Free Market Forever

March 8, 2012

Two Ideas We Should Fight For

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

1. Government must not interfere at all in consensual sex and reproduction. Every sex and reproductive acts between consenting adult should be legal whether it’s commercialized or not. Marriage should not get any favorable treatment compared to prostitution. It’s not up to government to decide which one is which (which is very confusing even for most philosophers anyway).

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

You can check explanation here http://freemarketforever.com/2012/03/08/freedom-and-compromise/ You don’t have to agree with it. It’s just an explanation why this idea is not just an ideal but an actually practically good idea that will bring good results. Others are not libertarian and we need more ammo to convince them than simply it’s freedom.

1b. Men (and anyone) should compete globally and women are free to choose any male (or partner) from any country under any consensual terms

Of course when I use words like men/women, it should work the other way around too. It’s just that the politic nowadays tend to presume that women are coerced but not men. So I’ll make that easier.

This is just a corollary of 1.

Why bitch about women being oppressed by Taliban? Just allow them to immigrate here. Allow oppressed women (or anyone oppressed) from Taliban(or anywhere else) to be girlfriends/wives/sugar babies/sex workers/employers/businessmen in western countries (or asia). Restrict women trafficking laws to only punish non consensual trafficking. Then Taliban would go extinct by themselves. Just put some additional safeguard ensuring that it’s consensual. I am sure 95% of Afghan women are better of being fuck toy here than becoming a wife of some cavemen. Let THEM choose.

2. Decouple redistribution of wealth with number of kids/needs.
This is a compromise, not ideal. Ideally there is no redistribution of wealth. Now that there is, we should decouple it.

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

For the same reason, government shouldn’t help someone just because he is poorer and sicker. Ideally there is 0 money for them. But if government pay for the poor and sick, government should also give cash to the rich and healthy. Simple right? Less incentive to be poor and sick.

It’s Milton Friedman’s idea actually.

What is the problem? Which one you disagree? Yes both have eugenic gene pool survival implication. However, as usual you do not need to agree with me on that. As a libertarian, do you think it’s a good idea already even without it?

BTW: I read about a dimwitted women who got their uterus cut against her wish. I am NOT advocating that. It’s not up to government to decide who is unworthy. That is NOT my idea.

Incoming search terms:

  • naked slaves
  • NAKED BABES
  • asian naked girls
  • naked girls
  • powered by phpBB hot models
  • chinese girls
  • teen naked
  • very rich sugar daddy
  • naked japanese slave woman
  • hot naked teens
  • hot teen asia
  • teenage NAKED BABES
  • oriental harem
  • sugar babies
  • naked asian girl
  • naked asian woman
  • naked girl japanese
  • naked men model
  • naked pretty girl
  • prostitution market
  • slave girls at market
  • naked asian teens
  • naked asian teen
  • Asian girl sugar daddy
  • asian hot naked men
  • asian hot teens
  • asian naked girl
  • asian naked teen
  • fighting naked asian women
  • free sugar daddy partners- fuck sugar baby good
  • hot asian teens
  • hot asian women model
  • hot naked men
  • hot naked women
  • hot nakephoto
  • hot slavegirl
  • japan teen naked
  • marketing@segurbaby co
  • asain nake girl

February 24, 2012

Is there any formal school of ethics that justify cruel treatment of people?

I must be missing something. Through all ages, most philosophy, especially those that answer ethics, allow and encourage cruel acts against other human being. It’s the norm. It’s not the exception.

We like to believe that it’s only done on exceptional cases. Still, those exception is more of a norm than exception.

In fact, libertarianism is the only school of ethics that do not justify cruelty, at least not consensually, nor encourage cruelty to others. Exceptions are arguable like in cases of shooting burglars slowly to death. But the burglars ask for it so it’s like consensual right? Okay just kidding but you got the point.

It’s as if the very reason why philosophy and religion is made is to justify cruel acts.

Normally we retaliate against cruel acts. But then, ah, through some long twisted philosophy of ethics, we start thinking oh it’s justified, it’s okay.

We see people getting tortured to death. Well according to legalism, a school of ethic, it’s the law of the land. So it’s okay. That sort of thing.

And that’s I think the real origin of ethic. Some tyrants sponsoring thought that justify his cruelty so he can stay in powah.

In fact, one central theme of taoism is that even robbers cause limited damage. But evil in the name of truth (=awesome ethic) has no limit.

Perhaps the issue is whether the school of ethic is formal. Perhaps formal means major. Well these look formal enough to me:

Legalism obviously.

If it’s the law, it’s okay.

It justify killing, strangling, crucifying, castrating, slaughtering to 9th degree of family. What doesn’t it justify?

Religion is another.

Religions should count as a school of ethic too, if not the main ones.

It justify war, genocide, slavery, just read book of exodus in bible. Just look how Taliban works.

Why? Well, God says so. Hmmmm. mmmmkay

Militarism is another.

It justify shooting other people. Yes those are technically enemy. But then again most guys in Hiroshima weren’t soldiers. So are most women raped by rusian army. So were jews that died during holocaust.

C’mon guys. They just want to kill. Then they come up with some philosophy why it’s cool to kill.

Now let’s count some indirect circumstances.

We need food. Say you prohibit someone from getting food in any practical way. You effectively force him to starve right?

Imagine if you said okay you can get food but you can’t pay for it. Well that’s still as good as forcing him to starve because unless you are very charming then you most likely can’t get food without paying.

So if we can include any philosophy that may not justify cruelty but justify acts that obviously lead to cruel outcome and use felonious murder legal doctrine logic we should include:

Trade restriction-ism

It’s a school of ethic. It basically says that some consensual trade is not ethical and hence must be prohibited. What’s the result?

I think all evil in the world stem largely due to trade restrictions. Without trade restrictions we can be rich by helping others. Trade restrictions give more happiness to those who are in power than those who are productive. Basically profit in trade restriction-ism goes to those who have the power to restrict trade.

So people try to be in power more and act cruelly to others so they are feared.

World wars would not have happened if globalization was already the norm. Politicians cannot seize people money if the market regulate everything. Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson would have been alive if ganja is legal.

Everything we hear are just bullshit after bullshit to make us believe the fairy tales that some consensual trade is evil.

That’s the heart of evil.

The most notorious trade restrictionism is

Socialism

It’s a school of ethic. It says that wealth is not ethical

One notorious trade restriction-ism is socialism. It justify government intervention in economy that obviously lead to really really messed up famine and poverty. During chinese “great leap” or whatever, chinese eat their own kids because they are starving. Such is the evil of government’s intervention in economy.

The worst of the worst of trade restriction-ism is

The #1 super cruel philosophy in the world is, drum roll (looks like it’s going to be my last answers before I am kicked out from this site)

feminazism

It’s a major school of ethic. It says that some/all commercialized consensual acts for sex is not ethical.

It restrict trade and commercialization of the most important aspect of our life, sex.

Most males want to get laid. Imagine if you said you can’t have sex. Then you cruelly forced him into a shageless life. Imagine if you said you can’t have sex unless you pay for it? Well unless you’re Brad Pitt, it’s hard to charm women without “consideration”.. Yes you can offer marriage (I wonder why) but marriage sucks because it’s infested by non market force such as governments’ trade restriction.

Feminazism hurt the interest of hot babes even more than males.

Think about it. So many women are stoned, killed, and beaten up in Afghanistan. Obviously many of those women prefer to move out to other countries where women are treated better.

Feminists prohibit anyone from helping those women out. Yes, they said that you are prohibited from helping women move out only if the woman is going to have sex for money.

That’s still the same thing. What can that girl offer beside sex to persuade others to provide costly help for her? Even western girls often have sex with photographer for stardorm. It’s what girls do.

So many kids are born out of poverty because their dad are poor. Yet feminazis successfully make sugar babies illegal. So many hot babes cannot get paid by richer males. Those women ended up marrying. Marriage must be monogamous. In other word, every male will tend to get one under marriage system no matter how poor or violent he is.

Result is obvious. Women ended up with violent assholes that beat her up.

The only thing good about feminazism is that they demand women to fight on front line. Sure. We should encourage those dikes to do so.

February 12, 2012

Freedom for Women in Afghanistan

I have another idea for oppressed girls from Afghanistan. All we need is a millionaire that want to sponsor that girl and gave her place and a normal job for a year. After 1 year, gave that women a choice. She can choose to

1. Go back to Afghan. We can apologize for wasting their time and replace their 1 year salary of $20.

2. Keep working on any normal job. If they pick this, there could be some “capacity problems” where socialist workers will start bitching about immigrant hot babes taking away all their jobs. Typical western anti immigrant rhetoric. Well, but I bet 99% of them would choose to:

3. Be a sugar baby/wife of some guy should any western males manage to woo them. I suggest becoming a sugar baby rather than becoming a wife because marriage is too infested with religions, state influence, and who knows what. But it’s up to them. We just need to make sure that she is not coerced, or look coerced in any way. We really do not need coercion when competing with poor unshaven cave dwelling wife beating nose cutting Taliban dudes. However, some feminazis may will argue that our offers are non consensual and an exploitation precisely because of that.

4. Taliban discriminates against exhibitionists. Some Afghan women may be a closeted exhibitionists. They could be our next porn star and their movie can be parachuted into Taliban territory with cheap portable movie player as weapon of moral destruction in psychological war. Of course, any Taliban troops that want to surrender and study C++ can join the production. There are better ways to get constant stream of virgins beside suicide bombing. Try making  money.

That’s it. It’ll hit Taliban right where it hurts. They treat women badly, now all their women are going somewhere else for greener pocket. Let’s see how Osama/Omar/whatever can still win elections among all red blooded gun totting male terrorists if this keeps happening.

More women coming to western civilization means less men have to be single. Also most richer males that are sugar dadies are job creators. Those afghan hot babes can help them breed more effectively creating more job creators and hence more jobs. This will at least outperform all those Obama’s stimulus because no tax payer money is spent.

All those terrorists can just go fuck themselves literally.

Eventually all oppressed people will simply go to countries where they are not oppressed like jobs moving to China.

Everybody will have strong incentive to be productive rather than grabbing political power. Economic competition will be far more important than military might. We will turn our swords into iPad and our spears into XBox or (put your favorite gadget here).

Which ever system produce the richest countries, doesn’t have to be secular or democratic, will be the system that are flocked by womyn. All hot babes will have a never ending supply of rich smart males to choose from when males, like workers and companies, compete globally.

Every kids will have rich smart non violent biological dad that can actually attract women without having to resort to force, trade restriction, or beating.

We will also be more able (though not having to) afford socialism knowing that even with their welfare checks all males will still have huge incentive to work hard and get rich.

I think it’ll be even better when we can simply commercialize and liberalize everything but this should be a start of that.

As libertarian, the only thing that may be unethical in this is if government try to tax it. But hei, even if you’re not a libertarian, none of this thing should be more evil than actually sending troops there killing muslims.

Incoming search terms:

  • truly hot babes

January 13, 2012

Marines that Pee on Talibans end Talibanism than Those Killing Talibans

Spirits are the true self. Our bodies are just tools used by the spirits, the genes, the memes, the religions, to propagate itself.

Kill a taliban, and more bodies will born to replace used bodies.

Pee on Talibans. Spread porn. Hire afganistan hot babes as sex workers, and any Taliban will be over in no time.

That’s why people hate porn so much. Porn exterminate them faster than gun. They’d rather get shot than letting porn spread. What ever they hate, do it, and bigots will be exterminated quickly.

Incoming search terms:

  • harem fuck
  • powered by phpBB marines
  • afghan babes naked
  • babes harem
  • hot afghan babes
  • kızlar haremi
  • undressed women

November 27, 2011

I got two jobs, please help me select which one I should choose?

  1. The first one is from Britney Spears. She offered me a job for having sex with her regularly.
  2. The second one is from US government. They want me to fight some Taliban in the Afghanistan or something.

The pay is about the same.

Which one you will choose?

Which one most males would choose?

Which one would most females on equivalent situation will choose?

So why do feminists want women to be able to pick the 2nd option but not the first again?

Now let’s use feminazis logic:

Receiving cash for sex is prostitution. Prostitution is so degrading, inhuman, and can’t possibly be consensual. No women can truly consent to prostitution. Because men and women are the same, no men could possibly want it.

The latter seems better. It’s every feminists wet dream jobs. Feminists have been fighting so hard to be able to get the second job, it must be very good. It brings honors, respects, equality, yada yada yada… Not to mention the glorious possibility of honorably being tortured to death for ones’ country.

What do you think?

If I just follow my feeling, I’ll pick the #1. But all (feminist) logic says #2 is better.

Should you ever listen to feminist advice?

April 21, 2011

Is Marriage a Good Thing?

I am going to write a long answer for this. Let’s examine some analogy first:

Say you are farmers of mangos. Say there are those willing to pay a lot for those mangos.

You have several options
1. You can give the mangos away for free.
2. You can let your mangos rots.
3. You can sell your mangos to “small buyers” with great discount for those least able to pay for it.
4. You can max out your profit by selling it at market price?

Question: If 4 is illegal, will price for mangos go up or down? Does it make sense that some people want price to go down?

1. is free sex
2. is abstinence
3. is marriage
4. is prostitution

Obviously very few would do the first 3 if 4 is legal.

When it comes to mating, women are like mangos farmers. Their offers expire quickly.

Both men and women got things to offer to each other. Each of us want to get the best offers. Our offers’ market value drop as a function of time. Women’s offers drop very fast.

Yet, government prohibits humans to freely exchange what they have. The only alternative to government endorsed marriage is celibacy (option 2), and free sex (option 1).

Now lets’ examine another analogy.

You have a car. I decided who you can rent the car to, who can drive the car, who can sell the car, who can buy the car. It’s your car, but I decide. People would pay me for your car right? Why should they pay you? I decide. If latter you choose to take ownership of your own car, would I allow? Of course not, unless you got bigger gun than I am or offer money or something.

Let’s look at Taliban. Women “own” their body. Taliban decides who can rent it, who can use it, who can sell it, who can buy it. It’s the women’s body, but Taliban decides. What would Afgan males do? Obey the women? Of course not. What afgan males do is DIE for Taliban.

That’s how we control people. Know what they want and control it. That’s the same reason why we have laws against ecstasy, ganja, imported product, inheritance, etc.

That’s how Taliban are in power by the way. If we take away Taliban’s control of women, without bombing, without violence, all those regime would crumble by themselves.

However, western civilization is surprisingly not that different.

Western countries, just like Taliban, do not want to let women to freely choose who they want to mate with and on what terms. If women freely choose, too many will pick Bill Gates, Brad Pitt. The other male voters won’t get any or can only grab the ugly ones (unless consensual women trafficking is legal).

So just like the Taliban power decide what women should want. Usually mating against best selling men or those who can pay are heavily discouraged to ration females to more males, including poor, homosexuals and impotent ones.

So the answer is because most males can’t afford them if it were legal. It’s the same reason why polygamy is
illegal. To ration females in equal share for everyone, especially to those who can’t pay. I also mostly agree with Jason’s answer.

Women too have intensive to avoid prostitution. Ugly women, for example, would be better of if prostitution is illegal. They don’t get a high price in prostitution anyway. Prohibiting prostitution will hurt their inter sex competitors more than themselves. If something hurt others more than it hurt you, many humans will find that preferable. Just ask a suicide bomber.

Well not all married women will be out of biz, but it’ll be much tougher for alimony seeking vipers to get clients if they have to compete with cheaper hotter eastern european babes.

Read Matt Ridley’s red queen or any normal evolutionary psychology book.

It’s already science. It’s the reason why I am an agnostic.

Prostitution is effectively a privatized marriage. Prohibition of prostitution is then a price control. Plain and simple.

In prostitution women’s right of her body is respected. She decides the price, which will be very high if legal given that all the richest males would bid too. She decides who she can mate with. If she only want to sell her self to Brad Pitt or Bill Gates, rather than to someone single, it’s up to her. If she wants to give discount for richer smarter taller men, it’s up to her. If she wants high salary with no severance pay, it’s up to her. If she want her mate to only pay for his children, in exchange of getting richer mates that are willing to pay more, it’s up to her.

Everything is up to her.

In marriage, she decides little. Government, rather than consumers, or often religious leaders, decide who she can mate with and on what terms.

In Taliban women can only marry Taliban supporters or somebody the Taliban allow. See why Taliban has many loyal supporters? Legalize prostitution and porn in Afganistan and we’ll see the end of religious extremists. So the Taliban is effectively the pimp of all women for they, rather than the women, decide who and on what terms women can mate.

In US, she can only marry single men, which usually of lower quality for not being able to attract even a single mate. Or she can sell her self for free which is just below her market price. Same reasoning. Congress has effectively become the pimp against women’s wish.

Marriage means women need to charge less to poorer males. A housewife is a job with low salary and high severance pay. What kind of job have that kind of arrangement? The one whose deal made by government rather than consenting parties.

That effectively kick the rich out of mating market. As all price control, it causes market distortion and inefficient allocation of resources, which leads to poverty. Now, this market distortion is the biggest market distortion ever. It’s virtually the single cause of all poverty in the world.

The mere act of pointing this out will often meet harsh ad hominem attack by facists for no logical reason.

Why not let the women decide? You may disagree with me that prostitution is better than marriage. Fine. Why not let each girl decide? Who are we deciding what’s best for women?

NB: My maid’s sister got married and the husband just left leaving debt. It’s not even illegal. The law does nothing against that type of behavior. I saw many poor kids begging on the street. It’s NOT illegal to beget kids into poverty. Yet when some rich males consensually attract women on terms they agree, it’s a crime.

My class mate got married. She wanted a divorce but her husband does not let her. That’s what marriage really is in most countries: Legalized rape.

To persuade women to agree to get married, quite obviously those rapists need to prohibit better arrangements. In Taliban, women can’t even work to effectively force them to get married.

So no, I don’t hate women. I do not advocate rape or forcing. But that’s what forcing truly means, taking away all better alternatives under outrageous irrational, and hence naturally religious, pretexts.

April 17, 2011

March 6, 2011

Often Fraud or Force is Necessary

Say I tell Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Michael Jordan. “Don’t rape women okay?” Then I tell them further, “If women prefer some other males, it’s women’s right.” I bet Brad Pitt will say something along, “Okay. Sure. Why not.”

Now tell that to some ugly fat poor dumb guy on the street. Or better yet, what about telling that to any normal mediocre men. Let’s just face it. Most males won’t get laid easily unless they prevent women from picking other males. Even if they can, the quality of women they get will be much reduced.

Let’s face it. Many males won’t get laid if prostitution is legal. Many males won’t get laid if sex outside marriage is legal. And if those males are truly fucked up like the Taliban, they won’t get laid if women can work because they are so messed up women would rather work and be single rather than picking them.

Well that’s their problem, say most libertarians. I agree. It should be their problem and we shouldn’t even think about it. It’s not how real life work. Interests of those who are not our target market influence us non consensually. It’s just a fact of life.

In politic, everyone is, in a sense our target market, depending on the size of gun they point on our head. We still need to persuade them not to pull the trigger. To persuade people to do something that’s not their best interest, either force, fraud, or appeasement is necessary.

Hence, persuading Afgan males to respect women’s individuals’ right is just not going to work without fraud or force. Libertarianism simply don’t serve the best interest of those with little or nothing to offer.

Those with something attractive to offer do not need to resort to force to get customers. It’s not to the best interest of the rest, quite often, to get along and embrace freedom.

“You can’t eat freedom,” says a pro socialist guy when I asked “What can we achieve outside of free market that we can’t achieve inside?” Of course I would argue why the hell that kind of people survive in the gene pool in the first place, but that’s another issue. My idea on that is something most libertarians don’t agree anyway.

I must admit he’s correct. Freedom works for those with lots of positive things to offer for others. It’s simply not to the best interest of many voters to simply pick freedom. To counter dictatorship of the democracy, we would need either a tyrant (force), a religion (fraud), or a little socialism (appeasement). Only religious countries can maintain high gini index.

Libertarian insist on not becoming politically powerful. So force is out. Also they do not like forcing religions. So fraud is out. Then they don’t want to appease the poor. Then they insist that the power that be shouldn’t tax or harm them. That’s what you wish. You and what army?

Try telling free market proponents that they shouldn’t use terror and Milton Friedman will say something along, “We never bother to did we?”

Now, try telling terrorists that they shouldn’t use terror. It wouldn’t work. Free market proponents do not need to use terrors. Free market is sexy. It brings wealth to countries embracing it. People want free market. Most Hong Kong people at least.

Now imagine if you want to turn a society into something more like the Taliban. Not even democracy is stupid enough to go there. Certain things won’t work without terror.

To make people do something that’s not their best interest, either appeasement, force, or fraud is necessary.

It’s not to the best interest of typical terrorists to avoid terror.

The same goes for hungry welfare recipients, and most shagless males. Either appeasement, force, or fraud is necessary. Appeasing everyone is expensive. Forcing everyone require mights, which means numbers. Fraud is trickier in our informational age.

At the end, it’s easiest to simply appease those cheapest to appease if we want to maximize libertarianism in any country. By appeasing those who are cheap to appease, we can avoid having to appease those who can’t be appeased.

Typical solution in western society is to appease the poor with socialism, trick the shag-less males with romance bullshit, and fight the terrorists. I think they’re on the right course. What else should they have done?

Now, western society, like any society, overspend money on socialism. That’s because most of those appeasement inefficiently go to hard liners that is expensive, or impossible to appease. Also the money go through politicians first that have intensive to make the problem bigger than smaller. That’s why people like Milton Friedman argues in favor of straight forward negative income tax.

Milton however, doesn’t address the most fundamental problem in democracy. It’s simply too profitable to breed in democratic countries because everyone else pays the bill. Straight forward negative income tax will encourage the least productive members of the society to breed like rabbit. Perhaps, combined with kids’ tax, like in China, things will work out.

November 12, 2010

Safe, Legal, Popular, and Fun

About drug, there is something interesting.

Water is safe, legal, popular, but not psychotropic
Alcohol is legal, popular, psychotropic, but not safe
Salvia is safe, legal, psychotropic, but not popular yet
Ecstasy is safe, popular, psychotropic, and USED to be legal for decades, till it’s popular.

If government do not want you to have fun, they do not need to prohibit all drugs, just the popular ones.

Prohibiting POPULAR alternatives are then a great way to force people to do something you want. Something like donating trillions to your money.

In a sense robbers do not force you to give your money. They only block an otherwise popular alternative, namely walking away without paying.

Taliban does not force women to mate with their followers. They only prohibits women from becoming prostitute and working. The only alternative left is starving or marrying someone the Taliban approved.

Of course when the Taliban approve it’s called marriage, and when they don’t approve it’s called prostitution or something. What’s the difference anyway? At least the latter is not as exploitative.

See why many young males are willing to die for Taliban? It’s win win win. The Taliban win in getting followers. The young males win because there is no way they can compete with Brad Pitt.

The women? Well, it’s pretty easy to convince everyone that they’re protecting women. Not like what they want matters anyway. Even in democratic countries where women can vote, what happen is simply the ugly women deciding what the pretty can and should do.

The same way, if government wants to force you to get married and risk going to jail for 14 years and paying millions of dollars, it doesn’t need to prohibit all alternatives.

The one that doesn’t work too well like free sex (altruism), or abstinence (not fun) or lead to extinction (get a degree, compete with males on equal terms) can all be practiced openly or even encouraged.

No body force you to get married ha? No. It’s not bullshit. It’s magic worthy to learn. How do we force people without being perceived as “forcing.” Achieve without action. Do without doing.

It’s not right and wrong. It’s Yin Yang. Some more general pattern should emerge here. I am close to understanding it.

November 8, 2010

Fun, Legal, Popular, and Safe

About drug, there is something interesting.

Water is safe, legal, popular, but not psychotropic
Alcohol is legal, popular, psychotropic, but not safe
Salvia is safe, legal, psychotropic, but not popular yet
Ecstasy is safe, popular, psychotropic, and USED to be legal for decades, till it’s popular.

If government do not want you to have fun, they do not need to prohibit all drugs, just the popular ones.

Prohibiting POPULAR alternatives are then a great way to force people to do something you want. Something like donating trillions to legislators’ entertainment’s fund.

In a sense robbers do not force you to give your money. They only block an otherwise popular alternative, namely walking away without paying.

Taliban does not force women to mate with their followers. They only prohibits women from becoming prostitute and working. The only alternative left is starving or marrying someone the Taliban approved.

Of course when the Taliban approve it’s called marriage, and when they don’t approve it’s called prostitution or something. What’s the difference anyway? At least the latter is not as exploitative.

See why many young males are willing to die for Taliban? It’s win win win. The Taliban win in getting followers. The young males win because there is no way they can compete with Brad Pitt.

The women? Well, it’s pretty easy to convince everyone that they’re protecting women. Not like what they want matters anyway. Even in democratic countries where women can vote, what happen is simply the ugly women deciding what the pretty can and should do.

The same way, if government wants to force you to get married and risk going to jail for 14 years and paying millions of dollars, it doesn’t need to prohibit all alternatives.

The one that doesn’t work too well like free sex (altruism), or abstinence (not fun) or lead to extinction (get a degree, compete with males on equal terms) can all be practiced openly or even encouraged.

No body force you to get married ha? No. It’s not bullshit. It’s magic worthy to learn. How do we force people without being perceived as “forcing.” Achieve without action. Do without doing.

It’s not right and wrong. It’s Yin Yang. Some more general pattern should emerge here. I am close to understanding it.

For example, cohabitation agreement is effectively legal. You can even set an arbitrage clause for that. Just wait till it becomes a popular alternative to marriage. Then somebody will say it’s abusive, and then it’ll be illegal again.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

Loading...