Disclaimer: The purpose of this is actually a two-pronged attack. I want to highlight how absurd the notion of wealth redistribution through the form of taxation is while also highlighting the potential uses for a surveillance control state (which is coming). At the same time, if this took off, I'd benefit from it so meh whatever.
Tenet: Our society recognizes the need to redistribute resources from those who have lots of resources to those who don't have lots of resources. We do this through the form of taxation and social programs. This is down to maximize the utility of the society as a whole because we recognize that a billionaire's happiness won't be impacting by a lack of a few million dollars but an average person's happiness can significantly change with a few million dollars.
Well, sex is a resource. Some say we can't force people to do something with their body (have sex) because that is immoral but people acquire resources through the use of their body (labor) so taxing these resources to redistribute is an exploitation of one's body for the greater good. Exploiting a person's body for sex for the greater good is no different than exploiting a person's body for labor for the greater good.
How I propose we go about implementing the Universal Basic Sex is the following:
-
Legalize prostitution by requiring a license to be a prostitute through a formal process.
-
Have Palantir with its new AI surveillance system provide an estimated Sexual Market Value score for all citizens from 0-10 with 10 being no problems to access sex with people of their attractiveness or higher and 0 being significant problems (incel level).
-
The government creates a new Digital Currency called Sexual Wellbeing Coins. This currency can only be exchanged by prostitutes for real currency by a licensed prostitute and only if their digital wallet shows a transaction from a Sexually Deficient Person (those entitled to receive Sexual Wellbeing Coins).
-
People with < 10 scores are all entitled to receive some amount of Sexual Wellbeing Coin depending on their score with 0 receiving the most and those close to 10 receiving the least.
-
Sexual Wellbeing Coins in the hands of Sexually Deficient Persons can be exchanged with a licensed prostitute only for sex.
-
The objective is to ensure all people in society are entitled to 3 sessions of intercourse a week with someone who meets their level of attraction or better.
From each according to his ability to have sex to each according to his need for sex!
Thoughts on the details of the program and the sales pitch? What are some criticisms?
Let's ignore for a second the whole post being cringe and retarded.
Congrats on creating UBI for ugly people.
Edit: And an 11-point scale? Really?
Easier way: go with your "sex is a resource" basis. Once you've fucked 3 people, you're required to let the government pick your next partner. If you say no or sleep with someone of your own choosing first, they will take everything you own, fuck you at gunpoint, and throw you in prison. There's your tax allegory.
Sounds like divorce rape. Even the prison part if they can't get everything they want out of you.
That's already incredibly moderate. I'd just shoot them for being sexual degenerates at that point. There's no excuse for anyone fucking more than 3 people in their lifetime.
I should have said "three instances of fucking." It doesn't matter who it's with, the point was the government taking ~25% of your autonomy.
Yes, I know it's usually more than 25% but it's an easy percentage to work with in the analogy and it's close enough.
As someone who's in favor of legalizing hookers it doesn't really solve the problem of beta males checking out of society. Countries that have legalized it can attest to that. Societal conditioning has successfully convinced most men that paying for it is a loser move but paying way more for a shittier product with a lot of smoke and mirrors (ie betabuxxing) makes them winners. At least until the divorce rape, but by that point they've already served their purpose. Free hookers isn't enough to get men to buy into a society that never ceases to remind them how unwanted they are.
The divorce is the problem. Mid men have no reason to invest in a society that doesn't afford them the ability to build a family. Divorce specifically undermines the ability of men to form a family.
Even then, they've only legalized selling, not buying.
We need to reproduce and we need a woman who can't leave us under penalty of death.
Hilarious troll, but if you actually want to reform society in a positive direction this isn't it.
You need to, in no particular order:
Outlaw no fault divorce. Unless you're actively beating your spouse, cheating on them or something similar, you shouldn't be able to divorce them in a fit of pique.
Outlaw alimony. This should be obvious.
End 50% or more of social welfare programs. If you can't leech off the government then the perverse incentive to be a single mother goes away.
Repeal the 19th Amendment. Replace it with an amendment that permits a family with minor children, or military veterans to vote. Anyone else has a perverse incentive to vote the treasury into their own pockets, and thus shouldn't have the opportunity.
Criminalize adultery. In a related point, criminalize false accusations of a crime.
Criminalize crossdressing with the intent to deceive others.
Criminalize homosexuality in all it's various flavors.
Criminalize miscegenation.
These things destroy the reasons why we have the problem we have. Because frankly the issue is women's rights have lead to a collapse of the social fabric and a collapse of moral hygiene, leading to more of the same. Yes, this would essentially require the creation of a heavily authoritarian state for several decades. Yes, a lot of people would be executed. That's preferable to endless decay and degeneracy.
Unfortunately, the powers in control don't want a better society so I'm trying to come up with something that can work for the society they want. A society where government and the elite have way more control and power while the power have even less resources. Making government bigger is the only way to achieve this. They'll never implement the sorts of laws you're suggesting.
Cathy Newman: "So you're saying that with 'enforced monogamy', you want to seize the means of reproduction and redistribute sexual wealth of women to incels."
OP: "Yes."
That's what I want.
Indeed. Sex, like food, shelter, entertainment, clothing, etc... are all things that improve people's quality of life. We cannot as a society pretend to care about people's happiness such that we redistribute wealth without also redistributing sex.
Exactly, men need the ability to get wives.
Exactly. The argument for wealth redistribution is that -$1 from a billionaire is worth less than subtracting 1 unit of happiness whereas giving +$1 to a homeless person is worth more than 1 unit of happiness.
Well, I propose that forcing a woman to be a man's wife is worth less than subtracting 1000 units of happiness whereas giving an incel a wife is worth more than 1000 units of happiness. Thus we will increase society's overall happiness if we redistribute sex. Yes, women will be less happy if they're forced to be an incel's wife instead of a whore (or in this example, forced to have sex with the incel at least) but that's okay to demand this sacrifice of women for the greater good. It's the same sacrifice we ask of rich people to make for the greater good.
We cannot be logically consistent in our liberal arguments to suggest it's okay to redistribute wealth for the greater good but it's not okay to redistribute wives/sex for the greater good.
The thing is I'm not even joking about this, I do agree with some mild socialist policy and that DOES extend to sexual socialism, or the "Marxist-Rodgerist" school of thought as it's often referred to as.
Also there's evidence to back up the claim that women would be happier being forced to be an incel's wife rather than be free.
I'm actually not joking about any of this but slightly acting like I might be joking because it's too much for some people to take, currently... but make no mistake. If society continues the way it is, people are going to start demanding something like this. It's becoming much more feasible with the technology and information we have available.
I agree women would be happier but instead of attempting that argument, we don't even need to go there. That'll just be a "surprised addition" if we ever properly redistribute sex in a fair manner.
I think it's quite ableist and insert some catch term I haven't come up with to only allow the best looking men/women to gain sex. Sex must be available to all citizens regardless of their nature or the systemic oppression they faced growing up. It's not an unpopular kid's fault he was teased, oppressed and had a bad family such that he never knew how to gain sex for himself. We need to end systemic sexual oppression and ensure all people's sexual outcome is equal in society because any differences in sexual outcomes is due to some form of systemic oppression.
Sometimes an argument lands in a ditch from the very first sentence.
Is labor a resource? Oups, I already proved you wrong. Next.
Edit - However, you do highlight a potential argument from the left who don't understand. I'll rephrase that differently when I market it. Thanks.
sometimes you need a bullet in the head from the first sentence. Sex is the entire reason to live, without sex there is no reproduction, without reproduction why live?
That makes it a 'resource'?
as much as labor is.
Wtf did i just read???
You want the fucking government to "manage" prostitution?? The same govt that promotes unimaginable degeneracy to kids?
I agree that "oldest profession" needs to be deregulated but anything the government puts its grubby hands in become infinitely worse
See marriage, see public education see sanitation
If anything you need to deregulate everything and let the people sort it out (look at what Uruguay did with Marijuana)
This is the ideal but this isn't the direction our society will go. There's profit here for the elites while there is none in the opposite. This will require an even more bloated government so it's actually possible to accomplish whereas reducing government will never happen.
I actually approve of this though, we need some form of sexual wealth redistribution and we had that when women were forced to settle and be monogamous.
I'm not sure if your opening sentence is meant to refer to citizens as tenants (renters, occupiers, residents) or if you are declaring a tenet (a principle , an idea, a belief).
Tenet.
I think they’ll probably come out with sex robots first, way less complicated.