Under the logic of economic communalism, money should be taken from the half a-lots and distributed around until everyone has roughly the same amount. That seems fair, right? That everyone have the same amount of money, regardless of effort, education, or the reality-based distribution system known as … well, reality.
But it seems pretty one-sided just to distribute money, right? After all, there’s more to life than money, people keep telling me. So in the pursuit of fairness — whether or not we count reality in equation, after all, reality is so unfair — let’s start distributing women in the country. After all, there are 1.05 men for every woman in the United States. That makes women a limited supply (just like our economists like to think of our money supply). Since we obviously can’t trust people to manage themselves (I mean, c’mon, that’s why we have Social Security and the Affordable Healthcare Act), then we can’t trust women to choose for themselves what man they’ll have sex with. After all, sex is a man’s basic need, right? How could we deny men their basic needs?
So, I say, we should begin metering out women and their bodies so all the men have a fair amount of sex, because believe you men, there were plenty of men in high school and college who got plenty of sex and plenty of men who got none at all. I mean, disregard that most of the men getting sex were attractive, or fun, or engaging, or perhaps loaded.
I mean, women shouldn’t be allowed to choose what men they have sex with. That’s discrimination!!
Not to mention that every man, even if he’s gay, should have the biological opportunity to impregnate a woman. That’s fair, right? I mean, screw what people really want or how they want to spend their time or energy, we know what’s best for them! What’s more, women can’t deny these men what we know they need. And now that we’ve made this stunningly profound determination, it’s high time women started putting out. And they don’t get to choose who they have sex with. After all, sex isn’t your body. You can’t reserve it for someone special. That would slow down the amount of sex in the world, and that is just backward thinking!
And while we’re at it, I think some families have entirely too many children. They should be distributed at once. What if I wanted a child to raise as my own? I shouldn’t have to take the time and effort to find a woman that I can build a stable life with, am prepared to manage the child, or even have the skills and ability. I’m totally entitled to a child. Now, I probably won’t be ready to raise the child and might waste the child. Sure, many children might die or be harmed by being distributed to bad people, but hey, there’s no such thing as bad people! That’s morally backward.
Children are a treasure and everyone should be allowed to have one, even if they didn’t earn the child.
… This all sounds kind of silly, doesn’t it?
I mean, you can’t force women to have sex with people just because some person thinks that sex solves problems, or that it’s unfair that some people have more sex than others. “If only we had more sex and women could be prevented from discriminating against certain men.” That’s absolutely absurd! A woman’s right to have sex with whom she chooses is entirely her own! I have no right or authority over her having sex. Nor do I have any right over someone else’s children! A family of a mother and father and their eight children, their children are theirs alone! Not only can outsiders not dictate how those children are raised, but they can’t arbitrarily take them either!
So, if we can’t force women to offer six merely because sex across the board is unevenly distributed, and some people have more children than others, why do we think money is somehow more distributable? Is it because it’s easy to distribute?
“People need money!”
People need sex and the opportunity to raise a family, too. But you know what reality says? Reality says that life isn’t fair. It’s up to you go out and shape and cultivate life in order to reap a quality benefit from it. Know what else reality says? Nothing is guaranteed! Even if we could magically distribute every ounce of wealth in a single instant, within short order, the “unfair” distribution would reform. Why?
First, money isn’t the cause of wealth, it’s the result! Money is a byproduct of intelligent management of assets. I don’t work money, itself, I work to create a product to supply someone else’s need (food, shelter, clothing, bacon), and they trade me their own effort via currency known as “money.”
You’re not distributing wealth at all, but the byproduct of wealth. If we really wanted to distribute wealth, we’d have to extract the knowledge, discipline and people management skills from the wealthy and pass that on to the poor, because that’s what really generates large sums of money, not the mere presence of money.
That’s why lottery winners lose their fortunes so quickly — wealth is not the presence of money, but the skills and knowledge which generates the money. Without that foundation, money is wasted and soon lost.
Or did you want to distribute all the responsibility and problems of the wealthy, too?