Two people will not agree with it. The unattractive, and the unproductive.

Of course, those who cannot compete by giving better offer are not going to just admit it by saying so.

Those who demand sex laws against consensual sex will not say, ?I oppose free sex because no women want me and I want to ration females to inferior males such as I am.? It's not to their best interest to be honest and they'll come up with something else.

So what?

Well, within a democratic framework, for example, those inferior people will demand sex laws and social programs to mask their lack of capability.

So fuck democracy! Well, not that simple. You see, without democracy, the alternative is civil war. We're in deep shit no matter what.

Hardcore libertarians will simply say, ?Kill them all! They violated individual freedom, they want war. Summon Pinochet, etc.?

Not here.

You see, Jesus told us to love our enemy. Rather than killing them all we should try to appease them by making them happy.

Of course, we should do so at the minimum cost.

I once suggested that the rich should help eliminate poverty by knocking up as many females as possible. That way, the ratio between the productive people and the parasitic will be more and more.

That way, for a much lower level of sacrifice from the productive, the parasites will get more. It's win win. The thing is, this brilliant idea is prohibited by bigots.

Apparently, envy, rather than need, causes their unhappiness. We need to think of more ways to make enemies of freedom happy with minimum deviation from meritocracy.

How can we make people happy with minimum cost?

Well, we get them high!

Think of it this way, you come to a good-for-nothing liberal hippie, and say, ?Stop making kids, embrace capitalism, here's food, shelter, and dope!? Do you think they'll object?

It's a victimless and humane way to get rid of the inferior from the gene pool.

Nowadays, many people cling to hunger. With this schemes nobody has to.

We often deem poor people as inferior. Who knows we're wrong. Who knows those people are not poor because they're inferior. Who knows they're poor due to lack of chances.

Those who truly are superior don't need to cheat to win. In fact, we should give those who we deem inferior a head start. That way, fewer people will complain that it's not fair when we're winning.

If we give cash to the poor, the smart, diligent, honest, kind, productive or for whatever reason superior among them can use the cash we give to start a business and get rich. Once they're rich productively, then they have proven their worthiness. Go ahead make as many kids as they want, but pay the poor cash for their head start.

The lazy, dumb, dishonest, and evil among them can just use dope and live happily ever after for the whole of their life.

Either way, they'll be happy.

People says that drugs damage people's future. Some people are better of with no future for everyone's sake.

This can then be a replacement of all other more damaging governments' programs, like minimum wage, public school, and public utilities. All those created far more market distortion. It's just far more efficient to just give cash and let the market take care of the rest.

Now, they'll have a choice to be happy.

They'll be happier, we'll be happier. So why not?

If we don't give them free dopes, they'll demand something much more expensive, like jobs, or public school. Even worse, they'll demand sex laws that ration females to poor dumb males. That'll make the poor breed like rabbits costing us more money.

I tell you the truth. Love your enemy, get them high! For that way you'll be like your Father in heaven that pour rain of happiness to the productive as well as the parasites.

Moreover, as long as the productive make more kids, it'll be happier for those who give than for those who receive. The meek, shall inherit the earth.

Who knows, heaven is just hell on dope.

Now some would say that drugs are expensive. Not if it were legal.

Consensual usage is victimless. Prohibition of dope is not victimless. Just like tax, job creation, subsidy, and sex laws.