You’re right; I missed that quote from gdp.  And I certainly disagree with him on that point.  I don’t think having more than 2 kids is automatically child abuse.  “Child abuse” is a slippery term, but I’d say that having kids with the intent of abandoning them qualifies.

This is far more grey than you think. In any case, like in all businesses, child abuse vs good parenting should be judge mainly based on child’s success in life. Do your kids got A? Do your offspring make tons of money? If so, you’re good parent. It shouldn’t be judge by how much time biological father spend for his child. While that itself is a good thing, there are many other factors that make good parenting.

Also I judge people based on relative standard. If the poor are abandoning their kids and breed like rabbit and actually subsidized by government, the rich should too. Gee. You can’t be much better than the rest. Libertarianism is about fairness, and not about shooting your own self. Libertarianism is about, guys, we will all be better off if we stop hurting each other. If they disagree, that means all are part of the game.

Quote from: genepool on March 15, 2012, 11:02:45 PM

We don’t limit kids of welfare recipients, why we limit number of kids billionaires can make?

I wasn’t aware that there are any laws limiting the number of kids a billionaire can have.

I wasn’t aware either. When I was aware, I turned into what I am.

I’d say limiting, prohibiting, are all vague terms. Let’s say government artificially increase costs. See does government prohibit stealing? Well government increase cost of stealing by imposing political costs in a form of jail. Got it? Artificially increase cost can mean prohibiting, fining, taxing, discouraging, anything, but the result is we have less of the act.

Now Nazi increased the cost for jews to survive in the gene pool, say by shooting those who do not want to go to extermination camp. After that Nazi said, well you don’t need the money anyway being you’re death and all. So let me take your money.

Nowadays, government increase the cost for the rich to survive in the gene pool. Alimony, palimony, child support, are all set up proportional to man’s wealth. Virtually many alternative where the rich can consensually get laid more easily is prohibited. Sugar babies is border line illegal. Consensual sex between women and men with “authority” like her boss is illegal. Marriage is legal but that means women have to pick singles. Also richer males don’t benefit from public schools, and many subsidies the poor enjoy when they breed.

After that, government say, well you don’t need all this money, being you’re going extinct and all. So let me take your money via tax so I can encourage more reproductive success for assholes that drive you out of the gene pool.

Quote

Now a beautiful girl just block me on facebook. Again, may be I am wrong about women prefer the rich. Or maybe I am just not rich enough yet. Who knows?

I think anyone who has read more than two of your posts here can come up with an alternate theory.

The ho is arrogant. Yea, if I can be a prostitute, if there are 20 young hot busty thin rich smart young babes that want to support me as sugar babies, I would be in heaven. But alas I am male. So I got to go with plan B and be a businessman http://freemarketforever.com/2012/03/29/what-i-really-wanted-to-grow-up-be/ hiks hiks.

She, on the other hand, got 20 young, big cocked, rich smart young men, that would love to support her as sugar babies and she think I am demeaning her for thinking that women are prostitute? Tell those soldiers risking their life in afghanistan what they would do if they get hired by Britney Spears for fucking and see how many switch job.