What’s the Legal Status

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

If it doesn’t depend on the wealth of parents, it’s fair then. Not sure it’s true. In US it depends.

Barbara, prenup means marriage. Marriage is government solution. So let’s forget about it. It must be bad.

I do not think prenup cover child support. It only covers alimony, which is another issue. Alimony can be avoided by not getting married in the first place anyway.

What about commitment outside marriage?

If a woman say, she’ll have sex with you and whe will only demand $500 per month or $3k per month, she’ll got to jail for being a prostitute. The deal must be made implicit and people indeed do so implicitly. Read sugar daddy http://www.quora.com/Dating-Relationships/Does-the-sugar-daddy-sugar-baby-relationship-amount-to-prostitution

“The whore is despised by the hypocritical world because she has made a  realistic assessment of her assets and does not have to rely on fraud to  make a living. In an area of human relations where fraud is regular  practice between the sexes, her honesty is regarded with a mocking  wonder”

— The Sadeian Woman: An Exercise in Cultural History / Angela Carter

I totally agree with this.

What’s the legal status of women getting money for sex but not promiscuously (say concubines rather than regular prostitute). In Indonesia it’s legal and I love it. Yea there are great ways around the laws but not heavily advertised.

Steps to take to make the world more libertarians

I must admit that the idea to balance what’s ideal and what can actually win votes is good. I wish my libertarian friends can think in that direction too. Most don’t.

Pure libertarians is theoretical impossible and practical unreality at least for present. Some of it’s purest from is problematic and I am quite disillusioned my self.

Obviously we want to get rid rules that are too bad and tolerate rules that are not so bad.

Public school is definitely not libertarian.

Also if I have to choose between welfare and public school, I’ll choose to get rid public school.

I am actually interested with georgian libertarians.

1. Tax land instead of income heavily.

2. Turn most government expenditure into citizenship dividend (especially for the childless or those with less children). Think about it, it gives them a VERY strong incentive to demand less government. I won’t even touch tax rate yet. That comes latter. For the same income, when government spending is low, give citizen cash.

3. Because citizenship gets dividend it should be treated like stocks. Why give it away to someone that breed more kids? People should be able to buy sell and inherit citizenship. The rich can breed like rabbits but they have to pay for more citizenship every time they breed.

4. Globalization will keep tax rate low. Business will move from high tax rate countries to low tax rate countries.

To me that’s not far from Ayn Rand. At the end government won’t charge far more than what’s actually needed. Government will be like bizs competing for well, productive people. That alone will set things straight.

I would love to err on the side the poor. There’s plenty for everyone. We need to take into account that they are beneficial in case of war as soldiers. Many poor people are nice enough. The system pretty eliminate their incentive to be diligent.

The problem with socialism is not redistribution of wealth. That alone is a problem. The problem is it took from the rich and benefit nobody. Socialism hurt the poor even further and trap them into poverty. Socialists punish diligent poor people with income tax and reward poor people that dig their holes deeper by breeding more kids. Free public school and welfare is one such holder.

Some Possible Solutions

Simple.

Let individuals decide how much they want to spend for their women (or men?) and children.

If a billionaire want to spend $100 million for 10 kids, it’s his right. If he wants to spend “only” $1 million or $100k for each kid, and produce 1000 kids instead, it’s also his right as long as the future mom also agree. Let the parents decide.

If government has a say it should be some minimal amount applicable equally to everyone or adjusted by kids’ need. Parents’ financial capability is irrelevant.

If you want to make the deal sweeter for the poor, so they vote in favor, it’s also easy. If government is going to spend money for those with kids, at least spend the same amount of money for those without kids.

If government give free education to those with 5 kids, then spend the same amount of money for those with 0 kids.

If raising a kid cost $100k make sure anyone that don’t make kids is $100k richer for each kid they don’t make. Not less. So no distortion.

Then people true optimal preference will show. The poor will make less kids (because they value the $100k more than a kid). The rich will make more because $100k for them means nothing.

Hell, kids should be taxed rather than subsidized. They got free citizenship right?

I know libertarians will demand that government spend 0 for redistribution of wealth irrelevant of people with kids or not. Well, once 90% of kids are born out of rich dad, socialism won’t be a big issue 🙂

If 99% of us are millionaires and one guy is a beggar, will it be a big issue to “help” that 1%? If 99% of us are beggars and 1% is millionaire, then socialism is a big issue.

Make the pie bigger.

Can Women Support Themselves?

When did I ever said that women can’t support themselves? Generalizing is simply not what I do.

Women doing it for free and fully supporting the child is like a guy selling Ferrari for free. Is it his right to do so? Yes. My point is it is also his right to demand a fair amount (or any amount) of money for his Ferrari.

The same way it’s women’s right not to demand anything. It is also their right to demand a lot. That right is currently too “regulated”. A girl can either do it for free or demand too much. Something closer to market price requires complicated procedure.

I just don’t think it’s fair for women to work hard supporting child themselves.

Man just supply sperms. Women got to go pregnant for 9 months. So it’s very natural and normal that men pays women for sex rather than the other way around. In fact, under free market, that would be the norm. There are just too many rich males wanting as many beautiful girls as possible that a hot woman can always, but NOT have to, ask for large amount of money.

I do not say that women HAVE to ask for money. You’re right. Some don’t. Some do. Either case is fine and it should be up to the woman.

Of course, women that CAN support themselves often want men that pays even higher. In fact, many males, consider women that’s not only beautiful but also smart and independent as sexy and would worth more.

If anyone is generalizing it’s feminazis. They generalize by saying that women do not want money for sex.

What I am saying is either is fine. If you support your own kid, it’s fine. Is it to your best interest? It’s up to you.

Actually your case shows the inherent problem of this. Yes you CHOSE not to demand money from your ex. Can you choose to commit to do so before marriage?

Can a woman choose to agree not to demand say more than $0, or $500/month, in child support?

If she can, then she can easily attract more attractive richer males to fertilize her eggs. The thing is she can’t and often end up with someone poor never knowing that higher quality men is within her reach. Is this what happen to you?

As far as I know it’s not enforceable by court. You can (and actually encouraged to) commit to really really silly things like life long marriage.

Yet you cannot commit basic contract, like child support. The government arbitrarily declare that man’s obligation is proportional to his capability. It’s very difficult or impossible to change that even if the women agree.

Again, it’s perfectly fine for a woman not to demand anything.  It’s also women’s right to demand any amount they wish before building relationship or before conception.

It’s up to that exact woman not up to government or other men or other women’s opinion. It’s all I am trying to say. Women’s body, women’s absolute individual choice.

I think you need to understand evolutionary psychology a little bit. Let’s just say without money, any women can mate with Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, or US president. It’s far easier for girls to get guys than the other way around. It’s just the way we evolve. Men only lose sperms. So we’re always horny for hotties.

Even with money, women can still aim very high. After all capitalistic wealth means the rich are so rich, they are willing to pay a lot.

If a girl say, I don’t want to share Bill Gates, I would rather be the only one for Joe Schmoe instead, that’s her choice. Currently it’s not really a choice. Monogamy norms means she can only pick singles, and singles means low quality mates. It’s there to appease single males so they get laid too. Not to protect women.

Child Support Laws

Now this is that bothers me. Every father has an implicit contract to support his child within his mean.

That means, no matter how rich you are you will never be able to afford 100 kids. That’s because your obligation will simply be proportional to your income.

So  a man is not free to father 100 kids? Think about it. You’re free to do many things under so called free country. What about if your happiness come from fathering children and say you want to do it normally rather than using artificial insemination. You can’t.

In practice it’s even worse. Rich men fear jail far more than the poor. So the poor CAN breed 100 kids. He’s probably declared deadbeat but so what? He doesn’t fear jail. The rich cannot.

It’s legal for the poor to breed kids with OTHERS’ money counting on free schooling free welfare, etc.. But when you do have YOUR own money, you can’t.

Actually you can. The loophole is to breed with someone else’ wife. But say you want to play fair. You can’t.

Can we agree that it’s the actual situation here?

Here is another way to see it. We know women are often as capable as men. Say she wants to be a mother and get $500 from the biological father per month. Say that’s her utility function. That’s what she wants.

She can do so legally if she pick the poor. She can’t do so legally if she pick the rich.

Then you wonder why the poor breed more kids than the rich and why there are still poverty despite free market abundance.

How in the Earth Treating Women as Hoes Means Demeaning Them?

Look all I know is government all over the world indoctrinate kids to get married. To me that’s far more dangerous than gay indoctrination.

Marriage won’t survive competition under free market.

@Harold how does treating women as hoes means demeaning them? It still confuses me till now. Treat her like hoes means you’re paying them. Here in Asia, paying people is a way to show appreciation. It shows you worth the money.

If hot girls treat me like hoes, I will be very proud. If ugly girls treat me like hoes, I will still appreciate the offer (though will just reject). How in the earth offering to pay someone for sex means demeaning them. It makes absolute no sense..

To the opposite, ..having sex for free is demeaning. It shows that she doesn’t worth the money.

Feminazis are usually ugly. The most they can get for humping is 0. So, by dog in a manger principle, they demand 0 to be the maximum wage for hoes. Now that make sense. It fits them. Does it fit the hotties? Why not let the hotties decide?

That’s another way of showing respect. You respect her CHOICE. You don’t tell what’s good for her and decide for her. It’s as if women are so dumb they can’t figure out what’s best for them. Overriding women’s decision is rape. Now that’s demeaning.

Another confusing western idea is that it’s NOT okay for girls to ask for money, but it’s OKAY to ask for huge alimony. It’s like going to job interview and say, I don’t want high salary, but I want huge severance pay. There is no way that kind of employee will get hired under free market.

So Tiger Wood ex wife is not a hoe because she got paid $1 billion for LEAVING Tiger. But if she got paid for actually make Tiger happy, than that’s bad.

The only thing that fit the dots are interests of competitors.

In any case, it’s up to women to decide, not religious bigots or feminazis.

Why is it vulgar/immoral for men to say they like good looking women and for women to say they like rich men?

Why is it Vulgar/Immoral for men to say they like good looking women and for women to say they like rich men

Actual question from quora.

Why is it vulgar/immoral for men to say they like good looking women and for women to say they like rich men? – Quora

Because I can no longer answer there, I’ll just answer here.

Because it’s true.

Humans are liars.

When something is true they do not want you to believe it. They can’t call it false. It’ll make them look ridiculous. So they call it vulgar or immoral.

Also a lot of effort to override your choice stems from lies on what you want. No one want wants to do this anyway. So by saying what you want, you tarnished the sacred bullshit used to justify enslaving you.

Some hypocrite wrote that it’s considered vulgar because
“It de-romanticizes love, and romance is highly valued in modern society.”

Romance is the opposite. Often they can’t say something is true. They have no proof and evidences are against it. So they don’t call certain things false. They call it sacred.

So let me tell you what romance and marriage really is. They are just piece of shits.

They’re not valuable. They are pieces of shit that you are forced to eat by society. Society then force everyone to believe it’s  real, which is bullshit.

Value is something you want.

Market value is how much money you are willing to pay for.

Compared to porn and prostitution, romance and marriage are piece of shits.

Marriage is so shitty.

You can look how Beatty Chadwick rot in jail for 11 years due to marriage. Who would want to eat that peace of shit?

Just look at all the divorce rate and paternity fraud rate. Want to be in that kind of shit? Get married. Eat shit.

So how do religious bigots, which only want your suffering, want you to embrace and consume pieces of shit?

They call their pieces of shit sacred.

Then they call the true buffet, porn and prostitution, as immoral.

Who would want to eat pieces of shit if he can easily buy a real meal? Marriage stand a snowflake chance in hell when it has to compete with fully legalized prostitution.

That’s how to get people to eat shit. Starve them by prohibiting all alternatives and then call the shit sacred. That’s how bigots persuade people to enter marriage hell.

That’s the only way to sell peace of shits. Making all alternatives illegal, and then call it sacred.

That’s precisely why alternatives are illegal and that’s precisely why bigots call things sacred. So you eat shit.

Why Porn is Illegal?

I think there is a strong common causality between beating up of nerds, prohibition against porn, and prostitution, the setting of child support proportional to a man’s wealth, income tax, and anti antisemitism.

They all aimed at those most “talented” to hide/destroy their advantage.

nerds->smart->get beaten up
porn->pretty-> you need to hide your talent
prostitution->rich->can’t just use your money to get laid
income tax->diligent->Nope y ou can’t keep your hard earned money
child support laws->rich->no body can afford more than 5 kids no matter how rich they are
jews->smart, rich->what happened to them?

Basically the whole pattern is people want to nullify the advantage of the talented.

If porn were legal, then ugly women will just go extinct. Just look at all countries where porn is legal. Their women are prettier. Men would rather jerk off to porn than marrying the ugly.

Is it strange that ugly women opposes porn? Is it strange that feminazis complain about how men shouldn’t value women based on beauty?

Things are opposed not because it’s bad, but quite often, because it’s good, too good.

Deep inside, humans are competitors. We want to outdo. We want to be the best. For many, the only way to do so, is to exterminate the best. And that’s what many people want.

That’s, in a sense, the essence of bigotry. Prohibit good things and then call it something so bad no body want it anyway. The truth is, if it’s legal, no body would want otherwise.