<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Economics Questions</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/5.aspx</link><description /><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>The one law that should go away</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/482896.aspx</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:34:25 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:482896</guid><dc:creator>genepool</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/482896.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=5&amp;PostID=482896</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p class="summary"&gt;
	I think the most important laws to be struct down is laws governing child support. Especially the one setting the child support to be proportional to man&amp;#39;s wealth. Such arrangements prevent women from picking rich smart biological dad for her babies.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	The only way a woman can guarantee she wouldn&amp;#39;t demand more than say $1k per month child support is to actually pick a man that can&amp;#39;t afford more than $1k per month. I think that severely limit women&amp;#39;s choice. If that&amp;#39;s struck down, a lot of poverty will be gone.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	Let me illustrate:&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	Say a woman has 2 offers. First from a billionaire that want to commit $1k per month for child support. Second from a mediocre that can afford $500 per month for child support. And Third from a welfare parasite that would afford nothing but expect taxpayers to pay up.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	It&amp;#39;s up to women of course. However, if anything should be illegal, it would be the third.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	However, the first option, that the girl may prefer the most, is the one that&amp;#39;s legally impossible.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	Say because of that the girl choose the second option. Now her child is raised with even less money. So &amp;quot;the child&amp;quot; is actually worst off!!!&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	So the law doesn&amp;#39;t actually increase the amount of support a child enjoy. It actually reduces it!&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	You see how silly child support laws are?&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	Basically government simply override the women&amp;#39;s selection.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	There are 2 arguments that are made in favor of the law&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	1. A billionaire would spend a lot of money for the child anyway if he is the father&lt;br /&gt;
	2. It&amp;#39;s not the child&amp;#39;s fault that father is gone and hence the child shouldn&amp;#39;t get less when the father&amp;#39;s is gone.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	The 2 arguments are baseless.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	1. Who is government to decide how much a parent would spend for his car, pet, or biological children? If a rich parent fail to pay for basic necessity for his children, government has a case. Even on that case, government allows that anyway and even pay up the difference. This is a recuring problem. Government dictate that a person must do something and act as if that something is what they would have done anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
	2. While it&amp;#39;s not the child&amp;#39;s fault that father is gone or stingy, the child has not done any merit either to deserve luxury. The father/mother may have build a business empire, invent better light bulbs. That is why it&amp;#39;s up to the parent to decide what to do with the money. You earn it, you decide how to spend it.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	I am not saying the child of the rich should life as thrifty as the child of the poor. I am saying that it&amp;#39;s up to the actual creator of the wealth, namely the parents, not the child.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="summary"&gt;
	If the parents want to make 1 child and spend $10 million for that 1 child, or 10 children and spend $1 million per each child, it&amp;#39;s up to the parent. Why should a child with no merit on his own have right over their parent&amp;#39;s money beyond what&amp;#39;s actually needed to actually raise a child?&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	It makes a child&amp;#39;s right unclear. Sure, a parent has an obligation to support his child. But how much? And who decides?&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
	Most importantly, this gives governments&amp;#39; power over individuals&amp;#39; choice. It gets money to lawyers, instead of the child. It&amp;#39;s always a bad news.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	&lt;span class="timestamp"&gt;However, the #1 reason why this law should go away is what I suspected to be the real hidden reason behind the law.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	The law prevent future parents from picking rich partners to be parents. In particular, it prevents future young girls from picking richer males. We know the 2 groups have high demand for each other.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	Think about it. The #1 reason of socialism is to support parents that can&amp;#39;t afford their child. #1 reason why the parents can&amp;#39;t afford the child is because parents are prevented from picking a rich partner to be parents.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	There are plenty of future parents that can actually attract extremely rich other future parents. However, they can&amp;#39;t do that because they can&amp;#39;t commit not to ask too much. $1k per month is nothing for a millionaire, but setting child support to $55k per month like in the case of Charlie Sheen, would make even millionaires think twice before agreeing to fertilize an egg.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div class="popular-item-meta"&gt;
	Politicians have every incentive to ensure the poor voters that demand socialism breed like rabbit. I think that&amp;#39;s the real reason why they like the law so much.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>