I have to disagree that economics is the weakest of all sciences. It is perhaps the one that deals with the most variables. It is often used by soothsayers to make money but I do not think the Sexocracy need to deal with economics any more than Neitzche or Socrates did.Economics is the science of distribution of scarce resources. The sexocracy like the philosophy of religion is attempting to identify answers to the human condition. The human condition is not a subject of economics.
Equal2u, I have been surfing some of the threads in religion and I want to reaffirm tha value of the sexocracy. There is so much homophobia in some of those threads its like watching the 700 club. Keep it up.
I’m the greatest economist that has ever lived because I’m the only one to recognise that the financial economy itself is fundamentally flawed. Money itself is destructive to humanity. Money draws value away from human beings and onto itself. Human beings inevitably become judged according to how much money they have. Money results in an economic system that is insanely complex and is constantly collapsing and then rebuilding itself, with its biological constituents gazing upon it with fear and wonder, constantly observing its every tiny fluctuation and producing offerings to try and appease and soothe it, all the time apparently unaware that they are looking at their own creation.
That’s why in the Sexocracy money is entirely done away with and replaced with a simple and elegant status based system.
People are free to believe whatever they like in the Sexocracy. However religion will rapidly die out because the means by which it thrives and perpetuates itself- child abuse- is banned. In the Sexocracy children’s right to think for themselves is legally protected. Indoctrination of children is a crime.
Well equal2u you may be an economist also but you are not the greatest because the system you see has been done before. Karl Marx had the exact same feelings about money 150 years ago. He also was a utopian. His system was not based on sex and status officially but probably came pretty close to ending up there. It was supposedly egalitatian as you are. It just did not work.
Marxism doesn’t involve the abolition of money.
Marx advocated the banning of religion which was a violation of human rights.
Marx never said anything about sex and drugs which are the most important areas of the Sexocracy.
Sexocracy is not the same as Marxism.
The Sexocracy is a form of communism but a very different one from the one that Marx envisaged.
Well that’s why I said it was off topic. And I disagree economics is little more than tossing bones in the air, if recent history is any indication. Sure when studied at university or at post doctorate level it is far more scientific, but the moment they leave college they don the robes of the mystic. 
Caldrid I did not mean to imply that economics is throwing bones in the air. I have great respect for it and have an unergraduate degree in it. From a philosophical perspective I appreciate Economics buecause it is the only science I know that is not ashamed to admit its assumptions.
You’re misunderstanding me though, those who leave academia tend to get lost in the dynamics of the real world which are too complex to scientifically predict. I don’t disrespect economists I disrespect those who then take their assumptions into the real world and fuck it up, those who make excuses for the assumptions and lack of predictable outcomes, after the fact. We could not of known that the housing bubble would cause a problem, that giving people access to large sums of money with few regulations would make them irresponsible. My arse.
Caldrid that had nothing to do with economics. And certainly many economists knew it was coming. Tht was the result of corrupt financial institutions and many leading politicians and monetary officials believing the nonsense philosophies of Ann Rand. Norman Greenspand abandonded economics to become a disciple of Rand. That is where all this lassez faire religion comes from. Greenspan went before congress and addmitted he was wrong. He was wrong because he abandoned economics and the reality of numbers for the acclaim of being a guru.
Of course it has to do with economics, but the fact is not enough Economists spoke against the situation to be heard. Bankers do learn economics at universities, they do then chose not to use it outside of the college. Saying the situation is not due to economists is like saying flour is not due to wheat. If the Economists really knew that the shit was going to hit the fan, their message would of been more apposite. Sadly though more economists sided with the Ayn Rand crap as you put it, and the nay sayers were drowned out. Politics is ultimately to blame true but those who did not understand the mine field that is economics or did not want to are also to blame.
I agree you can blame a lot of economists but not economics. They abandoned they faith. Many did speek up but hey I am sure you know what its like to try and convince closed minded people. Its nor worth it. They have families and bills to pay like everyone else. You can lead them to the water but you cannot make them drink.
On that we can agree.
The problem with capitalism is that it capitalises on itself. If you stimulate the economy it will go into overdrive until it collapses. If you reduce stimulation it will become increasingly underactive until it collapses. The problem is that any financial economy places value outside of human beings and onto money. This is a misplacement of value and inevitably leads to destruction.
That was exactly Marx’s point.
And he was right. But he didn’t call for the abolition of money and he said nothing about the most important areas for human society- sex and drugs.
Why are they the most important part of human society, because you are young and you want both, or because you think they are fundamental to any society? I think what you want is skewed by your inexperience. A good system of government needs to speak to everyone, not young horny post adolescents. And I don’t mean that to sound demeaning but your mentality is obviously coloured by your age more than wisdom. Some people can get laid whenever they want anyway, to forgo the chase for a society of people who need make no effort to do so seems shallow, and ultimately unfulfilling. Communism as you say is similar it takes the drive out of labour, because everyone is equal no matter what they think or do. Neither system has shown any sign of success, they always get corrupted by the need for men or women to strive, to prove themselves. Sex and relationships are no different, we have to at the end of the day to have striven for what we wanted out of sex, and that goes for any desire.
Bag o’ cats mate, society is a bag of cats, you can’t please everyone but you can please the majority. Forgo that fundamental, forgo the drives that are so unique in any individual, let them off their experience of the sexual drive and you’ll raise a nation of charisma-less pleasure bots, hooked on drugs that they don’t have to work hard to find.
You really should read Brave New World by the way, it’s been said before but it might be an eye opener for you particularly.
We’re all sexual beings from the moment we’re conceived to the moment we die. Your perception of sexuality seems to be that it only applies to ‘young horny post adolescents’ that is so detached from reality it is psychotic. I’m disturbed by your repeated assertions of the need to ‘chase’ for sex. You sound like a rapist.
Drugs are incredibly powerful in many ways. Epecially the way they can access feelings of pleasure. We’re all pleasure seeking beings whether you’re two or a hundred and two. That’s one of the reaasons why drugs are incredibly important. Any sociological system that fails to make any comment on them, like Marxism, is going to be a laughable failure from the outset.
My system gives powerful incentive for labour. Not everyone is equal within the economy. Those who do not work only get standard status. Those who work get luxury status. Super luxury is reserved for the sexual service providers.
I’m not 'forgo’ing the drives. The drives are unforgoable. They are determined by our genes. I want to create a society where they are embraced and fulfilled rather than constantly blocked and frustrated by this fragmented world of self hatred you seem to think is so wonderful.