposite of what’s politically correct. Within a few decades there were indeed fewer jews.

So yes, the kind of kids that will be common in the next generation does depend on what everybody see when they’re finding a mate (or decide who to kill). For sheeps the time you find your mate is about the same time you are actually mating. For humans, there are significant delays.

Yes it’s a miracle too. Because it works in ways most people do not know. Perhaps all miracles are just like that. There are hidden science that’s too politically incorrect to be seen. Those science never gets mainstream. So people access that anyway through faith, prayer, etc.

Incoming search terms:

  • greedy bastard
  • hot harem babe
  • women fuckin=utf-8
  • harem pregnants
  • how many men dont mind sharing their wife
  • muslim men blonde women

March 15, 2012

Can Economy Theory Explains Elimination of Poverty

I am always suspicious that there is a strong connection between economy and politic.

Before slaves are the only way to get things done better. So incentive to support slavery is high.

Then industrialization run high and low paid workers can get paid higher. More and more capitalists find it easier to just pay workers than enslave them. Obviously those workers want it too. Unfortunately, those workers can’t just move out. So there are bigger forces that want them to eliminate slavery. Either through democracy or through civil wars, those 2 forces fight and slavery is gone.

Slavery is not really gone. Slavery in a sense of menial workers forced to pick cottons are gone. But lifetime alimony is also slavery. Income tax is also slavery.

But perhaps history can repeat again.

Before, women are so valuable that men can only get them by trapping them into marriage system. In fact, in ancient societies, men pretty much rape women and all societies care is whether the man is responsible enough to marry her afterward.

This obviously hurt the interests of women and men with better offers. So rape and marry culture, which is pretty much slavery, is getting more politically incorrect and now it’s gone.

Nowadays, relationship between women and men with better offers are often criminalized. In western civilization monogamy norms ensure that the poorest dumbest males can get laid to. In muslim countries prohibition of all sex outside marriage ensures that women and men are trapped into marriage.

Many women prefer to be sugar babies of richer males than marrying a poorer males the way voters’ wish. However, the deal is borderline illegal.

Look at:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100410060955AAmW2n4

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080711095317AAGNPkp

While no body get arrested yet for being a sugar baby, perception that it’s illegal alone already turn of many people.

There are so many prohibition against various sex outside marriage that most people are pretty much forced to get married to stay in the gene pool.

Then disparity of wealth happen. There are plenty of men that are willing to pay women to be their mistress far bigger than a husband can do. Many beautiful (who care about the ugly) women obviously want them too.

So there are bigger and bigger incentive to decriminalize relationship between one rich males to many young beautiful girls outside governments’ control. Emerging Sugar babies relationship in US is a sample of those tolerance.

Feminists insist that marriage terms are extremely dangerous for rich males that fewer and fewer people want to get married.

So slowly, marriage trap is deteriorating and most people simply don’t get married. So marriage, like slavery is gone.

The same way with income tax and big government. In ancient time, the only way to get rich is to tax the people. Now we can get rich consensually too by hiring people rather than taxing people. We can think of capitalists bosses are competing with political bosses. Many capitalists can pay workers more than welfare checks. Obviously workers like that too. But welfare trap prevent those workers from working.

Obviously those capitalists bosses want workers to join their side. So as we get more and more prosper there are bigger and bigger demands for more freedom.

At the end, the world is getting more and more free as the results.

Something along that.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB ancient cultures
  • powered by phpBB physics for kids
  • nakedgroupgirl
  • powered by phpBB ancient cultures wikipedia
  • powered by phpBB different branches of physics
  • powered by phpBB how s moderate drug use
  • ancient time fucking of women by man
  • money harem
  • human to make baby in ancient time
  • Hot naked babes from islamic countries
  • powered by phpBB cultures in usa

Biggest Market Distortion

Rich men have more houses, more cars, more yachts, but less kids. Why?

Simple. It costs far more for a rich man to produce and maintain kids than for the poor. The same car cost the same to the rich and the poor. The same house cost the same for the rich and the poor. Yet breeding and raising a kid is far costlier for the rich than the poor.

Some of the costs are natural. Rich men do want to spend more money for their children. However, a child need is limited. Once you spend $1 million per child, there’s probably nothing else you can do to make that kid any happier or more prepared to get rich and successful in real world.

However, for the truly rich, the extra costs are often artificial in a sense that government artificially inflate the cost.

Take a look at child support laws. It’s set proportional to a man’s income. Women cannot negotiate in advance how much child support she want. Perhaps the women prefer $20k per child per year from Tiger Wood than $20k per child per year from some poorer guy that make a total of $20k per year.

However, women can’t choose that. If Tiger Wood is the daddy, the court will simply allow women to sue for $1 million a year, for example. Most of those money will most likely not go to support Tiger’s child at all.

Another way Tiger Wood can prolong his stay in the gene pool is to get married. You know how costly it is for him.

Again, women may agree to do it for $20k per year with Tiger Wood than marrying a poorer guy that make a total of $20k per year. But if a woman agree to sell her self for $20k per year, it’s illegal due to anti prostitution laws. Marrying a poor guy that also pays $20k per year is legal. Why it’s up to government rather than the women, to decide terms of her sexual acts?

Many women prefer to be sugar babies of richer males than marrying a poorer males the way voters’ wish. However, the deal is borderline illegal.

Look at:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100410060955AAmW2n4

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080711095317AAGNPkp

What about prenuptial agreement? Marriage is such a lousy deal making it more complicated is beyond the lawyer skill of most people, including the rich.

To me, all socialism, as produced by democracy, will be peanuts except one. Genepool survival socialism. Currently there is no legal way a billionaire can make 20-30 kids without risking bankruptcy or other financial catastrophe. Yet deadbeat poor fathers that can make 20-30 kids with impunity because no body is going to sue him and because even the risk of going to jail is far more acceptable for those poor people. Moreover, government actually pay for all his kids.

Yet if that same guy work hard get rich and then want to breed, things just got too costly.

If marginal cost of raising a kid is constant between the rich and the poor, then the productive will out breed the unproductive and all these redistribution of wealth we are bitching about will be peanuts.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB complaint for unfair abusive and deceptive collection practices
  • powered by phpBB food market
  • powered by phpBB get a car
  • powered by phpBB muslim food preparation
  • powered by phpBB planning a trade show

March 8, 2012

Freedom and Compromise

I think you misunderstood my ideas a lot. As usual there are 2 parts. There is the ideal part and there is a damage reduction compromise. For the former I am all in. For the latter, just come up with better idea than mine then, anything that works.

I do not advocate government intervention at all in sex and reproduction.  Every sex and reproductive acts between consenting adult should be legal whether it’s commercialized or not. Marriage should not get any favorable treatment compared to prostitution and it’s not up to government to decide which one is which.

That’s my main idea. That’s the only think I want to promote. What is so not libertarian about that? The rest are just explanation why most problems we have now will go away by it self if that’s implemented.

The following are just secondary consideration why I think things will work way better than what most libertarian think. I think it’s true but it’s doesn’t have to be.

I think better genes will proliferate under free market by itself if trade restriction on sex and reproduction is gone. Women prefer the rich and men prefer the pretty. Porn will reduce the number of ugly women that  get laid. The pretty can get the rich. So, more kids will have rich smart dad. No need for government intervention. Let the market decide who they want to mate and breed with and under what terms.

What is so unlibertarian about it? No government. Let people make their own private deals. Let free market decide who stays in the gene pool and who doesn’t.

I do not even ask for government interference on area where governments do have legitimate cause. I think free market will take care of it better than government’ regulation

1a. Governments do have a case to prohibit breeding by those who can’t fully afford kids. However, even that is not necessary. I do not advocate even that. Women already have strong incentive to pick men that’s most able to fully afford kids even without governments’ requirement. What do you think about this?
1b. I think government has a case to say that child support should be more than a certain amount. That amount should not depend on parent’s wealth at all. Even that it’s not necessary. Women have strong incentive to pick males that can commit higher child support automatically under free market. Contemporary child support laws are just excuse to rob rich males. Fuck that.

2. We can win afganistan war with less military. Just allow hot afghanistan babe consensual chances to immigrate to richer countries and be consensual sex workers. Taliban men will go extinct by themselves. No force involved. NO VICTIM at all.

See simple ideas. Which one is against libertarianism anyway?

Now the 3rd is probably the real difference. It’s more of damage mitigation and I am not sure I am correct. It’s not my main idea.

3. I want to decouple redistribution of wealth with number of kids.
Ideally there is no redistribution of wealth. But say government give wealth to coca cola drinker. Of course it’s normal to expect that pepsi drinkers to get the same too.

Contemporary redistribution of wealth is given to those with kids. If you have kids governments pay for your kids’ education. Those who don’t have kids got nothing.

I think balancing that will reduce perverse incentive to breed. If you have kids, well governments pay for public school. It’s natural to expect that government spend the same amount of money for those with no kids, say by paying cash.

I would say government shouldn’t help the poor and the sick. Ideally there is 0 money for them. But if government pay for the poor and sick, government should also give cash to the rich and healthy. Simple right? Less incentive to be poor and sick.

It’s Milton Friedman’s idea actually.

Incoming search terms:

  • prince with harem

March 2, 2012

Solution to Poverty

Incoming search terms:

  • warren buffet a racist?

February 24, 2012

What About Organ Selling is Inherently Wrong?

Morality evolve out of subjective preferences of those who are in power.

Western people have a far stronger sense of “equality” of outcome as their ideal than other people. To western people, any means that allow some productive guys to live longer, acquire more mates, or survive better in the gene pool will always be “wrong”.

If the rich can just buy organ, then they can get higher priority for treatment and live longer. This is “wrong” in western countries.

Prohibition of organ donor is just one among many similar strings of rules.

If health care is totally regulated through free market mechanism, the rich can live longer than the less productive people. Tada… It’s wrong. Now whether they can get medical treatment is decided by “death panel” http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory241.html

If sugar babies are legal, the rich that can attract and pay more women can get more women than the poor. Tada… It’s wrong.

When education is totally privatized, smarter kids and kids with richer parents will get better education. Tada… It’s wrong.

If prostitution is legal, hot babes can earn large amount of money http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmXLonSBMNvhOli00jFF0fK65pSw Tada… It’s wrong again.

I recognize some pattern here. Every time some one with better talent can get something other people cannot, there will be tons of people that say it’s wrong. If the number is large enough, suddenly it becomes wrong.

Effectively while you can be rich in western civilization through productivity, which is the great part of this civilization, the only thing you can buy with your money are doodads that won’t improve your gene pool survival.

Effectively it’s genocide against the most productive individuals and in western civilization, that’s moral. That’s ethical. Just 60 years ago they slaughtered their best and brightest in German and Turkey, when everything else fail.

Actually the same happen in other civilizations too. I guess it’s just human basic instinct to get rid superior competitors out of the gene pool.

Yes you can make way more money than your comrades, but money is the only thing you can have more.

Allowing organ donor will allow dying persons to inherit more wealth to his offspring. Most organs are regenerate-able. Kidneys for example can be taken up to 75% and will grow back. So is bone marrow. This will greatly eliminate poverty. That would undermine governments’ excuse to get bigger, and hence will be considered wrong too.

Having an organ market will establish some market price. That way every soldiers that are killed in battle can have their organ harvested and the money can go to their families.

It’s not wrong in ethical sense. It’s wrong in a sense that it’s politically incorrect. Government want to regulate trade and by selling your organ you sort of undermine their effective “ownership” of your body.

Another issue is most things that give government power over what you control is considered ethical by government. It’s like robbers thinking that you giving him wallet is a good thing. Why wouldn’t he?

So smoking save dope is “wrong” while government having power to decide what you can smoke is considered “good”

enter image description here

The same way marriage where government control everything is considered good while prostitution where you decide for your self the term is considered bad.

Here, organ transplant is the same thing. If someone want to sell organ and deal with you straight, it’s wrong. If government then regulate it by preventing the organ donor from getting top bucks and giving the organ to the most worthless death row inmates, it’s “good”.

The whole thing is just statist mentality.

In a sense, ownership is not as important controlship and controlship is effective ownership.

By preventing you to sell your organ, government effectively says that they “own” your body and you have to bribe officials first before they allow it. By selling your organ you effectively rob government out their ownership.

It’s the same with prohibition of sex outside marriage. Government is effectively saying that they are the only pimp and you got to appease them first before you can have sex by bribing or picking only singles or those favored by government.

When you do consensual acts with high value without governments’ approval, governments official lose their potential bribe that they could have had.

This may sound strange. But just look at income tax. People actually think that if you don’t pay tax you rob government, even though it’s your own money. It’s like that.

Some safeguard need to be there to ensure that people don’t just sell their organ based on some hidden clause written in small letters when they sign up to some internet free cookies offer. However, there is nothing unethical or wrong in selling organ in most cases that I know of.

Incoming search terms:

  • germany hot babes
  • nakedgroupgirls
Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

Loading...