Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree with?
 

A large number of males with no access to the gene pool.

I hope we can all see why that would be a bad thing. We simply can't expect these men to sit idle, based on some arbitrary policy of non aggression when their biology forces them to act otherwise.

The general principle of free markets is that people do what's in there best interest. Typically this leads to results that all will benefit from. However with things like marriage, this self interested action could cause the entire system to fall. In fact encouraging marriage and being able to enforce a one man one women rule might be necessary to starve off revolution, or less grand acts of aggression. Acts of aggression are common in countries with large ammounts of males that are denied access to quality females, and peace rare.

The reason is simple free market economics. There are plenty of men that are worth 6 times, 20 times, 1000 times as much as the ACists on this board. Their wives acting in self interest would be better of with those men, even if they only had access to 1/6th 1/20th or 1/1000th of them. Economics and the policy of freedom dictates that without outside interference the quality reproductive opportunities would become hoarded by a fraction of the male population.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree with?
 

Yeah because women really like being sexually unfulfilled in exchange for money. I'd say that rich women having harems of men is far more likely.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree with?
 

If this were the case, what on Earth would stop my hypothetical wife from leaving me for another man now?

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
If this were the case, what on Earth would stop my hypothetical wife from leaving me for another man now?

[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't very likely to happen. So you(hypothetically) personally are fairly safe.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah because women really like being sexually unfulfilled in exchange for money. I'd say that rich women having harems of men is far more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]
So no chance of this happening on a larger scale?
http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertai...photos/126.jpg

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

No, the mentality of those three does not represent the large percentage of the female population.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

No more chance than it has of happening now. It's not like there are any differences that would change it.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, the mentality of those three does not represent the large percentage of the female population.

[/ QUOTE ]A large majority of the female population doesn't like rich successful men? I'd say it might be Hugh's professional life that is different then the other men not the mentality of women. There are also a number of incentives that exist such as tax credits, as well as it's illegal to have more then one wife.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

What about the fact that, even though (some) women are attracted to rich, successful men, (for others, it's not an issue) the number of women who would tolerate being one of many wives has to be extremely low.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are also a number of incentives that exist such as tax credits, as well as it's illegal to have more then one wife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously suggesting that:

a) People engage in monogamy for the tax credits?
b) People who get married never sleep with anyone but their spouse because that's the law?

For real? You think this is how humans act?

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
A large majority of the female population doesn't like rich successful men?

[/ QUOTE ]

To the exclusion of all other considerations? No!

[ QUOTE ]
There are also a number of incentives that exist such as tax credits, as well as it's illegal to have more then one wife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Minor tax credits are irrelevant to the rich and who the hell cares about whether the government "officially" recognizes your relationship? If a woman just wants money, why would she care about a government sanctioned message?

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about the fact that, even though (some) women are attracted to rich, successful men, (for others, it's not an issue) the number of women who would tolerate being one of many wives has to be extremely low.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know if that is because currently there aren't any good arrangement to be had. And the government actively prevents this type of free arrangements, as well as coerced ones. I don't really know at this point I'm speculated that the people who gain the most from the current marriage regulations are the vast majority of men, who otherwise would not be able to find a mate, or if they were able to find a mate, a much lower quality one would be all that was available.

Or it could just be social conditioning, or it's possible it biological. Rational self interest would seem that women would be better to share 1/5 of a men worth 6 times as much as the one she could get currently.

You could be right that women wouldn't tolerate it for the most part, I'm not certain.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
People engage in monogamy for the tax credits?

[/ QUOTE ] Not exactly, People engage in marriage for economic reasons as well.

[ QUOTE ]
People who get married never sleep with anyone but their spouse because that's the law?

[/ QUOTE ] No, I can't answer the question why don't people break the law currently if being one of multiple wives is such a great economic deal. I'd assume there a plenty of reasons.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rational self interest would seem that women would be better to share 1/5 of a men worth 6 times as much as the one she could get currently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a flaw in your development. A woman may "value" a man at 6 times the value of another man, given that she would be the only partner of each man. When you add in the dynamic affect that the "benefit" of the man may have to be shared, then she may prefer to take the "crappy" spouse all for herself rather than share the Brad Pitt spouse. Therefore she would pick the crappier spouse totally out her self interest based motives.

You are assuming that the valuations women make given the current social norm of monogamy would remain unchanged when the social norm of monogamy is removed. This should be obviously false.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
who the hell cares about whether the government "officially" recognizes your relationship?

[/ QUOTE ] This is a ridiculous question. There are a number of people fighting for just that right.

[ QUOTE ]
If a woman just wants money, why would she care about a government sanctioned message?

[/ QUOTE ] It's not that I think a women just wants money, I can see why you went there, but that needn't be the case.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]

Here is a flaw in your development. A woman may "value" a man at 6 times the value of another man, given that she would be the only partner of each man. When you add in the dynamic affect that the "benefit" of the man may have to be shared, then she may prefer to take the "crappy" spouse all for herself rather than share the Brad Pitt spouse. Therefore she would pick the crappier spouse totally out her self interest based motives.

[/ QUOTE ] Certainly there is a point where she would choose the shared "better" spouse over the exclusive "crappy" one?

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]

Rational self interest would seem that women would be better to share 1/5 of a men worth 6 times as much as the one she could get currently.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. Very few people care only about money. Even if she doesn't care about sexual satisfaction (HA!), she certainly cares about emotional fulfillment. Most people get in relationships for sex and emotions, not for money. Maybe women take money into consideration as well, but they still want the sex and love more than anything else, and 20% of a man's sex and love when many women aren't even fulfilled by 100% is crazy talk.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't answer the question why don't people break the law currently if being one of multiple wives is such a great economic deal. I'd assume there a plenty of reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to break the law to have multiple "wives" you just have to not get "official" state-santioned marriages, which makes very, very little real difference.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here is a flaw in your development. A woman may "value" a man at 6 times the value of another man, given that she would be the only partner of each man. When you add in the dynamic affect that the "benefit" of the man may have to be shared, then she may prefer to take the "crappy" spouse all for herself rather than share the Brad Pitt spouse. Therefore she would pick the crappier spouse totally out her self interest based motives.

[/ QUOTE ] Certainly there is a point where she would choose the shared "better" spouse over the exclusive "crappy" one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget that the man has to want her aswel. If she's desirable enough to be one of Bill Gates' 40 wives then her other option is probably not frank the gas station attendant, its probably a pretty good life overall.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly there is a point where she would choose the shared "better" spouse over the exclusive "crappy" one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - SOME men would conceivably have multiple spouses, SOME women would have multiple spouses, SOME people would have one spouse only, SOME people would have same sex relationships. So what? You have NO idea how the social norms for relationships would change, if at all, once government attempts to manipulate relationships are removed. But your half-baked theories about women have you advertising that you've found "a reason why AC will fail".

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Certainly there is a point where she would choose the shared "better" spouse over the exclusive "crappy" one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - SOME men would conceivably have multiple spouses, SOME women would have multiple spouses, SOME people would have one spouse only, SOME people would have same sex relationships. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]It's not only possible but likely, This will lead to a large number of sexually frustrated men, with no access to the gene pool. This leads to acts of aggression.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here is a flaw in your development. A woman may "value" a man at 6 times the value of another man, given that she would be the only partner of each man. When you add in the dynamic affect that the "benefit" of the man may have to be shared, then she may prefer to take the "crappy" spouse all for herself rather than share the Brad Pitt spouse. Therefore she would pick the crappier spouse totally out her self interest based motives.

[/ QUOTE ] Certainly there is a point where she would choose the shared "better" spouse over the exclusive "crappy" one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget that the man has to want her aswel. If she's desirable enough to be one of Bill Gates' 40 wives then her other option is probably not frank the gas station attendant, its probably a pretty good life overall.

[/ QUOTE ] Cool, someone that kinda agrees. Gas station attendant gets no love for the most part in AC. That might even be a good thing, AC trumps government intervention after all. Do you feel that there won't be enough people denied access to the gene pool to be much a problem?

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

OP, the big question on everyone's mind is:

How is this different from life in America now? Right now, today, in America, I doubt there are any women who would share a mutual attraction with Bill Gates who would also share a mutual attraction with Frank the Gas Station Attendant.

This argument isn't making any sense to me. I haven't seen anything in this thread that isn't already happening.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
OP, the big question on everyone's mind is:

How is this different from life in America now? Right now, today, in America, I doubt there are any women who would share a mutual attraction with Bill Gates who would also share a mutual attraction with Frank the Gas Station Attendant.

This argument isn't making any sense to me. I haven't seen anything in this thread that isn't already happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but the OP has made it perfectly clear that providing tax incentives for government certified marrige results in universal love and happiness and every man has access to the gene pool and therefore never commits acts of agression.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP, the big question on everyone's mind is:

How is this different from life in America now? Right now, today, in America, I doubt there are any women who would share a mutual attraction with Bill Gates who would also share a mutual attraction with Frank the Gas Station Attendant.

This argument isn't making any sense to me. I haven't seen anything in this thread that isn't already happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but the OP has made it perfectly clear that providing tax incentives for government certified marrige results in universal love and happiness and every man has access to the gene pool and therefore never commits acts of agression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, my mistake.

Government intervention FTW.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

No.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not only possible but likely, This will lead to a large number of sexually frustrated men, with no access to the gene pool. This leads to acts of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, here's the problem.

Assertion number 1: Increased society-wide sexual frustration would increase the number/magnitude of acts of agression. Okay, reasonable assertion.

Assertion number 2: Removing government incentives for marriage and laws against polygamy would increase the "amount" of sexual frustration. This is "derived" from your totally baseless social calculus determined from your baseless assertions about the behavioural mechanics of mate selection, a total disregard for how behaviour changes when social norms change, and an under-the-surface assumption that people select mates the way they do because of the government's law. I am not convinced.

Assertion 3: This is proof that AC would fail. Um, no. Hypothesizing that everyone will act in an ultimately destructive way when the government does not intervene and concluding that the society would collapse does not consitute "proof". It isn't even evidence that AC is a bad philosophy.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

The more I reread this thread, the more I question OP's interaction with women. These theories are just insane. People don't think like this.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP, the big question on everyone's mind is:

How is this different from life in America now? Right now, today, in America, I doubt there are any women who would share a mutual attraction with Bill Gates who would also share a mutual attraction with Frank the Gas Station Attendant.

This argument isn't making any sense to me. I haven't seen anything in this thread that isn't already happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but the OP has made it perfectly clear that providing tax incentives for government certified marrige results in universal love and happiness and every man has access to the gene pool and therefore never commits acts of agression.

[/ QUOTE ]I have not stated anything like that.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assertion number 2: Removing government incentives for marriage and laws against polygamy would increase the "amount" of sexual frustration. This is "derived" from your totally baseless social calculus determined from your baseless assertions about the behavioural mechanics of mate selection, a total disregard for how behaviour changes when social norms change, and an under-the-surface assumption that people select mates the way they do because of the government's law. I am not convinced.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not convinced either. It's based off of a article on the freakonomics blog with some wildly speculative points. One of which was that the big winner of the current marriage structure was men. It's an interested topic, but fairly speculative.

[ QUOTE ]
Assertion 3: This is proof that AC would fail. Um, no. Hypothesizing that everyone will act in an ultimately destructive way when the government does not intervene and concluding that the society would collapse does not consitute "proof". It isn't even evidence that AC is a bad philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ] No it's that people will act in a way that is in their interest will ultimately lead to more acts of aggression. It's a PD type argument. I think if a good argument against AC that would convince other kool-aid drinkers it would be of that type.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

Chics dig me cause I'm beautiful. It's not the fancy cars or the clothes I wear. Now I'm inspired to go all Genghis Kahn on the gene pool and show Doug how we do it in AC land.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree with?
 

OP, let's say you're right and women will "gang up" on men with money. If this is "likely", why wouldn't they also just have other relationships with other men as well, thus eliminating the whole problem?

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree with?
 

You see in ACland, biology would be totally overcome by voluntary arrangements whereby pimps would rent out armies of prostitutes to meet the market need of sexually agressive males. These superpimps would of course form voluntary associations that will regulate the industry to ensure the health of the prostitutes, the quality of service, and humane treatment of the workforce.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree with?
 

What makes you think the societal norms that favor monogamy would disappear in an anarchistic society? You still wouldn't be able to get married to more than one woman probably. At least not in church [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] And women would still be free to "share" desirable partners if that's what they wanted, just like they are now. If it's an outside force that stops them from doing this it's the societal norms and expectations, not the law.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

OP: While I am not an AC supporter I think this post is pretty silly. In fact, intervening in what constitutes legal relationships is probably my biggest pet peeves with governments in general. Luckily it seems evident (atleast around these parts) that this will change greatly.

If some dude wants to marry 3 shemales, 5 female pornstars and his best buddy from college and they all agree then by all means - let them all rejoice.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
OP, let's say you're right and women will "gang up" on men with money. If this is "likely", why wouldn't they also just have other relationships with other men as well, thus eliminating the whole problem?

[/ QUOTE ]That's typically not the type of thing you would expect to happen as much.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think the societal norms that favor monogamy would disappear in an anarchistic society? You still wouldn't be able to get married to more than one woman probably. At least not in church [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] And women would still be free to "share" desirable partners if that's what they wanted, just like they are now. If it's an outside force that stops them from doing this it's the societal norms and expectations, not the law.

[/ QUOTE ]It may make economic sense for monogamy to disappear. The law has a effective mechinism to enforce and create societal norms and exceptions.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this post is pretty silly.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree. I hope it's at least interesting.[ QUOTE ]
In fact, intervening in what constitutes legal relationships is probably my biggest pet peeves with governments in general. Luckily it seems evident (atleast around these parts) that this will change greatly.

[/ QUOTE ] Perhaps, some intervention is a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
If some dude wants to marry 3 shemales, 5 female pornstars and his best buddy from college and they all agree then by all means - let them all rejoice.

[/ QUOTE ] It's certainly difficult to argue against personal freedom. I am also in favor of personal freedom. If the speculation that men benefit a great deal by the current marriage laws, this may be something that people would wish that there was someone or something to force everyone else's hand in, even if that means binding there own at times.

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

Isn't this basically what is happening in China due to different factors? Large numbers of men with no prospects for "accessing the gene pool" or however you are retardedly putting it? But I thought the state made it so that everyone had access to womens?

Re: Have a found a reason why AC will fail, that ACists will agree wit
 

Also can I plz to be getting some state provided access to the gene pool, its been 2 weeks kthx.