On The Distribution of Spouses

[Matthewstownville]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect. Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected. So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Agree or Disagree?

This is a great idea and would help the people who are 'left on the shelf' so to speak. I would say this is definately something to think about, but as an optional system available for the people. Remember, the more freedoms - the less crime.

[Hurdergaryp]

Well, that is just inefficient. Maximizing the breeding capacity of the species is the only thing that counts.

And overpopulating the fuck out of our civilisation? No. Extramarital affairs would become ubiquitous in such a system anyway.

You say overpopulation, the market says MORE CONSUMERS.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

And overpopulating the fuck out of our civilisation? No. Extramarital affairs would become ubiquitous in such a system anyway.

You say overpopulation, the market says MORE CONSUMERS.

Environmentalists disagree.

And read the other point about extramarital affairs.

[Hurdergaryp]

You say overpopulation, the market says MORE CONSUMERS.

Environmentalists disagree.

And read the other point about extramarital affairs.

So what if extramarital affairs become the norm? That would only double the fun!

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Environmentalists disagree.

And read the other point about extramarital affairs.

So what if extramarital affairs become the norm? That would only double the fun!

Well, then there's no point in that system. I see how all these extramarital affairs would be fun though

[Tekania]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Life is just your current life, not the life of your children. You have no rights over the life of your born children. The children have rights over their own lives.

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect.

Governments exist to protect rights, not enforce them. If someone is mandated to do something that is no longer a "right" that is a responsibility.

Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected.

No MGTOW don't want to be, and INCEL are people who just have not met anyone interested in them. The former choose not to, which is fine. They should have a right to self-determination. The later don't get one because other people also have a right to self-determination.

So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.

Better, answer... nothing. There is no compelling reason to do this.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female.

So, people don't have a right to live their life as they see fit, even though them not having kids has absolutely no effect on your person or future? No.

Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

Arranged marriages were a past thing for a reason. It was a way for sparce populations and communities to inter-mingle and procreate. Population is not a problem right now, the Human race is no where close to endangered enough to even consider such an absurd idea.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Really, not being in a relationship and having children causes more crime? Then can you tell me why when only 24% of the US population has minor children in the US, whereas 63% of prisoners in the US have minor children?

Agree or Disagree?

Disagree, absolutely shit reasoning on your part. You want a system that curtails the rights of individuals so as to encourage/spur additional population grown which is not needed based upon shit reasonings you just pulled out of your ass.

[Hurdergaryp]

So what if extramarital affairs become the norm? That would only double the fun!

Well, then there's no point in that system. I see how all these extramarital affairs would be fun though

Not only a cultural, but also a sexual revolution!

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Well, then there's no point in that system. I see how all these extramarital affairs would be fun though

Not only a cultural, but also a sexual revolution!

I swear we already had a sexual revolution in the 60s-70s

[Tekania]

This is a great idea and would help the people who are 'left on the shelf' so to speak. I would say this is definately something to think about, but as an optional system available for the people. Remember, the more freedoms - the less crime.

So, why would you need a government lottery then? If it's optional then the people who have no one can just pair up with each other if they want to. Lottery just sounds like a waste of tax money that would go to the bureaucracy to support a system individuals can already do themselves.

[Hurdergaryp]

Not only a cultural, but also a sexual revolution!

I swear we already had a sexual revolution in the 60s-70s

But this will be a different one.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I swear we already had a sexual revolution in the 60s-70s

But this will be a different one.

Also, the lottery would just be pointless bureaucracy in that case

[Hurdergaryp]

But this will be a different one.

Also, the lottery would just be pointless bureaucracy in that case

No, the lottery would be instrumental in creating this brave new world and the unintended side effects that come with it.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Also, the lottery would just be pointless bureaucracy in that case

No, the lottery would be instrumental in creating this brave new world and the intended side effects that come with it.

ftfy

[Tekania]

It was the norm until demands of capital made it not the norm.

Evolution/change happens because of environmental stresses that make the new norm a better survival strategy. Even in societal changes, rather than physical, the changes were made because that was best for survival within the society.

You want to regress, there had best be a good reason for it, other than nostalgia.

The is correct. Our society has become more technical, which means it takes more education and more time for someone to become established enough to support family which has pushed the ages things happen back in general. Accelerating it does not help anything, because you end up with people with children before they can really support them.

We don't live in a heavily agrarian age with lots of itinerant farmers any longer. We live in a very technical age that requires lots of subject matter experts.

[Sadakoyama]

Product exists: Twilight.

Naw, I want actual lottery scenes. Preferably with some super over the top TV show host declaring people married for life.

So write it.

[Hurdergaryp]

Naw, I want actual lottery scenes. Preferably with some super over the top TV show host declaring people married for life.

So write it.

It pretty much writes itself. The real challenge is to pitch it to the networks.

[Simad]

Can you say from what state are you from? Are the US actually so culturaly backward or is it just a thing of your community/family? I'm genuinely curious lmao

[Cekoviu]

You want to know something funny? I was watching an old Molyneux video and in the context of parenting he was discussing this very exact scenario.

4:15 onwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKRJyedmg

>watching molyneux on purpose

[Benuty]

You want to know something funny? I was watching an old Molyneux video and in the context of parenting he was discussing this very exact scenario.

4:15 onwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKRJyedmg

>watching molyneux on purpose

>Using these things unironically.

[The Parkus Empire]

>watching molyneux on purpose

>Using these things unironically.

>implying

[Benuty]

>Using these things unironically.

>implying

>Not being thousands of years old with the ability to read into the minds of mortals.

[Purpelia]

This is what happens when you take a somewhat reasonable economic ideology like communism and apply it insanely to things outside of its spectrum. Seriously, this is sexual communism.

Sex, from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs.

[Kaboomlandia]

This is an incredibly stupid idea and will lead to a hell of a lot of abusive relationships.

[Katganistan]

Evolution/change happens because of environmental stresses that make the new norm a better survival strategy. Even in societal changes, rather than physical, the changes were made because that was best for survival within the society.

You want to regress, there had best be a good reason for it, other than nostalgia.

Because the current situation is dehumanizing and disadvantageous for society.

Says who? The ones who want to enslave people into sexual relationships and marriage against their will?

If THAT'S not dehumanizing, nothing is.

Not convinced that is actually the case, also I am quite certain the old norm as mentioned wasn't that great, actually.

It's dehumanizing because it forces people to essentially put off something they likely want to do, possibly indefinitely.

Why? because someone else doesn't want to be forced into it?

Too fucking bad. You don't owe me your personhood, and neither do I owe you mine.
Deal with it.

[Risottia]

This is what happens when you take a somewhat reasonable economic ideology like communism and apply it insanely to things outside of its spectrum. Seriously, this is sexual communism.

No, it's not. There's a State dictating who gets what, so it cannot be communism. Sexual socialism, at best.