On Marriage

[Sculptor]

Tell me which countries do not have Personal Income tax?

Only 23 countries officially do not have personal income tax:

The Top 15 Countries With No Income Tax

We can summarize them as the Persian Gulf States and the Caribbean tax havens.

All of these countries are parasitic on the world's economy.
Run along now

[godelian]

All of these countries are parasitic on the world's economy.

I am sure that they feel flattered now!
Well, if your opinion somehow mattered to them ... which I doubt.

Thinking About Dubai? Here Are 14 Reasons To Just Do It
Where Is Dubai? Plus 17 Reasons It Draws Millions of Vacationers Every Year

Why don't we just let the market decide?

[Alexiev]

All of these countries are parasitic on the world's economy.

I am sure that they feel flattered now!
Well, if your opinion somehow mattered to them ... which I doubt.

Thinking About Dubai? Here Are 14 Reasons To Just Do It
Where Is Dubai? Plus 17 Reasons It Draws Millions of Vacationers Every Year

Why don't we just let the market decide?

Dubai probably doesn't have the "divorce-rape" problem that terrifies you so much. That's because women have few rights there. Even the princesses are held prisoner.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023 ... s-of-dubai

Is the "market" deciding that the princesses have no freedom?

It's amazing how the privileged hate losing their privileges. Until recently, men (in Europe and the U.S.) took possession of their wives' assets upon marriage. That was "marriage-rape". In the U.S., only 10% of divorces result in alimony. I'm guessing this 10% is fair, if a man agrees to quit his job (which was equivalent to his wife's job) to stay home with the kids while his wife works, doesn't he then deserve a little alimony in a divorce (assuming the couple is reasonably rich)?

As far as godelian's idiotic statements about how "ghosting" is the normal method of breaking up in the West, we can ignore such ignorance. Perhaps since he lives in Asia, he has no idea what is normal in the U.S. and Europe, except what he gleans by reading whacky web sites.

The "market", by the way, would not exist without tax-funded governments. Property rights (essential to the "market") are adjudicated and enforced by governments. The rich, of course, pay the most taxes (as they should), and benefit the most from government enforcement of property rights.

[godelian]

Dubai probably doesn't have the "divorce-rape" problem that terrifies you so much.

It doesn't "terrify" me because I live in SE Asia. Problems do not "terrify" me. I just solve them.

That's because women have few rights there. Even the princesses are held prisoner.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023 ... s-of-dubai
Is the "market" deciding that the princesses have no freedom?

I do not know the specifics of this case and nobody is paying me to study and otherwise work on something that I don't give a flying fart about. Seriously, who the hell cares about the princesses of Dubai? Why don't you ask the Emir instead? He is the boss over there.

I'm guessing this 10% is fair, if a man agrees to quit his job (which was equivalent to his wife's job) to stay home with the kids while his wife works, doesn't he then deserve a little alimony in a divorce (assuming the couple is reasonably rich)?

The question is irrelevant to me because I live in a jurisdiction where the government does not deal with divorce. There is no alimony for anybody over here. If the sexual contract is terminated, then all the benefits that either side derives from it, are also terminated. Isn't that how any contract is supposed to work?

The "market", by the way, would not exist without tax-funded governments.

There have always been markets. Government regulation of markets is relatively new:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace
In Europe, informal, unregulated markets gradually made way for a system of formal, chartered markets from the 12th century.

By the way, the modern darknet is full of unregulated markets. Smart contracts such as 2-of-3 multi-signature contracts handle conflicts absolutely fine. No need for a government to make any conflict worse than it already is.

The rich, of course, pay the most taxes (as they should)

This is where Islam is pure genius. Only the laws of Allah can dictate what "should" or what "should not".

If you want to force other people, rich or poor, it is not enough to fill out voting paperwork because that is just too easy to do. Instead, you must put skin in the game. You must prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in. Of course, that principle gives Islam again the upper hand.

[Alexiev]

Dubai probably doesn't have the "divorce-rape" problem that terrifies you so much.

It doesn't "terrify" me because I live in SE Asia. Problems do not "terrify" me. I just solve them.

That's because women have few rights there. Even the princesses are held prisoner.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023 ... s-of-dubai
Is the "market" deciding that the princesses have no freedom?

I do not know the specifics of this case and nobody is paying me to study and otherwise work on something that I don't give a flying fart about. Seriously, who the hell cares about the princesses of Dubai? Why don't you ask the Emir instead? He is the boss over there.

I'm guessing this 10% is fair, if a man agrees to quit his job (which was equivalent to his wife's job) to stay home with the kids while his wife works, doesn't he then deserve a little alimony in a divorce (assuming the couple is reasonably rich)?

The question is irrelevant to me because I live in a jurisdiction where the government does not deal with divorce. There is no alimony for anybody over here. If the sexual contract is terminated, then all the benefits that either side derives from it, are also terminated. Isn't that how any contract is supposed to work?

The "market", by the way, would not exist without tax-funded governments.

There have always been markets. Government regulation of markets is relatively new:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace
In Europe, informal, unregulated markets gradually made way for a system of formal, chartered markets from the 12th century.

By the way, the modern darknet is full of unregulated markets. Smart contracts such as 2-of-3 multi-signature contracts handle conflicts absolutely fine. No need for a government to make any conflict worse than it already is.

The rich, of course, pay the most taxes (as they should)

This is where Islam is pure genius. Only the laws of Allah can dictate what "should" or what "should not".

If you want to force other people, rich or poor, it is not enough to fill out voting paperwork because that is just too easy to do. Instead, you must put skin in the game. You must prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in. Of course, that principle gives Islam again the upper hand.

This is nonsense. If no issues interest you unless you are being paid to address them, what are you doing posting here? You are contradicting yourself.

You obviously know nothing about human societies if you think "there have always been markets". Reciprocity and redistribution of goods was the economic norm in human societies for most of their existence. Markets are a relatively new development.

The "laws of Allah" include beheadings, amputations, and other nauseating and cruel punishments. Anyone who thinks they are "pure genius" should be beheaded (whoops, maybe I'm going to far suggesting that we embrace Shariah law, which demands conversion of death for non-believers (unless they are "people of the book").

I'm glad you are "willing to die for what you believe in". Perhaps this willingness will spare us your obnoxious opinions in the near future.

[godelian]

If no issues interest you unless you are being paid to address them, what are you doing posting here? You are contradicting yourself.

Concerning the princesses of Dubai, again, I do not care. Why would I figure out the nitty-gritty details of their troubles? Does it have anything to do with philosophy? I post in philosophy because I do it for fun, as a hobby. I don't investigate the princesses of Dubai for fun. Shouldn't you try to raise their predicament instead on instagram or Tiktok?

You obviously know nothing about human societies if you think "there have always been markets". Reciprocity and redistribution of goods was the economic norm in human societies for most of their existence. Markets are a relatively new development.

Salt was probably one of the first products traded over long distances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt
Some of the earliest evidence of salt processing dates to around 6000 BC, when people living in the area of present-day Romania boiled spring water to extract salts; a salt works in China dates to approximately the same period.

Without this trade, it was not possible to live long-term in areas that were too remote from seas, oceans, or salt mines. The question is, of course, what areas are too remote to have their own source for salt and when were they populated?

For example, Europe:

he earliest appearance of anatomically modern people in Europe has been dated to 45,000 BC

So, did they live for 39,000 years right next to the sea or right next to a salt mine?

The answer to that question is actually difficult to find.

The "laws of Allah" include beheadings, amputations, and other nauseating and cruel punishments. Anyone who thinks they are "pure genius" should be beheaded ...

... according to what law?

You just keep inventing your own law. You also keep insisting on what other people "should" do. The question then becomes: Who the f-ck are you? Again, other people will not do what you think that they "should" do. It does not work like that.

There are almost two billion people who tend to do what the Quran tells them to do. So, it is obvious that the Quran can do things that you cannot do, not even to save yourself from drowning. Seriously, you are too full of yourself. Nobody cares about what you think other people should do. It is simply irrelevant.

[Sculptor]

All of these countries are parasitic on the world's economy.

I am sure that they feel flattered now!

That's why and how the exist. And they know it.

[Alexiev]

If no issues interest you unless you are being paid to address them, what are you doing posting here? You are contradicting yourself.

Concerning the princesses of Dubai, again, I do not care. Why would I figure out the nitty-gritty details of their troubles? Does it have anything to do with philosophy? I post in philosophy because I do it for fun, as a hobby. I don't investigate the princesses of Dubai for fun. Shouldn't you try to raise their predicament instead on instagram or Tiktok?

You obviously know nothing about human societies if you think "there have always been markets". Reciprocity and redistribution of goods was the economic norm in human societies for most of their existence. Markets are a relatively new development.

Salt was probably one of the first products traded over long distances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt
Some of the earliest evidence of salt processing dates to around 6000 BC, when people living in the area of present-day Romania boiled spring water to extract salts; a salt works in China dates to approximately the same period.

Without this trade, it was not possible to live long-term in areas that were too remote from seas, oceans, or salt mines. The question is, of course, what areas are too remote to have their own source for salt and when were they populated?

For example, Europe:

he earliest appearance of anatomically modern people in Europe has been dated to 45,000 BC

So, did they live for 39,000 years right next to the sea or right next to a salt mine?

The answer to that question is actually difficult to find.

The "laws of Allah" include beheadings, amputations, and other nauseating and cruel punishments. Anyone who thinks they are "pure genius" should be beheaded ...

... according to what law?

You just keep inventing your own law. You also keep insisting on what other people "should" do. The question then becomes: Who the f-ck are you? Again, other people will not do what you think that they "should" do. It does not work like that.

There are almost two billion people who tend to do what the Quran tells them to do. So, it is obvious that the Quran can do things that you cannot do, not even to save yourself from drowning. Seriously, you are too full of yourself. Nobody cares about what you think other people should do. It is simply irrelevant.

You obviously know little about human prehistory. Either that or, equally likely, you haven't the ability to reason logically. Exchange of goods does not automatically suggest "trade" or "markets". Children get food from their parents. Does that prove they "trade" with their parents? Of course not. Gift giving and redistribution of goods by political entities exchanges goods and services just as markets do.

Your notion that principles for which people are ready to die are somehow superior to less fervently held principles is illogical. Mass murderers are willing to die for their blood lust. Does that prove blood lust is a worthy principle? The 9/11 terrorists were willing to die for their principles. Whatever their courage, their "martyrdom" does not in any way argue in justification of their principles.

[godelian]

You obviously know little about human prehistory. Exchange of goods does not automatically suggest "trade" or "markets".

Salt was a critical commodity that allowed settlements to exist far away from coastal areas, salt mines or other sources of salt.

There is no other way to get salt to travel over potentially thousands of miles than by successive trade transactions, in a similar fashion as to how spices were traded over the ancient silk road later on.

There is no voluntary exchange or gifts possible between a producer and a final consuming buyer who would never even meet in person.

The question when the salt trade started, on the other hand, depends on how early the inland of continents was getting settled.

Mass murderers are willing to die for their blood lust. Does that prove blood lust is a worthy principle?

Mass murdering enemy soldiers on the battle field is perfectly fine. People who manage to do that are considered heroes by their own side, and deeply respected by the other side.

The Russians and Ukrainians currently, routinely mass murder each other every day.

Stronger than that, if you refuse to mass murder enemy combatants, you will end up getting court martialed and possibly be shot at dawn.

In that case, you will be deemed a dishonorable coward who does not even deserve a proper burial and whose sorry remains are to be disposed of in an anonymous mass grave. Your family will live in shame and never mention your name again.

https://bodminkeep.org.uk/shot-at-dawn

During the First World War 306 soldiers of the British and Commonwealth Army were shot at dawn by firing squad for desertion or cowardice. These men brought shame on their country and would be held in the highest disregard to discourage anyone else from doing the same.

In 1993, John Major argued in the House of Commons that pardoning the men would be an insult to those who died honourably on the battlefield and that everyone was tried fairly.

In 2007, the Armed Forces Act 2006 was passed allowing the soldiers to be pardoned posthumously, although section 359(4) of the act states that the pardon "does not affect any conviction or sentence."

As you can see, mass murdering is a legal obligation.

Anyone who fails to mass murder when given the order to do so, will be court martialed, and if convicted, shall be executed by firing squad. Such dishonorable coward may be pardoned at the earliest a century later, if even, as to avoid insulting those who died honorable on the battlefield.

Hence, your very survival depends on your ability to mass murder. It is therefore a valuable skill to be honed and cherished. Only mass murderers are worth of living. Everybody else shall by law be duly eliminated.

[Alexiev]

You obviously know little about human prehistory. Exchange of goods does not automatically suggest "trade" or "markets".

Salt was a critical commodity that allowed settlements to exist far away from coastal areas, salt mines or other sources of salt.

There is no other way to get salt to travel over potentially thousands of miles than by successive trade transactions, in a similar fashion as to how spices were traded over the ancient silk road later on.

There is no voluntary exchange or gifts possible between a producer and a final consuming buyer who would never even meet in person.

The question when the salt trade started, on the other hand, depends on how early the inland of continents was getting settled.

Mass murderers are willing to die for their blood lust. Does that prove blood lust is a worthy principle?

Mass murdering enemy soldiers on the battle field is perfectly fine. People who manage to do that are considered heroes by their own side, and deeply respected by the other side.

The Russians and Ukrainians currently, routinely mass murder each other every day.

Stronger than that, if you refuse to mass murder enemy combatants, you will end up getting court martialed and possibly be shot at dawn.

In that case, you will be deemed a dishonorable coward who does not even deserve a proper burial and whose sorry remains are to be disposed of in an anonymous mass grave. Your family will live in shame and never mention your name again.

https://bodminkeep.org.uk/shot-at-dawn

During the First World War 306 soldiers of the British and Commonwealth Army were shot at dawn by firing squad for desertion or cowardice. These men brought shame on their country and would be held in the highest disregard to discourage anyone else from doing the same.

In 1993, John Major argued in the House of Commons that pardoning the men would be an insult to those who died honourably on the battlefield and that everyone was tried fairly.

In 2007, the Armed Forces Act 2006 was passed allowing the soldiers to be pardoned posthumously, although section 359(4) of the act states that the pardon "does not affect any conviction or sentence."

As you can see, mass murdering is a legal obligation.

Anyone who fails to mass murder when given the order to do so, will be court martialed, and if convicted, shall be executed by firing squad. Such dishonorable coward may be pardoned at the earliest a century later, if even, as to avoid insulting those who died honorable on the battlefield.

Hence, your very survival depends on your ability to mass murder. It is therefore a valuable skill to be honed and cherished. Only mass murderers are worth of living. Everybody else shall by law be duly eliminated.

Actually (for anyone still following this dim-witted discussion), hunters and gatherers did not require added salt to survive. They got sufficient dietary salt from the animals they hunted. In addition, salt is available in many locations far from the sea. Salt gathered in the Sahara Desert was traded (and perhaps exchanged through other methods of redistribution) throughout West Africa (where it was rare). So much for that nonsense.

I can see that you admire jihadists, but Muslims were executed in 16th century Spain. Does that prove that Muslims were heretics, who deserved to die? If not, the same could be said for conscientious objectors. Not all laws are just. Not all wars are just. Not all executions are just. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.

[godelian]

If not, the same could be said for conscientious objectors. Not all laws are just. Not all wars are just. Not all executions are just. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.

Men who excel at mass murdering enemy combatants, are admired by both sides. Your value and status as a man depends to an important extent on your ability to target and duly eradicate other men.

Dead body after dead body, you build your fame and surpass others in experience and proficiency at maiming and killing others. Men are irresistibly attracted to bloodshed and violent combat because that is how it is supposed to be.

Most soldiers do not just run away. They prefer to stay put because they do not want to miss out on the pleasure of killing others, and on the satisfaction of annihilating the arbitrarily designated opponents in this game of calculated anger and hatred.

We do not respect so-called "conscientious objectors".

If you do not want to kill, then you should simply get killed. I repeat, only mass murderers are worthy of survival. Everyone else should by law be duly eliminated.

[Alexiev]

If you do not want to kill, then you should simply get killed. I repeat, only mass murderers are worthy of survival. Everyone else should by law be duly eliminated.

All righty, then. Run along, little boy, and play with your guns.

[godelian]

If you do not want to kill, then you should simply get killed. I repeat, only mass murderers are worthy of survival. Everyone else should by law be duly eliminated.

All righty, then. Run along, little boy, and play with your guns.

Why would I? I have not received any official request to report to the nearest military command post.

By the way, your own security also depends on the use of guns. The only reason why other countries do not invade yours, is because there are men who would use guns and other weapons to prevent that. Since you belittle their efforts, I think it is about time that they stop doing that. So, henceforth, defend yourself instead and stop leeching from the efforts of others.