Free Market Forever

March 15, 2012

Parenting Now and Then

Let me try to understand. That’s where we differ A LOT.

So, you think libertarian position is: Drum roll…

Government does have right to limit the number of child a rich father can make.
Then you said this better than my self:

Quote

Having more children than the “replacement rate” is CHILD ABUSE

Is that what you’re saying?


1. Government has no right to prevent the poor to keep breeding children. In India and Indonesia, for example, child of the poor are just starving and government should just let that happen. But it’s legal to keep breeding kids you can’t afford to educate, clothe, and feed.
2. Yet government does have a justifiable case to limit the number of child rich smart males can make.

Is that what you’re saying?

It doesn’t matter that each kids of a billionaire ended up being more successful than each kid of homeless bum in a welfare less state. It doesn’t matter that you can have it both way, quality and quantity, in businesses. It doesn’t even matter that the rich smart billionaires, maybe nobel laurates, already give better genes to those kids. It doesn’t matter that in modern state, kids learn mainly from video games rather than government infested schools or father’s “quality time” that’s made obsolete by iPad. It doesn’t matter if my kids can do programming before they age ten. It doesn’t matter that if mom doesn’t have to work kids will have access to more mom’s time. Billionaires just can’t make more than 2.1 kids.

So where can that billionaire inherit all his wealth if he only has 2 kids?

Damn and all this time I thought the mullahs are the greatest threat of freedom. At least they allow contract marriage and polygamy though I still hate them for criminalizing porn and sex outside their pimphood called marriage.

No wonder you got economy crisis. Maybe those creationists are right. We are getting dumber. No wonder we keep killing each other.

Yet it’s legal to mate with that homeless bum as long as he is single and it’s illegal for hot babes to agree to share a rich smart males. And who decide that? The woman? No. You. You believe what’s good for “teh children” and you effectively say that you and government can decide who the women should choose. Namely they much choose a man that doesn’t have 2.1 kids yet.

That’s what you think is ideal?

If that’s libertarianism, I am not a libertarian. In fact, I realized I am closer to minarchist. Hei, I may be somewhere between minarchist and social democrat actually. Even that social democrat don’t limit freedom as much. I am surprised that this is what most white people think. That somehow it’s not okay to make many kids even if you can afford it. That’s how they’re dysgenic, like chinese. Well, I guess I realized now that I have no allies.

Also who says that replacement rate is 2.1? If a man is so rich and attractive like Tiger Wood and have 10 mistresses, his replacement rate is 12.1 right?

Incoming search terms:

  • choose hottest babes
  • powered by phpBB criminal background check
  • powered by phpBB religion in korea
  • pregnant harem
  • powered by phpBB girls basketball
  • powered by phpBB petroleum used ancient cultures
  • powered by phpBB different cultures in turkey
  • powered by phpBB nature of logic and perception
  • www afghanistan hot babes com
  • www googlehotbaes
  • afghanistan hot babe
  • powered by phpBB money tree craft
  • powered by phpBB korean culture
  • powered by phpBB asian television
  • harem pregnant
  • babesmales
  • www hotafghanbabes

March 8, 2012

Why Marriage Sucks and Why Anything Outside is Good

Actually throughout history polygamy has been the norm. Even the xian holy book has stories of men in polygamist marriages desopite xians claim that a traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. The fact is that the traditional marriage is an arrangement between one man and more than one woman. I have 2 theories on why monogamy became the norm. 1. Men who were in positions of political authority or men who were wealthy wanted a lot of women for their wives so laws were enacted that limited most men to one wife and the men of the political class could have more than one wife at a time. 2. Somehow women convinced men that they should be limited to one wife who they would be faithful to for the rest of their life. I think it stands to reason that it is unlikely that a man came up with the idea of monogamy for all men. It had to have been a woman who came up wit that idea. It just is not natural for a man to desire one woman for the rest of his life. :D

Your #1 theory is correct. Wealthy males tend to have more women. We’re getting there. Then laws were enacted. Enacted by who? Political class? That’s correct too. Polygamy ration females to politicians and those they favor. See afghanistan.

#2 is complex. Democracy is mainly about FORCE, not people convincing something. Few things make sense with most political argument. I am not convinced that marriage is better than concubinage. But I faced strong social pressure to get married. We all are. As for wife convincing their husband. Well, many women (and men) don’t mind sharing. Polygamy and polyandry do occurs consensually if that’s what you mean. Also when voting, men and women tend to behave the same way. I may be a man, but I had  a daughter and sister, for example, that also influence my voting behavior. So it’s not exact.

I think anti polygamy laws attract most single male voters. Anti women trafficking laws is preferred by most ugly single female voters. I may be wrong. At the end it’s voters’ interest, not the interest of consenting parties that matter. There are more singles than studs. So it’s normal that studs always get voted down.

Xian book has stories of men in polygamist marriage. That’s obvious. Did I mention that ONLY western civilization practice monogamy? Xian’s book, Tanach, is written during monarchy era. The interest of large numbers of single male voters don’t matter there so they have no problem with polygamy. In fact, polygamy is NOT a problem everywhere else except in democracy.

I do think those who opposes polygamy has a case. Polygamy always correlate with tyranny (like in muslim countries), while monogamy always correlate with socialism (like in western countries). That’s why I think we should abandon all “gamy” and concentrate promoting free market alternative.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB people who have changed the world

March 7, 2012

December 24, 2011

Is it a sin for jews to buy/rent/hire/acquire palestinians concubines/sex workers/sugar babies?

The bible prohibits jews from selling their daughters as prostitutes.

There is nothing in the bible that prohibit jews from hiring prostitute. Also nowadays, daughters tend to sell themselves anyway.

The palestines have grown numerous in number due to their high birth rate. Left uncheck they may ally with your enemies against you, if not already.

You can kill them all. But it’s politically incorrect since holocaust or something.

You can kill all their newborn sons. But that would be inefficient. Chicken farmers also kill 90% of all newborn male chicks. They know full well that it won’t dent the population a bit.

But their women keep giving birth to future suicide bombers. Why not hire those women to give birth to future bankers, doctors, lawyers, and scientists instead?

Can’t be through marriage because polygamy is illegal in Israel. But women don’t care. Last time I check women prefer bankers, doctors, lawyers, and scientists.

Actual arrangements are secondary. Exclusivity is not important for beautiful women. You can check http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/764/does-marriage-terms-tend-to-kick-out-more-desirable-mates-males-out-of-mating-ma/765#765

Of course there is an issue whether palestinian girls are hot enough for jews or not. Well, maybe top 20% percentiles would do. Males aren’t that picky. The prettier the girls, the less religious they are.

Another issue is the full blood vs mixed. Still half of 100 is still 50. Full of 2 to 3 is still only 2 to 3.

That should send a message to all palestinians and all other males in the world that unless they too excel in science or business, all their seeds will be spilled on the ground. Literally.

So the last compunction should be, is it sinful?

Note:

This post is a joke as most posts in this website. It contains some exaggerations that’s essentially true.

The reality is I was sick of violent and wonder whether economic competition can replace false politics and war.

Both sides kill each other and lie to justify it. If I just said that plainly, then people would get defensive saying that’s it’s the other side that’s total asshole. So I made jokes about it instead. I do not think those who are so eager to kill or justify killing of other humans deserve so much respect that we shouldn’t joke about them. I guess things ended up even more offensive. But hei, people are killing each other. So what if we made fun of them.

The question it self is pretty serious though. Is it a sin to hire sugar babies?

Why killing, bombing, suicide bombing, mass murders, slavery, or even genocide is okay yet normal consensual financially responsible transaction is not?

There is nothing in the bible that prohibits that. Solomon has tons of concubines. It’s consensual. Paternity tests can determine fatherhood far more accurately and humanely than stoning potentially adulterous women. Contemporary marriage terms are so different than ancient marriage terms it’s essentially a different deal. No body get married in biblical sense nowadays anyway.

October 27, 2011

Does legalizing prostitution lead to an increase in human trafficking?

Yes but nowhere like the way opponents of prostitution and women trafficking want us to believe.

Some background.

Why? The reason why prostitution is prohibited is not there to protect women. Think about it. If prostitution is legal, what would stop Bill Gates from hiring a harem?

Prostitution is prohibited for the same reason polygamy is prohibited. To protect men that can’t pay rather than women. You can read Matt Ridley’s book for more info on this. You can read more discussion here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/krdd8/why_is_polygamy_illegal/ You can also read Get rich bang bitch http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/38264

A lot of male admit that they can’t compete with more desirable male and argue that it’s the reason why we should keep polygamy illegal. Prostitution is the same thing.

Criminalization of prostitution cause huge chilling effect on so many other consensual acts. Men, cannot effectively support his girl friend outside marriage due to anti prostitution law. Well, some may argue that you can. You can’t pay her cash but you can pay her rent, etc. But who knows how the law goes?

What about women trafficking? It’s the same thing. Women trafficking is there to protect, oh well, women. However, it’s not there to protect trafficked women. Women trafficking is there to protect women in rich countries from having to compete with cheaper and prettier women from poorer countries.

In other word, even if all trafficked women are happy having sex with richer guys, I would bet that many women would still oppose this so called women trafficking. They have enough huge motive to prohibit trafficking irrelevant of consent. It’s the same reason I know why MANY males have huge motive to prohibit prostitution and polygamy irrelevant of consent. It’s the same reason why I believe robbers have huge motive to well grab your money, irrelevant of whether God or you like it or not.

There are true motives, there are justification. The latter can be anything. The motives most easily explained away from selfishness is obviously the most correct. Humans, after all are very selfish.

The majority of so called trafficking is VERY consensual. I mean it’s very obvious. One can more easily argue that marriage is less consensual than trafficking and prostitution.

After all, why would anyone allow government to be the pimp of their sexual relationship with no force whatsoever. Why would any rich male want to bet half his assets for a woman? And why would most women choose to be the only one for poorer males than sharing a richer males?

Imagine if all kind of marriage and all kind of commercialized sexual relationship is legal. Would anyone still get married? How much?

Many culture have restriction against sex outside marriage. Society actually prohibit prostitution and yet women do it anyway. That’s how much many women want to be prostitute.

In Afganistan women can’t even work outside marriage. If you don’t count marriage in Afganistan as forced marriage -> forced sex -> rape, I don’t know what is.

If a robber says you can’t leave until you pay, we will all agree that the paying is not consensual. In most cultures, government effectively say you can’t have sex outside marriage. Even in US, you can’t easily support your mate outside marriage.

Does legalizing prostitution increase women trafficking? Again, this is another vague language that’s hard to answer. Imagine if prostitution is legal. Imagine if women trafficking include consensual women trafficking. Of course it does. When things are legal, then more people would want to do it. When it’s illegal, women have to pay a lot for pimps. When things are legal they get more. All the money that used to go to the pimp will go to them.

So yes more will want to do it. However, it’s no where as what those anti freedom people want us to believe.

It’s like asking if government stop tariff against import goods will there be more import goods? If government make iPhone legal, will there be more iPhone? Yes. It’s the way it should be.

October 12, 2011

Can we Predict Religious Doctrines?

“Atheistic theories of religion” don’t predict the features of religion you claim. Those theories have been designed so that they fit with what has been observed about religion in the past. A prediction would be a claim about a new religion that hasn’t yet been observed. An acceptable substitute for a prediction would be a retrodiction, eg. predicting what will be discovered about a religion from the past whose details haven’t yet been uncovered. I don’t know any examples of either non-trivial prediction or retrodiction in this area. Maybe you know some.

That’s a very valid point. Well, let’s take this one. Predicting all religions are difficult. However predicting what would the popular religion be or what the popular religious interpretation would be will be easy.

In a country where freedom of religion is highly valued, the religions that are popular will be the liberal and moderate. In a country where power decide what you can believe, the popular religions will be the one that serve the interest of thugs and those less competitive.

Most religious people says that we shouldn’t have free sex.

Atheistic theories like evolutionary psychology predict that the real reason is because they want to control us. After all, free sex means free to choose. A lot won’t get chosen if people are free.

We also predict that mates will be rationed somewhat proportional to political power.

One man one vote soon leads to one man one vote. The very thing that directly compete with marriage will be the one prohibited most.

Got so far?

Now, I do not need to know what jews or persians or moabites or chinese or mongols or whatever worship. I don’t need to know the name of their god.

I would predict that in monarch, polygamy will be okay and in democracy it will not be okay. Also I would predict that in monarch norms against sex outside marriage will be stronger because those in power would want to be the pimp of all women and hence doesn’t want people to get laid without their permission.

Tada…. Correct.

Ancient jews practice polygamy. Ancient greek, as well as virtually all modern democratic countries prohibit it.

See. Simple. The religion may be totally different or the same. One may argue that christianity is a “continuation” of judaism. it doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter what God or what religion a country is.

Turkey, for example, is filled with muslim. Is polygamy legal there? Simple. Is turkey democratic? Yes. Polygamy legal? No.

Ancient judaism is root of christianity. Is polygamy legal there? Simple. Is ancient jews democratic? No. Polygamy legal? Yes.

We don’t need the scripture or the pray or anything. We can just look at political structure and predict the norm. Then whatever religion are common on those norm will simply match the norm.

Maybe you call me cheating. After all those are all known religion. Here’s the thing. I don’t know those. Someone else know. Yet I can predict.

Here is another one. Humans’ max out profit. Religious interpretation will max out profit for religious interpreter.

In other word, we would predict that humans will kill each other over a doctrine if that doctrines greatly affect well being of religious leaders.

Again I am using religions we all know. But still you can interpolate it to religious “I” don’t know yet and it’ll still be correct.

Ancient jews and israel are hostile to each other over where should Yahweh worshipper worship Yahweh. Is it in Jerusalem or in Samaria. Easy. The location where you worship Yahweh is the location where you got to come and be indoctrinated by the owner of the location. Quite obviously the judah kings want people to worship in jerusalem and israel king want people to worship in samaria.

Christians and Arians kill each other whether Jesus is God or not. That’s fit the data again. What people belief will decide who becomes the main bishop in rome. It decides who ended up becoming leaders.

Then look how Islam fight among Sunni and Syiah. I do need to read quran to predict that somehow the doctrines will affect who people think should be their leader.

What else? Religion always pro status quo. You can verify that to history.

Ah ya, liberal and atheists tend to be ally. They both undermine influence of religious leaders. So religous people would tend to see atheists as evil. After all they are under mind spell of religious leaders. Again it won’t matter what’s the religion is. When a religion influence politic, I bet that’s what will happen.

What else?

Hmm… This is my favorite. Why Christians are not careful in making sure that they do not wear wools and cotons? The bible said so?

Guess what. The truth is the bible doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter if God told people not to wear wools and cotons 1000 times, christians won’t think it’s important. It doesn’t matter that nowhere God ever say that you shouldn’t have sex outside marriage. That’s what christians will always said.

After all politically correctness stem from the interest of those who are in power. People obviously want to interpret their religion in ways that are politically correct.

Again, people’s interest, instead of scripture, correctly predict what people will believe as religious.

Recently my budhist friend told me that Budha said polygamy is sin. I was laughing.

Recently a muslim in TV told people that ALL religions prohibit usury. Gee. I wonder how he could predict that ALL religion prohibit usury? The truth is it doesn’t. However, he does have some point. All popular religion that are APPROVED by those who are in power will be most likely politically incorrect.

We would predict that all such religions will also prohibit porn, anti free sex, anti drugs. Somehow their God doesn’t know that cigarettes are more dangerous than ecstasy.

Incoming search terms:

  • eva syiahi
  • www beautifulnekedwomen

September 22, 2011

September 12, 2011

Why does western culture detest polygamy while being permissive toward adultery and extramarital affairs?

That’s basically the essence of western sexual morality. Anyone can bang your wife but you (marital rape is illegal), and any kid deserve your money, except yours. Okay that’s a joke. But if you interpret lack of reward as punishment, and anything punished as prohibited, and consider marriage as a form of prostitution, it won’t be too far of to accept.

It’s not that bad considering the alternatives though. It all comes from what I call, inevitability of power.

So, basically different people favor different ideologies. Different cultures are controlled by different people and hence tend to have different values. Interests of the people that are in control decide the prevailing morality in a society.

So, basically different people favor different ideologies. Different cultures are controlled by different people and hence tend to have different values. Interests of the people that are in control decide the prevailing morality in a society.

Marriage as government favored sexual relationship

Marriage can be very intuitively defined as government favored sexual relationship.

Think about it. Marriage terms vary from places to places from time to time, but there is one thing in common for all marriage. Marriage is always the most politically correct sexual relationship.

What makes something politically correct?

Something is politically correct when people think it’s “right”. People often think something is right because God or somebody approve it. However, that theory simply doesn’t fit the data or is hard to test. A better theory is that people think something is right if those in power approve it.

So what makes something politically correct? Simple. The interest of those who are in power.

Egalitarian nature of western civilization

Western civilization is unique among all other civilization for a trait that most would find surprising. In western civilization, men tend to be equal. Don’t know how that works. The ancient chinese or persian would actually bow down to emperors. The ancient greeks doesn’t.

Perhaps constant welfare and dividing languages give western men bigger bargaining position toward their leaders. Some said invention of long bows giving peasants and merchants bigger power.

GINI index is always high in Asia no matter what the economic system is. GINI index tend to be lower in western civilization, again no matter what the economic system is. Asians are used to hierarchy. White guys don’t. Well, Persian, Indians, and arabs are white too.

In western civilization and only in western civilization or their “westernized counterpart” lower status males tend to have higher bargaining position. I said westernized counter part because most of us, including the chinese, are effectively part of western civilization now due to westernization of everything.

Think about it

1. Socialism

2. Democracy

3. Monogamy

All tend to redistribute something to the mass. Socialism redistributes wealth. Democracy redistributes power. Monogamy redistributes women. Guess what, all are product of western civilization.

I am not saying it’s good or bad. Obviously hierarchy and disparity of result has very important function to motivate people to perform. I am just explaining things.

In Asia we don’t have equality. You lose you die. You win, you win big. Most asians won’t bother questioning why the emperors can have 1000 concubines. They can get their whole family slaughtered. Most asians won’t bother asking why an emperor have right to slaughter families?

The closest equality we have in China is probably during the Sung dynasty where even the emperor would be punished if they break the law. After that, none.

There is only one civilization where the lowest common men have enough balls to question and challenge the alpha males. Western civilization (or “westernized” civilization).

Legalizing your winning strategies while prohibiting your main competitors’ winning strategies

So what does that have anything to do with polygamy and extra marital sex?

Simple.

Natural resources tend to get divided proportional with political power. One man one vote soon leads to one man one wife.

Got that?

In arab, monogamy doesn’t make sense. The king and tyrants are in power. Obviously they all want more. The king simply chooses to be assertive enough and call such relationship marriage.

In western civilization, any king that grabs too many women will be very unpopular. When there are contests for the thrones, those kings, or presidential candidates, would lost a lot of vote if people figure out they support polygamy.

I suppose the king in arab will be unpopular too if they grab too many women. But who care? The lesser cocks are powerless anyway. Also some arab kings, like Dubai kings, are wise enough to govern their country well that their people are quite happy.

Moreover, rich arab countries can always import women from neighboring countries. So, pressure to prohibit polygamy is simply far less than in western civilization.

Western men cannot easily import women from neighboring countries. That’s because western women, just like the males, can vote too and do not want competition from cheaper competitors oversea. That’s how we hear so much bad publicity about women trafficking even though most trafficked women actually prefer richer western males.

Now what about adultery and extra marital sex?

That’s the thing. As any socialists would soon learn, there is no such thing as equality of outcome. Humans are different. Some will get more and some will get less.

So in western civilization, just like in any civilization, you can get many women despite prohibition of polygamy.

It’s just like how you can be very rich in a socialist society. Not in theory, not legally, not openly, but you can.

You see, polygamy is like winning openly. It’s like saying, see I am ubber alles, all of you are lesser than I am, and well I am banging all the bitches that you yearn for, and there is nothing you can do about it. Well you can sort of do that, but you can’t expect all those who don’t get any because of you to be saying, “Hell yeah.”

Marriage is socially approved sexual relationship. Relationships where Justin Bieber, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet gets all the chicks are not the kind of relationship most males would say, “Hell yea”. It’s not going to be marriage. It can be done, but it won’t be an openly socially approved sexual relationship. Not in a democratic western civilization.

You can do that. But in western civilization, you can’t do that openly. There is no way you can get many women with approval of the majority of men around you. If you want to do it, be quite.

Because polygamy is illegal, despite natural, the only way to do the equivalent of polygamy is outside marriage. So there is a bigger pressure for sex outside marriage to be legal in western civilization. Too many people wanting it.

Outside western civilization, and before invention of DNA tests. Marriage has one very important role in society. Marriage is the ONLY way to know fatherhood. That assurance is established brutally. Women that get caught cheating will get stoned to death.

Some would think it’s excessive. But when things are done so commonly, there is usually some upside, at least for those who are in power. When men are sure that their whole wealth will go to their son, they are more diligent, hardworking, and risk taking. They value honor more than immediate profit because at the end honor and trustworthiness can bring money which will go to kids.

If adultery were legal, there will be less intensive to work hard and accumulate wealth. There will be too much intensive to seduce someone else’s wife instead. Obviously such culture are less likely to spread. Imagine hordes of Vikings and Mongols attacking your city and all the men are like Justin Bieber?

Society needs brick layers, engineers, sword wielders. Most men won’t bother becoming that if they can’t be sure that wealth and status they earn by laying bricks or swinging sword can’t go to their own child.

After 1000 years, most societies tend to be patriarchal with stiff penalty against adultery. Including western civilization.

However, we need to remember that in western civilization, main use of marriage is not to test fatherhood. At least not now. Main use of western civilizations’ common marriage is to ration females in equal share for everyone.

Marriage has a secondary use besides deciding fatherhood. Marriage is there to ration mates to those who are in power. In western civilization this second use is far more significant.

In western civilization you are already obligated to support everybody’s kid anyway whether it’s your kid or not, due to socialism. Also recently, we have DNA tests to decide fatherhood, greatly lessening the traditional importance of marriage. If I want to be sure that my kids are mine, I no longer need to get married. I just test my kids’ DNA.

Also adultery gives the poor males a chance “to win too”. Think about it. If you’re a milk man, how do you win if you have to compete with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? What I mean by winning here, means attracting higher quantity and quality of women.

If prostitution is legal, definitely you can’t win. If adultery is illegal, it’s hard to win too. Even if you can attract those women, who would feed your kids?

So it’s natural than that many poorer males in western civilization vote for

  1. Prohibition of prostitution
  2. Forcing richer males to pay even for kids that’s not his
  3. Higher welfare program so that the rich are forced to feed all their kids

In western civilization, the mass are the one who are in power and morality tends to move toward that direction.

Not all poor people like that of course. Also I am not saying this to portray the poor as evil. However, I am simply trying to point out what typical conflict of interests between the poor and the rich. We simply have different interests and hence we have different opinions on what moral value to support.

It’s the same reason why many oppose death penalty. They are robbers or robber’s family that sympathize with robbers. In ancient England, when the rich are in power, people can get death penalty for pick pocketing. When the poor in power, it’s often the home owners that defend their property that go to jail rather than the robbers.

Adultery follow similar pattern. There is absolutely no punishment for adultery in western civilization. In fact, adultery is actually rewarded by the court system. Males often have to support kids that’ not his own in case of adultery even though DNA tests show that the kids are not his.

Yes all these hurt the rich. But again, unique in western civilization, the rich are NOT powerful. Hence the rich do not decide morality. Maybe that’ll change now that disparity of wealth is growing. Also globalization means that the rich has one very important right, namely the right to flee to China where hierarchies are more tolerated. However, that’s not happening fully yet.

Cultural comparison

Let’s compare this with Arab, for example. In arab, the rich is powerful. In fact, in oil rich countries like most arab countries, the way to get rich is to be in power. Those in power will decide

  1. No sex outside marriage. That is, no sex without approval of those who are in power
  2. Allowing polygamy. Only those who are in power or get approved by those who are in power can get laid. The powerful in Arab, like bin Laden, effectively become the pimps of all women. You can get women there only if alpha males approve. Now you wonder how they motivate men bash themselves to your building and why their religious leaders are so obsessed about sex.
  3. No porn. The less people want women the better.
  4. Yea obviously they are more likely to kill each other over who get laid. Like there is any culture that doesn’t.

In arab, men has more intensive to be in power. The arab leaders then wisely channel those men to fight some great Satan, such as US or Israel, which everyone somehow has to believe as faith.

In China, money rules everything and chinese civilization tend to be much smaller. So we have

  1. Toleration of prostitution. Until communist rules, prostitution is always legal.
  2. Even when prostitution is illegal, you can always get that somehow if you have money. However, you only have that in Chinese dominated regions. At least that’s how it works in my countries.
  3. Polygamy is not common. Why fight authority? Concubines are common.
  4. Corruption. Obviously if you’re rich but not powerful, you simply pay up. Very common in all Chinese influenced society.

August 31, 2011

Why I discourage marriage a lot?

Well there are many reason. However, perhaps one story should illustrate my point.

One day I was reading an anti polygamy forum. I am not advocating polygamy as I detest all marriage, but I read anyway out of curiosity.

One guy blurted. We got to prohibit polygamy. In my neighbor there is still one male that doesn’t have a wife yet.

My first reaction is, so what?

So what if some guys doesn’t get laid? Yea that’s sad, but that’s his problem. Not mine. If I am rich I want to bang a lot. If I am poor, I don’t need any women.

Also if some guy don’t get laid, maybe something is wrong with him. Maybe he’s not rich yet. May be he’s not attractive enough yet. Why not let the women decide.

So what if some guy don’t get laid?

Well here is what.

The vote for that guy dictate your marital terms.

So you see. Marriage is not about what’s best for you. So many people say that marital terms are made to protect women, or protect men. No. Marital terms are there to protect that one guy that doesn’t get laid yet.

That’s the reason why we have monogamy. That’s the reason why alimony laws are financially devastating for the rich. It’s not for the men obviously. It’s not for the women either.

Many women would rather share a rich smart men than be the only one for the poor. I, as a man, would rather share a smart beautiful girl rather than be the only one for the ugly.

It’s for that one shagless guy that don’t get laid yet.

In muslim countries sex outside marriage is prohibited. So what?

Getting married doesn’t seem to be such a hassle. Yea just get married. Here’s the thing.

The interest of those in power decides marital terms.

You see why all the hatred? They want to impose their interests to you. It’s that simple. Obviously one of those interests are rationing women to them. All under non sense pretext of God’s will or even women’s interest.

Here is what max out women’s interest. Let them choose. Duh…

That’s how I hate marriage.

December 25, 2010

Why Consensual Acts are Prohibited

FDA prohibits unapproved drug

1. It’s bad drug. We agree.
2. They sucks but still fit the taste of some. Still let the market decide.
3. It’s there just to get rid competition from some possibly better and safer drugs. I strongly disagree.

Government prohibit buying cars from China
1. Chinese cars sucks. We agree.
2. They sucks but still fit the taste of some. Still let the market decide.
3. It’s there just to get rid competition from some possibly better and cheaper car offers. I strongly disagree.

Government prohibit asian foods citing health concern
1. Asian food sucks. We agree
2. It sucks but could fit the taste of some. So let the market decide.
3. It’s just pressure to get rid competition from some possibly better and tastier food. I strongly disagree.

Government prohibit prostitution, polygamy and contract marriage.
1. Prostitution sucks. We agree
2. Prostitution sucks but maybe good for some. Still let the market decice.
3. It’s just pressure to get rid competition from some possibly fairer and preferable contract. I strongly disagree.

What’s your position on all?

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

Loading...