The problem is not people are less generous. People are MORE generous now than they are thousands of years ago. In ancient time, the poor got only 2% of money in Muslim countries.

Now we pay 30% income tax most of which goes into wealth redistribution. What else, given that the market can provide far superior service more efficiently anyway. So we are 15 times more generous.

World GDP is 300 times it was 200 years ago. Human race is 300 times richer.

If we have the same number of fuck ups now than we have 200 years ago, non of those fuck ups will be “poor” by 1800 standard.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is the fuck ups, irresponsible, lazy, stupid, socialists bigots out breed the prudent, smart, diligent and hard working. The problem is we got smart people like HaRRo that are too willing to sacrifice himself in altar of socialism to fed the parasites. Sorry HaRRo. We got to repent.

Anyone opposing freedom want to enslave others. Yielding to their kind is like cutting our own hand throwing it to lions hoping the lions will become vegetarian. If anything, the lions will just breed and breed and kill us.

If you run the fastest you simply have to show that you too can hit the hardest.

I love poor people. Many of them work hard for me and we both make a lot of money. None of those that work hard for me work as hard as me though. But well, we’re getting somewhere.

It’s the mindset that’s wrong. We encourage the poor to breed by subsidizing those that make kids. When subsidy is given, supply and demand curve no longer meet creating surplus of humans, causing unemployment giving rise to more justification for bigger government in never ending vicious poverty cycle.

Just pay anyone that don’t have kids and legalize commercial sex so the best brightest richest (like our mods) can knock up all the hot babes. Then encourage porn so no ugly women get laid. Hell those ugly feminists can always enjoy their right becoming astronauts, programmers, scientists, or some grenade thrower in the front line anyway. I totally support affirmative action for all womyn that want to throw grenade in the front line, if they’re ugly.

Within 1 generation, all kids will have rich smart dad and hot sexy mom. No need to resort to violent to “exterminate” those we deem inferior.

But even those benign peaceful method is politically incorrect. We’re like gladiator being forced to kill each other by our leaders with their irrational faith based “morality”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luizeba This year, my family will ‘adopt’ a children for the Christmas and New Year week…it’ll be a 12 y.o girl She has parents, but she’s living in a State House due problems with her parents (probably in jail, I don’t know) It’ll be a great experience *-*

I got a better idea. Why not tell Dad to attract more women so you can have your own biological sister.

I mean if it’s his money that’s going to take care of her, why must it be someone else’s cock?

If I am paying, and the hot women prefer me, why should it be other man’s cock? If the women is not hot, I wouldn’t want to mate with her, nor would I want to raise her kid.

Oh because if women pick the rich, there are laws against polygamy, prostitution, pre conceive child support agreement, and so on and so on. But if some unproductive welfare parasites want to make kids, it’s human’s right. Yea some right. Right to rob taxpayers all their money.

Doesn’t make sense.

Once I am as rich as Bill Gates, I too will support millions of kids. All of which must be mine.

Heh… And capitalism is great folks. People in Africa and many part in Asia got poor because they don’t embrace capitalism to the fullest. Just import their prettiest women to be sex workers in rich countries and poof, there goes poverty. With porn, ugly women won’t get laid and the pretty will go somewhere. All the males in those countries will fight toe and nails for free market and everyone will get rich. Lest they go extinct.

My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.

Maybe it’s true that ugly women also fear rape. Fine. That still doesn’t justify opposition to porn and other consensual sex. If someone rape, punish the rapist. Simple. Why they hell they have to oppose consensual acts like porn and prostitution that actually reduce rape rather than increasing it.

The fact is most women that oppose porn are ugly. It’s as if they are soooooooooo afraid of rape that they want to prohibit porn because it may cause rape. This while the pretty often become porn star. Something is missing. I am saying that’s not true. The real issue is not because the ugly are more afraid of rape. The issue is because they got hidden motives.

The same goes for anti polygamy laws. It’s there to protect poor males. Of course there are males that have so many wives he cannot afford kids. Solution: Punish males that don’t support kids and set child support payment to be constant irrelevant of daddy’s wealth. But nooo… Can’t feed them, don’t breed them. That’s not the solution people pick don’t they?

EASY. This is the essence of evolutionary biology. In free market, what a person want is simple. What he chooses.

It’s not simple in non consensual act like rape. It’s also not simple when there are too many rules against consensual acts. So we need a third leg in the equation best interest=what he wants. The third equation is that both, in general, are most likely equal with gene pool survival.

According to evolution theory, people fear something if it reduces their gene pool survival. How do rape reduces women’s gene pool survival? It undermines women’s “choice” to mate with higher quality genes and her bargaining position to get resources in exchange of her sexual favor.

Say 2 women are equally pretty. One of them choose a mate and got a millionaire. The other get raped and mate with a hoodlum. That decrease her market value. So she ended up marrying someone poorer. See how rape sucks?

So the true cost is the lost of opportunity for the woman to mate with higher quality males or getting paid for the sexual service. It’s like software pirating. If people can pirate software why should they pay for it? So women also lost potential earning she could have gotten through the sexual service.

Let alone disease, etc.

Dignity is also an issue. If people hurt you and get away with it, it tells others that it’s okay to hit you. This is how the Jews got exterminated. They didn’t hit back hard enough that people start thinking that it’s okay to screw Jews. Eventually it leads to genocide. The same way unpunished rape means males can “use” the women without begging, buying chocolate, paying, caresing, bla bla bla, so why the hell should any male do all those to get her?

The prettier the woman the higher the cost, quite obviously. Pretty woman then lose more to rape than an ugly one. So I conclude that relative to prettier women, uglier women fear rape less.

Keep in mind that’s not really the point. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t punish rape against ugly women. I am arguing that all consensual sex, like porn, prostitution, and consensual women trafficking should all be legal.

Can we quantify damage? Well, to quantify damage we need market price. To know the market price, we need the market. Prostitution is illegal, so no market. But once it’s legal, you’ll see I am right.

Here is a simpler way to see it. Pretty women’s choice matter more. Males are willing to pay more to have prettier women choose him. In general. Rape take away women’s choice. So rape hurt the pretty more than the ugly.

Let’s ignore morality for a while.

Imagine a world where morality is just bullshit we use to persuade others to be on our side, usually enforceable by might. A world, not much different than the real one, but lets’ presume it’s true for a while.

Because there is no morality, there is no right. There is only interests. People want to maximize their interest.

Imagine if a woman is ugly.

Everyone wants to maximize their interest, and evolution theory tell us that it means reproducing.

Now here is an ugly woman.

What is the greatest danger this woman will face in successfully reproducing? Rape? Think again…

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.

Her main concern is competition.

Now if that women can choose, which one she will want to criminalize? Will she want to criminalize rape or porn?

Think about it, superior women. Ups. I got to pick my words correctly. Prettier women. Oh no… Beauty is in the eye of beholder. More attractive women. Hmm… that’s subjective. Let’s just say better “target market magnets” display all her assets in front of everyone. What will happen? It’ll create a new “industry standard” of beauty the rest must follow. It’ll drive the ugly extinct.

Now, put your self in the shoes of the ugly women. Wouldn’t she want to prohibit that?

Porn and prostitution is probably the only 2 jobs that most women can do better than males naturally. What I mean by naturally is women actually earn more money there than males even though they are not helped by affirmative action, etc. Isn’t it strange that the jobs that women do better are the very thing often prohibited? Also women want to prohibit that. However, if we understand reality, seeing through all the confusing words and look straight at photographs of those non libertarian feminists, everything should be pretty obvious.

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.