# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Why Men Dont Want To Get Married

## Taxcutter

All downside.   No upside.

  Even _HuffPo_ notices.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-...b_3467778.html

  Sure hope women are happy with the world theyve distorted.

----------


## Gemini

Marriage is good, but only if the participants in the marriage are good.

If not, you both may was well hop into a wood chipper.  Make sure to toss your kids if any in too.

Given the current attitudes of men towards women and vice versa, most marriage certificates are little more than promissory notes of future divorce and heart ache coupled with financial vampirism.

But that is what you get when you belittle the value of such a sacred covenant and enter into it without good contemplation.

----------


## patrickt

The article, written by a woman, makes some valid points. Helen Smith said, 
"I talked with men all over America about why they're avoiding marriage. It turns out that the problem isn't that men are immature, or lazy. Instead, they're responding rationally to the incentives in today's society."

One of her points was that men lose their friends. It's actually worse than that, Helen. Of course, you lose all your friends but the activities you enjoy will be ruined to. Your life has to center on your wife and she has to control all pleasure.

Another was that you lose space. No kidding. My wife and I shared a closet for about a month. Then I was told to put my clothes in the hall closet by the front door.

Have you wondered about the "man cave" nonsense. I had a friend who had the first "man cave". He had one room in the house where he could take off his shoes, drink a beer and watch a ball game. Guys I worked with had their offices decorated with things they weren't allowed to have in their wife's house such as that stuffed large mouth bass or the bowling trophy.

I had the IRS after me for a debt my wife accrued. We had separated and I asked them why they were coming after me for her debt. "It's easier to get it from the guy." 

Oh, and if you divorce, remember the child support and maintenance are strictly enforced. Don't pay you go to jail. Visitation rights for the father? You're joking. We would get a parade of fathers on Christmas with papers showing it was their Christmas to have the kids. I never once heard of a court actually enforcing that.

I do have some suggestions guys. I'm living with my dog now but I've been married. If your wife says, "I think the only reason you got married was sex," the correct response is not, "Well, duh!"

And honesty is definitely not the best policy. If you wife says, "Do this pants make my butt look big," the correct answer is not, "It isn't the pants." Not only that but if you hesitate for even five seconds before giving the correct, albeit dishonest answer, you're doomed.

The difference between having a dog and having a wife is that the dog might poop on the floor but he never ever poops on you.

I did learn when I was married that absolutely nothing was too expensive for the person who didn't have to pay for it. I am absolutely convinced that President Obama has my ex-wife giving him advice on the economy with her, "Borrow more, spend more," plan for financial health.

I remember standing with a bunch of guys at work and someone said, "You know, those Mormons might have the right idea. If You had ten wives you could get laid a dozen times a year." Everyone laughed except the one young single guy. He said, "I don't get it." One of the older guys said, "You will."

I love to read and I remember soaking in a hot bath and reading a book on a day off from work. My wife was suddenly in the doorway. "Well, don't you want to do anything?" I pointed out that I was doing something and it was something I enjoyed. "Well, wouldn't you rather go to the mall?" Now, ladies, men never want to go to the mall. But, like most men I wanted to get laid occasionally so I went and sat on a hard wooden bench and read my book while my wife shopped. For my wife, that was "being together". Of course, it's really just reassurance that she's in control.

When I was asked by a gay friend whether or not I supported gay marriage I said, "It should be mandatory. Why should only heterosexual men get fucked over in divorces." Of course, gay marriage will make it tough for the judge to know which party gets fucked over.

A. The loneliest I've ever been was when I lived with someone who didn't like me.

B. Be careful, guys. In thirty years as a police officer we had only one woman who murdered her husband and went to prison. Her husband was a very popular FBI agent. All the others got convicted and got probation. One shot her husband twice, for the insurance, and got two years probation. Another shot her husband five times and got five years probation. I said to the D.A., "I see a trend. If a woman gets an Uzi she'll face 32 years on probation." The D.A. didn't get it.

----------

Kabuki Joe (06-21-2013)

----------


## garyo

Listening one day to my friend speak of the painful DIVORCE that he and  his wife are going through and the custody battle over the children. I  told him, "That must be one of the hardest decisions to make. My wife  and I will never have that problem."

"Why is that?" he asked.

"Because we will never get divorced."

"How do you know?"

"Because neither one of us wants custody of the kids."

----------

Kabuki Joe (06-20-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> The article, written by a woman, makes some valid points. Helen Smith said, 
> "I talked with men all over America about why they're avoiding marriage. It turns out that the problem isn't that men are immature, or lazy. Instead, they're responding rationally to the incentives in today's society."
> 
> One of her points was that men lose their friends. It's actually worse than that, Helen. Of course, you lose all your friends but the activities you enjoy will be ruined to. Your life has to center on your wife and she has to control all pleasure.
> 
> Another was that you lose space. No kidding. My wife and I shared a closet for about a month. Then I was told to put my clothes in the hall closet by the front door.
> 
> Have you wondered about the "man cave" nonsense. I had a friend who had the first "man cave". He had one room in the house where he could take off his shoes, drink a beer and watch a ball game. Guys I worked with had their offices decorated with things they weren't allowed to have in their wife's house such as that stuffed large mouth bass or the bowling trophy.
> 
> ...


Sad story.  Sounds like you jumped on a grenade.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Men are going Galt.  I can't blame them.

----------


## Guest

All men do now is whine about women.  They whine about how we're taking over even though they comprise most of the legislative and executive positions.  They whine about Roe v Wade even though the SCOTUS was all men and legislatures are mostly men.  They whine about women and sex.  They whine about women and spending.

If they did less whining more doing they'd be more respectable.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-20-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> All men do now is whine about women.  They whine about how we're taking over even though they comprise most of the legislative and executive positions.  They whine about Roe v Wade even though the SCOTUS was all men and legislatures are mostly men.  They whine about women and sex.  They whine about women and spending.
> 
> If they did less whining more doing they'd be more respectable.


Squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Gotta make noise before anything happens.  But in a way you are right, men allowed themselves to be put into this crappy spot.  Without male consent or initiative, nothing really happens.

----------


## The XL

The scariest thing is how you'll financially be raped in court, will almost certainly not get custody of the kid(s) if you have any, and potentially can be put in prison if you can't make the child support payments/

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> All downside.   No upside.
> 
>   Even _HuffPo_ notices.
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-...b_3467778.html
> 
>   Sure hope women are happy with the world they’ve distorted.


#1 - The average modern American man is still an infant. Women aren't much better.

----------

Gemini (06-20-2013)

----------


## Guest

> The scariest thing is how you'll financially be raped in court, will almost certainly not get custody of the kid(s) if you have any, and potentially can be put in prison if you can't make the child support payments/


This is not true.  Only 4 states have disdained "equitable distribution" laws.  New York is now an equitable distribution state.

Don't worry, Binks, when you get married and divorced your wife won't get shit.   :Smile:

----------


## The XL

> This is not true.  Only 4 states have disdained "equitable distribution" laws.  New York is now an equitable distribution state.
> 
> Don't worry, Binks, when you get married and divorced your wife won't get shit.


Lol, I wasn't worried about me.

The child support system seems suspect to me, too.

----------


## Guest

> Lol, I wasn't worried about me.
> 
> The child support system seems suspect to me, too.


Set at 17%.  It is a criminal offense not to pay because, dammit, people (not me) need to take care of kids.  Their OWN kids.  Like as in "not me".

----------


## The XL

> Set at 17%.  It is a criminal offense not to pay because, dammit, people (not me) need to take care of kids.  Their OWN kids.  Like as in "not me".


A flat percentage seems silly. If you make millions a year, theoretically, the wife and kid are not entitled to 6 figures minimum, because it doesn't take a 6 figure salary to live comfortably.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> All men do now is whine about women.  They whine about how we're taking over even though they comprise most of the legislative and executive positions.  They whine about Roe v Wade even though the SCOTUS was all men and legislatures are mostly men.  They whine about women and sex.  They whine about women and spending.
> 
> If they did less whining more doing they'd be more respectable.


About a decade ago I moved to Eastern Europe. I had met a woman there, during my travels, and we fell in love. She had no interest in moving to the states, having a thriving business over there and a European at heart. It was an extremely difficult romance, and alot of the failure was on my part because, like most American men, I was still thinking like a teenager. Entitled, unaware, etc. I really did not know how to be man in the relationship, though I learned quickly. We had other issues, much of it due to language, and it didn't work out, though we remain good friends. When she first told me that I was still like a boy, I really argued, and, as time went by, I figured maybe she had a point. I got a book called "Man of Velvet and Steel." It's a Christian-based work, and being the son of a feminist, I didn't agree with everything proposed by the author. And, it does illustrate how to be a man in a relationship and in life, where it is necessary to bend and be tender, and where it is necessary to remain firm and hold to core values and character.

Being a man doesn't mean taking control, or being macho, or being a homophobe. It means honoring the role we have as father and as husband and taking care of the duties that entails and asserting our values. Today, the average American male is told that he should have his needs taken care of, and that a domineering woman will want to deny his needs. Fuck your needs. Be a man, take charge, establish the values, compromise where it makes sense, be a father, and your needs will be met.

I'm very happily married now, going on 8 years. My wife and I share similar values because I purposefully looked for a woman who had the qualities, and values, that I wanted in a life partner. We have our issues, and I don't see a divorce on the horizon as so many of my friends do who capitulate to their wives or whose wives capitulate to them. And by capitulate, I mean values and character, not "needs." If you want to be a child all of your life, don't get married, it will be a disaster. Also, please don't have kids. Or vote.

----------

Gemini (06-20-2013),Trinnity (06-20-2013)

----------


## Guest

> A flat percentage seems silly. If you make millions a year, theoretically, the wife and kid are not entitled to 6 figures minimum, because it doesn't take a 6 figure salary to live comfortably.


The wife doesn't get six figures.  She's get a percentage based on the equitable distribution laws of that state--and equitable distribution most often helps wealthy men.

As for the kids...I have ZERO sympathy for the millionaire guy who doesn't want to pay them their 17%.  FUCK HIM.  Don't have kids mutherfuckker.  Eat shit and die.  et al

Pay for your kids.

That is my official motto.

The FEW times I have been involved in divorce cases, I have had to go pro bono to help someone because the courts will take 8-10 months to give someone attorney's fees, so this rich guys leaves his poor wife with nothing to live on, nothing to pay an attorney with, nothing nothing and more nothing.

I had my ENTIRE office staff refusing to work on the case, no one wanting to help and I had to go it alone out of pity.

THEN after he has had months to hide money and forensic accountant fees come out of my pocket, we still barely get her shit out of the deal because its hard to prove that the house he just sold his brother for $1 but still lives in or the car he sold his cousin for $5 but still drives are really his still and that they sales were a way to avoid paying his wife her share of the equitable distribution.

I've also had to deal with guys allowing themselves to be laid off, going on unemployment, living with their soon to be new baby mama, and letting you and I pay for their kids.

Sorry...I don't have the same experience as this urban myth of menville that women are always beneficiaries of the wealth of these hard working men.

----------


## Roadmaster

When you get married don't try to control the other. Let them have their hobbies and friends. As long as you work together and care about the bills things go better. If one spends a lot more than the other it will hurt. Never needed twelve pairs of shoes. We both worked but I took care of the kids most of the time and loved it. Kids are fun and I enjoyed being a mother. None of us really likes to be controlled do we?

----------


## The XL

> The wife doesn't get six figures.  She's get a percentage based on the equitable distribution laws of that state--and equitable distribution most often helps wealthy men.
> 
> As for the kids...I have ZERO sympathy for the millionaire guy who doesn't want to pay them their 17%.  FUCK HIM.  Don't have kids mutherfuckker.  Eat shit and die.  et al
> 
> Pay for your kids.
> 
> That is my official motto.
> 
> The FEW times I have been involved in divorce cases, I have had to go pro bono to help someone because the courts will take 8-10 months to give someone attorney's fees, so this rich guys leaves his poor wife with nothing to live on, nothing to pay an attorney with, nothing nothing and more nothing.
> ...


I see plenty of cases where athletes are paying their wife and kid a ton of money a month, like 6 figures.  Allen Iverson owes his ex wife like 400K a year, and he doesn't even play pro ball anymore.

I'm not sure why an ex wife and kid are entitled to such a huge sum of money.

The system seems fairer to middle class-upper middle class people, because 17% of their salaries wouldn't be a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money.

----------


## Guest

> I see plenty of cases where athletes are paying their wife and kid a ton of money a month, like 6 figures.  Allen Iverson owes his ex wife like 400K a year, and he doesn't even play pro ball anymore.


Because they either married in a formerly "Spanish" state where community property laws exist or because they got divorced before their state switched to equitable distribution.




> I'm not sure why an ex wife and kid are entitled to such a huge sum of money.


The child should be obvious.  No one told them to have kids.  Too bad, so sad.  In the cases of wives because they got married instead of living together.  Marriage is allegedly about sharing lives, not two individuals sharing a residence.

I am at this moment "well off".  If I got married again and lived in a state where there was community property like Tiger Woods did my options are prenuptial agreement OR accept that I got married instead of shacking up.




> The system seems fairer to middle class-upper middle class people, because 17% of their salaries wouldn't be a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money.


So?  No one told them to have kids.  I don't go around saying, "Yo, Kobe...have some kids."  Or, "Hey, Donald Trump please make some more of you."

I don't care how ridiculous a sum of money it is, it is your kids.  Suck it up or don't have them.

----------


## The XL

Wait, so the kid is entitled to his dads money solely because he's his kid?  The kid should be owed the means to live comfortably until he's 18, and nothing more.

Having a kid doesn't mean you should be forced to give him 6 figures. Confused as to why a voluntarist thinks this is okay.

----------


## Guest

> Wait, so the kid is entitled to his dads money solely because he's his kid?  The kid should be owed the means to live comfortably until he's 18, and nothing more.


Yes, until such time as virgin births become de rigueur parents should pay for their children to live as they, themselves, live.

If the kid lived in the same house and the dad is eating lobster and he's eating a burger you'd think the father was a dick.  So would we all.

I'm sorry these ballers are upset that they have to actually pay for their kids to live well, but I also never told anyone to have children.

They made that choice.




> Having a kid doesn't mean you should be forced to give him 6 figures. Confused as to why a voluntarist thinks this is okay.


Sure it does.  How is this anti-voluntaryist?   Are you saying that voluntaryists have no responsibilities for their children?  That we should treat them the way sea turtles treat their offspring?

I am not inconsistent at all.  Your family is YOUR responsibility.  You created a "contract" with that child by even having it.  You need to live up to the terms of that contract.  You created a life and that child is now a whole part of yours.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Wait, so the kid is entitled to his dads money solely because he's his kid?  The kid should be owed the means to live comfortably until he's 18, and nothing more.
> 
> Having a kid doesn't mean you should be forced to give him 6 figures. Confused as to why a voluntarist thinks this is okay.


Having a kid means you share a responsibility to make sure the child has a roof over their head.

----------


## The XL

So, basketball players children needs freaking 400K to survive!? A year?!  I don't think so.

Wait.  Where did I say the man/woman is question has no responsibility?  That's you pulling your lawyer tricks again.

He absolutely has a responsibility to provide for his kid and the mother, no question.  The responsibility is his and his alone, not the taxpayer. However, he does not an obligation to pay a unnecessary amount of money.  His responsibility is only to take care of them, not lavish them with wants only needs.

To suggest anything less is to be at odds with the non aggression principle.

----------


## The XL

> Having a kid means you share a responsibility to make sure the child has a roof over their head.


Right.  A roof.  Food.  Clothing.  Health insurance, etc.

Not a huge house with a maid and other wants.

----------


## Roadmaster

> So, basketball players children needs freaking 400K to survive!? A year?!  I don't think so.
> 
> Wait.  Where did I say the man/woman is question has no responsibility?  That's you pulling your lawyer tricks again.
> 
> He absolutely has a responsibility to provide for his kid and the mother, no question.  The responsibility is his and his alone, not the taxpayer. However, he does not an obligation to pay a unnecessary amount of money.  His responsibility is only to take care of them, not lavish them with wants only needs.
> 
> To suggest anything less is to be at odds with the non aggression principle.


That I agree with but many of these men know the only reason the woman went after them is because of money and they talk it up like that's what love is. That's why I tell my kids to dress down and look for the one who likes you for you.

----------

The XL (06-20-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Right.  A roof.  Food.  Clothing.  Health insurance, etc.
> 
> Not a huge house with a maid and other wants.


 Correct.

----------

The XL (06-20-2013)

----------


## Guest

> So, basketball players children needs freaking 400K to survive!? A year?!  I don't think so.


Do basketball players need 400k to survive?  I don't think so.  And yet...they make more than that.  It is their kid, their responsibility, a physical tangible part of them...pay up.




> Wait.  Where did I say the man/woman is question has no responsibility?  That's you pulling your lawyer tricks again.


You're implying they have finite responsibility.  You want to establish what children deserve and you don't think they deserve $400k.  I think all kids deserve millions but don't get it.  The fact is a society of law, which anarchism is, is one where parents care for their children proportionate to their own lifestyle, that parents sacrifice for their children.




> He absolutely has a responsibility to provide for his kid and the mother, no question.  The responsibility is his and his alone, not the taxpayer. However, he does not an obligation to pay a unnecessary amount of money.  His responsibility is only to take care of them, not lavish them with wants only needs.


Who determines what is "unnecessary"?  You?  Why does the basketball player or Donald Trump get an unnecessary amount of money for playing ball or screwing people in business deals?

Does not the child provide a priceless commodity? Love, affection, etc?

Who sets value on love and family?  You?  Why is shooting a layup more valuable in your opinion than a hug around the neck?




> To suggest anything less is to be at odds with the non aggression principle.


Not at all.

----------


## Guest

> That I agree with but many of these men know the only reason the woman went after them is because of money and they talk it up like that's what love is. That's why I tell my kids to dress down and look for the one who likes you for you.


What???

Oh. My. God.  So anyone dating me is after my money?    I should worry about the men in my life being there because they can get rich off of me?  I have no other worth than wealth?

Not all people marry for money.  Kobe Bryant, I will admit, has sex appeal because of his ....intangible...someone would want him if he were Kobe playing ball on the block.

----------


## Guest

> Right.  A roof.  Food.  Clothing.  Health insurance, etc.
> 
> Not a huge house with a maid and other wants.


But Kobe and Donald can live in one while their kids live inn the projects, I guess.  As long as they have a roof and food...

----------


## The XL

It doesn't matter whether or not the players deserve it or need it, *it's their money.*  You sound like a socialist here, frankly.

They have absolutely no responsibility to pay their child more than they need.  It's our broken statist system that is forcing them to do so.  One that you apparently support.  

By forcing said person to pay more than they are responsible for, presumably under threat of imprisonment or wage garnishing, you are absolutely, 100% violating the non aggression principle.  

Why is the father or mother liable to pay more than the needs of the child and mother?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Who determines what is "unnecessary"?  You?  Why does the basketball player or Donald Trump get an unnecessary amount of money for playing ball or screwing people in business deals?


The market has determined that they have that value. If their child is entitled to a portion of that money, rather than just being entitled to the care required of a parent, why aren't other, unrelated, children also entitled to a portion of that money? If the father dies and leaves all his money to charity, is the child still entitled to more than is necessary for his living expenses?




> Does not the child provide a priceless commodity? Love, affection, etc?


If they child does not provide this, then what? 




> Who sets value on love and family?  You?  Why is shooting a layup more valuable in your opinion than a hug around the neck?


Actually, you seem to be setting the value on it.

----------


## The XL

> But Kobe and Donald can live in one while their kids live inn the projects, I guess.  As long as they have a roof and food...


Thems the breaks.  They aren't on the street or starving.

Honestly, if we put a max cap on child support, let's say 50,000 for those who make a certain wage or above, that'd be okay, I suppose.  And no one would be in the projects at that point.

I might sound messed up, but you sound like a liberal here.

Freedom is messy sometimes.  Life is cruel, too.

----------


## kilgram

Why someone should get married? It is nonsense. Marriage is done for tradition, and absurd traditions are getting lost, so marriage too.

If many people get married is for legal matters. Nothing else. Marriage is nonsense. You can live as well with your partner married or without.

----------


## The XL

> What???
> 
> Oh. My. God.  So anyone dating me is after my money?    I should worry about the men in my life being there because they can get rich off of me?  I have no other worth than wealth?
> 
> Not all people marry for money.  Kobe Bryant, I will admit, has sex appeal because of his ....intangible...someone would want him if he were Kobe playing ball on the block.


You should be at least somewhat weary of those who pursue you.  Some actually will like or even love you regardless of what you make or what you're worth, some will pursue you only for money and wealth.

That goes for any well off person, really.

----------

Gemini (06-20-2013)

----------


## Guest

> It doesn't matter whether or not the players deserve it or need it, *it's their money.*


Then why give kids anything at all?  Kick 'em to the curb if it's "your" money.  Fuck those brats.  They didn't earn shit!




> You sound like a socialist here, frankly.


Lame.  I'm not redistributing someone else's wealth to someone else's kids.  I'm advocating families act like families.
 @Maximatic...am I being a socialist here?  Curious.  Maybe all my early commie influence turned me pink.




> They have absolutely no responsibility to pay their child more than they need.


Ooooh, who determines "need"?  Also, why do you get to determine for society and individuals that they have no responsibility to care for children proportionate to your own lifestyle?




> It's our broken statist system that is forcing them to do so.  One that you apparently support.


Our broken statist system also allows a dude who throws a ball into a net to make millions while paramedics work for very little and sometimes volunteer their time.

We currently live in this broken statist system so I advocate for all of us to live equally within that law.

Should we not, I would just throw rotten tomatoes at people who don't care for their children with equal application to themselves and show them my public contempt.  I would tell people we shouldn't let them in our community and make a good argument for it.

They can then choose to ignore me.




> By forcing said person to pay more than they are responsible for,


YOU say they are not responsible for...other's disagree.




> presumably under threat of imprisonment or wage garnishing, you are absolutely, 100% violating the non aggression principle.


I violated it when I voted for Gary Johnson, too.  I violate it every day by being an attorney.  I would give up violating it to have my ideal society, but...alas, here I am.




> Why is the father or mother liable to pay more than the needs of the child and mother?


Why do you care about "needs" when speaking of family?  This is not some bum on the corner who only needs a sandwich.  This is someone's child that they should love and care for.

I have zero obligation to care for my parents and yet for years I ensured that they lived better than I did because I loved them. 

Only pieces of absolute shit think of themselves first and their loved ones, second.

If anarchism is "me, me, me, only me" then that's not the system for me, but unlike you...I don't think it is.

----------


## Guest

> Thems the breaks.  They aren't on the street or starving.
> 
> Honestly, if we put a max cap on child support, let's say 50,000 for those who make a certain wage or above, that'd be okay, I suppose.  And no one would be in the projects at that point.
> 
> I might sound messed up, but you sound like a liberal here.
> 
> Freedom is messy sometimes.  Life is cruel, too.


OH, you're for using the state to max/cap it but not to provide kids with support.  LOL.

I'm not arguing for the spouse, but the kids... hell yeh.  I'm surprised that you're not.

----------


## patrickt

> All men do now is whine about women.  They whine about how we're taking over even though they comprise most of the legislative and executive positions.  They whine about Roe v Wade even though the SCOTUS was all men and legislatures are mostly men.  They whine about women and sex.  They whine about women and spending.
> 
> If they did less whining more doing they'd be more respectable.


That probably explains, Rina, why everyone I asked knew the meaning of the word misogynist but not a single person could tell me the word for a person who hates men. Most women said there was no such word because no one hates men.

The word is misandrist and the reason it's not in common use is that men don't whine constantly. Please note that the article that prompted the thread was written by a women.

----------


## The XL

> OH, you're for using the state to max/cap it but not to provide kids with support.  LOL.
> 
> I'm not arguing for the spouse, but the kids... hell yeh.  I'm surprised that you're not.


Just offering an idea of a more rational statist system, like I did in the Rand or Ron thread.  

For all the typing you've done, you've yet to establish why anyone is entitled to wants.  Taking care of the child is the person in questions responsibility, no question, it's his kid.  However, why is he entitled to wants?

Needs are clearly defined.  Education, food, clothes, housing, insurance.

----------


## The XL

@Network @Gemini @Maximatic

Your take on this issue?  I'd curious what other libertarians/anarchists feel on this one.

----------


## Guest

> Just offering an idea of a more rational statist system, like I did in the Rand or Ron thread.


Of course.




> For all the typing you've done, you've yet to establish why anyone is entitled to wants.  Taking care of the child is the person in questions responsibility, no question, it's his kid.  However, why is he entitled to wants?


He should have thought about that prior to having one, but you've convinced me of your argument.  Why should kids be taken care of as I am taken care of.  They earned nothing.  They have no inherent value.  They're like talking pets.




> Needs are clearly defined.  Education, food, clothes, housing, insurance.


Well, obviously this is the best society then.  When a couple divorces the father or mother with money should continue to live on in wealth and let their kids see the difference that comes by leaving a contract and family.

That, I imagine, is the reward for selfishness.  You get to live in wealth and your kids don't because they don't obviously deserve to.

What a society we will become!

They will have learned the valuable lesson that walking out on responsibilities and family has monetary rewards.

Good show!

I can't wait to live in that world--oh!  Wait.  I already am.

----------


## The XL

> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> He should have thought about that prior to having one, but you've convinced me of your argument.  Why should kids be taken care of as I am taken care of.  They earned nothing.  They have no inherent value.  They're like talking pets.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously this is the best society then.  When a couple divorces the father or mother with money should continue to live on in wealth and let their kids see the difference that comes by leaving a contract and family.
> ...


Sorry, but this is largely an appeal to emotion, not logic.

When a mother and father create a child, they've signed something on par with a verbal contract with that child. A contract stating that they need to take care of him/her until he/she is functional enough to live on his or her own, or until they find a home suitable and willing to take care of said child.

They *FORCED* that child into existence, *against his or her will*.  Ergo, they are liable.  

I never said this is right.  I think any father or mother who would give the bare minimum financially and not see their kids is scum.  But it isn't about how I feel.  Freedom is messy sometimes, Rinnie.  There are no two ways about it.

When did it become illegal to be a scumbag or greedy?

----------


## Roadmaster

> What???
> 
> Oh. My. God.  So anyone dating me is after my money?    I should worry about the men in my life being there because they can get rich off of me?  I have no other worth than wealth?
> 
> Not all people marry for money.  Kobe Bryant, I will admit, has sex appeal because of his ....intangible...someone would want him if he were Kobe playing ball on the block.


I didn't say all. Yes many women and men only go after money. If Kobe was sitting on a park bench riding a bike, how many would like him or throw themselves at him? You and I both know that answer, not anywhere near the amount after him now. How many would stay with him if he could no longer make money?

----------


## Guest

> Sorry, but this is largely an appeal to emotion, not logic.
> 
> When a mother and father create a child, they've signed something on par with a verbal contract with that child. A contract stating that they need to take care of him/her until he/she is functional enough to live on his or her own, or until they find a home suitable and willing to take care of said child.
> 
> They *FORCED* that child into existence, *against his or her will*.  Ergo, they are liable.  
> 
> I never said this is right.  I think any father or mother who would give the bare minimum financially and not see their kids is scum.  But it isn't about how I feel.  Freedom is messy sometimes, Rinnie.  There are no two ways about it.
> 
> When did it become illegal to be a scumbag or greedy?


Are we speaking of anarchism or what we have now?

----------


## The XL

> Are we speaking of anarchism or what we have now?



What do you mean, specifically?

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Why someone should get married? It is nonsense. Marriage is done for tradition, and absurd traditions are getting lost, so marriage too.
> 
> If many people get married is for legal matters. Nothing else. Marriage is nonsense. You can live as well with your partner married or without.


...then why the hell do you keeping forcing same-sex marriage on us?...

----------


## Roadmaster

I don't have perfect children and none are married. One of my sons was in love and thought she loved him too. Before they were to wed she was pregnant and had a child that was his. He got into a work related accident and she left him thinking he wouldn't recover. He did, fought to see his child and pays child support. Because she wanted nothing to do with him and tried to see if she could adopt out the child while he was recovering, he didn't want her back after he fully recovered but had to find out the hard way. That's the only grandchild I have and she still uses their child against him. It's not about her and I am glad they never got married, but he is a great dad.

----------


## Guest

> What do you mean, specifically?


Our current society has dictates which you disagree with.  There is a strict 17.5 % which you feel is unfair to rich parents.

An anarchist society, which you bring up with me, would be dependent upon societal pressures and more messy and in your estimation provides no parental obligation because they are "free" to live their lives however and their contributions to loved ones and offspring is purely at will and by choice--which means they can choose to do nothing a easily as a "moderate" amount of support.

In either case, my point is that anyone who would make millions and then relegate their offspring to a middle class existence once they moved out is a piece of shit.

In our current statist system this is enforced by law.

In an anarchist system, if parents live as you feel they should the bitterness, resentment, and lessons learned would slowly cripple society as "family" has always been the bedrock of a strong culture.  If a parent/individual is not obligated by any contract that has no business value then the result will be a very messy, ugly existence such as we see with our current "baby daddy-baby mama" generation.

 In other words, under anarchism this is fully enforced and natural contracts are non-existent; that there is no implied obligation between parent and child.

I find that sad.  I find it very sad of anarchists that we need a state to make a parent do right by his or her offspring.

----------


## The XL

> Our current society has dictates which you disagree with.  There is a strict 17.5 % which you feel is unfair to rich parents.
> 
> An anarchist society, which you bring up with me, would be dependent upon societal pressures and more messy and in your estimation provides no parental obligation because they are "free" to live their lives however and their contributions to loved ones and offspring is purely at will and by choice--which means they can choose to do nothing a easily as a "moderate" amount of support.
> 
> In either case, my point is that anyone who would make millions and then relegate their offspring to a middle class existence once they moved out is a piece of shit.
> 
> In our current statist system this is enforced by law.
> 
> In an anarchist system, if parents live as you feel they should the bitterness, resentment, and lessons learned would slowly cripple society as "family" has always been the bedrock of a strong culture.  If a parent/individual is not obligated by any contract that has no business value then the result will be a very messy, ugly existence such as we see with our current "baby daddy-baby mama" generation.
> ...


Yeah, I do.  I don't see why they're entitled to 17.5%, after they already pay huge sums of taxes.  Call me crazy, heartless, whatever.

As far as this current system goes, sure.  But this same system puts non violent people in prison for drug use, so it's already fucked.  I should have said Constitutional, not "legal."

I think many people in this world are pieces of shit.  That doesn't mean they are criminals.  

Under an anarchist system, the child has a contract to be taken care of.  The child is forced to exist.  Sex is biologically meant for reproduction.  In essence, having sex is willingly signing a contract.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> That, I imagine, is the reward for selfishness.  You get to live in wealth and your kids don't because they don't obviously deserve to.


It's not a question of whether they deserve to, it's a question of whether they are entitled to it. I think this is primarily a political forum, yes? We discuss what role government should have in our lives and, this being a hotbed of minarchists and anarchists, how these questions would be dealt with in a free market for justice.

I think that we all agree that a child is entitled to the care of those who have agreed to be his or her guardians. That's usually the parents, of course. 

Now, the question is, how much is that child entitled to? You are arguing that the child is entitled to a certain amount of the parent's wealth based on what the parent earns rather than what is required for adequate provision of the child's needs. If that is true for a divorce, as you claim, then should it not also be true in the case of married parents? If they are wealthy, and yet live a modest lifestyle, is not the child entitled to what their wealth could buy for him or her even as they parents deny it? If Bill Gates gives away 90% of his income to charity and spends only 5% on his children, shouldn't they be able to sue him fro the 10% they don't get from him? Or is it just the immorality of the divorce that creates entitlement?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Our current society has dictates which you disagree with.  There is a strict 17.5 % which you feel is unfair to rich parents.
> 
> An anarchist society, which you bring up with me, would be dependent upon societal pressures and more messy and in your estimation provides no parental obligation because they are "free" to live their lives however and their contributions to loved ones and offspring is purely at will and by choice--which means they can choose to do nothing a easily as a "moderate" amount of support.
> 
> In either case, my point is that anyone who would make millions and then relegate their offspring to a middle class existence once they moved out is a piece of shit.


Are they a piece of shit if they relegate their offspring to a middle class existence while remaining married? 




> I find that sad.  I find it very sad of anarchists that we need a state to make a parent do right by his or her offspring.


While it wouldn't be a perfect society, it's unlikely that so many people would have offspring that they could not or would not want to support. Without welfare and other government entitlements, one has to actually consider the results of pumping out babies. Prenuptial contracts also may be far more enforceable.

----------


## Roadmaster

> It's not a question of whether they deserve to, it's a question of whether they are entitled to it.


 Yes the innocent child is. They deserve to be taken care of by both parents. Not all on the woman or man.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Yes the innocent child is. They deserve to be taken care of by both parents. Not all on the woman or man.


Did you read the first sentence and decide to reply to it? I also wrote "I think that we all agree that a child is entitled to the care of those who have agreed to be his or her guardians. That's usually the parents, of course." And, then, I asked "...how much is that child entitled to?"

Cripes. I hate it when people quote out of context and provide an answer that was already answered.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Did you read the first sentence and decide to reply to it? I also wrote "I think that we all agree that a child is entitled to the care of those who have agreed to be his or her guardians. That's usually the parents, of course." And, then, I asked "...how much is that child entitled to?"
> 
> Cripes. I hate it when people quote out of context and provide an answer that was already answered.


How much? The needs not the wants. A roof over their head, insurance, food, clothes, ect. No I don't expect them to pay for maids but have at least a decent life. My son fought to pay to make sure his child didn't do without. He wants to be in his childs life. Too many men don't. I can't put a price on this.

----------


## Guest

> It's not a question of whether they deserve to, it's a question of whether they are entitled to it. I think this is primarily a political forum, yes? We discuss what role government should have in our lives and, this being a hotbed of minarchists and anarchists, how these questions would be dealt with in a free market for justice.
> 
> I think that we all agree that a child is entitled to the care of those who have agreed to be his or her guardians. That's usually the parents, of course. 
> 
> Now, the question is, how much is that child entitled to? You are arguing that the child is entitled to a certain amount of the parent's wealth based on what the parent earns rather than what is required for adequate provision of the child's needs. If that is true for a divorce, as you claim, then should it not also be true in the case of married parents? If they are wealthy, and yet live a modest lifestyle, is not the child entitled to what their wealth could buy for him or her even as they parents deny it? If Bill Gates gives away 90% of his income to charity and spends only 5% on his children, shouldn't they be able to sue him fro the 10% they don't get from him? Or is it just the immorality of the divorce that creates entitlement?


It is the disparity of income (yes, talking like a lawyer) and relative deprivation which creates stress and feelings of pain.

In your scenario let's pretend Bill Gates has children and he gives away 90% and keeps 10%, but within that 10% he lives as his children live, they all share equally from that, everyone is left feeling loved and cared for.

If, however, someone lives like a prince and his children are relegated to living (because he moved out) like peasants that causes pain and suffering.

Yes, I am speaking in terms of emotions because healthy emotions breed healthy people.

Now, in the world of anarchism, what Bill Gates does is none of my business because his kids are not my kids and I will not pay for whatever results come from his actions.

However, I can still say that I think an individual who leaves his or her family, retains their wealth and wealthy lifestyle while the family they left behind does not is a Grade A piece of shit.  I would not associate with a bastard such as that.  So on and so forth.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> How much? The needs not the wants. A roof over their head, insurance, food, clothes, ect. No I don't expect them to pay for maids but have at least a decent life. My son fought to pay to make sure his child didn't do without. He wants to be in his childs life. Too many men don't. I can't put a price on this.


And, yet, in the interest of justice, a price must be put upon it when it comes before a court.

I paid child support for 15 years. I know how difficult it was and for several years I scrabbled to get my own food and pay rent after paying the CS, and yet I never didn't pay it.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> It is the disparity of income (yes, talking like a lawyer) and relative deprivation which creates stress and feelings of pain.
> 
> In your scenario let's pretend Bill Gates has children and he gives away 90% and keeps 10%, but within that 10% he lives as his children live, they all share equally from that, everyone is left feeling loved and cared for.
> 
> If, however, someone lives like a prince and his children are relegated to living (because he moved out) like peasants that causes pain and suffering.


I don't see it as either force or fraud. 

Haven't you seen that video of the spoiled 16 year old who has an absolute meltdown at her parents because they bought her a Lexus that was the wrong color? Wouldn't you like to see that girl live as a peasant for a while? She might suffer, but the only cause of suffering is her own petty nature.




> Yes, I am speaking in terms of emotions because healthy emotions breed healthy people.


And yet you are advocating for spoiled rich kids to keep being spoiled even as their shallow parents break up. A kid can learn a lot from a little bit of hardship.




> Now, in the world of anarchism, what Bill Gates does is none of my business because his kids are not my kids and I will not pay for whatever results come from his actions.
> 
> However, I can still say that I think an individual who leaves his or her family, retains their wealth and wealthy lifestyle while the family they left behind does not is a Grade A piece of shit.  I would not associate with a bastard such as that.  So on and so forth.


Sure, that person is a Grade A piece of shit. There are lots of shits walking around in the world, and yet they haven't really harmed anyone. While I'd love to see them taken down a peg, I don't want to live under a government that exists to satisfy our whims, especially because those rich shits are often smart enough to obtain more political power than I'll ever have (or want to have.)

----------


## Guest

> I don't see it as either force or fraud. 
> 
> Haven't you seen that video of the spoiled 16 year old who has an absolute meltdown at her parents because they bought her a Lexus that was the wrong color? Wouldn't you like to see that girl live as a peasant for a while? She might suffer, but the only cause of suffering is her own petty nature.


And some pro athletes, politicians, and celebrities are the same in this as children.  My personal feelings about who should be taken down a peg has nothing to do with it.




> And yet you are advocating for spoiled rich kids to keep being spoiled even as their shallow parents break up. A kid can learn a lot from a little bit of hardship.


Why are they necessarily spoiled rich kids?  And I would say that parents can learn likewise from sacrifice for the sake of others.

Why should the child be the one with all the lessons learned?




> Sure, that person is a Grade A piece of shit. There are lots of shits walking around in the world, and yet they haven't really harmed anyone. While I'd love to see them taken down a peg, I don't want to live under a government that exists to satisfy our whims, especially because those rich shits are often smart enough to obtain more political power than I'll ever have (or want to have.)


Well, I don't want to live under a government at all.  However, in my first discussion I'm talking about the mandatory percentage.  Unlike the income tax it is not progressive, it's flat and across the board.  That is far more fair than saying that poor people have to cough up 17% and rich people only .05%.

As for a voluntary system my response is as above...none of my business what someone else does to their family.  I would find it personally reprehensible and would not associate with those people.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-20-2013)

----------


## The XL

> And some pro athletes, politicians, and celebrities are the same in this as children.  My personal feelings about who should be taken down a peg has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they necessarily spoiled rich kids?  And I would say that parents can learn likewise from sacrifice for the sake of others.
> 
> Why should the child be the one with all the lessons learned?
> 
> 
> ...


That's perfectly reasonable and the way it should be handled.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-20-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> @Network @Gemini @Maximatic
> 
> Your take on this issue?  I'd curious what other libertarians/anarchists feel on this one.


Wants are not needs.  

This is why sex contracts should be instituted.  At least among the atheistic portion of a population.  These contracts should included what is to be done with children if any result of a coupling.

This is a topic in which laws could provide a framework, but could not be equitably applied to every situation.  It would need to be addressed on a case by case basis.  Because their are evil, selfish, and greedy men and women.  Too many variables to make viable legislation.  Any attempt at doing so would make for the inevitable unfair application of the law as we now currently see.

Millionaire father hiding his assets legally?  Yeah, it happens.  Paying child support for a kid you didn't even make?  Yeah, it happens.  That is what happens when you have a fixed set of solutions for such a protean problem.

That would be the secular way to deal with it.  Religiously?  Well I know for a fact that in my church if you are a dead beat father you are ineligible for full fellowship and participation.  Various things are revoked until you are in compliance with the set standards of the church.  Same thing for a worthless mother.  The LDS church uses incentive in order to gain compliance.  

My dad wouldn't do business with the best landscaper in town.  Even though he did the best job and for the lowest price.  My dad found out that he beat his wife, and he said that he didn't need to be giving his business to a wife beater.  The free market can fix this problem, but only if the people are moral.  Social and economic pressure can solve this problem without a monstrous state sticking its nose into it, and making one-size-fits-all legislation which winds up doing more harm than good because of ineffectiveness, or abuse of its original intent.

----------



----------


## Guest

> My dad wouldn't do business with the best landscaper in town.  Even though he did the best job and for the lowest price.  My dad found out that he beat his wife, and he said that he didn't need to be giving his business to a wife beater.  *The free market can fix this problem, but only if the people are moral.*  Social and economic pressure can solve this problem without a monstrous state sticking its nose into it, and making one-size-fits-all legislation which winds up doing more harm than good because of ineffectiveness, or abuse of its original intent.


There lies the rub.

----------


## Gemini

> There lies the rub.


I know.  It is a hard thing to swallow, but with the current government, we have more incentive to be amoral vs. moral.  To much of a good thing is just as bad as a single bad thing.  In our case - laws.

When we restore incentive to behaving morally, things like this will make news, because it will be uncommon.  And then it will be swiftly corrected most of the time.

I know that if I was a dead beat, my family would deal with me, perhaps violently.  While they have never spoken it, the intent was quite palpable.  "Be a good father....or else..." - that is how we roll.

----------


## Guest

> I know.  It is a hard thing to swallow, but with the current government, we have more incentive to be amoral vs. moral.  To much of a good thing is just as bad as a single bad thing.  In our case - laws.
> 
> When we restore incentive to behaving morally, things like this will make news, because it will be uncommon.  And then it will be swiftly corrected most of the time.
> 
> I know that if I was a dead beat, my family would deal with me, perhaps violently.  While they have never spoken it, the intent was quite palpable.  "Be a good father....or else..." - that is how we roll.



Yep.  I know people hate us religious-y types but even as an adult my parents remind me about valuing myself, valuing family, being a good person, helping the community and I wouldn't consider otherwise.

My father feels that no kind of man would not sacrifice for his children and do for himself first.  Those are the values I was raised with.  

Because they sacrificed for us, we now do for them.

----------


## Roadmaster

> And, yet, in the interest of justice, a price must be put upon it when it comes before a court.
> 
> I paid child support for 15 years. I know how difficult it was and for several years I scrabbled to get my own food and pay rent after paying the CS, and yet I never didn't pay it.


I know and he would have taken the child and not have her pay support and still let her have joint custody. She just wanted him to pay for her rent and other things hoping he would take her back.  She showed her colors when she left him at the time he needed her. He was always good to her but now he only cares about the innocent child. That's why I tell mine to find someone who likes you for you.

----------


## Maximatic

Children are entitled to be reared in a family unit, a mother AND a father. What is that worth? How much should the party most responsible for depriving the child of that be required to pay? It should hurt real bad. It should be prohibitively expensive to destroy a family unit.

Of course parents enter into a contract with their children. If there could ever be a more clear cut case where there IS an implicit contract, what is it? Where is this notion that children are entitled to subsistence coming from? Most people want to give the best to their children. Most of us want to give them more than we had. We feel obligated to them. We experience this obligation, so we know it exists. We know there are things that we can provide for which our children will be better off, certain education, certain interaction, affection, material things. We know that, if we don't provide those things, we have failed them, that we failed to live up to an obligation to which we had a duty, an obligation, to live up. Our obligation is their entitlement. That's how it works. On that note, I need to play fire boy and water girl right now.

----------

Gemini (06-21-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

you coulda done that without the word 'entitlement'.

----------


## Maximatic

> you coulda done that without the word 'entitlement'.


Why? That's what it means. If you're entitled to something, someone else has an obligation to either provide you with it or to not take it from you.

----------

Gemini (06-21-2013)

----------


## Guest

> you coulda done that without the word 'entitlement'.


Children are entitled to that.  They are 100% entitled to have two parents, a stable loving home, safety, security, and the knowledge that their parents would sacrifice for them.

I have no problem with that word.

----------

Gemini (06-21-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Why are they necessarily spoiled rich kids?  And I would say that parents can learn likewise from sacrifice for the sake of others.
> 
> Why should the child be the one with all the lessons learned?


Lots of people here can learn. The question is whether it is the job of the justice system to punish people for not voluntarily learning the lessons you or I want them to learn. I tend to think that in a free market justice system, the only valid court action is where there is force or fraud, though there is certainly room for other sorts of arbitration if both parties agree to the process.




> Well, I don't want to live under a government at all.  However, in my first discussion I'm talking about the mandatory percentage.  Unlike the income tax it is not progressive, it's flat and across the board.  That is far more fair than saying that poor people have to cough up 17% and rich people only .05%.


I don't know why percentages rather than flat fees are "fair." 




> As for a voluntary system my response is as above...none of my business what someone else does to their family.  I would find it personally reprehensible and would not associate with those people.


That I totally get. I feel the same way about adultery. I don't like people who cheat, especially if I am expected to keep the secret. I'm very particular about my associations, even in business.

----------


## Trinnity

> Wait, so the kid is entitled to his dads money solely because he's his kid?


Yes.

Do the world a favor please and never marry or breed. Thank you.




> Call me crazy, heartless, whatever.


You are crazy and heartless.


 :Killme:

----------


## The XL

> Yes.
> 
> Do the world a favor please and never marry or breed. Thank you.
> 
> You are crazy and heartless.
> [/COLOR]


When did I say I'd do that, personally?  I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

Worry about yourself and don't tell me what to do.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Why? That's what it means. If you're entitled to something, someone else has an obligation to either provide you with it or to not take it from you.


I know what it means.  But that word has been so over done by dems that i don't trust it used in any context.   It starts to make me look really hard at what was said and see if there are any alternate definitions of the word 'is'.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Wait, so the kid is entitled to his dads money solely because he's his kid? The kid should be owed the means to live comfortably until he's 18, and nothing more.
> 
> Having a kid doesn't mean you should be forced to give him 6 figures. Confused as to why a voluntarist thinks this is okay.


what?  What?  WHAT????    YES ABSOLUTELY if DAD wants him to have IT YOU DAMN RIGHT IT"S HIS AND HE"S ENTITLED.  WHAT the HELL do you think Rich Democrats DO?>  EXACTLY that.  And the rest of us should be able to leave our hard earned money to whomever we want NOT THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOV"T.    HONESTLY WHERE do people GET these ideas!!

----------


## Trinnity

> When did I say I'd do that, personally?  I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.


I'll add irrational. I didn't put any words in your mouth.

----------


## The XL

> I'll add irrational. I didn't put any words in your mouth.


You implied I'd do that to my kid.  I would not.  

There is absolutely nothing irrational about anything that I said.

----------


## The XL

> what?  What?  WHAT????    YES ABSOLUTELY if DAD wants him to have IT YOU DAMN RIGHT IT"S HIS AND HE"S ENTITLED.  WHAT the HELL do you think Rich Democrats DO?>  EXACTLY that.  And the rest of us should be able to leave our hard earned money to whomever we want NOT THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOV"T.    HONESTLY WHERE do people GET these ideas!!


What the hell are you talking about?  A father can leave anything he wants to his kid, I never said otherwise.

Learn how to read before you start venting and attacking me, please.

----------


## Calypso Jones

EVEN the Chinese believe in leaving their kids more well off than themselves...and so do many americans. BUT i DO run into Americans who say, 'If i die, then my wife can sell the house'. WHAT the HELL kind of husband/father is THAT!! or they say, " I'm not leaving my kids anything, i plan to spend it...and they spend it so much that when they die they can't even afford to BURY THEIR DAMN SELVES. Now THAT is the heighth of selfishness. You leave your kids better off than you were. And there's not a thing wrong with that. It is the right and moral thing to do.

1timothy 5:8

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

----------



----------


## Trinnity

> You implied I'd do that to my kid.  I would not.  
> 
> There is absolutely nothing irrational about anything that I said.


I didn't imply anything. I think you're an very angry person.

----------


## The XL

> I didn't imply anything. I think you're an very angry person.


What did I say in this thread that would lead you to this conclusion?

You're the one telling me I shouldn't be a father or husband based on nothing.

I'm fine.  I've never threatened to hit anyone over an internet debate, for starters.

----------


## Guest

> Lots of people here can learn. The question is whether it is the job of the justice system to punish people for not voluntarily learning the lessons you or I want them to learn. I tend to think that in a free market justice system, the only valid court action is where there is force or fraud, though there is certainly room for other sorts of arbitration if both parties agree to the process.


 @BleedingHeadKen,

why is paying your children a percentage of what you make a punishment?  




> I don't know why percentages rather than flat fees are "fair."


Because in the law, a creation of the state but the law nonetheless, when you have a majority of people of various income types a non-progressive percentage is better than telling poor people they need to cough up an amount of money they don't have OR allowing the Donald Trumps of this world who spawned numerous children by various tramps that their responsibilities for them are less than that they owe their business partners.

This would be because the society deemed that children have some value.  Perhaps you disagree, but that is the case made by the state.

I happen in this case to agree with the state because I believe that strong families breed kinder societies, but again, I'd be just as selfishly happy to see the world collapse under the weight of its lack of compassion and morality if I could be free from the chains of the state.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> All downside. No upside.
> 
> Even _HuffPo_ notices.
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-...b_3467778.html
> 
> Sure hope women are happy with the world theyve distorted.



...they won't ever admit it...just look at the back and forth on this forum with some of these gals and imagine working 8-12 hours a day and then coming home to some feminist forcing garbage down your throat until you go to bed...me personally, no piece of ass (wow, did I just say that?) is worth a constant barrage of feminist bs...just a thought, is this the reason porn is so huge right now?...because a piece of ass ain't worth the baggage coming with it?...I mean when you are done, turn of the computer or tv and you don't need to listen to "I feel, I feel, I feel"...that piece of paper is a death certificate...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> The article, written by a woman, makes some valid points. Helen Smith said, 
> "I talked with men all over America about why they're avoiding marriage. It turns out that the problem isn't that men are immature, or lazy. Instead, they're responding rationally to the incentives in today's society."
> 
> One of her points was that men lose their friends. It's actually worse than that, Helen. Of course, you lose all your friends but the activities you enjoy will be ruined to. Your life has to center on your wife and she has to control all pleasure.
> 
> Another was that you lose space. No kidding. My wife and I shared a closet for about a month. Then I was told to put my clothes in the hall closet by the front door.
> 
> Have you wondered about the "man cave" nonsense. I had a friend who had the first "man cave". He had one room in the house where he could take off his shoes, drink a beer and watch a ball game. Guys I worked with had their offices decorated with things they weren't allowed to have in their wife's house such as that stuffed large mouth bass or the bowling trophy.
> 
> ...


...this was pretty funny, but like I told calypso, humor always has a little truth to it...

----------


## Guest

> ...they won't ever admit it...just look at the back and forth on this forum with some of these gals and imagine working 8-12 hours a day and then coming home to some feminist forcing garbage down your throat until you go to bed...me personally, no piece of ass (wow, did I just say that?) is worth a constant barrage of feminist bs...just a thought, is this the reason porn is so huge right now?...because a piece of ass ain't worth the baggage coming with it?...I mean when you are done, turn of the computer or tv and you don't need to listen to "I feel, I feel, I feel"...that piece of paper is a death certificate...


 @Trinnity @Calypso Jones

Nope, no misogynists here.

Why am I offended by this and all generalizations?  

1.  I could buy and sell Kabuki Joe several times over with what I make and the people I've dated could be "pool boys" compared to me.  Have I cared?  Not in the least.
2.  Porn is so huge because men are visual creatures and like drugs its proliferated enough that you can get it everywhere
3.  Obviously a piece of ass is worth the baggage because guys still try to get into your pants.
4.  The marriage license is a death certificate according to him.  I'll be kind and not speculate on his marriage...

----------

Trinnity (06-21-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> That probably explains, Rina, why everyone I asked knew the meaning of the word misogynist but not a single person could tell me the word for a person who hates men. Most women said there was no such word because no one hates men.
> 
> The word is misandrist and the reason it's not in common use is that men don't whine constantly. Please note that the article that prompted the thread was written by a women.



...you're wasting your time with that one...as soon as you hurt her feelings it's a lost cause...

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> @BleedingHeadKen,
> 
> why is paying your children a percentage of what you make a punishment?


Why do you insist on creating a strawman? You are the one who said that you wanted some people to learn a lesson.




> Because in the law, a creation of the state but the law nonetheless, when you have a majority of people of various income types a non-progressive percentage is better than telling poor people they need to cough up an amount of money they don't have OR allowing the Donald Trumps of this world who spawned numerous children by various tramps that their responsibilities for them are less than that they owe their business partners.


I think you are getting things mixed up. Is The Donald supposed to be paying for his tramps or for his taxes? If he hasn't spawned any children at all, why is a progressive tax better? Does he use more government services than a poor person? 

Taxes don't go to government to pay for services. Government provides services so you don't revolt when they demand large portions of your income. 




> This would be because the society deemed that children have some value.  Perhaps you disagree, but that is the case made by the state.


Now you are really on it with the strawmen. What do children have to do with progressive taxation? I know politicians say "it's for the children", and are you saying that you believe them? I don't. They'll put that kid in a jail cell in a second for violating some political dictate or school rule.





> I happen in this case to agree with the state because I believe that strong families breed kinder societies, but again, I'd be just as selfishly happy to see the world collapse under the weight of its lack of compassion and morality if I could be free from the chains of the state.


Now you argue that progressive taxation creates stronger families!

Human beings don't lack for compassion. I find it hard to accept that the world will collapse under immorality and a lack of compassion if it's not ruled by the winners of popularity contests who then hire the sort of people who want to dictate what you can do with your life. I think people would be far more moral and compassionate without rulers.

----------


## Guest

> Why do you insist on creating a strawman? You are the one who said that you wanted some people to learn a lesson.


No, you referred to the kid with the Lexus crying over color and being taken down a peg, to which I responded as to why must kids be the _only_ ones learning the lesson.




> I think you are getting things mixed up. Is The Donald supposed to be paying for his tramps or for his taxes? If he hasn't spawned any children at all, why is a progressive tax better? Does he use more government services than a poor person?


In this instance I am talking about the percentage the courts require of parents who have noncustodial obligations to children, and stating that a flat percentage is better than a progressive in that both rich and poor pay the same amount of their income.




> Taxes don't go to government to pay for services. Government provides services so you don't revolt when they demand large portions of your income.


Not sure how taxes got into this discussion.  



> Now you are really on it with the strawmen. What do children have to do with progressive taxation? I know politicians say "it's for the children", and are you saying that you believe them? I don't. They'll put that kid in a jail cell in a second for violating some political dictate or school rule.


What?  Where did I talk about taxation?  The percentage I am referring to is the flat percentage the courts place about child support.





> Now you argue that progressive taxation creates stronger families!


WHAT?  No!  Go back and reread.  I'm saying that the state decided that people should pay child support.  That is all.




> Human beings don't lack for compassion. I find it hard to accept that the world will collapse under immorality and a lack of compassion if it's not ruled by the winners of popularity contests who then hire the sort of people who want to dictate what you can do with your life. I think people would be far more moral and compassionate without rulers.


I am now flummoxed.  I don't even know what you are replying to.

I said that if we have a society where children are not valued, where sacrifice is not demonstrated by their parents, where good values are not imparted then it will be a cruel one.  That is all.  I didn't say that the state is required to impart values.  The state does the opposite, IMO.

----------


## Gemini

> ...they won't ever admit it...just look at the back and forth on this forum with some of these gals and imagine working 8-12 hours a day and then coming home to some feminist forcing garbage down your throat until you go to bed...me personally, no piece of ass (wow, did I just say that?) is worth a constant barrage of feminist bs...just a thought, is this the reason porn is so huge right now?...because a piece of ass ain't worth the baggage coming with it?...I mean when you are done, turn of the computer or tv and you don't need to listen to "I feel, I feel, I feel"...that piece of paper is a death certificate...


This is why it is important to not casually enter into an eternal covenant such as marriage.  Ideally people will study each other better before committing to each other.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> This is why it is important to not casually enter into an eternal covenant such as marriage. Ideally people will study each other better before committing to each other.


...but that's not always the case...my wife and I had it rough at first and I still married her...yes, it was my fault because I had doubts but I didn't want to hurt her feelings...eventually we both made some small adjustments and now 33 years later we are best friends...I don't think marriage is an easy thing and with how screwed up gender issues are in the present it makes marriage more difficult...

----------


## Gemini

> ...but that's not always the case...my wife and I had it rough at first and I still married her...yes, it was my fault because I had doubts but I didn't want to hurt her feelings...eventually we both made some small adjustments and now 33 years later we are best friends...I don't think marriage is an easy thing and with how screwed up gender issues are in the present it makes marriage more difficult...


The first year is always rough.  And marriage is a challenge.   But things that require work and generally worth the effort.

Sure gender issues are jacked up beyond belief in our country, but that is no reason to throw in the towel entirely.  It does make the search a little more frustrating though.  In the end their are no guarantees, only hope of success.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> The first year is always rough. And marriage is a challenge. But things that require work and generally worth the effort.
> 
> Sure gender issues are jacked up beyond belief in our country, but that is no reason to throw in the towel entirely. It does make the search a little more frustrating though. In the end their are no guarantees, only hope of success.



...I hear it every day where I work, the younger guys worrying about pissing their wives off...and when I tell them I don't have those worries they automatically call me a liar...I would hate to be young and single in this day and age...

----------


## Network

Why do so many women prefer guy friends? Why do so many women dislike so many other women?

hmmmm.

As for me, I'm a lone wolf. Fish with a bone hook
Your zone shook when V took back what the throne took.


I don't like people....
enough to live with them.  

 :Sad20:

----------


## Guest

> This is why it is important to not casually enter into an eternal covenant such as marriage.  Ideally people will study each other better before committing to each other.


 @Gemini

Did you read the "some of these gals" part of Kabuki Joe's diatribe?  There are exactly three of us on here at the moment.

Which of us are the alleged "feminists" that he describes?  Which of us wish to dismantle "men"?

----------


## Calypso Jones

Why do women like guy friends. do you mean Homo Guy friends? it makes them feel tolerant, and modern, and they love to talk fashion with a guy...face it. Homos have a lot of style sense. 

Why do straight women want to force their straight boyfriends into a friendship with the gal's homo boyfriend? that's what i'd like to know. That's freakin' sick.

Why do women hate each other? We look at each other as competition, we're jealous of each other. It's stupid and petty but we're women and that is our tiny world. It's easy to get past it. I have. I only hate democrat women now. They're not pretty so there is no competition, they're stupid, that's a minor problem but if you don't allow them in your circle of friends it's easy enough to handle. They are easy, guys love that. And those guys that want it that badly are willing to be friends with their homo boyfriends and speak feminazi-ish.

see how easy that is?

----------


## Guest

> Why do so many women prefer guy friends? Why do so many women dislike so many other women?


Women are like horses.  Our herd mentality is different.  When we make friends with each other (or horses, the creatures we most prefer over men) it is a lifelong bond, through thick and thin, through suffering and joy.  We don't have many friends, but the ones we make are unusually close to us.

My best friend is a female that I have known since middle school/coming to America.  She is as close to my heart as any family member.

----------


## Calypso Jones

i don't see this much but i've caught bits and pieces of housewives of here and there.  Those women seem to be friends in the manner of 'know what your enemy is up to'.     Appears to me that they'd stab each other in the back in a heartbeat.

nobody except kids can be more hateful to other people.   We have the market cornered.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Why do so many women prefer guy friends? Why do so many women dislike so many other women?
> 
> hmmmm.
> 
> As for me, I'm a lone wolf. Fish with a bone hook
> Your zone shook when V took back what the throne took.
> 
> 
> I don't like people....
> enough to live with them.



...come on, it's not that bad...my wife and I are both introverts...we like spending time with each other but we also like our space apart...she likes to watch tv and hates when I intrude on her time...I'm the same with video games...I'm just lucky she was eye candy and not some horrid social outcast...she's really a sweetheart, right now she's down visiting family in California while I stay at home with the dogs...it works out perfectly...

----------


## Gemini

> @Gemini
> 
> Did you read the "some of these gals" part of Kabuki Joe's diatribe?  There are exactly three of us on here at the moment.
> 
> Which of us are the alleged "feminists" that he describes?  Which of us wish to dismantle "men"?


I've not identified any blatant misandrists yet.  Or feminists.  At least on this board anyways.

----------


## Guest

> i don't see this much but i've caught bits and pieces of housewives of here and there.  Those women seem to be friends in the manner of 'know what your enemy is up to'.     Appears to me that they'd stab each other in the back in a heartbeat.
> 
> nobody except kids can be more hateful to other people.   We have the market cornered.


We have the market cornered on bitchy maybe, but how many women committed genocide against teh jewes, gypies, teh ghayz, teh commies, teh blacks, teh injuns, etc.

You have a really skewed opinion of what hateful is.  I think it looks like this:

----------


## Guest

> I've not identified any blatant misandrists yet.  Or feminists.  At least on this board anyways.


Well, you're wrong!  It was a trick!  I tricksied you!  I hate men, I hate them.  Haaaate them.   :Big Grin:

----------


## Calypso Jones

> We have the market cornered on bitchy maybe, but how many women committed genocide against teh jewes, gypies, teh ghayz, teh commies, teh blacks, teh injuns, etc.
> 
> You have a really skewed opinion of what hateful is. I think it looks like this:



well...weren't we talking about womenvswomen and not a world war situation.    Maybe the problem with us today is we take a small problem and try to apply it to the world.  YES, the HOLOCAUST was wicked and beyond evil.  but that was not the topic.

----------

Kabuki Joe (06-21-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> well...weren't we talking about womenvswomen and not a world war situation. Maybe the problem with us today is we take a small problem and try to apply it to the world. _YES, the HOLOCAUST was wicked and beyond evil. but that was not the topic._



...I like this...

----------


## Guest

> well...weren't we talking about womenvswomen and not a world war situation.    Maybe the problem with us today is we take a small problem and try to apply it to the world.  YES, the HOLOCAUST was wicked and beyond evil.  but that was not the topic.


I am talking about science and hormones and why women can be bitchy as opposed to methodical in their hatred.

We're not built like them.

----------


## Guest

> ...I like this...


^^Of course he does.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I see methodical in a lot of women. there are more women murderers than you know. The fact is that most of us don't kill the body but we are experts at killing other parts of other women. and men.

Men and women are capable of great evil. Discounting ours by comparing it to men doesn't make it any nicer.

Let's talk about the relentless evil of liberal men whose goal is to destroy not only the conservative woman and her career but also her children and husband.

----------


## Guest

> I see methodical in a lot of women.  there are more women murderers than you know. The fact is that most of us don't kill the body but we are experts at killing other parts of other women.  and men.


To quote Mr. Darcy: _Are you so severe on your own sex_?

I see women and men no differently in terms of nobility.  Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses.

----------


## Gemini

> Well, you're wrong!  It was a trick!  I tricksied you!  I hate men, I hate them.  Haaaate them.


I have just the response for this!

...blarg. :Cool20:

----------



----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> No, you referred to the kid with the Lexus crying over color and being taken down a peg, to which I responded as to why must kids be the _only_ ones learning the lesson.


That's still a strawman as I never suggested that only the child should learn the lesson. I was pointing out that it could work both ways. IN any case, I don't support the initiation of aggression to teach someone a lesson that I think they should learn, unless, maybe, it's in a back alley.




> In this instance I am talking about the percentage the courts require of parents who have noncustodial obligations to children, and stating that a flat percentage is better than a progressive in that both rich and poor pay the same amount of their income.


Certainly, it's better for the child, but that doesn't mean that all other methods constitutes force or fraud. In a free market justice system, courts that can satisfy consumers will survive. So, as a voluntaryist, how would you expect courts to deal with this? My feeling is that it has to be contractual from the beginning.




> Not sure how taxes got into this discussion.



Then let's agree that it was some confusion, probably on my part, and let it go.

----------



----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> ...I hear it every day where I work, the younger guys worrying about pissing their wives off...and when I tell them I don't have those worries they automatically call me a liar...I would hate to be young and single in this day and age...


Personal development has helped me tremendously in this regard. If my wife is pissed off, it's really her own damned problem unless I did something that breaks a marraige vow. And, if I am pissed off, then it's my damned problem and it does us no good to put it on her.  We have our issues, and we get mad, and now they get resolved fast because neither of us are willing to let the other put their issues on the other. It has to be resolved rather than passed on.
Often that means making requests rather than demands, and requests are likely to be met and honored. Demands create resentment, yet we are taught now, as children, that making demands of our parents and everyone around us is ok. We are plugged into a school system which rules by authority and demand of chidlren to be obedient, so we never learn to play like our forebears did and learn the rules from each other and what works and what doesn't.

----------


## Guest

> Certainly, it's better for the child, but that doesn't mean that all other methods constitutes force or fraud. In a free market justice system, courts that can satisfy consumers will survive. So, as a voluntaryist, how would you expect courts to deal with this? My feeling is that it has to be contractual from the beginning.


In a voluntaryist system it would depend.  

In a religious community I'm not sure that contracts would be necessary.  The Amish live outside of government and use community pressure versus force.  They also have strong standards when it comes to family.  The LDS, too.

For everyone else I would imagine it would be in a contract between individuals who are going to cohabitate and have children.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-21-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

There would be plenty of stupid women that would not require a contract.  There would be plenty of men that would ignore any contract.  This is where the state comes in handy.  Children cannot be left to poverty and neglect in such a situation.   It would be nice if it were not so, but it is.    Maybe if we had not told God to take a hike, things would not be like this.

----------


## Guest

> There would be plenty of stupid women that would not require a contract.  There would be plenty of men that would ignore any contract.  This is where the state comes in handy.  Children cannot be left to poverty and neglect in such a situation.   It would be nice if it were not so, but it is.    Maybe if we had not told God to take a hike, things would not be like this.


As I said, it depends on whether you are religious or not.  Pressure in some way would need to be applied IF society cared about protecting other people's children.

Does society?  Should society?

These are things individuals should answer.

I come from a culture with the saying: _The day your child is born is the day you die_.

Polish parents, not American "Polacks", but actual Polish parents like my father sacrifice everything for their kids because their culture, their church, their neighbors, etc. demand it.  As a result you see families where the elderly parents live in the same house with their children because the children as they grow respect that sacrifice.

There are other cultures like this, Asians for example, and, yes, Latinos.  Our illegal immigrants are here mostly because they are willing to risk jail or deportation to give their children better lives.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> In a voluntaryist system it would depend.  
> 
> In a religious community I'm not sure that contracts would be necessary.  The Amish live outside of government and use community pressure versus force.  They also have strong standards when it comes to family.  The LDS, too.


I think that's an even better solution, when available. And, again, it's government that has caused so much breakup in families and flung them far and wide. Here in California, "Smart growth" programs and high corporate taxes make it difficult for young people to find quality homes and good jobs, so they leave the state and their families. The communal option becomes more difficult and people become ever more dependent on the state and it's perverted, corrupt justice system.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> There would be plenty of stupid women that would not require a contract.  There would be plenty of men that would ignore any contract.  This is where the state comes in handy.  Children cannot be left to poverty and neglect in such a situation.   It would be nice if it were not so, but it is.    Maybe if we had not told God to take a hike, things would not be like this.


The state ignores contracts all the time and arbitrarily determines things that make no sense for couples. I don't know why you see it as a preferable option. In many cases, it makes the situation worse by putting huge burdens on one parent or the other thus encouraging a separation. 

Still, some people firmly believe that bureaucrats are better at ruling our lives.

----------

