My educated guess is parents need to support their child. So government can declare, for example, that each kid deserve $5k year. Anyone that don’t make $5k/year must not make kids (possibly with vasectomy penalty). If parents want to invest more, it’s up to parent. Also women should be able to negotiate child support before hand with men and that should be enforceable in court.

Think about it. With no fault marriage many complaint that couples can no longer make marriage commitment. The problem with that argument is that there are plenty of other reasonable, arguably more “fair” commitment people cannot legally make with each other outside marriage.

Why not let people make their own contract? Isn’t this the heart of libertarian feminist? Not a rhetorical question but you disagree with my explanation anyway.

Imagine a male saying to a woman, if you agree to have sex with me any time I want you got $10k/year. Also you’ll earn $5k/year for each of my biological children you give birth too. In addition the following are my reasonable exit clauses, pension plan, severance pay, etc.

In a sense, a whore is actually free while a wife is a whore that agree to let government be the pimp. Yet every time I promote legalization of various consensual sex for money arrangement people would knee jerkly say I demean women. At the end, I kind got a kick off in actually offending the feminist

Why not use that instead of marriage? That way no body have to bitch that marriage law is unfair right? Just make their own contract that they think is fair and let the woman decide. Is the contract more fair? Is it a good deal for woman? Why not let the woman decide? Basically illegal last time I check. Not a rhetorical question like usual In fact this is what motivates me to write my e-book. I wanted to have a purpose in life. Something with meaning. I want to make thousands of kids and I am very surprised that there is simply no normal way you can do that legally no matter how rich and attractive you are.

Of course, it’s pretty useless trying to understand others’ argument that’s based on prejudice anyway. But let’s check.

One argument is that there is the “child”‘s interest. It’s kind of funny. There are plenty of child that is born into poverty and still cost huge amount of taxpayer money. Yet government simply criminalize a billionaire that pay say, 10k per year for his wife and child. Somehow government set that wife and child deserve money proportional to a man’s wealth rather than letting supply and demand relationship decide “price” like usual. It’s like price control. Yea the kids’ interest is problematic but parents’ interest typically coincide with their blood line far more than government right? Sounds a lot like price control there.

Seems to me there is no easy way an American male can mate and reproduce without significantly risk ALL his wealth isn’t it?

Here, in my country, there are plenty of kids in the street that are sodomized, forced to beg, or whatever. People don’t care. Yet if you put your kids to programming school at age 6 people will say you “abuse” your child. Also people keep saying that porn is dangerous for minor. Yet giving birth of kids into poverty is not a crime, despite obvious adverse effect to the kid. Hmmmm… What kind of utility function the law makers really have? Any guess??

But curiously. Maybe you disagree a lot with me with many area. What’s your idea of child support should be? Should parent be able to decide before hand the amount of support they want to make before conception. Of course within reasonable limit. Say, $5k/year

Easy answer is none by definition.

But let’s look at reality for a while.

When I was young I was forced to take so many classes that I do not think are useful. In one point of view, the classes are useless. Students, however, took those classes anyway because they are forced to take those classes where they memorize dates and names of irrelevant events.

That’s one point of view. Another way to easily see that is to see courses taught by private sectors in private tutoring industry. While many parents send their kids to learn more Math and English, no body send their kids to learn national ideology or history. In no private tutoring courses students have to memorize dates and names. That shows that most parents, as informed consumers, do not think those mandatory classes are useful. Case close.

Here is another point of view by the way. The classes are useful. If it weren’t useful, it wouldn’t have been taught. Think it this way. It took enough political will to force millions of people to do something. It must be useful…. To somebody… with enough political cloud to make it happen.

All classes that are taught in school, public and private, are useful for the curriculum makers.

Will those that are useful for the curriculum makers useful for students? It depends. Under free market, students’, which are consumers’, best interests are properly aligned to the interest of the producers, including the curriculum makers. When governments can “regulate” curriculum, all bets are off.

The same way, who are the victim of victimless crime?

In one point of view, none.

But wait. If there is really no victim, it wouldn’t have been a crime. Think about it. It takes enough political will and power to prohibits many from doing a certain thing. Somebody must have had their interests, not right, hurt by those criminalized acts.

Who?

Simple. Competitors.

If porn are legal, many males would rather watch porn, rather than mate with ugly women. That means extinction for ugly women. It’s no wonder that many feminists insist that all women should become soldiers, astronauts, or anything where beauty matters little. Those are ugly feminists. They complaint that women shouldn’t be a sex object. Why? Because they aren’t.

Who are the victim of women trafficking? The women being trafficked? Think again. Many of those trafficking are consensual. If you live in a country where males want to cut your clits, wouldn’t you rather be a prostitute or porn star in richer countries? Women prefer the rich. It’s natural that women from poor countries want to move to richer countries so they can mate with richer males. I am not arguing that all women prefer the rich. I am arguing that it is very reasonable that such movement CAN be VERY consensual.

But when feminists argue that women trafficking hurt women, they are correct too. Not the women being trafficked mainly, especially if the act is fully consensual. Women trafficking from poor countries to rich countries hurts two kind of people. It hurts ugly women in rich countries that do not want to compete with women from poorer countries that ask for less and are often prettier. Women trafficking also hurt the poor males in poor countries, that see now that their prettiest girls move to richer countries instead.

Hei. I am from a poor countries and I too was sad that the prettiest girls from my high school are all in US and Europe. However, it just motivates me to make more money so I can import their replacement from China. Most males would simply choose to prohibits such trafficking.

What else?

Free sex. Does it hurt somebody? Of course. Free sex, like free trade means free competition. It of course hurts those who are not competitive.

What else? Protection of minor? From porn? I remember a story about kids that are grown inside a vase so that their body ended up like the vases. It’s not good for the kids, but good for the kids’ raiser that want to sell the kids to circus. That’s what public education and anti porn regulation really is all about. They want to grow kids in their vases, till it’s too late to reverse the damage.

Years we learn biology in school, not once we are told that women prefer the rich and males prefer the pretty. Yet we have to memorize so many other facts that are irrelevant to our lives. Why? So we grow exactly the way the vase makers do.

Rather than thinking that porn is dangerous from minor, wouldn’t it make sense to think that censorship is the one that we should protect our children from? Imagine if you’re aware that somebody kidnapped your child and grow her in a vase. Wouldn’t you want to break the vase (and kill the kidnappers) rather than agreeing that your kids should be protected from non vase influences?

What’s interesting with all these criminalization is that for some reason, most of us, quite reasonably, do not believe that competition has victim. Most of us believe that it’s part of the game and that’s the way it should be. Competition is the main, if not sole, reason why humans want to do better than others for others. Hence, people that want to promote criminalization of victimless acts need to LIE.

There goes all form of nonsense arguments. Sometimes what they said is simply vague. Some feminists may argue that porn “demean” women. It’s vague accusation. What does demean mean? Which women? Is having more freedom demeaning? Is having more power to decide what to do with your life when you all consensual acts are legal demeaning? Is not having to agree with bigots and slave owners but free to choose demeaning? Arguable. Hard to say. It’s vague.

Other bigots will resort to religions based on faith. It’s hard to argue against fairy tales as we all agree.

Most people will not get married if all alternatives are legal. What kind of stores would demand that you can only buy from that store only if you agree to some form of exclusivity agreement and be loyal customer till death do you part? Some stores might do that but most simply don’t.

Perhaps promoting science and evolution theory will help shed light to what’s the real issue is. Books like “Selfish Gene” or “The Red Queen” have pretty much becoming mainstream and help cornering religious bigotry.

Only time will tell.