I think you misunderstood my ideas a lot. 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.
I do not advocate government intervention at all in 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 and it’s not up to government to decide which one is which.
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.
The following are just secondary consideration why I think things will work way better than what most libertarian think. I think it’s true but it’s doesn’t have to be.
I think better genes will proliferate under free market by itself if trade restriction on sex and reproduction is gone. Women prefer the rich and men prefer the pretty. Porn will reduce the number of ugly women that get laid. The pretty can get the rich. So, more kids will have rich smart dad. No need for government intervention. Let the market decide who they want to mate and breed with and under what terms.
What is so unlibertarian about it? No government. Let people make their own private deals. Let free market decide who stays in the gene pool and who doesn’t.
I do not even ask for government interference on area where governments do have legitimate cause. I think free market will take care of it better than government’ regulation
1a. Governments do have a case to prohibit breeding by those who can’t fully afford kids. However, even that is not necessary. I do not advocate even that. Women already have strong incentive to pick men that’s most able to fully afford kids even without governments’ requirement. What do you think about this?
1b. I think government has a case to say that child support should be more than a certain amount. That amount should not depend on parent’s wealth at all. Even that it’s not necessary. Women have strong incentive to pick males that can commit higher child support automatically under free market. Contemporary child support laws are just excuse to rob rich males. Fuck that.
2. We can win afganistan war with less military. Just allow hot afghanistan babe consensual chances to immigrate to richer countries and be consensual sex workers. Taliban men will go extinct by themselves. No force involved. NO VICTIM at all.
See simple ideas. Which one is against libertarianism anyway?
Now the 3rd is probably the real difference. It’s more of damage mitigation and I am not sure I am correct. It’s not my main idea.
3. I want to decouple redistribution of wealth with number of kids.
Ideally there is no redistribution of wealth. But say government give wealth to coca cola drinker. Of course it’s normal to expect that pepsi drinkers to get the same too.
Contemporary redistribution of wealth is given to those with kids. If you have kids governments pay for your kids’ education. Those who don’t have kids got nothing.
I think balancing that will reduce perverse incentive to breed. 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.
I would say government shouldn’t help the poor and the sick. 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.
Freedom and Compromise is a post from: Free Market Forever
