Month: January 2022

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

In most countries we can do prenuptial agreement.

The reason is obvious.

Imagine if the man is very rich. Say a billionaire. If he marries and his wife left him, she will make billions of dollars.

When government make the whole deal, for some reason, government makes marriage deals to be very disadvantageous for rich men.

Alimony is more expensive for rich men. Child support is more expensive for rich men. Many women want to marry rich men but marriage must be monogamous.

However, in supposedly free country, people are free to make their own deals. So government allow prenuptial agreement. The agreement basically makes the deal more fair by not linking the man’s wealth to his wife’s share.

Being able to make such agreement is also beneficial for the women and the children out of the union. Without prenuptial agreement, the man will not want to marry the woman. The woman will end up choosing poorer man to be her husband. Now, with prenuptial agreement, the deal can work, and the woman’s children will live a far more opulent life.

But even prenuptial agreement is far from free. Government can still stipulate that marriage must be monogamous, for example.

Many men no longer want to get married. However, the rich ones, at least, do not mind paying reasonable child support.

As usual, when government decide child support amount, government set the child support to be somewhat proportional to the man’s wealth and income. Child support can run for millions of dollars. A father that don’t live and “used to responsibly provide for the children” can end up paying huge child support because child support amount is set proportional to “the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved;”

https://mtlawoffice.com/news/million-dollar-child-support

The effect, if not the intent, is pretty much preventing rich men from having more children. Indirectly this also increase the number of children of poor men increasing welfare and votes for welfare recipients.

For similar reason with prenuptial agreement, a deal can be made so that the amount of child support is whatever the man and woman agree with. The government can set some reasonable minimum amount not linked to the man’s wealth, but anyone wanting to have children should be able to override it.

After all, if poor, ugly, and or dumb people can have children, often with welfare paid by tax, why prohibit rich men and women prudent enough to consider financial situation from having children.

The benefit is huge. Rich men can father more children. There will be less welfare and less tax. In a free country, this shouldn’t be a problem at all. If the potential father and potential mother agree, and the child will live an opulent life and society will not have to pay the burden of the child, it’s totally victimless.

Also many controversies about abortion and child support can be settled before conception or even before having sex.

Government can set whatever default based on what societies think is true. The current default, for example, is that women have right to abort, and if the mother choose to continue the pregnancy, the man is responsible for child support.

Say a man doesn’t want his children murdered and he thinks abortion is murder. Simple. Only have sex with woman that agree first she won’t abort the baby.

Say a woman wants to make sure that she and her children will get $1 million dollars compensation. Simple. Find a very rich men that explicitly agree to it.

In fact, such deals can totally replace marriage. Most sex do not affect society as a whole anyway, with the exception of welfare in case parents are poor dumb, and extra start up businesses in case parents are smart and rich.

Think about it. If women prefer the rich, how can there be any kids with poor dad? Customers no longer choose to buy typewriters, horse chariots, and handwoven fabric.

Factories that produce superior products, like all factories typically want more than one customer. As consumers pick who they want more, those who do not get picked simply disappear.

The same way most rich men want to have more than one woman. When this is easier richer men will be available to more women. The result is that some women will choose that richer men as father and have richer smarter children that live better life.

The other women that do not choose will have had their choice. This will undermine justification for welfare. Now we know that poverty is the result of woman’s choice, namely choosing poorer father of their children.

So, why do many women still pick poor dumb men that do not pay a lot of money for child support? How can there be single mother for example?

This idea has been legal in most countries. In US, for example, a rich man can just pay harvard female college students for eggs. The cost is a mere $10k. So women do get paid for having children. Also they can do it in ways where they do not get unreasonable amount of money. Why not extend this to children conceived naturally?

In other country, people can pay doctors and woman to have children. But such technology is only legal for “married couple”. Again encouraging marriage and put men that want to have children and want to financially support the children but does not like governments’ idea of marriage at severe disadvantage. Yet, every time I propose the idea people are mad, not willing to discuss this, and I got banned.

Yes the wording is slightly different, but the idea remains the same.

There is a discussion in autistic forum whether white men feels they are superior or not. I thought about it. I think white men around me is pretty confident.

Are they over confident? Are they over estimating themselves? And how does that make me feel?

I think yes. They are often over estimating themselves. It doesn’t make me hate them though. As usual I just feel curious and am actually pretty concerned.

Behind affirmative action, income tax, welfare, huge alimony payment, and non prostitution laws, there is a hubris.

Affirmative action means, I am so superior I can add scores to black people and will still get hired anyway. No you’re not. Also people of color includes, uhuk uhuk uhuk, jews, asians, indians that score well above white in IQ and standardized score.

Income tax means tax me, and I will still be rich anyway. Much harder baby.

In fact, the way I observe is, the main way to get rich is to avoid tax. Jeff Bezos won’t be as rich if he has to pay 30% income tax on his rising stock prices. Microsoft and Apple and Google wouldn’t be big if they don’t incorporate in tax heaven.

Welfare means, let me fund others’ children instead of my own, and I’ll reproduce well anyway. NO. White people are getting extinct. Instead of paying welfare on other people children, everyone should just get rich capitalistically and produce children their own.

If you have extra money, you should have more children. Under no circumstances you should donate to others’ children. Otherwise, the population growth will decline.

Huge alimony means, the woman like me so much anyway even if she gets a lot of money if she leaves me she won’t leave me. No. most marriage end up in divorce.

That’s why I have mistresses instead of getting married by the way.

Non prostitution laws means, I can get laid for free and those who can’t get laid for free are incels.

Dude. Sperms are cheaper than eggs. Each men want a few woman. Each woman want only the best.

It’s far easier for young smart beautiful women to get men that want to fuck her than the other way around if price point is zero. The market doesn’t close at price point zero. Also other men offer money that implicitly imply financial support. Just get rich and pay her market price.

If you want relationship instead of just sex, offer more money to give you children. Much simpler.

So yea. I think there is a hubrish behind laws white men make. They hurt mainly themselves doing that though.

Yesterday I have this sugar baby I am with. Her IQ is 130. She is almost 19.

She told me that she hasn’t handle cocks for a long time now that we agree to be exclusive and she wants to give me children.

I told her I no longer want her to be stripper for my friends. She is too important. I just want us to have very smart children together. She says, why not?

Then we talk about using other more expendable sugar babies as strippers and see how it goes so she doesn’t get naked alone and my friends don’t have to be blue ball. She’s a lesbian.

She says she will go back continuing her college. I told her how can I financially support her if she’s away. She says I don’t have to. She has parents paying for her college and living costs.

I told her that just giving me children means I can give (pay) a lot more.

I got home. I met my 24 years old sugar baby that gave me a son.

That sugar baby threaten to kill both of us because she wants to be the only one.

We argued a lot about I don’t feel I am doing anything wrong given that many guys just leave the girl he knocked up and she and our children leave comfortably.

She keeps threatening to take my son away. I am very pissed.

She is well paid for giving me a son. I paid for all her living expenses. She lives comfortable life. Before she was a poor starving sugar babies complaining to me she has no money for food. And she keeps bitching about all these nonsense.

Guess which one makes me happier?

I would, pick a whore over a monogamous prim and proper bitch a million times. I would pay then thinking about romance and marriage.

I’ve been thinking.

Many leftist think that while capitalism produces prosperity, capitalism did a bad job to eliminate poverty.

Most often cited “unjust” scenario is that some children are simply born rich and some children are simply born poor.

The child doesn’t choose their parents.

I am in a bit of dilemma. In one hand, it’s true, the child doesn’t choose their parents.

However, parents choose who their partner with to have children.

Women, for example, under capitalism, can simply choose richer men as fathers. The main reason they don’t is because sex, reproductive, and marriage market is not capitalistic enough.

I, for example, choose to pay and offer financial support for beautiful high IQ women that give me children (after paying them for sex to build trust).

Also I want more children the richer I am. I am not interested to have children while I am poor and I want more children now that I am richer.

That way I am maxing out my children’s future. They have the best IQ and plenty of money.

And I do it within capitalism. I don’t get married, for example. I use mistresses and sugar babies to have children. I don’t believe in marriage.

I believe humans are selfish and care only about themselves and their family.

Also I think the most ethical and effective way to get anything, including sex and reproductive help is to just pay for it under clear term that can be self enforced without help from government. Humans are selfish anyway.

The idea of that a man and a woman can love one another even though they are not blood related is weird to me. I see 60% of divorce in marriage as proof that Romance is really just bullshit.

I think the reason why some children have poor or even non existence father is not because of capitalism but because of lack of capitalism.

For example, welfare rewards women to simply pick poor father knowing that the government will pick up the tab. Expensive child support laws prevent rich men from fathering 10-20 children. Anti prostitution laws make paying women for sexual and reproductive service tricky.

So I think if we have ways to make sexual and reproductive market more “capitalistic”, more women will simply pick richer and smarter father.

Just like nobody still uses obsolete type writers given that most customers can easily buy affordable high tech computers. No or very few women will have to settle for poor and financially unreliable men if sexual market is capitalistic.

I wonder if it’s true.

What do you think?

Also is this libertarian?

If it’s true. Then why very few people see it this way. Every time I try to raise the issue people are often mad or something.

A problem I can see is that this will still requires parents to “love” and want the best for their children and start thinking about it BEFORE conception. It is not normal individualist service. And the leftist is partially right. The children doesn’t decide how rich their parents are. How would libertarians see this?

Also why do I often face hostilities when I mention the idea.

Capitalism, the way it currently is, is awesome, in helping productive people create wealth.

However, many still complaints that capitalism leave many people poor.

I think I have a way to solve this and this can be done by capitalists irrelevant of governments’ help.

We can end poverty through capitalism.

That is.

Being still reasonably selfish.

No donation. Donation and altruism sucks anyway.

Being reasonably capitalistic

May actually be legal (it’s legal in my country) though may requires some loopholes.

How?

Why are people poor? Many reasons. But the big reason is daddy is poor. Why is daddy poor? Because mom choose poor man as father of their children. And why is that?

There are many complex factors. However, the way I see it, there are too many land mines when it comes to choosing a rich man as daddy. So many rich men do not want to have children with too many women. Alimony is expensive for the rich. Child support is expensive for the rich. Prostitution is illegal. Sugar relationship is border line illegal. Polygamy is illegal. Government regulate marriage.

Simple. Use capitalism on sex and reproductive market.

Currently western civilization is awesome when it comes to capitalism on most stuffs.

However, when it comes to sex, suddenly people are communists. Sex for consideration is illegal. Women shouldn’t consider money in offering sex but can consider government infested marriage.

Instead of marrying, rich men can just pay women to give children. Have more children.

Can this be done?

The main problem is transaction complexity.

For example, a billionaire can agree to pay a woman 1 million dollar to give him an heir and raise the child. However, what would stop the woman from suing for more money after the baby is made?

In my country a woman cannot sue for child support and there is no link between wealth of father and amount of child support. This lead to another problem. How does the woman know that the rich man will provide after she get knocked up?

Sure we often have deals where the man agree to support a woman for life and their children together. In exchange the women give sex and the children to the man. This deal is what marriage is or used to be or should have been.

However, marriage is heavily regulated by the state. The state is obsessed with ensuring there is one woman for every man than ensuring the child is rich. The state acts as if all women want to be the only one instead of having more money or better genes. Monogamy seems to be the goal of anything state sanctioned.

There are many solutions.

Split deals into smaller pieces. Instead of paying women to give children, pay her for sex first. However, this maybe illegal due to anti prostitution law. However, in many country prostitution is legal and even in US sugar relationship is legal.

Build reputation. A rich man can knock a woman up and be a responsible dad for his biological children. That way other women will know that he’s not dead beat.

Libertarian court. Both agree to make marriage and stipulate that if they have disputes the dispute is resolved in libertarian court. The man can be a multimillionaire or billionaire that has no problem ensuring the child is well supported and put some collateral.

Move to more sensible state. In most countries child support is not linked to the man’s wealth. In Texas USA, there is a max amount of child support.

How will this eliminate poverty?

Simple. Rich men tend to have richer children. Also most men want more than one women. The children will simply have more resources to make it. Also rich men often have talents that make them rich in the first place. So a high IQ rich men, for example, can hire high IQ women to produce smart children that will, given resources, more likely build empire.

Rich men bequeath talents, connections, IQ, and even businesses to his children. This gets leveraged.

If Bill Gates spend 10 million on a ghetto child, that child will still unlikely make another Microsoft. But if Bill Gates spend 10 million on his own child, and say he has 100 children, each are quite likely to make another Microsoft.

The more women end up with rich men, less women will end up with poor men. So less poverty.

What about women that don’t want money? What about women that don’t prefer the rich? What about women that want government infested marriage for “legitimacy” or whatever? What about women that want to make money like men.

Who cares. Let them choose. However, now it’s obvious that if a child is poor it’s mainly because of mom’s choice. This will greatly undermine justification for welfare.

We can say, look, your twin sister choose to give a sugar daddy a child. So her child is rich. You choose to get a job till you’re old and marry without considering money. So your child is poor. Why should women that pick better decisions for her children be taxed to pay for welfare of women that pick good decisions?

So rich capitalists can eliminate poverty by first being a great capitalist and make more money. Then they can use capitalism to acquire more women and produce more children. Then they take care THEIR own children. No need to care about others’ children. Just take care of our own children and make sure our children build business empire too.

Then more children will have rich dad and better genes. Poverty will be gone by itself.This can even eliminate all poverties in the world.

Just import sugar babies from poor countries. Any country that fail to embrace capitalism will be poor anyway and of course their women want richer guys and higher standard of living.

Look at women in Afganistan, for example. Rather than being sex slaves by Taliban, they will be better off looking for a rich sugar daddy in say Europe or Asia.

Capitalism is the solution for prosperity. It will also be the solution for eliminating poverty. Let the greatest among us be the one providing the greatest service and values to the largest number of customers.

Don’t ask what billionaires can do for you. Ask what your country can do for billionaires and for what price.

Rather than taxing the rich just for being rich, why not have optional service from government.

Things like extra protection.

Mug Bill Gates? Extra jail terms. We can see what rich people or anyone want to be protected from. Do they want to be protected from muggers or from porn or drugs?

Or license to do drugs. If billionaires use drugs openly and willing to pay extra for that, we will all see if it’s really good or not.

Things that are borderline legal, like prostitution, make them pay extra money to make it legal. That way things can be legal, and then we can see if it’s truly win win or not.

For example, if prostitutes that fuck billionares are better off, then we we know this whole anti prostitution laws can be relaxed a bit at a time.Or tax land. Government build infrastructures around those land. Most billionaires live in mansions. Obviously those infrastructures increase land value. They can’t escape land value taxes.

Basically think win win.

What can governments do for billionaires that will increase number of billionaires in your country. Billionaires are willing to pay a lot for so many things.

There are plenty of things governments can do for billionaires. Most of the money now go to lobbyist. Make billionaires bribe the people directly and cut the middleman. Give me monopoly and every voters get extra $1k. 12 billionaires doing it and you can have slightly more expensive ganja but extra 12k dollar a year.

What about 0 tax rate corporations like what they used to get in tax haven? Why let them incorporate in foreign account if they can create 0 tax rate corporations in their own country?

Ah lower tax support requirements so billionaires can have more children.

Most would want to raise family in your countries.

Think win win and fairness. You make far more money that way.

Current marriage laws are absurd.

Women get half of man’s wealth in case they leave. Also marriage must be monogamy.

The natural consequences is marrying someone rich is very difficult for women.

There are only very few multi millionaires in this world. So many smart pretty women don’t end up with multi millionaires.

What about if women themselves can decide their own marital terms?

What about if instead of asking half of a man’s wealth, the woman ask for say, $3k a month plus financial support and that’s when she is staying? This is something many multi millionaire men can agree with.

The problem is this is borderline illegal due to anti prostitution laws. Also normal court would enforce this.

It seems to me that the main agenda of societies’ marriage is enforce monogamous norm instead ensuring children are taken care off.

If we can have a libertarian court and women can make deals and agree to get that deal enforced in libertarian court, more women can get rich smart men.

That means less welfare too.

I think the muslims have something like shariah court for their marriage. Why libertarians don’t have it?

People say horrible things about colonization. I think it’s not fair to paint all with the same brush.

When I was young my teacher told me that there are 4 kind of colonizers.

The rich ones are US and UK. They trade with their colony and are actually pretty beneficial.

The poor ones are the Dutch. They also mainly trade but also exploit.

Then there is the impoverished one, Spanish, and Portugal. They pretty much plunder the colony.

I am not sure where Japan and China fits in. They have protectorates. I wonder what’s the difference between that and colony. I think I can remember that during Japanese occupation things are really really shitty.

And that makes me think a lot about nature of relationship. Why we don’t have protectorates anymore? Not all countries need to be independent. Perhaps it make sense to pay up more powerful countries for security.

I would say US is special. It’s not just rich, it’s super rich. Also it’s constitution treat everyone as equal. US government is not designed to colonize anyone.

In many cases US “conquer” territories, US is actually losing money.

They captured Philippine but the cost of defending Philippine from Japan is higher than keeping it. They conquered Iraq but then they don’t get any oil there. Bush prohibited Americans’ company from getting oils out of Iraq. Then they conquered Afganistan.

In fact, they don’t get anything. And again and again and again what happens is US got “tired” of conquering and just leave their colony. Unlike the dutch that come back to reconquer Indonesia and fought a bloody battle.

US just leave Iraq, Afganistan, Philippines, and South Vietnam. I think relationship should be win win.

If people think colonization is “wrong” and because of that the country that offers protection shouldn’t get anything from the the country they conquer then the result is sub optimal. Imagine if US captures some oil field in Iraq. Then US army will have incentives not to let ISIS shows up. Or imagine if there are oil pipelines in Afganistan? Then US will not just leave.

Another issue is the idea that “rich countries” exploit poor countries. The truth is the opposite. The richer the countries the more they are actually beneficial to everyone.

Rich capitalist countries are actually pretty benign. It’s the poor countries that are problematic. It’s the poor countries like Spain and Portugal that pretty much plunder their colony.

Rich colonizers like British are more benign. Keep in mind even without white people those colonies will still kill each other anyway.

And yes some really really evil shit happens during colonization, like Banda massacre. However, many expansion of the dutch happen because Indonesians are actively killing each other even without the dutch.

The Padri war, for example, happens because more “pious” muslims massacred the moderate ones.