Life Before Feminism: A Map of the Open Country of a Woman’s Heart

At no time did I suggest that women be forced to join Houses of Entertainment”

So what else could “Given to the Houses of Entertainment by their families.”, which is what you fucking said when you introduced the idea, possibly mean?

Oh Meller. You think anyone actually buys the frantic backpedalling that you’ve done on the whole forced prostitution issue? Silly man.

“If it makes you manboobzettes any happier, I suspect that men of ALL races–and the normal women who love us–will eventually engage the sisterhood from hell in a more-or-less unified struggle!”

You’re back to this again? But you’ve already admitted that you have never been able to find a single member of this “normal women who love us” group, which is why you have dolls.* There are no carbon-based women who love men like you. They don’t exist. This is because you are a hateful lunatic. Just clarifying!

Your idea of how to organize the non-female portions of society is hilarious, by the way. You are the reason why some people can’t take those who call themselves libertarians on the internet seriously. I feel terrible for zhinxy, having her movement associated with you.

I mean seriously Meller, you have to own your words in order to recant them. You haven’t done that, you’ve just been relentlessly back-pedaling. It’s for this and many other reasons that you have no credibility.

PS. Yes, I think there are good answers to Pecunium’s objections as to the workability of various anarchist/libertarian systems. That doesn’t mean your system has an answer to such objections, is workable, or that you have anything close to a good answer. But you know, the porcelain chicken, keep touching it in ways guaranteed to give it great delight.

Meller: At least my suggestions, whether you “believe in them or not”, offer a strong likelihood for different scenarios.

No, they don’t. Your suggestions, as you term them, are nothing more than declarations that getting rid of gov’t will solve everyone’s problems.

Nothing more. That’s magical thinking. Without any actual mechanisms Deeply as I disagree with zhinxy on the practicability of her methods, she has some. All you have on offer is gold, the “Free Market” and telling people you don’t like to go away.

That’s not any pretense to actual systems of living.

My suggestions of “houses of entertainment” for sexually active women who found monogamy and marriage oppressive or boring was an attempt to give them opportunities to do what they were inclined to do naturally anyway. This would be enhanced considerably if one considered that their activities would be “legal” and hence not subject to corruption by “law-enforcement” or “prohibitionist” authorities and agencies.

What “legal”? What, “law enforcement agencies”? This is Mellibertopia, there is no government. The problem isn’t the brothels, it’s the blithe way you said, “given over to” because they weren’t being, “moral”.

I don’t think that offering women a chance to do, and to become expert in, an activity that they wanted to do anyhow, is coercive in any way

No, except that the only two choices you are willing to give them is monogamous wife, or whore. Men, of course, can fuck around all they please.

Pecunium, you can believe me or not in discussing the content of my posts! All I can say is if your disbelief leads you to doubt what I say, than you are discussing something altogether different, which I have nothing to do with, and have nothing to really say about. If, upon reading, for example, that you wrote a post describing your extremely unpleasant impressions of a “red wasp”, and I said that I don’t believe you and you elsewhere wrote that “mammary cacti were fascinating” and that therefore your aversion to red wasps was imaginary or untrue, i would be discussing an entirely different subject. Maybe you would be correct about that ‘entirely different subject”, maybe you would be wrong, but it would be entirely different!

Ah… your problem isn’t that I don’t believe you, it’s that I am reading (and remembering) everything you’ve written (as you keep complaining), and when I compare the things you are specific about (e.g. killing women who don’t become happy slaves), and the things you are vague about (how you intend to have both unfettered personal liberty, and women who are never educated), I have to choose which is more important to you.

As a reasonable person, I have to conclude the things you have details about, matter more to you than those which you don’t.

At no time did I suggest that women be forced to join Houses of Entertainment”. At no time did I , despite your repeated assertions, indicate that I wanted women generally to “die of cancer in agony”

To the former, yes you did. You said women who didn’t want to remain chaste; who weren’t willing to wait for a husband their husband approved of, would be, “given over to”. Not afforded the opportunity to pursue any career they liked, not that they could, should they choose, take up a life of geishadom. “Given over to.

The latter charge is you mis-reading what I’ve said (perhaps conflating me with other posters). I’ve said you claimed to take joy in the death of women from cancer. You can claim it was some form of pointed commentary, but; given the rest of your rambling rants, and fantastic claims (that women in the sciences have kept us from anti-gravity, etc.), I am (as a reasonable person) allowed to judge the veracity of your claim. That you said it, doesn’t mean it’s true, since it’s quite possible for people to lie about their feelings, and you’ve made your feelings plain, repeatedly.

What would prevent somebody from hiring a bunch of bullyboys from committing acts of extortion against other people? You (and the bullyboys) for starters, would be responsble for any and all damages caused by you–and them

To whom? Who can compel us? If we refuse to accept your authority to dun us (pretty much implicit in our rejecting the social contract to the point that we are living, “off the economy”, rather than pursuing a job/farming/minor manufacture) what have you to keep us?

. Property is sacrosanct, and I don’t think that getting any sort of a reputation among peaceful, decent, hard-working people of starting fights, arson, and thuggery would do you–or your hirelings–any good.

Hirelings? Poor reputation? What care free companions for the opinion of dirt farmers and townsmen? Did the Huns care about the residents of Krakow? If cattle, gold and women are what we want, and we can take it, and leave, then it matters not to us what you think.

And there will be townships which cater to us. The Port Royales of the world won’t care. The people you don’t let live near you, or whom you charge too much for the water you have may be more than willing to let us trade your gold for their goods. Money has no memory.

Don’t forget, the people who would be retained to deal with you are called “conflict resolution/arbitration agencies, for want of something better. Even a hint of POSSIBLE thuggery, e.g. casual association with unruly types–one more reason why rules of access and occupancy would be very carefully upheld for EVERYBODY–would set off opportunity alarms from not only MY agency, but everybody else’s, that there is trouble afoot, and there are troublemakers skulking about. Long before any extortion, kidnapping, arson, or what have you could take place, you, Pecunium, couldn’t fart in the middle of Siberia without everyone knowing about it, and you, along with your companions would be politely–or not so politely–disinvited from the society.

Dude… we would be living outside the society as it is. And you don’t have a uniform society, remember, just people who choose to live along those lines of demarcation which fall naturally to mankind. How many bullets will your army be willing to take? How much of your production are you giving them? How are you keeping tabs on those who live outside your town?

What will your kryptomeria cost you? How will your spies avoid standing out, as they skulk about the wilds of Siberia? How will they get inside the councils of the thugs? How will they get the word out?

Add to this, nothing travels faster than bad news, and gossip is no exception. You, and your bullyboys were expelled from Mellertopia, under VERY suspicious circumstances. No other place will have you, not to sell you food or water, not to rent you (or your companions) rooms, not to provide you with medical care or firearms, and so on.

Right, because everyone love Mellibertopia. No is unhappy about the way they hog water, or keep “undesirables” out of the neighborhood. Nope, None of the women who weren’t “proper” enough to be kept in town would be talking to the women in places which aren’t so draconian.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

And a third of an ounce of lead is worth a lot of power.

You’ve not thought past the idea that Libertaria = Perfect Paradise, to look to the means of ,making your Libertopia work, and what means you have… are force.

And you don’t understand force.

Ah, typical Meller, the “Family” does not include children or abuse victims. Only the adult abuser and their wishes are the needs, wants, and interests of “the Family”. If men can’t beat and murder women (or, I suppose, in a social situation vastly different from the one Meller wants, female abusers could do it to male ones) and children, their rights are being denied!!! He pretty explicitly wants some people to be treated as property.

It’s shit like this that makes the point about abolishing the Family as a social and legal institution (it’s sort of like the notion of abolishing marriage, some people’s relationships might look similar to one, but it wouldn’t be the mandatory or preferred framework or carry social and legal special status).

Also, I don’t believe in property rights. And, I think it is damned hypocritical for colonizers and their descendents (or “heirs” if you want to exclude genetic products of forced intergration, such as the people who results from attempts to eliminate the native peoples of Australia) who live on stolen land and profit from its fruits, or those who live on and profit from a history of stolen labor (which is everyone in a capitalism, feudalism, or anyone in a country where slavery and stolen/exploited labor has given some people benefits, so…almost everywhere), to claim that they care so fucking much about property rights. If you cared about property rights as sacred, Meller, you’d be advocating giving the entire US back to the native americans from whom it was unjustly stolen. But, no, it’s “might makes right” only when you fucking benefit, but you expect everyone else to honor your “sovereign property rights”.

Are the screeds of Mellerhate above merely evidence, or proof, of what happens when you give women, or feminists, too much access to “education”, or at least literacy?

1) Telling a bigot his ideas are racist and or sexist is not an example of a screed.

2) Telling a bigot his ideas are racist and or sexist is not an example of hate.

3) A racist sexist bigot has precisely no room to make snide remarks about anyone else’s literacy or education.

4) A racist sexist bigot who ignores #3 with a gendered slam is entitled to all the mockery his audience can bring to bear.

5) A racist sexist bigot who suggests instituting brothels, awarding custody to abusive husbands on the grounds the wife failed to make a happy home while declaring women not to be ‘real women’ if their political views differ from his and suggesting that doing away with racist policies such as sunset towns increased the crime rate is unlikely to ever grasp the difference between hate and contempt.

tldr: we’re mocking you and you’re too stupid to know how stupid you are.

Meller: Screed? Not really. A screed would be ranting about how the horrors of X will lead to the inevitabilty of Y, without any support.

Say describing how men will rise up, around the world, because women get educated.

Then again, I’m confused, if education (that is a wide-ranging reading on a variety of subjects, coupled to excecises in critical thinking and analysis) is so bad… how can you teach libertarianism? After all you need to combat the “indocrination” of feminism, right?

Or might it rather be you don’t have any arguments to buttress your postion, and have run out of effective repetition. Because what I did was to ask questions (and support my posistion on the answers to those questions).

You’ve yet to answer any of them. I mean you told me that decent people wouldn’t want to have me around. You’ve explained that common decency would keep people who were unwanted from moving into the neighborhood.

But you haven’t explained why a band of thugs, who don’t care about your society, would be willing to bend the knee and let you tell them what to do.

So explain it to me, in simple words, that I might understand, and become enlightened.

how can you teach libertarianism? After all you need to combat the “indocrination” of feminism, right?

…

I’ve tried to touch on this a few times, I asked him specifically about giving my daughter libertarian books to read. He first asked what her father thought about it, then declared that it would be better than the crap she gets at school, but probably wouldn’t have any real effect, because women are inherently statists and collectivists, etc.

So again we skirt his idea that it’s IMPORTANT to the cause of freedom to lock women up, because women are not only inferior, they ACTIVELY work against a free society. Snakes in the grass, and our “education” will only cause us to glom onto pretty poison we will use against the proper order. (And considering that our slavery seems to be a free society in mellertalk, he might have a point).

Will he come out and say it? TO ASK THE QUESTION, yada yada yada.

“So explain it to me, in simple words, that I might understand, and become enlightened.”

Precisely, Meller. You claim “excellent libertarianism” (Is there a sticker for that?), you claim that you have predictions for the future you’d put up against anyone.

So you have a chance to be the prophet. You’ll be vindicated, won’t you?

zhinxy: I won’t deny that there is mockery in what I am doing, but the core… the fundamental questions about how he intends the authoritarian paradise of Mellibertopia (note the possessive, that it may distinguished from all other Libertopiae) to be managed.

How the non-education of women, and the houses of entertainment, and the enforcing of “proximity exclusion zones” and the apprehension of malefactors against property, and the selection of arbiters in dispute, etc. will be established and maintained.

Because I, for one, won’t live in his town. I, for one, won’t allow his private judges to exercise authority over me. I don’t accept their right to tell me what to do, because the rules under which they live; and on which they will base decisions, are unjust, immoral and antithetical to liberty.

We are on the same page. For related reasons.

But sadly, our prophet is likely to deny us. I think he is jealous of our ability to see the rough with the smooth, which the lack of prevents him from cuddling The Hedgehog of Happiness.