You got 5 offers in increasing order of pay. A, B, C, D, E. Governments wants to force you to pick C.
What would government do? Tell you to do C?
No.
Governments need only to prohibit D and E. Then government would say, no body force you to do C. You can still do A and B.
Then government will say that D and E is so bad anyway nobody would want it anyway. How the hell we know that nobody wants D and E if both are illegal? We can measure it by the amount of money people are willing to bribe to be allowed to do D and E. And that’s the issue is. The more government prohibit, the bigger the tax or bribe.
The most obvious sample is marriage. We can think of A as abstinence, B as homosexual relationship, C as marriage, D as prostitution, and E as intercontinental prostitution.
Many women prefer to be prostitute than getting married. Many women in poor country prefer to go to richer countries for higher paying mates. To force people to get married, governments simply prohibit prostitution and intercontinental prostitution.
Government will say, “No body force you to get married. You are still free to commit suicide, commit abortion, commit seppuku, or embracing abstinence.”
In a sense, government is right. There are many ways to circumvent this anyway. The best way to enforce contract is to split it into pieces.
Rather than paying her, it makes sense to just buy her flower and chocolates and see if you get laid after that. She stop humping, you stop paying. However, this doesn’t really accommodate more complex contract but should be good enough.
When you want to have children, things get more complicated.
Government doesn’t even have to prohibit D and E. Governments only need to whack the market price.
Say the price of carrot is $7/kg. Say governments want to prohibit carrot. It’s easy. Government will either set minimum price of $50/kg or maximum price of $1/kg.
Now there will be over supply and over demand.
We see this in many areas.
You can donate organ but you cannot sell it. That means maximum price of organ is 0. Hence there are very few organ donors.
Say governments want to prohibit women from picking the rich. Government does not have to explicitly say that. Government can institute a maximum wage of 0 for sex workers. Government can demand exorbitant child support from richer males.
Governments decide the amount of child support a man should pay to his mate. The women do not decide that. That effectively prohibits women from picking richer males to breed.
Also governments do not have to prohibit things totally when switching strategy is rare.
Most governments recoqnize freedom of religion. Well, those who choose their religions are heretics and apostates. Hence, to force people to adopt a certain religion, governments can easily prohibit apostasy.
In fact, all that matter is not what religion you believe in. All that matter is you do what your slave owners want you to do. Hence, government can easily claim that all religions tell you to pay higher tax and tolerate rulers extravagant spending. Governments then claim that religions that believe in different opinions as heretics.
Indonesian governments use this strategy to force people to get married. They want to criminalize all cohabitation agreement. Then governments claim that all religions prohibit sex outside marriage. If someone raises an opinion that even popes have concubines they are called heretics.
Seems like you also advocate forcing people to do things. This is from another forum post you made
"In the past I have supported mandatory porn consumption to reduce rape, mandatory concealed gun ownership to reduce crime, and minimum wage for all sexual intercouse with women to improve women's dignity. This is just another small government that actually can solve problem."
lol
Ironically the minimum wage for sexual intercourse could hurt the dignity of those women who would be able to have sex for free, but no one would be willing to pay them the minimum wage set by the government
This is some twisted thinking. I don't know why all your examples are about sex...
I was going to lock this thread, but what the hell - it's been awhile since I've seen as crazy ass a thread as this one
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
It's only after this thread had a couple replies that I finally bothered to read past the fourth line.
Mandatory porn consumption is actually a parody to show how ridiculous anti porn laws are for those who don't get it.
However it can be taken seriously.
I mean, why settle for libertarianism? If you settle for what's fair, you get screwed. Low ball the offers. Demand the opposite of what governments want.
If feminazi truly demand equality, they won't get it. It's because they demand people to actively discriminate against men that people listen.
If black people demand equality, they won't get it. It's because they demand privilege they get more.
Sometimes you just have to ask for more.
Me I love porn. I am tired living in the world where others decide what's best for me. So fuck it. They demand that I don't watch porn, why should I settle for libertarianism? I too would demand that they watch.
By the way where is my thread that I said I want to make porn mandatory?
At the least you got to take that it's more moral than the opposite, namely prohibition of porn and prostitution.
In this thread where you suggested giving free ganja to umeployed people or something you also suggested mandatory porn consumption
http://mises.org/community/forums/t/32797.aspx
Just because you get mad at people who look down on your porn watching doesn't justify you forcing them to watch porn lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU2XAm3Z_ms
I am not a libertarian.
I am more I do to you as you do to me.
If they forced me to not to watch porn, that gives justification for me to also use force, preferably against the asshole.
In fact, if society is not just and productive people are screwed, to me it's practical and moral to simply take advantage of that.
"You got 5 offers in increasing order of pay. A, B, C, D, E. Governments wants to force you to pick C.
Governments need only to prohibit D and E. Then government would say, no body force you to do C. You can still do A and B."
Why are A, B, C, D, E in increasing utility for everyone? Why do you assume that it wouldn't change with the imposition of this new coercion? For the strategy of banning D and E to get everyone to do C to work, that presumes so much government knowlege.
And why is forcing them to not do D and E the same as forcing them to do C? They chose C because that was what they wanted to do most, given the coercion and other circumstances. The government might prohibit something with the aim that people may do something the govt. wants them to do, but thats not the same as directly forcing them to do that.
"Then government will say that D and E is so bad anyway nobody would want it anyway. How the hell we know that nobody wants D and E if both are illegal? We can measure it by the amount of money people are willing to bribe to be allowed to do D and E. And that’s the issue is. The more government prohibit, the bigger the tax or bribe."
seems to lose track a bit. But I don't think its entirely accurate to determine whether a person would prefer D and E, because other preferences may come into play. Heck, the person could just be acting this way to try to trick you into thinking that their preferences are what you think they are.
And the "more government prohibit, the bigger the tax or bribe", can you please clarify your position and defend it?
"The most obvious sample is marriage. We can think of A as abstinence, B as homosexual relationship, C as marriage, D as prostitution, and E as intercontinental prostitution."
"Many women prefer to be prostitute than getting married. Many women in poor country prefer to go to richer countries for higher paying mates. To force people to get married, governments simply prohibit prostitution and intercontinental prostitution."
How does this relate to your previous commentary? Why would everyone's preferences be this way? And why are you doing a bait and switch with what people's preferences are?
"Say the price of carrot is $7/kg. Say governments want to prohibit carrot. It’s easy. Government will either set minimum price of $50/kg or maximum price of $1/kg."
Ok, I don't see much of a difference between these two means of prohibiting carrots.
Schools are labour camps.
Philophically forcing people to do C is different than prohibiting D and E. Practically, and I am a practical person, it's the same.
It's like me putting gun in your head prohibiting you to leave peacefully. or screaming I am not forcing you to give me your wallet. You can still commit suicide, etc. Well, what? It's still robbery.
This is especially true if the prohibition is comprehensive. So if the choice is A, B, C, D, E, F and government prohibit D, I can't say that government force you to do C. You can still choose E and F. If government prohibits D, E, and F, then it's forcing.
Many laws are far more comprehensive than you think. Prostitution, for example, is defined to be sex for "consideration". That's pretty wide blanket there.
The same way by prohibiting jews from immigrating to US, government during Nazi era forced those jews to get into concentration camp. By prohibiting women from becoming international sex workers, government has forced those women to stay in their God forsaken country where they will be stoned, etc.
How do I know if a person prefer D or E instead of C? If D or E is illegal, how do I know that the person actually prefer D and E instead of C? That's interesting question. It's a HARD question.
Many says women want love and get married. People says that no women would want to have sex just for cash. What about if the truth is the opposite? What about if many beautiful women prefer cash than marriage? The most beautiful girl in my high school is reported told that she prefer to be a concubine of a rich man than keep being a wife of a poorer man. However, she can't even divorce her husband.
We never know which one is true easily because one of them is illegal.
One way to know is to see how much that person would bribe to be allowed to do D and E. Lots of bribes are in ganja industry, prostitution industry, etc. That shows that those things are so preferable that customers would pay extra, directly or indirectly to get those things.
Ganja, afterall, is prohibited to force us to take pharmacy's dangerous drugs.
Want me to explain the carrot?
Free sex like organ donation is not market price. In most relationship between men and women, men pays. That's because women's eggs are rare and men's sperms are abundant. The same way organ donation is not market price. Usually the donor that gets nothing in return and lost a kidney got paid while the recipient pays.
So to force people to get married, government does not need to prohibit acts that defy market price. Government doesn't prohibit free sex or organ donation. Those are way out of market price people would rarely do it anyway.
But why would government prohibit paid sex and paid organ donation? SImple. Envy toward the rich. If those were legal, the rich would horde all.