Okay, let me do this in English.
1. Women’s right to be sugar babies, instead of a wife, is limited. We don’t know if it’s legal or not. http://www.thefrisky.com/2009-04-13/whats-the-difference-between-having-a-sugar-daddy-prostitution/ Making the deal explicit is illegal. This severely limit women’s freedom.
2. Women do not have a right to set the amount of child support before conception. For example, say a billionaire is willing to impregnate her if the child support is less than $2k per month. Say she agrees. Well that agreement won’t hold out in court. The only way she can commit not to ask for more than $2k per month in child support is to actually pick a man that can only afford $2k per month.
3. Women’s right to share a man is heavily restricted. It’s grey area. Government may argue that it’s effectively polygamy or charge the women with prostitution.
Here is a sample:
[quote]In 2001, in the state of Utah in the United States, Juab County Attorney David O. Leavitt successfully prosecuted Thomas Green who was convicted of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having five serially monogamous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. His cohabitation was considered evidence of a common-law marriage to the wives he had divorced while still living with them. That premise was subsequently affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Green[/quote]
4. Say you are attracted to Afghanistan/Rusian/Belarusian/Ukraininan/North Korean women. Say the attraction is mutual because she likes men that can provide big 42 inch TV, refrigerators, cars. You know, such men aren’t around in Afghanistan a lot. Say a guy is willing to help her be one of your sugar babies. That’s, also illegal due to women trafficking laws.
Many of those rights are not explicitly illegal. Ωστόσο, for the super rich, a risk that something is illegal, is effectively illegal. Jail is far more costly for the rich than for the poor.
All those rights are obvious libertarian rights.
Yet all Wendy care is right to commit abortion. Well it could be a right, but c’mon…. Aren’t those 4 rights more important. If biological dad is a nobel laureate billionaire willing to pay $2k per month, which women would commit abortion? Very few, if any.
I believe in commercialization. I think everything should be judge by competition and merit on market mechanism as individuals wish. Government, society, and religion, should have no say on what you can do, unless you want it, you consume welfare tax, or there is a non consenting vicΓια παράδειγμαample, government has a case to prohibit people that can’t afford kids to produce kids because that hurt tax payers. I won’t advocate even that, but I think government has a case.
Saying that all those polygamists, pimps, sugar daddies, women traffickers are evil and abusive is as true as saying that all rich people are abusive….. in communist countries.
There is some truth in it. The only successful people are abusive evil exploitative people when success itself is illegal.
Rights Women do Not Have but Should is a post from: Ελεύθερη αγορά Forever
Εισερχόμενοι όροι αναζήτησης:
- powered by phpBB what is the meaning of art (25)
- powered by phpBB computers for less (14)
- powered by phpBB psychology of addictive behaviors (11)
- powered by phpBB write a business plan (10)
- powered by phpBB korean art history (1)