Free Market Forever

I love Capitalism. Stop being Slaves and Take Ownership of Your Life.

Posts Tagged Mate

Why Marriage is like Concentration Camp?

Nov 5

Posted by admin in Featured | No Comments

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Government Regulated Marriage Consensual?

May 23

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Imagine the world where all consensual sex are legal. Imagine if porn, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry are legal. Imagine if marriage is completely privatized.

How many people would choose to agree to something exactly the same as their government’s definition of marriage? How many people, if marriage is totally privatized, will draft the exact same marriage contract that their government have now?

How many people would agree to go to jail for 14 years like Beatty Chadwick if they draft their own marital contract? How many people would demand money proportional to the their mate’ wealth in exchange of sexual favor? How many people prefer high severance pay (alimony) instead of high salary when negotiating with a potential mate? How many people would prescribe that the state of their resident will decide the amount of severance pay each party will get. How many men and women truly desire exclusivity in a mate in comparison to say, getting a higher quality mate or higher monetary compensation?

If marriage is consensual, the number will be the same with the number of married people. Is the number the same? What accounts for the differences? Will the factors that contribute the differences consensual?

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

How to Persuade People to Use Atheistic Explanation of Life Issues?

Mar 19

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

It’s difficult to make people change. But one thing we can do is to show them that they’ve been doing the same thing on most aspects of life. Our Math, Biology, and Physics are pretty much atheistic. We no longer ask bible, or quran, to explain how to build skyscrapper or how to launch rocket on the moon. Here, non religious approach is what people use to get things done and that’s just that.
However, quite often, on what truly matters in life, people resort to religions. People resort to religions to pick a mate, to decide how to deal with others, to vote, etc. That’s because on those area, religions still work. After all religious people successfully reproduce more than atheists. They also tend to be more successful politically.
If we can show them that people can attract mates and be powerful through atheistic understanding, people would at least learn more about secular approach to analyze their problem.
There are many reasonable explanation why people still use religions. It’s basically similar to the reason why people use emotion or instinct at all rather than purely their ratio.
The more something is important, the more that thing is hardwired in our brain. In other word, to successfully reproduce in the gene pool, humans do not need to think. They just need to follow their instinct and feeling. Quite often the way to win is to hurt others. Such thoughts are often hidden deep in humans’ subconscious mind. People want to feel that they’re good but being good is just not the way to maximize their profit.
Instinctively, for example, humans want to get rid competitors. Deep inside, people want to control, enslave, and kill others. However, they need a veneer. A way to justify that things are good. Here, religions give them the veneer. Religions allow them to get the benefit of screwing others without having to feel bad about themselves.
Hence, it doesn’t matter how wrong religion is. As long as religious people keep having that edge, people will be religious.
So how do we persuade people to see the world from atheistic points of view?
Still by showing the benefit.
There is a progress in science. First science works on aspects of life with cooperative aspects. It doesn’t hurt anyone to believe in Newton’s mechanic. It benefits everyone that the truth show up. When it comes to economic truth for example, things start getting controversial. Even though free market countries are richer, many do not like it. Hence, for many years, people do use religions to select their economic system. After all, science maybe true, but young, and religions may be irrational but old and proven. So for a while religion is actually on the side of capitalism and more religious countries are richer because they are capitalistic.
Then science catch up. Now, we no longer need religion to see that free market works. We have plenty of evidence that wealth of a nation depends on economic freedom. So, science then start answering economic issues replacing religions.
Politic and sexual selection, however is more controversial than even economic. The zero sum aspect of the game is greater. For every piece of power held by one guy it’s less power for others. For every one hot babe that picks you, there will be another male that would have to pick someone uglier or jerk of to Miyabi.
Making the world a better place is not a big turn on. Humans are selfish. The one that masked their selfishnest are quite often the one most selfish because they want to get rich by screwing others.
The easiest way is to persuade them to read evolution theory of course. But why bother reading evolution theory?
Well there is something in evolution theory that explains how to attract mates beyond what religions teach. There is also plenty of atheistic analysis on politic. Robert Green, Matt Ridley, are great sources of this type of thinker. People with atheistic understanding of these aspects tend to have an edge. People that think that God gives mandates to leaders, will be easily controlled and exploited by people that knows that power comes from barrel of guns to those who control the army and the media. Giving this benefit will motivate people to at least learn, understand, and use atheistic evolutionary psychology to get the most in life.
Most ideologies, and religions, for example, will tell you that beauty doesn’t matter. Evolutionary psychology not only predict that beauty matters a lot, but also correctly predict that people will try to convince you otherwise.
After all sexual selection is pretty much a zero sum game. One’s victory always means another defeat. Hence, evolutionary psychology and game theory would correctly predict that most religious guidance on how to get laid will not only be wrong, but will quite often be the opposite of what’s true.
If you’re a hot woman and you want to attract a high quality husband, you’d have a much better chance if you show some cleavage than wearing burqha. Quite obviously many will compel you to do the opposite. Most males do not want prince charming to see your beauty. Also most girls want to get rid pretty girls from competition.
Here, an atheistic girl, will get better mate, if she understand evolutionary psychology. Hence, she’ll have intensive to study evolutionary psychology, and will be sympathetic to atheistic causes more.

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

Supply is Not Elastic

Jan 9

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

I understand that many libertarians would curse me when I said about what I think women want.

They’re right. I don’t know. Not only I don’t know, statement about what women want are often used as justification of very anti libertarian agenda. So naturally libertarian hates that statement.

Government, encourage marriage and prohibits prostitution under assumption that marriage is “good” and women want life long legally binding marriage anyway. Libertarian argues that it should still be up to women.

Evolutionary psychology position is that prostitution is preferable to most women and that’s the very reason why it’s prohibited. Moreover, simply giving bigots benefit of doubt like what Libertarians do just won’t cut it.

In the absence of evidences, that’s heavily censored, in area of life politically significant, faith triumph over science. It’s just fact.

But why? Why all the effort to regulate sex?

This is probably the biggest difference between libertarian and non libertarian. Libertarians, especially entrepreneurs, match what they produce with what the market demand. So libertarians do not care what the market actually demands. All they want is honest signal of what the market wants so they can fulfill it.

Does it ever occur to us that most people cannot match what they produce with the market demands?

You have a factory of cement, for example. Then suddenly governments’ embrace globalization. That means your factory will just be junk. You can’t easily change that.

The same goes for beauties. If suddenly we realized the obvious that males want the pretty, can ugly women match the market demand and be prettier?

No. In fact, if there is any pattern in sexual selection is that anything “sexy” is most likely genetic. What we’re buying when we pick a mate are genes. Beauty is in demand precisely because women can’t earn it, at least not easily.

Having a high paying jobs will also have huge genetic correlation. High paying jobs are often high paying precisely because workers can’t easily choose to be able to do it. Otherwise I would have been a heavy weight boxing champ.

Libertarians positions are:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

I like libertarianism. I must admit that those 2 positions are factually correct in most area. In some area, the 2 positions are simply false.

Areas where those 2 positions are false are area where supply is not very elastic. Those are precisely the area where governments often interfere, though arguably shouldn’t.

In fact, inelasticity of supply is the very justification of most unmeritocratic rules agreed even by some of the most hard core libertarians called objectivist.

“Forced altruism may be justifiable for things beyond their control,” I’ve heard an objectivist say.

“It’s not fair to hold people accountable for things beyond their control,” says others in justifying that a defendant is innocent on ground of insanity.

“People can’t be programmer anyway no matter how high programmer’s salary is,” says my socialist friend.

To which those with the least to offer simply say that things are not within their control. “Every body wants to be rich but well, I am poor here against my will,” says a cradle to grave welfare recipients.

What I mean by not very elastic doesn’t mean it’s totally inelastic. In fact, I am of the opinion that many things we think is inelastic is actually very elastic in a quite unintuitive ways and those unmeritocratic norms will produce whatever typically unmeritocratic norms will do, namely unproductivity.

Those are elastic in politically incorrect way. The way the supply is elastic is outside our box and hence looks inelastic. Heavy anti market regulations, for example, will create demand for corrupt officials. Well, we don’t teach that in school or public success coaching do we?

Imagine what happen in most normal goods. Say demand for fish drops. Then price of fish will drop too. The drop of the price of fish will also drop supply of fish. At the end the price of fish won’t drop that much. In the short time, price will drop. That’s because of the huge sunk cost fish industry has put. At the end it won’t matter match. Price drops but not a lot in the long run.

The same for steel or car factory. Say demand for car suddenly drop due to competition in china. It’ll be just like fish. Except that now the sunk cost is bigger. The number of jobs lost is bigger. The political pressure, something libertarians never take into account, to prohibit car imports will be bigger. That explains why for so many years we do not have globalization.

Most libertarians will simply tell those car industry workers, “Tough.” Yea they can’t change job. It’s easier for them to pressure government to prohibit import then to change them self. Let’s just face it. That’s what they do.

Now what about sexual demand?

Say men prefer the pretty (they do, we do, I know). Say men only pick the pretty. Now, does that affect the ugly?

Libertarian position is:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.

In most products and service it doesn’t. However supply is NOT elastic. Ugly women can’t just be pretty. Men picking the pretty will drop the value of ugly women.

Libertarian position is:
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

Again, what people typically want matters a lot on supply inelastic goods. That’s because what people typically want decides the market price.

If porn is legal, ugly women will go extinct. I must admit American girls are typically prettier than Indonesian thanks to porn.

Now what about supply inelasticity itself. Didn’t I say that that those are actually elastic?

Take a look at car factories, for example. In short terms, it’s not elastic. They already had a car factory. A sudden price drop means their factory is worthless.

The keyword here is sudden. How sudden? Because if it weren’t sudden, then they could have chosen not to build cars in the first place.

What about poverty? That doesn’t seem to be elastic. We know they can’t afford their babies.

But they can choose not to make them in the first place. Yes but even then is not elastic enough. The need to procreate is stronger than the need to live. Let’s face it. That being said, most women in Asia wouldn’t want to make babies without some financial commitment, while most women in Europe do. Welfare program do encourage breeding among the poor.

However, if those women really want to reproduce can’t they just pick rich smart males first and get say, some financial commitment?

Rich smart males, like any males obviously want as many hot women as possible. No society will ever run out any kind of males. Males are, how can I say it? like sperms. Expendable. I start seeing libertarian bottles flying toward me here.

Expendable unless they’re rich or provide some other values toward the ruling elite/society/whatever. Women always produce some form of value because getting pregnant sucks and hence has high market value. Even women marrying other males provide some values to most males because she takes out a competitor. Not so for women doing it outside marriage.

Men often do not produce any value whatsoever for other males and hence are more likely expendable.

Now, here is another fine point. Women cannot easily pick the rich. Consensual contract to reproduce between adults are heavily regulated against women picking rich smart males.

Prohibition of prostitution is one of them. Lack of right to decide child support commitment before conception is another. Not to mention a price fixed in marriage where women always get half and more unless the males perform some complicated legal maneuver first. That ensures that most rich males are not available on marriage and prohibition of prostitution means they can’t easily commit money otherwise.

So at the end, as we see, unmeritocratic rules, namely welfare program for the poor and prohibition of prostitution for the rich does heavily affect the supply side of poverty. Namely it encourages women to pick the poor and breed poor guys with the same preferences, including voting preferences.

Supply is actually very elastic when it comes to humans’ reproduction. It’s just that the elasticity doesn’t come out of individual direct choices. It comes out of sexual selection choices, which imply extinction of some genes and proliferation of others. That one is just not palatable enough among voters.

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

Why Loyalty and Love is Politically Correct

Dec 25

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Even though it may not (in fact my understanding from evolutionary biology says it’s not) what most girls seek in mate.

Say Andrew and Bob like Cindy.

Andrew offer wealth.
Bob offer love and loyalty.

Notice that it’s expensive for the 2 to switch their offer.

Andrew is a rich stud that earns $1 million a month. Loving Cindy is arguably committing at least $500k a month. At least that’s what courts would say. Also Andrew is a stud with so many women around him. Offering loyalty means very high opportunity cost.

Bob is poor and ugly. Offering love is cheap for Bob. Bob can’t offer a lot of money obviously. Also loyalty is also cheaper for Bob.

Which one Cindy will choose. Well, who knows. I would say Andrew for sure if both offers are legal.

But here is the catch.

Government claim that prostitution is so bad and love and loyalty is so good that Andrew’s offer must be illegal.

If you are Bob, would you agree?

Incoming search terms:

  • darren sculley

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

Status Quo Force Consent

Nov 24

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

« Reply #7 on: Today at 12:53:22 AM »
 Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove
Yea? Why tax it?

Why not free it all the way?

Ah… Because we are used to the status quo that marijuana is illegal. Then we thought, why not legalize and tax it. A moderate approach. Now this doesn’t look like government punishing marijuana smokers. This seems like government allowing marijuana.

Game theory says that the difference between threaten and promise is the status quo. Unfortunately, it’s also the difference between force and consent. The difference is, whose right and whose obligation people have to start with. Once we agree that government has right to run our life, then force does become consent and via versa.

The most obvious way to see this is to see how subsidy is effectively forcing people to accept the subsidy. Subsidy is equivalent with government taxing (fining) everyone that don’t grab the subsidy after giving some money to all equally. So public school is effectively forcing of people to go to public school.

Of course, if we believe that any kids have the right for some decent education, this is not something very strange. Kids right for education effectively means everyone’s else obligation to pay for those. The same way, individuals’ right for freedom, means effectively everybody’s obligation to defend those freedom.

Reasserting my money my right, would solve those dilemma that public schools are indeed force rather than consent.

The same way we are used to the status quo that man pay for women, irrelevant of whether the woman pick him as mate (as the case for welfare checks), irrelevant of whether it is his child (in the case of alimony).

(and hence non consensual and consensual) is just the status quo. If the status quo is men has to pay up anyway to girls. Then prostitution is indeed force because the man, which has no right for his own money, threaten to not pay girls that don’t fuck him. This is the argument that is used by anti prostitution bigot.

There’s some truth in it, I must admit. We simply need to differentiate what’s wrong, from what’s inherently vaque. Again reasserting that man has right for his money would solve the dilemma. The problem is you don’t have right for your own money right? You’re too weak.

Libertarian believes that the status quo is we are all in NAP(non aggression pact) and all of us has obligation to maintain that NAP.
Feminist believe that the status quo is all women are free to choose whoever man they want, and expect every other males to pay for the child regardless of it’s their children or not.
Anarchist (and satanists?) believe that we’re all in free for all status quo and if you want to be free, you either have to stand up for my self, or get people to stand up for you. No body is obligated to help you out of morality sake.

I used to be a libertarian, but I start thinking that the anarchist have some truth in it.

Your right is not always what legislators decide. Your right depends on how much power you have and can expand through politically correct means. For example, a gun hidden on your sleeves, means you have a right to walk on any shady town. No gun, well, proceed at your own risk. Money in off shore bank account, means right over that money.

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

Marriage and God’s Will

Nov 10

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Many religious people believe that God wants us to get married first before mating.

Imagine if legislators make new laws that says, “Anyone that get married must cut out his cock.”

Will religious people still think that God wants us to get married first before mating?

Probably not. But who knows.

Why not?

Well, 2 reasons.

First there is nothing in the bible that says you got to cut off your genitals just to mate. But that’s not the biggest reason. Well, that’s arguable actually. For example http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:10-12

10His disciples say to him, `If the case of the man with the woman is so, it is not good to marry.’

11And he said to them, `All do not receive this word, but those to whom it hath been given;

12for there are eunuchs who from the mother’s womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who kept themselves eunuchs because of the reign of the heavens: he who is able to receive [it] — let him receive.’

It’s interesting to see that the majority of apostles believe that marriage is a bad thing.

The same way there is nothing in the bible that says that women get half of your money, or that you can only have one, or that you can’t have concubines, you can’t try prostitute, or that  you can’t have sex outside marriage at all. Again that’s arguable.

After all, marriage rules are made by legislators, based on the will of swing voters. Whether it’s God’s will or not is beyond me. Last time I check, our legislators are humans, with hands and legs and stuffs. So are the voters.

The more important reason however, is that cutting off one genitals simply don’t match even religious bigots’ interest.

Religious bigots want everyone to get married, and then get married under terms favorable to them. Those terms usually defy principles of competition and meritocracy.

Unlike free sex provided by free market, most marriage terms are favorable to those who are less pretty, can’t attract mates, poor, or in anyway have less to offer to their mates.

Sticking to those with the least to offer is praised, while moving out to greener pastures, the way all market players should do, is frowned upon.

Being poor is not a ground for divorce. Being a stud is. Loyalty is cheapest for those least able to attract other mates, and become a main virtue of marriage.

Incoming search terms:

  • bible gateway market

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

Marriage Can be VERY DANGEROUS

Sep 30

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Obviously marriage can be very problematic as

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?

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

Is Marriage Obsolette

Sep 29

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,