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

[ALawPoker]

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.

[AlexM]

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?

[Exsubmariner]

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.

[wtfsvi]

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.

[tame_deuces]

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.

[DougShrapnel]

[ 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.

[DougShrapnel]

[ 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.

[DougShrapnel]

[ 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.

[Nonfiction]

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?

[Nonfiction]

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