When I discuss what I call the Sexternality – a failure within the sexual marketplace caused by improper government actions – I realize I have forgotten to do two important things: I have forgotten to explain why this is an important issue and, more importantly, to propose a solution.
This has been my failure. Philosophy’s purpose is to improve Society. So, in this essay (really part 3 of the Sexternality series) I will address the important impact of the Sexternality and propose a series of solutions. Let us begin with Utility Theory.
The concept of a Util is a difficult one to grasp for economics students. It proves even more difficult for those still naive to the purpose of markets and exchange theory. I will do my best to explain this here, and give my dearest readers at least a rough understanding of the Util.
Utility is a fancy piece of jargon which means happiness. A Util is a measurement unit of happiness. What makes a Util so difficult to understand is that what makes one person happy does not make everyone happy. Also, quantity of a thing matters. Some people are satisfied with very little while others are satisfied with very much. When we consider monopolistic markets and oligopolies, quality and aesthetics also affect utility.
The Util is thus not a certain measurement, such as is the second, the meter, or the ton. However, if statistics are gathered and calculated correctly, then we can assign, to a particular population regarding a particular series of decisions, the numerical value for the utility earned within these certain markets. In short, the number of utils can be identified not in studying individuals, but in studying markets.
It can be said that in any given market, the Natural equilibrium is the point with the greatest utility for the population. However, this maxim is not always true. There are times where the equilibrium results in a quantity that is too great or too small for to satisfy the greatest utility of the population. These are referred to as externalities. In other places I have covered this concept at length and have no intention of repeating myself here.
The impact of every externality adds or subtracts utils from Society. A positive externality increases utility while a negative externality decreases utility. A negative externality, for the sake of brevity and knowing that it will be used extensively in this essay, shall be referred to by another and older reference: a Disutility.
Malthusian Utility Theory
Every new member of a Society begins as a Disutility. This is to say that each marginal addition to a given population places an additional strain on the resources available to that population. This is the essence behind Malthusian theory.
To offset the Disutility of the populace, Societies have, since the beginning of civilization, placed a burden of labor and contribution upon its members. The more complex the Society, the more diverse occupations are made available to its members. Since more complex and advanced Societies tend to produce higher standards of living, they attract immigration. These immigrants offer their labor in exchange for these higher standards of living. This offsets their inherent disutility, since they are in some way producing. And in the countries where immigrants are welcomed without any such expectation, they have produced a decreased standard of living. Such is the case in Sweden.
I hope that this very brief overview of Utility Theory applied to immigration has explained the Disutility of marginal additions to a population and how such Disutility is offset by contribution.
There is, obviously, another method by which populations grow. Reproduction adds, usually, one new member to a population for every instance. Every pregnancy adds at least one member to a Society’s population; so each birth is a Disutility onto Society. Since the newborn is unable to work, produce, or contribute to Society in any meaningful way until twenty-one years or so into its existence, each such marginal addition to Society should be considered no different than a long-term discount-value bond. This is to say that the payoff of this addition, uncertain in both positive or negative contribution as well as the amount of that contribution, remains more than two decades away from its nativity. For more than two decades, every individual consumed resources and did nothing to replenish them. To offset this inherent Disutility, every set of parents have been burdened with not only providing for themselves, but also for their offspring. This Social mandate has been codified in law, as that child neglect is a serious offense in virtually every Society. So the parents must produce an amount not only to account for their own existence, but also for that of the child.
Otherwise, that is every child is provided for by the population, yields but two simultaneous ends. Firstly, the burden of every child is placed upon every member of Society, regardless of their personal relation to that child. This breeds contempt and hatred; and these feelings have been exploited by tyrants to justify genocides and massacres. Hence, it has been those Societies where all Disutilities are shouldered by the entire population, often called Socialist Societies, are the ones where atrocities committed by the State are most common. And this brings us to the second end: those deemed to be a permanent Disutility by either the General Will or those claiming to represent it are eliminated. It should surprise no one familiar with Utility Theory that those Societies which preach the inherent value of human life and try to make cooperative the competitive Nature of Mankind are the same ones with Gulags and Concentration Camps.
The Ancient Practice of Marriage
To offset the Disutility of birth, the ancient world developed a practice called Marriage. This has taken several forms over the various Societies, but only three shall be considered here. I shall consider the Roman Marriage, the Barbaric Marriage, and the Jewish Marriage. Each one offers its rewards and flaws.
Since Western Civilization has adopted the Jewish Marriage, that one shall be considered first. This is one man and one woman, with disincentives placed on infidelity. Children conceived are kept by the family and raised, accepted by both as being the offspring of both. This serves as a flaw, in that rejecting the wife’s offspring, even on grounds of infidelity, is usually costly in both financial and social senses. This form of marriage relies very heavily on the culture surrounding it, and the sexual proclivities of the Westerner make it, ironically, incompatible with Western civilization. It is really just a relic of the Christianization of Europe. Another major flaw is that this places the social value of an individual on whether or not they marry: those who do marry lose incentive to accomplish more beyond providing for their family and those who do not marry are rendered outcasts, regardless of their contributions.
The Jewish marriage originally allowed for polygamy, such as in the biblical cases of Solomon or David. The monogamous traits were added by the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire. Roman marriage was the practice of monogamy in the sense of marriage alone. Sexual infidelity was accepted, though not celebrated. Cuckolds were still mocked and women who were on the unfortunate end of an extramarital affair were also blamed for their spouse’s infidelity. However, this was rarely grounds for divorce and the misfortune of such intimate betrayal was seen to be no different than one of many of life’s misfortunes. This was practiced by the Romans and by many in the noble classes before the happy events known as The Terror in the 3rd Year of the Enlightenment (1795 for those of you still longing to be ruled by the Caesars).
Children produced within these marriages had to pass a test in which they were judged by their looks. This test has been the origin for the English word “genuine”. The newborn was brought to the father after the swelling resulting from birth had subsided. The father would decide if the baby looked like him or another. If him, the baby the rested upon his knee (the word being genus in Latin), and if like another, the baby was cast in the river or some other natural location where he hoped it would perish. Repeated cases of bastard children resulted in divorce, but a death of a child should have set an unfaithful wife straight.
The Barbaric marriage was polygamous. This was practiced by Deutsch and Celts. Men would marry multiple wives, taking as many as he could support with his station in life. He would sire as many children as he could support. The social castes of these warlike societies allowed for one to climb or fall socially relatively quickly, but only on his own merits. A wife’s infidelity was not insulted, with this being enshrined in the Flyting of Loki. The Goddess of Love and War’s infidelity to her husband is brought as an accusation by the Trickster God and found not to be a crime but the other Vanic Deities. Still, bastard children were not owned by the father, usually entrusted to the wife’s family. But the children he sired he still cared for as a father would.
There is one common trait with these three kinds of marriage. Children born to the mother and father are considered to be the wards of the mother and father, and not of the rest of Society. This is because the ancients understood that everyone should pull their own weight, and if children were to become the wards of the entire village, their numbers would grow too large to sustain. In short, the raising of children has always been the responsibility of the two individuals who fucked, and not of anyone else.
The Child Considered
If every individual is, before the age which one enters the labor force, an inherent disutility onto his countrymen and all others affected by her consumption, as I have demonstrated above, then there are only two ways of preventing this disutility from unjustly affecting Society. The first is to put this disutility entirely onto those individuals directly responsible for her existence, or perhaps onto some other productive individual who, for reasons which are some combination of pragmatic and altruistic. The other to prevent her existence entirely, thus preventing her consumption and the disutility she imposes onto others.
In the first case, the parents are expected to provide for the basic needs and some excess wants of their offspring. They are to do this by using the fruits of their own labor, thus burdening themselves with the entire disutility caused by each child they have. Since they love the child, and are personally invested in the child’s well-being, the unhappiness associated with disutility is offset by the utility of their happy child.
In those cases where the parents are unable to care due to physical, financial, or moral concerns raised and legitimized by themselves or others, there might be some adoption. In this case, someone who is either related to the child only tangentially or not at all might agree to care for the child, shouldering the disutility of her consumption. This can be done for reasons such as needing some one to care for, as some do, or simply to provide for her in the hopes that she will return the favor in one’s old age.
When both natural parents and adoptive parents shoulder the entire disutility of a child, Society as a whole is spared these pains.
The second method of removing a child’s disutility is to kill it. Outright murder is prohibited by both the General Will and the Social Contract, and this prohibition is manifested in the legal infrastructure of virtually every Society in existence or which has existed. However, the killing of the unborn is not banned, except in theocratic societies. This process, referred to as abortion, is a method of preventing the birth of an unwanted child that even the parents do not care for. Since the child is never born, she never consumes, and is thus never a burden upon anyone. Both her utility and disutility are zero.
Compared side by side, both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. If we consider a child to be like a security, we can see that there is a return on utility when the child fully matures into an adult. A child behaves much like a swap. Regular payments are input into the child’s well-being in hopes that as an adult, this member of Society will produce Utility.
The abortion removes all disutility that the child would have caused. However, this removes all possible utility the child would have produced in 21 years time. The parental upbringing, if the parents are stable both romantically and financially, all but guarantees the child will bring utility into Society, thus making her an asset to everyone, though she never taxed them.
This allows for some societal utility to be provided to children. Public schooling guarantees an equal footing for all kids. Child services can help to prevent abuse, thus reducing the future disutility a psychologically scarred victim brings.
However, all of this requires some source of funding. And this funding must come from taxation or some other form of public contribution. All citizens, even those without children, can be convinced of the benefits of educating children and keeping them safe from pedophiles; they can quickly understand the indirect benefits which they themselves will reap in educating and protecting children. An educated populace makes for both a wiser electorate and a more efficient economy. A Society of emotionally disturbed and psychologically scarred persons is no Society at all, but rather a civilization on the brink of the State of Nature.
However, what brings no benefits, direct or indirect, is the provision of resources for consumption by an unrelated and ungrateful other person. This is the effect of allocating public funds for supporting single mothers and their offspring.
Providing for another’s consumption, when that other is of no relation to one’s self, causes unhappiness in most persons. Charities must seek out to provide tax benefits in order to solicit the majority of their donations. The advertisement of tax write-offs is, in itself, a demonstration of this fact. Taxation which is not used for the general benefit, or even for the sake of a social safety net for those stuck by catastrophes outside of their control, but instead used for the consumption of those persons who have chosen their own misfortunes through impulsive behaviors, every taxpayer is made a victim of these bad decisions.
In other places, I have already demonstrated this to be an externality. However, I have only described it so in a broad sense. I have described how men paying taxes to support single mothers are, in effect, hiring dishonest prostitutes, being forced into cuckoldry by the State. What I have not discussed is how absolutely everyone, especially children, are made victims of such an externality.
Every government generates revenue through taxation. There are other methods by which a ruling body may generate revenue, but those must eventually be paid and the method is again through taxes. However, the funds available at any given time to the State are finite. Some municipal systems, such as military, courts of law, and infrastructure, must be maintained for the Society to function. Even quasi-anarchist societies have some form of militia, arbiters, and transport. So these municipal services are ever present and draw something out of the public coffers.
However, as civilizations advance, additional municipal services become available. Healthcare, childhood education, public charity (where the topic at hand belongs), law enforcement, and a host of other services that States try to provide through the sound reason of buying votes. Should these be set up, like those services which must exist for the municipality to truly function as a State, the funding cannot be fixed but must be volatile. Healthcare services must be capable of expanding in times the face of an epidemic and shrinking when private options become more available and better equipped. Schools for children must shrink and grow with the respective population. Public charity must increase and decrease activity as the lower classes wax and wane. And it is with this issue that we can consider Society’s financial relationship with the single mother.
The Flaw Of Supporting Single Mothers
The single mother, who is most often unable to support herself and her offspring, imposes an additional burden on any additional municipal services provided by the State. The reason is simple: she is impulsive and a poor judge of character. She rapidly spends her income and associates with people of a low quality, even if she herself is not of such a low caliber of character. This is how she became a single mother.
If there is a public healthcare system, she will burden it with her own bad decisions (alcoholism and drug use quite often being characteristic to the personality of such women) as well as the higher rates of abuse suffered by the offspring of single mothers. The public education system is burdened by the additional student, and the potential conduct problems quite common with the child of a single impulsive parent. And, by drawing from available public benefits, some of which are only available to single mothers, she burdens the public charity system in its whole.
Some will point out that these municipal services are designed systematically to withstand such burdens. After all, is not the purpose of safety nets, public schooling, and public healthcare to provide for those who cannot do so on their own? And what of the child? The child is a victim of his mother’s actions as much as, if not more so, than all other members of the Society.
This could be considered true, and would totally negate this entire essay if it were not for those benefits available only to single mothers. These act not as deterrents, but as incentives to single-motherhood. Couple them with the heaps of praise idiots grant to these impregnated sluts and how could any woman resist the temptation of one-night stands if the rewards are to be treated not like a jester, but like a queen. There is no negative consequence to her actions, she only reaps rewards. Again, this particular externality is something I have covered extensively elsewhere. However, it is through other municipal services that the single mother wreaks havoc on other members of the Society she afflicts.
Where there exists a public healthcare system, the single mother burdens it with each additional child she has. A risky lifestyle is not quickly abandoned, even with the birth of a child. This is especially true when that child was conceived in what is just another impulsive action. The more impulsive the woman, the less vetting there is of the men she invites into her life. It is for these reasons that the single mother exposes her children to abusive men. She just wants his dick, and she doesn’t care about the effects his behavior may have upon her offspring.
Once the child is old enough to attend school, he is then made a burden onto the public schools. Usually, the children of single mothers are more prone to violence, thus making the child statistically a liability both onto the behavior remediation resources available to the school as well as to other children. These other children are often the targets of the rage that the unfortunate child of a single mother attacks. Their parents must deal with the fallout of the impulsive behavior and subsequent bad parenting done by a woman who has no business being a mother. Whether that is the direct effects of bullying and other antisocial behaviors or the indirect effects of lowered standards to accommodate those stupider students, other, more responsible parents, pay the price of the single mother.
Why Am I Not Discussing Single Fathers
The single father, in most judicial systems, has to fight to gain custody. This shows a level of drive and enthusiasm that is, more often than not, lacking among single mothers. I am only discussing those individuals who, due to the inherent bias of the courts, come to have custody of the children.
The Two Solutions
There are two possible solutions to this externality. One involves government command and control, the typical response advocated by socialists. This will be called the Socialist Solution.
The second solution simply involves removal of government and the legalization of a certain market currently deemed illegal and immoral. This shall be called the Capitalist Solution.
I shall describe each one in their respective sections, compare them to one another, and then I shall conclude this already long piece.
The Socialist Solution
An externality caused by socializing reproduction does have a Socialist solution. Socialist economic systems fall under a broad umbrella of economic systems referred to as command-and-control. A command-and-control economy is one in which the government makes edicts over market activity, requiring households and firms to comply with these laws. These laws are adjusted to fit various cycles.
In this case, the command-and-control edict which solves the single mother externality is mandatory abortion. This is to say that there is no choice, only that the woman must have an abortion if it is proven that she and the male involved cannot possibly adequately provide for the child.
The deterring effects of mandatory abortion on reproduction among the undeserving poor would hopefully be immediate and all-encompassing. However, there are always those who, when faced with a deterrent, continue their efforts. Whether out of a defiant nature, stupidity, or some twisted morality those whose reproduction is economically harmful to Society would still attempt to generate offspring. Let us consider the financial logistics of mandatory abortion in order to understand how to deal with these persons.
The burden of financing the abortion should be up to the individuals who tried to reproduce. Not considering the implicit costs of transportation, the average abortion tends to cost about five hundred dollars (and considering the high costs of raising a child, such a one time payment should be seen by those mandated to terminate a pregnancy as an investment rather than a fine). Individuals who know themselves to be unable to bring together five hundred dollars for this medical procedure should spend the much smaller amount to purchase condoms and avoid becoming such a burden on themselves or others in the first place.
There will be those who create a zygote in a woman and find themselves to be unable to generate five hundred dollars. In this case, to prevent the externalities associated with a lower class child, the public would be the ones to pay for the abortion. Obviously, this would cause many couples who, either forced to have an abortion or seeking one, to claim extreme poverty. This would protect them from their duty to pay for their own medical procedures and still create an externality, albeit a lesser one.
These cases would be unavoidable using the proposed Socialist solution. In fact, I would predict (without any real modeling) that these cases would constitute the majority of abortion. I say this because those people who would be mandated to have abortions would be the same people who lack the foresight to save money and likely the same people who see themselves deserving to reproduce. In their hubris they inflict the costs of their offspring onto everybody else.
The mothers who would weep at the loss of a potential baby would learn not to fuck the losers who cannot provide, but only those men able to provide. This would greatly diminish the problem of men checking out of Society, as some have called it. With this proposed solution, only men who can provide due to already having gainful employment, and not “struggling artists” or “dreamy bad boys”, would be the only ones with which one could reproduce. Choosing the struggling artist who thinks painting a whole canvas just one color is a statement would well result in lifelong sterility. At best, it would be an expense of about five hundred dollars.
The Capitalist Solution
The Capitalist Solution is Two-fold. The first part is to end all payments to a single mother that a single male without dependents would not be entitled to under the same welfare laws. In the United States, this would end programs such as Women Infants and Children, and various benefits available to struggling mothers at the individual state level. It would probably be best to also eliminate (or at least severely curtail) those payments to struggling families in an effort to dissuade them from reproduction or further reproduction.
There would be no actual mandate for abortions placed, though the service would still remain readily available on the free market. Compared to eighteen or more years of struggling to feed an additional mouth may make some realize that five hundred dollars is indeed a small price to pay for such a major mistake. More importantly, it should make them even wiser not to make this mistake again. Unlike the Socialist solution, the freedom is there, but the consequences of behaving in this antisocial way are so much more dire.
It should be noted that should a single mother or a struggling family be unable to care for their children on their own income, the law would come into effect. The child would be confiscated by the State and the mother would be charged with child neglect and/or abuse.
The second part of this solution is to legalize prostitution. This would have several social benefits, though admittedly would also have the problem of sexually transmitted diseases. However, many behaviors currently condoned by Society have major health risks, to include those identical posed by promiscuity, so prostitution’s risks are really nothing that Society is truly worried about, with or without current medical abilities.
But let us be honest. Prostitution is nowhere prohibited due to supposed health risks. If the cause for the prohibition on trading sex for money were truly the interests of public health, then promiscuity, which has an equal effect on the spread of several venereal diseases, would also be illegal. Yet this is not the case.
Prostitution is only illegal for one reason and one reason alone. This prohibition on the commodification of copulation is to prevent women from having to compete on the sexual marketplace. In the market for sex, women act very much like producers, and seek out the greatest producer surplus they can. This is to say that prices (by which I mean the actions men have to take to get laid) are set so high that one would think from simply studying the market’s behavior, that there was a shortage of females in the human species. Should prostitutes be introduced into this market, men would cease to play the infantile games women develop (very often based on what they see on television, hence many college girls living as though they were contestants on The Bachelor) and simply go pay the one hundred or so dollars it would cost for a one night stand. Only women with amicable personalities and character traits deeper than self-pity and alcoholism would not be affected by prostitution because they’d be the ones men would want to date.
One can derive from my rant above that if prostitution were made legal, both men and women would benefit. Men would find having sex much easier and women would develop into better companions in the face of competition, thus rendering “The Wall” MGTOWs often talk about absolutely meaningless. And of course those women who are inclined to sex and little else will find themselves gainfully employed. But while Western Civilization remains a confederation of Feminist theocracies, this ban will never be lifted, I fear.
However, the purpose of this discussion is not one on the economics of prohibitions on vices, but on the externalities caused by single mothers, and, more broadly, procreation by those individuals living in poverty. So, how can legalized prostitution serve to correct this wrong?
Since in this proposed Capitalist Solution there would cease to be any extra public support given for offspring, many of those who choose to procreate without having the means to support each marginal addition to the species would require some method of generating additional income to do so. Since producing each new child is initiated with the act of sexual intercourse, these individuals clearly have no qualms about copulation, and could thus capitalize on their genitalia. Offering these persons, usually females but sometimes also their husbands and lovers, a source of income so easily obtained would accomplish two other important social goals as well.
The first tangential problem solved is that of people choosing to underachieve. Currently this demographic, comprised almost entirely of males, is disincentivized to do much of anything beyond seeking out entertainment. These lives are lived entirely for cheap experiences; from snack to snack, from show to show. Many of them have totally exited the dating market, despite still having the hormonal impulse to reproduce. Easily accessible pornography has replaced sexual intercourse for them.
The reason they have substituted pornography for intercourse is not the existence of pornography. Smut in all its forms has existed since the first medium was used to communicate an idea. It has never stopped humanity from copulating, and does not do so now, despite its ease of access. Rather, the safety nets provided to women has been what has caused these men to give up seeking out sex. They have been conditioned to understand that they are undesirable, regardless of their actual ability to maintain a relationship or even an erection. The female will always choose the most immediately pleasurable piece, the best looking male, because thanks to the Feminist theocracy, there are no long term negative consequences to any of her decisions. She can get an abortion – which is the most socially desirable choice, if we are honest – or she can be told what a hero she is for siphoning tax dollars to raise a brat she sacrifices almost nothing for. How can anyone blame pornography for giving these men something of which Society has, albeit accidentally, deprived them?
Yet if single mothers were given no public aid and, being dependent upon such charity and a level of low intelligence which led them to become single mothers, the option of prostitution, these underachieving males might seek out gainful employment so that they might copulate. Certainly, they would prefer to spend fifty dollars on a blowjob than fifty dollars on a subscription to watch other get blown. Imagine for a minute the lawyers, statesmen, doctors, philosophers, and scientists we are casting away as a Society in our collective desperation to make every women feel comfortable with her poor decisions.
Though I admit most of the beneficiaries of this plan would be male, there would be the same effect for females, though fewer men would seek out prostitution as a source of income. But, then again, fewer women are plagued by involuntary celibacy (though, reading up on the topic of incels, one sees that female incels are perceived as victims while male incels are seen as selfish. A symptom, I think, of the cancer that has become of the Feminist philosophy).
The second problem solved is that there would be an open market for sexual favors. This would allow such a market to both be measured and, more importantly, regulated. Though the number of child prostitutes will never plummet entirely to zero, legalized prostitution increases the supply of adult prostitutes and thus allows a legal outlet for people trying to get laid. This would reduce the demand for child prostitutes which many sex traffickers currently rely on for both reasons of blackmail and the easy control they have over the children. This topic veers quite off course of my main thesis, and would require a far more detailed market analysis which I cannot provide right now. So, let us end this discussion on the Capitalist Solution.
Conclusion: The Two Solutions Compared
To end this thesis, I think that it is imperative I compare the two solutions I have proposed.
For those with short attention spans, let me give a short recap of these two solutions. The Socialist Solution involves mandatory abortions and has Society pay for these abortions when the pregnant party cannot pay for the procedure. The Capitalist Solution frees the sexual market and prohibits public assistance for offspring.
The Capitalist solution, if it is to be considered a solution to all the social ailments I described above, is the danger posed by individual and private charity. Individuals, religious organizations, and those motivated by emotions they mistake for conscience instead of reason will continue to personally support some of those women and couples who procreate without being able, on their own, to sustain the marginal addition to Society.
However, this does not fail to address both the issues of overpopulation and the immediate externalities of single parenthood (especially those problems of single motherhood). This only means that the solution of removing safety nets for personal mistakes does address problems tangentially connected to those mistakes. The solution itself still forces women who choose mates poorly, copulate with total impulsivity and reproduce irresponsibly to behave according to laws of nature. She is not shielded from her own bad decisions just as she does not shield Society from them. The solution may not be a total cure for all sociological ailments, but it is a fix for the problem with which this essay is concerned.
The Socialist solution is effective, but it has two major problems. The first one is that pregnant couples and individuals who have no means to support a child (and perhaps no intention of the child outright) may simply seek to have the abortion performed at the expense of the State, which is to rightly say at the expense of the public. In this way, though the externality of single motherhood is reduced, by eighteen years times eight-months times the variable of monthly expenses of raising a child, it is not all together erased. And the goal of any solution I propose is not diminishing, for history has proven that containment procedures never work.
In addition to this problem which means the externality is only mitigated instead of eradicated, there stands another, more prominent issue. There are those who desire to have children, and some of these individuals are completely unable to provide for their children if left to their own devices. These people will do anything necessary to protect the child in the mother’s womb, regardless of the negative implications of this child’s birth. When these children are born, they cannot be killed (that is, without committing the outright murder of another living and breathing human being unless some additional laws are passed – but such laws have been historically radical and genocidal). Of course, these single mothers who hid their pregnancy will demand some aide for these marginal additions to Society.
To be brief, I will sum up my own judgment of the two solutions I have proposed here. Because the Capitalist Solution fixes the externality at hand, and the Socialist Solution cannot totally reverse the externality, at best only mitigating it, the Capitalist Solution is best. My dear reader, I do ask for your judgment on these two solutions, your own solutions, and your opinions on my ideas presented here.