Why do we care if our politicians have moral or not? Why should we care if they love us or not. we can’t verify that anyway. Their incentive is to grab our money. And that’s what they did. Forget right wrong moral or love. Everyone is selfish period. It correctly predicts human’s behavior.
Is there a law saying that black people can’t get a job? Yes. It’s called minimum wage.
You know what Brad, we also have laws against chinese and latino from getting american job. It’s called immigration laws.
What next? Yea we also have laws against living very long life. It’s called obamacare. Once you live too long, the death panel will decide that you should die and your money will be better used to save the life of some gang kids that beat you up instead.
We also have laws against getting rich if you start of as poor. It’s called income tax. All those are somehow capable to avoid their tax. Most poor and middle class cannot. If government just want more income, it can tax gasoline or land. Why it has to be income?
While at it, we also have laws against being financially responsible to kids. It’s called welfare, income tax, alimony, child support laws. If you get rich first before you breed, the law is significantly against you. And you wonder why many choose to be cradle to grave parasites. I really can’t blame them. I really can’t.
During Nazi era, we also have laws that ensure that jews died on Hitler’s concentration camp. Why the hell all those other countries do not let jews in?
Now, we also have laws that mandate that women in afghanistan will have to end up with nose cutting, stoning, and poor males. It’s called anti women trafficking laws.
I am not going to argue whether such is morally right or wrong. However, the idea itself, have huge problemThere are a few problem with normative questions in economy. Basically due to these issues, normative questions will always be subjective. Many will think badly on what you think is good.
1. The obvious problem is that different humans have different taste. This may seem to be the main problem for purely theoretical economists. However, it’s actually the least of our problem. Because money is interchangeable, we can, to certain extend, compare people’s utility function even on those things that’s not easily tradable, like lives, reproductive success, preventing poor’s rebellion, voters preferences (and ignorance) etc. We can compute their marginal rate of substitution between a certain outcome and say having another dollar.
2. Huge amount of people’s utility function revolves around games that’s almost “zero sum”. Humans simply want others to suffer. Power, for example. If I have a power to choose cheese or chocolate, chocolate factory has no power to decide that. It’s mutually exclusive. We probably have no problem when the issue is cheese and chocolate. We’ll get back to that later. In purely zero sum game, there can be no optimum. Not in pareto optimal sense, not in any sense.
3. Hypocrisy. Humans’ utility function is moderately complex. It’s not too complex to understand. However, the true utility function of typical humans is pretty politically incorrect. Hence most humans have totally false idea of what humans want. If we construct humans’ utility function objectively based on what people actually choose, the result will be way different than what most people think.
4. Pareto optimal is a very strict topic. There can be no change of policy where not even one person is made worst of out of 200 million. C’mon. However, if we can make 51% people better off and still improve the amount of GDP, that may worth examining. Something along citizen dividend advocated by Georgian libertarians may fit that. Perhaps something less strict than pareto but “reasonable” would help a lot. I don’t know what. Proper alignments between individuals’ utility function and GDP perhaps? Increasing market value of citizenship if those citizenship is tradeable. Who knows?
5. Results of evolutionary psychology says that humans are not even aware what he wants and why he want it. Humans have many hidden motives that not even the actor is rationally aware off. So people may honestly feel or think that he is unselfishly trying to help others while all he/she really wants is to just max out his reproductive success. People may not be perfectly aware of their utility function or their own intent. For example, a person may truly intent to pay his loan or come to his office on time. We know, however, he won’t. As usual, intents, incentives, and results are far more closely correlated than what most people like to believe. Many would claim that Caesar Borgia and Hitler is evil. Yet we know that most humans would have done the same thing and is still doing the same thing under similar circumstances.
6. Our model of what humans’ utility function is too politically correct. Humans’ true utility function, envy, bigotry, power seeking, psychopathy, apathy, selfish, is very politically incorrect, and hence not discussed. If someone stab you in the back, take your wallet, and latter claim that he’s trying to altruistically perform apendix operation on you, is it science what his true motives are? Of course. We know it isn’t true. Many situation is like that. We know what people’s real motives are. It’s just that it’s so politically incorrect we don’t make the obvious deduction. As usual, result (which is disprovable), incentive (which is also disproveable), and some comparison with other’ mammals’ behavior (which is disprovable), and reproductive success analysis of past successful ancestors (which is disprovable), can give pretty good guide that the guy is just a psychopath that want to kill you so he can take your wallet. The same way most laws against consensual acts can be analyzed the same way but people don’t bother
I’ll give you a sample. Say one guy want food. Then we tax the rich to buy food for the poor. Standard economy issue will discuss whether the small sacrifice paid by Bill Gates justify the increased happiness of the hungry.
However, most problem is way out of the box of that thinking. Often, scarcity is not even the issue at all. Many, instead of wanting food, want porn and ganja. The other wants to prohibit it. So you see any normative answer will be seen as “wrong” by at least one side. It’s inherently subjective.
Thinking whether Bill’s tax rate should be 2% or 3% is penny wise pound folly. Some may think that people like Bill Gates can easily attract thousands of women and make many kids, effectively ensuring more kids have rich smart dad, hence reducing any need of welfare in the first place. But this aspect is not talked about because it’s politically incorrect. Again, I am not saying it’s right or wrong. I don’t know all the political and economic implication of this. I know that people don’t like discussing it.
What about if deep inside, socialists demand higher income tax because they don’t want you to be rich? How do we come up with something both you and socialists be happy with?
Also like all people, economists want to stay politically correct.
.
I’ll give you a sample of hidden utility function. Say, a religious leader says that you have to eat halal food (actual story from Indonesia). We would think that the interest of the religious leader is benign. Ah, he wants people to be more pious. Any experience politicians will see the true issue. The religious leaders want power to decide what you can eat.
Obviously, many people wouldn’t want that. Here, an almost zero sum game is masked into an illusion of cooperative game. “I want to run your life so I can control you and increase my pay” is turned into “I want to help you go to heaven.” Most people don’t see it through, except foreigners. I think we can verify that non secular countries have higher cost of halal/kosher certificate.
I pick a religious sample precisely because US is not a religious country. Hence, my sample is not politically incorrect here.
Due to zero sum aspects of some of our lives, huge amount of unhappiness, if we can call that now, does not happen due to scarcity or lack of redistribution of wealth at all.
Porn is an obvious sample. There is an abundance of porn. However, showing porn to minor is illegal. There are many pressures to get rid porn from the market. Recently somebody got 20 years in prison for watching porn.
Ganja. Again, ganja can be produced cheaply. However, people that want to control what you can smoke is unhappy if you smoke. Here your utility function is in direct conflict with them. As usual it’s masked into something cooperative. Government, for example, argued that ganja is dangerous and hence look as if they care about you.
Does ganja improve your utility function? Well, if it’s legal, would you buy it? See. People’s actual utility function has scientific “bite”. We know that many would do.
Prostitution and sugar babies are another game.
As I argue elsewhere, microeconomics explains the behavior of the singular and unitary actor. It’s not about men and women; in fact, there are no men and women in microeconomics. There are only (singular and unitary) actors. In the words of Levitt and Dubner themselves, “If, for instance, you added up all the women and men on the planet, you would find that, on average, the typical adult human being has one breast and one testicle—and yet how many people fit that description?” Microeconomics is about how the actor with one breast and one testicle behaves. Evolutionary psychology is about how women with two breasts are completely, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different from men with two testicles, because, in large part, women have breasts and men have testicles. It’s the breasts and testicles that make them behave differently
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201102/superfreak-yes-onomics-no
Prostitute is NOT cheap. Beautiful women can earn $5500 per hour as prostitutes as can be seen here: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmXLonSBMNvhOli00jFF0fK65pSw.
Typical women will earn more money as sugar babies than as a wife. Matt Ridley, for example, argued that the true reason why polygamy is prohibited is not to protect women but to protect men. Anti-polygamy laws can easily be circumvented if prostitution is illegal. So it’s natural to expect many women would choose the sugar babies path. Yet, most people think that somehow all those women are victims, etc.
So here we have a case where people’s perception of their utility function is way off than people’s actual utility function. Most people believe that no women would ever want to be a prostitute. The truth is many would do if it’s legal.
So you can get a picture of how wrong your utility function to reality let me show you a simple analysis.
Imagine if government prohibit ganja by a 1 cent fine. We can all agree that ganja is effectively legal. Now government can use many different words to describe the action. Government can say it’s a 1 cent fine, tax, punishment, prohibition. However, we see that if the “penalty” is the small anyway, it’s effectively fine. It’s not what it calls. It’s the actual increase cost that often heavily affects humans’ utility function.
So let’s for simplicity sake, we see the world without differentiating tax and fine. Let’s call them artificial costs. We can also include things like jail for our analysis. Jail is not the same with tax. However, it has some monetary equivalent. There is a certain amount of money that people are willing to pay to avoid jail. That amount of money will reflect his utility function and directly comparable with other men.
So let’s count fine, tax, discouragement, and jail, as “artificially increased costs.”
Let’s count subsidy, aids, government programs, incentive, as “artificially decreased costs.” If some people got subsidy, we can count those who don’t to bear some “artificially increased costs” too relative to those who got the subsidy.
Say government tax green skin people $1k. Then government is racist. Imagine if government tax everyone $1k, and then give refund to anyone that’s not green. Everyone can verify that the 2 acts are equivalent right? Here, we can say that green people suffer “artificially increased costs.”
In ancient time, Naz, artificially increased cost of gene pool survival for the jews. Jews that are surviving in the gene pool are killed. Here, killing has a monetary equivalent. The money equivalent of getting killed is the “artificially increased costs.”
The amount of “artificially increased costs” Nazi inflicted on jews must be quite significant because most jews did end up death. If it’s only 1 cents or equivalent to 1 cent, I am sure 90% of jews must have survived holocausts.
After Nazi killed the jews, Nazi redistribute jewish wealth. Well, they’re getting extinct anyway so they didn’t need the money right? I am not saying its right or wrong. I am just saying it’s what the Nazi did.
In contemporary time, social democrats artificially increase cost of gene pool survival for rich smart diligent attractive capitalists (rsdac). Rich men that want to survive in the gene pool face an artificially inflated cost of alimony risk, child support, and so on and so on. All those are set proportional to men’s wealth. Monogamy is also more costly for men most capable to attract females. Also, richer males are less likely to be benefited by public schools. All those are artificially increased costs. Not to mention income tax that’s also proportional to men’s income.
The amount of “artificially increased costs” government inflicted on capitalists must be quite significant because the rich actually ended up making fewer kids than the poor.
Perhaps, if we want to follow the spirit of utility function, we can embrace free trade or free trade like mechanism.
Say I value my watch for 1000 usd. Say you value it by 2000usd. Ah there is inefficiency. This will solve by itself by me selling the watch to you for 1500 usd. I do not know what your actual utility function. However, we know that derivative of U with respect to watch for me is 1000 times the derivative of U with respect to usd. For you, the derivative is 2000 times the derivative for dollar. So your utility function for watch is steeper on “watch” direction. We know that. To be frank, because every change is a change from status quo, all we need to know is those derivatives anyway rather than utility functions. And we can know that.
This is the basic of pareto optimal text book sample. Perhaps we can extend that to something the market does not take care of.
Many things are not directly tradable. But we can measure their marginal rate of substitution toward dollar nevertheless.
If you go to abortion clinic, we know the poor do not value reproductive success by much. If we go to fertility clinic, we know that the rich value reproductive success by far more.
A world where the poor get more money and the rich make more kids may make both better off. Perhaps, government can sell “reproductive licenses” and use the money for citizen dividends?
Another approach will be to see government as businesses and citizens as stock holders. We’re going there. So anyone that make more kids will have to buy citizenships and while those who are childless can sell his right to inherit that citizenship for cash. Perhaps some people will get a discount for staying in countries because of voters’ preference for hanging out with those they’re familiar?
Straight forward redistribution of wealth without something in return for the rich will simply demotivate people from becoming rich. That will simply hurt everyone.
Definition on the webster says that prostitution is : the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money
The word “especially” is vague so we can remove that from definition and comeback to that latter.
Sugar babies are not promiscuous. Also sluts are not usually considered prostitute. So why are sugar babies considered prostitution and sluts are not?
Wikipedia definition says: Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment.
Well, marriage does pay. Just ask ex wife of Beatty Chadwick http://freebeattychadwick.blogspot.com/. So why marriage is not prostitution while being a sugar baby is?
Finally the legal definition of prostitution is: The law says prostitution is “a lewd act for money or other consideration” – http://www.coyotela.org/getarrestedinfo.html
This is a very broad definition. What kind of sex is there that’s done without “consideration”?
Also lewd is defined as “the touching of breast, buttocks or genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal.” Okay, let me try to understand here. If lewd acts are illegal, how do you guys have sex out there anyway? How do you get babies?
Why sex within marriage is not considered lewd?
More importantly, why is it wrong to have “consideration” when deciding to have sex with someone?
It’s easy for most of us to believe that truth is all that matters. It doesn’t matter what some crazy nuts believe. All that matter is truth.
Imagine if you’re a defendant in court. Which one matters more? The truth whether you indeed rape or murder the girl, or whatever the judge and jury believe?
Which one will land you in jail?
Now look at how politics work.
There is nothing in anti-drug laws that specify that prohibited drugs must be dangerous. There is nothing in anti-prostitution laws that specify that prostitution must be promiscuous or forced. Anti-women trafficking laws specifically add clauses that trafficking is still prohibited irrelevant of consent.
Yet most people believe that all prohibited drugs are more dangerous than the legal ones. People also believe that all prostitution and women trafficking are not consensual and hence less preferable than the legal marriage. Quite often their beliefs are what matters.
To further add complication, beliefs are often very useful for those who are in power. Those who are in power then have strong incentive to promote the beliefs irrelevant of truth. Take a look the belief that all humans are equal and have right to live for example. There is no proof for that. Yet, most of us, including me, would want to embrace that for obvious reason. We don’t want to die. Also if we end up killing each other we are all worst off.
This is too complicated. Few if any individuals in ancient time see that we will kill each other unless we recognize right not to be killed. Till today, most people don’t know. Most people are not aware that most people live, simply because it’s illegal to kill them.
Even if most of us do not want to kill for money, once we see too many people do it and get away with it, we too will do it. The main reason why we don’t kill is simply because we believe that killing doesn’t pay.
In ancient time, religions give reason to promote beliefs that simply don’t have proof but beneficial to many anyway.
Many things are not that benign.
We sort of think that most interaction are consensual. We sort of see that prohibition against consensual acts are the exception rather than the norm. Few of us see that’s it’s simply the interest of those who are in power, rather than the interest of the consenting parties, that are behind laws against consensual acts.
Put your self in the shoes of judges. Which way the judges care more? Truth or bribe? It’s easy for us to blame judges. But aren’t we like that? When we vote, do we care about justice or interests? Very often it’s simply our interests too, which we pretend to be justice.
It’s simply not to the best interest of religious leaders to let their followers to interpret their religions freely or change religion.
The same way it’s not to the best interests of those with less to offer to simply legalize all consensual transactions. Doing so would force them to compete viciously against those with far better offers than them. That often lead to extinction.
We don’t expect most voters to want free trades, which mean they are losing their job. We don’t expect poorer males would want sugar babies legalized, which mean the rich will just get all the girls. The same way we don’t expect ugly feminists to support legalization porn, in which prettier girls get all the attention. We also won’t expect the poor not to support nationalized health care or lower tax. It simply isn’t going to happen.
One solution is to embrace freedom all the way and fight for our freedom, or look at reality and adapt to it. That’s what tyrants and grafters do. They lied, they cheat, they enslave, but what’s the alternative? The alternative is to be lied to, to be cheated to, and to be non-consensually enslaved by the will of the ignorant majority.
To further add to the complexity, beliefs do change reality to the same, if not more degree, than the other way around. If people believe something, they bet on it, they count on it, then they want it, and they make that happens.
We believe that drugs are dangerous, so it becomes really dangerous with mafias, gangs, and cops shooting each other over it. Countries that legalize drugs will be vilified for the obvious reason. They show that drug is not dangerous and that means offending the beliefs of many with interests invested on drugs prohibition.
Many believe that God exist and is on their side, and the world behave as if God is really on the emperor’s side with everyone fears rebelling against emperors. We believe that prostitution can’t be consensual and what do you think a pimp will do if he knows that the punishment for him will be the same anyway whether the girls consent or not?
Because our beliefs, though false, are even useful to us, and because beliefs are self-fulfilling, we tend to maintain our beliefs irrelevant of anything.
Now, I wonder if I can learn more about it? NLP?
When government prohibit consensual acts, quite often there is a huge gap between what most people think is being prohibited, what the law actually said, and how it is actually implemented.
Governments try to maintain lies that it try to prohibit something, and then prohibit totally different unrelated things.
If you have a girl friend. Say you give her a gift. Does that make her prostitute? This is not a philosophical question. It’s a legal question actually. Most people would think not. However, if you read the law, she might. Both of you can get arrested.
What matter is what the judge and jury think. Most of the time, they are quite divided due to vagueness of the law and broadness of definition.
The root of the problem is allowing government to declare consensual crime illegal. What’s natural after that is that government will simply broaden the criminalization far beyond what most people think.
1. It’s far more broad than what most people think.
Anti prostitution is marketed to protect women from being forced by evil pimp to promiscuously have sex with really really ugly men with mental retardation problem and highly unusual violent fetish.
In fact, most people think that’s what prostitution is.
There is nothing in the law against prostitution that specify that prostitutes must be promiscuous, forced, or sleep with undesirable males. Quite the opposite, prostitution is often monogamous, consensual, with really really hot participants with plenty of other legal choices that simply choose better. There is nothing in anti prostitution laws that indicate that the johns must be unattractive.
Notice that marrying really really undesirable man is legal.
After all, marriage means government is the pimp. Government is simply the worst pimp. It’s so bad it has to keep so many things illegal just to stay competitive.
The law says prostitution is “a lewd act for money or other consideration,” http://www.coyotela.org/getarrestedinfo.html.
What makes an act a prostitution is not the undesirability of the mate or the forced nature of the act or even the promiscuity of the women. It’s the incentive, which doesn’t even have to be financial.
By that definition of prostitution, virtually all women can be convicted. I give a girl a massage, that’s consideration. I give a girl attention, that’s consideration. I make a girl happy that’s consideration. In fact, I wonder where I can get the list of all the consideration that’s legal or illegal. Who knows what the lists are.
I can only wonder why marriage doesn’t count as consideration. Government pretty much control what kind of consideration is legal or not legal based on anything they wish. Now it’s your life. Why should their wish matter?
Notice the law need to be broad. If the law only prohibit accepting cash, the girl will take credit. If the law only prohibit accepting money, the girl will exchange that for food, lodging.
Now take a look at drug laws again. Most of us think that it’s there to get rid of dangerous addictive drug.
That’s not what the law said. There is nothing in the law saying that the drug must be dangerous or significantly addictive. And it’s not how it works in practice either. I was very surprised when I found this out.
(1) Schedule I.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” [23]
See? Watch the word “accepted safety”. That looks like it has something to do with dangerous. It’s so vague. Anyone that took any English language class will point out that it’s a passive sentence. Accepted by who? Passive sentences are inherently unclear. Many doctors know many ways to use marijuana safely. As long as you don’t drive, it’s save. No body died out of marijuana overdoses yet.
It has little to do with the drug being dangerous. It has a lot to do with preventing you from using the drug you want so you ended up using other drugs they want you to use instead.
It’s easy for government to argue that a drug has no legitimate accepted medical use. Government simply choose not to accept. Yes baby. Marijuana is NOT dangerous. Just look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana
Now take a look at women trafficking. Most of us think of women trafficking as those women in chain sent against their will kicking and screaming. The truth is the opposite. Those women quite often have a nice job or marriage offers in their country. Quite often they simply want to go to richer countries so they can meet even richer males. It’s like you having $10k per month and want $1 million per month instead. Such women compete with ugly women in rich countries and that’s why it’s prohibited.
Anti women trafficking laws actually have clauses saying that they include consenting women as “trafficked” if it’s done for sex.
Imagine if you are a jew during holocaust. Wouldn’t you want to get out anywhere? What about countries that accept you says, well, we can’t just let you in and feed you for free. Ah you got capital, you got to invest here. Oh you’re smart, see you got to work here. What would the jew did? Hope in. Unfortunately, during holocaust, very few countries wanted to accept jews. And that’s how Hitler can easily slaughter millions of them. Then every body blamed Hitler even though all of them sort of did it too. You see why jews don’t trust non jews? We messed up.
Quite often women are indeed forced to be trafficked, but not by the traffickers. Women are oppressed by the Taliban in some country. Imagine if you’re that women. Wouldn’t you want to get out anywhere? What about countries that accept you says, well, we can’t just let you in and feed you for free. Ah you’re hot. Some of our males want sugar babies, see if we can work something out. What would the woman do? Hope in still. Unfortunately, during prosecution of hot women all over the world, very few countries want to accept hot babes. And that’s how fascists can easily oppress womyn.
2. It’s vague.
Because it’s so broad every body will break it. So they need an excuse why they shouldn’t punish the acts they favor.
As for what “other consideration” is… the courts in California said that if someone “mows your lawn” that can be “other consideration.” – http://www.coyotela.org/getarrestedinfo.html
So it’s not okay to mow lawn for your girlfriend. That will make her a prostitute and both of you can get arrested. It’s okay to offer her marriage? What about if you give her a massage? Should you consult lawyers first?
There is one way to see that the definition is vague. Look at what people think http://sugarbabydaily.com/2011/10/07/high-class-hooke/#more-91
Some people think sugar baby is a prostitution, some people think differently. The law is vague. In fact, Matt Ridley simply points the obvious. Marriage is a form of prostitution. The difference is that government is the pimp and anti prostitution law is simply not enforced against married couple magically.
Look at laws against women trafficking. It’s there to prevent “exploitation”. What is exploitation? Anything. Coca cola companies, exploit me to make money, for example in pretty much the same sense Pepsi does. Government, can simply declare that selling Coca Cola is an exploitation and don’t enforce the same principle against Pepsi. If it’s exploitation, so what?
What is exploitation? If I hire a secretary is that exploitation? Why it’s an exploitation if I hire her to work hard but not an exploitation if I hire her for sex? Exploitation is not an objective word.
If exploitation is defined as taking advantage of others, isn’t that what all we do? When I go to a shop buying a gum, am I not exploiting the shop owners for my own interest of getting the gum? Isn’t the shop exploiting me to get money? So what? Exploitation is simply the basis of all human interaction, whether consensual or not. It’s simply too broad and hence can be used to condemn anything.
Allowing government to prohibit “exploitation” is like giving them blank cheque. It’s so easy to argue that anything is exploitation. What isn’t?
Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
Check the law again. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum bla bla bla. Is there anything there that said what exploitation doesn’t include? How do you know, for example, that trafficking a woman for the purpose of getting her a better hair cut is not an exploitation? Why consensual commercial sex is an exploitation and often less consensual marriage is not? What’s the limit? Who knows.
Look at laws against drug. It’s there to prevent “abuse” of drugs. What is abuse of drugs? Anything. Any use can be argued as abuse.
3. It usually comes demonization of the consensual acts or people in negative light. Before nazi slaughtered the jews, they portrayed jews as backstabbing traitorous bastards. Most normal germans did not think they were being rascists. They thought they were getting rid traitors. The same way, most normal people actually believe that all prostitution are non consensual.
Most people do not know that some prostitutes are paid $5500 per hour. In fact, the biggest irony of anti prostitution law is that the very incentive used to define prostitution is the very proof that the acts are indeed consensual. What would you not consensually do for $5500 per hour? Srsly. Killing? Murdering? Robbing? Assassinating Presidents? Fighting Taliban?
What about fucking? You wouldn’t fuck for $5500? Who or what wouldn’t you fuck even if they pay $5500 per hour? Okay quite a lot. But many of those prostitute clients are quite often some handsome rich men. Nothing in the prostitution laws say that the client must be undesirable. Even if the client is Brad Pitt, or Tiger Wood, which would rather pay than get married, it’s still prostitution legally.
Yes there are women forced into prostitution. Just like there are men forced to be programmer, soldiers, etc. So what? Why not aim for those who coerced others?
4. They contain many redundant terms already prohibited by many other laws.
Women trafficking is defined
[...] the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
Now watch the definition carefully. Using threat, use of force, forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, and deception is already illegal. Why is it prohibited again in this new law? Now look at what they wrote latter. “Giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve consent.” What is wrong with that?
The purpose of anti women trafficking law is not to prevent force or fraud. The purpose is to prevent consensual women that do want to move in.
5. They have motives that are too politically incorrect to be stated in front.
The motives are not too hard to figure out.
In case of anti prostitution laws. The motive is to prohibit all sex outside marriage. To be frank, quite often husbands can’t compete with johns, so they prohibit johns. It’s simple. I know extremely beautiful girls that just want a divorce and be mistress instead. They can’t.
Yes women can still have sex outside marriage for free. However, it’s tough. In a sense, offering her to have sex for free doesn’t really give her much choice. If she has kids who would pay for it? Who will pay for her food when she’s pregnant? Government? That’s fascism. Even if she wants you, she can’t choose you unless you pay.
But why would government want to prohibit all sex outside marriage? That’s obvious. They want to be the pimp of all hoes so they can sell those hoes to voters that can’t compete with rich smart johns.
Why feminazis hate women trafficking? Not because of all the fraud and force involved. They simply don’t want competitors. Many feminazis are ugly women. Monogamy protect them from extinction. If they have to compete with influx of hot cheaper babes, they’ll be out of the gene pool in one generation.
Why government prohibits some safe drugs? Many reason. To prevent you from having fun is one thing. Another is so that more dangerous drugs that are paid by lobbyists can sell. If you look at all celebrities that use drugs, none of them die out of marijuana. All of them are death out of legal drugs that they have to use because the saver marijuana is illegal.
Wealth is a form of power and true wealth is simply power. When government have power to decide terms of your mating, and what kind of fun you can have, they can control you. That means you are their slave. Who wouldn’t want more slaves?
6. Conclusion
At the end whether prostitution should be legal or not, whether drug should be legal or not, and whether consensual women trafficking should be legal or not depends on one question. Do you want to be governed by free market or by government? It’s that simple.
The most racist laws are minimum wage laws. It’s purpose is to make racism cheap for white bosses and keep black guys out of job. It discriminates against non racists white bosses.
The most sexist laws are anti prostitution laws. We don’t tell Beckham to learn sewing. We don’t tell Michael Jordan to learn sewing. So why do we insist girls making $5500 per hour sew?
Without racism and sexism, it’s so easy for government to be racists and sexists. Just look for jobs where women earn more money or jobs blacks usually do and ban them, often under pretexts of protecting the very victim of the banning.
However, if some 2.5 meter black guys earn millions in NBA. So what? If engineering schools are filled with Asians, there is nothing wrong with that as long as it’s private school. And all schools should be private anyway.
If jews are indeed more well connected and hence earn more money in businesses, we simply don’t hire them to cook sushi. And it’s very normal to look at your applicant’s race in hiring and figure, “c’mon.”
Obviously it’s our moral obligation to hire as many desperate people as possible that really need a job but it should be up to free market and not government. The bizs connection can be useful in the future as positive karma.
If some bosses are willing to pay extra for hot secretary that are willing to work naked, so what? All normal male bosses are like that actually. If it’s legal, you won’t need to worry about lack of jobs within 1-2 generations. Job creators tend to breed more job creators.
From business points of view, employee that’s not going to get pregnant is a plus. Going to get pregnant with my baby is a plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus. Going to get knocked up by some other guy’s cock and then expect me to keep paying for pregnancy leave is a min min min.
Am I sexist if I only want to mate with females? Yes and proud of it. I would consider gang bang though but only if the girl is really hot.
If you said he just want money, you’re caught for insulting others’ faith.
If you said the religion doesn’t require that, you’re caught for heresy.
If you just stop believing the religion, you’re caught for apostasy.
The issue is not whether God exist or not. The issue is we’re fed up kow towing to those who are useless to us.
AB: But the traffic doesn’t help me. That’s the problem. Either they comes and start putting pictures up holding their cocks in thier hand, or the women are trying to sell themselves for money, etc. That doesn’t help me at all, just hurts me. ANd most of the traffic hits the home page and leaves so to Google it makes my site look like it is not interesting to visitors.
AB: Porn traffic is the worst traffic I can get.
AB: I appreciate you trying to help though. Thanks for thinking about us.
T: very funny
T: so what with women trying to sell themselves for money. Isn’t that what all beautiful women do 
AB: Yes, but not in that way. Our women are more subtle 
T: I see
T: now it make sense
AB: Our women want a lifetime income, not a quick upfront one time payment
T: Straight from the horse mouth
AB: Yes, I’m married to one of them
T: You have married 5 of them and it’s correct all the time.
Powered by WordPress
Why rich smart attractive males avoid marriage? Why religions teach you to get married? Why feminazis prevent consenting females from accepting high paying jobs and escaping patriarchal oppression? Why force and deceit are often more politically correct than consent in getting a mate? What should you do to help your self?
