Avoiding costly personal legal issues in the West
You may want to avoid ending up in lengthy and costly court battles in a western country.
That is why the "four nos" policy is so useful:
You can still do all of that outside the West, though. If you are careful, you can reasonably avoid these costly personal legal issues outside the West.
It is very similar to the popular Chinese "four nos" trend:
Chinese Youth: The Rise of the "Four No's" Phenomenon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQATUUNdbtc
This policy does not mean that you cannot achieve such goals in your private life. It just means that you will have to achieve them elsewhere.
Nowadays, jurisdiction shopping has become an essential instrument for managing otherwise potentially very costly legal risks.
In terms of national politics, it mostly means that you cannot count on the individual to wait for the ruling class to make up their minds and finally fix the problem.
As every business knows, competition is real. It is never the problem that will go away by itself. It is always the customer who will.
That is why the "four nos" policy is so useful:
- No civil marriage
- No cohabitation
- No children
- Preferably, no sex (subject to self-discipline)
You can still do all of that outside the West, though. If you are careful, you can reasonably avoid these costly personal legal issues outside the West.
It is very similar to the popular Chinese "four nos" trend:
- No marriage
- No dating
- No children
- No to buying a house
Chinese Youth: The Rise of the "Four No's" Phenomenon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQATUUNdbtc
This policy does not mean that you cannot achieve such goals in your private life. It just means that you will have to achieve them elsewhere.
Nowadays, jurisdiction shopping has become an essential instrument for managing otherwise potentially very costly legal risks.
In terms of national politics, it mostly means that you cannot count on the individual to wait for the ruling class to make up their minds and finally fix the problem.
As every business knows, competition is real. It is never the problem that will go away by itself. It is always the customer who will.
Comments (57)
No such thing. A barbarian delusion at best.
But in the fine print, you are not really insisting on nos, you are suggesting that we go off somewhere else, and do it where no one is looking. What kind of life is that, a life of deception?
It's all about avoiding court cases.
I simply don't want them.
It's the same in business. If I suspect that a business deal will lead to a court case, I won't do it or I will do it with someone else, or possibly in another jurisdiction.
But then again, if it still leads to a court case, I want to stand a fair chance in trial. Even though the very fact that it has to come to a court case is already a failure in itself, there will still still be an expectation of fairness.
In my opinion, conflict avoidance is an essential life strategy. Things tend to go wrong already without adding the avoidable ingredient of conflict.
But who cares what you want?
You haven't made any coherent argument that living in the "West" is a relative legal risk in general.
Close to half of the population will live through a harrowing court case, called "divorce". It is a byproduct of civil marriage. No civil marriage means no divorce court case.
Cohabitation is routinely reclassified as some alternative form of civil marriage in the West, i.e. common-law marriage. Therefore, even cohabitation must be avoided for legal reasons. This is not the case anywhere outside the West.
Furthermore, you do not want to get involved in a child-support related legal case in a western country. You can avoid this problem by not having children in a western jurisdiction.
Quoting Baden
I obviously do. Lots of other people are actually saying the same things:
But then again, I have also pointed out that you can avoid many of these problems by moving your private life outside the West.
Your concern is that some woman you committed yourself to will take your money or you will have to support any children you have rather than be able to shag some farmer's daughter in outer Mongolia and just move on to the next jurisdiction where you have more money than the locals when things get complicated, right?
Because that's a rather narrow view of "avoiding legal issues". You may find that an absence of strictly enforceable / codified law in farmers-daughter-rich hinterlands could lead to you getting arrested just for looking the wrong way at a bigwig or to having to fork out a massive bribe after being tempted into a compromising situation caused by your patronising complacency.
You'd be better off talking directly about your problem with "the West", i.e. family law, than coming at it from this odd self-defeating angle.
The difficulty that exists in Columbus, Ohio can however be avoided automatically by sticking to the 4 no's policy: No marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex, in any western country, including Ohio State.
There's the Passport Bro movement which advises pretty much the same policy but for other reasons.
The Passport Bro Movement: Exploring Why Men Are Fed Up and Leaving Western Society
Why becoming a passport bro is the best decision I've ever made
The articles mentions all kinds of reasons why they prefer this lifestyle. I personally do it to avoid legal issues.
Yes, that's where I thought you were coming from. But given just the silly name for a start, the "Passport Bro"s don't sound like a movement any intelligent person would want to be associated with. I don't like living in Western countries either but it's because I find them generally stifling and over-expensive. The idea that I'm somehow legally safer in less developed more corrupt jurisdictions makes no sense to me except from the very narrow angle of "family law" you seem concerned with. That's why I'm saying just come out and deal with that instead of mixing it up with other stuff.
It is just as you say here in the west, maybe we should all do as they do in the east. No divorce needed, just stone them to death.
That is a false dichotomy.
In fact, you can still physically live in the West. However, in order to avoid legal trouble, you'd better give up on your private life. A lot of people do that, actually. Especially young men are staying single nowadays:
They may not use a catchy slogan like in China ("4 no's") but they seem to be doing the same. Furthermore, it does not make sense to have children in the West. You will just end up paying child support for children that you will barely see. I do not understand why anybody still takes that risk.
Not if you don't screw up your relationship.
Quoting Tarskian
Maybe they have faith in their ability not to screw up their relationship.
They simply misunderstand the incentive structure created by the legal system. If someone gets paid cash and prizes for blowing up the relationship, that is exactly what they are going to be doing.
Indeed, the thesis is: Quoting Baden
Your view is stupid and superficial. And keep a lid on the misogyny.
Quoting Baden
I did not mention the gender of the "someone" getting paid cash and prizes. That is not necessary because these laws do not mention that either. It could actually be either. In theory, these laws are equally dangerous to men as to women. You are the one trying to mention genders here. Furthermore, you incorrectly interpret these laws in one particular direction in order to shoehorn some imaginary "misogyny" into the conversation.
The solution is: no civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex (both in China and) in the West. That avoids serious legal problems for both men and women. That is why this lifestyle policy is clearly in everybody's best interest.
Yes. You might like this video:
I think I can guess the gender of the Passport Bros' nemeses.
Quoting Tarskian
Until there are no people left in one generation.
At travelgirls.com women are actually doing something similar.
The "travel girls" apparently want to travel with a man to another country.
Of course, their motivations are again different.
I would never do it, however, because the entire setup sounds too much like "human trafficking". So, they can count me out for that approach. If you ever send a message to someone on that kind of site, it could already be viewed as "attempted human trafficking".
Quoting Baden
Not globally.
It is still perfectly possible to have children in a jurisdiction in which the laws are not so dangerous. In fact, you just do the same things as otherwise but not in a country where it could backfire.
OK, well, I can't say I quite get what you're at but if it's not the usual "blame women for men's woes" schtick we periodically get here, it's not a problem.
Why would you suspect that dating would lead to a court case, unless you were planning on doing something wrong on that date?
This subject is sheer impossible to discuss because it requires distinguishing between man and woman. They will no longer be simply interchangeable in the narrative. If you do that, you can easily find yourself on the receiving end of "misogyny" or "misandry" accusations.
That is why it is preferable not to discuss the detailed specifics of inter-gender dynamics.
You cannot just take the initiative to try something, no matter how minor or innocuous, and hope that things will go alright because even though your attempt was undoubtedly expected, it may not be well received, and any such failed attempt is already potentially a serious legal matter.
In other words, don't ask anybody out unless you know that they will agree, but you cannot know that unless you try, and that is how you end up at the HR department.
Furthermore, the entire process is like that from the beginning till the end. In every step of the way, it is generally not possible to ask. That would be too awkward. Instead, you are supposed to try. By trying, however, you are taking a massive legal risk. That is why you'd better don't try anything. It is simply not worth it. So, just don't do it.
In other places on the globe, it is less dangerous to do that, because the potential legal consequences won't escalate through the roof that easily.
So a person should avoid ever trying anything new in one's life if one doesn't want the potential for a serious legal matter? Don't even go out the door, it's simply not worth the risk. How could you ever find that land of milk and honey, where you can do whatever you want and not worry about legal consequences, if you're so afraid to do anything that you can't even leave your house?
Morally speaking, you should take care of your children and in some cases your former partner, because people tend to give up things for the other, often entire careers, to stay in lasting relationships. Maybe you should get pregnant some time, see how it agrees with you.
@Baden correctly identified this as dumb immature shit.
That entirely depends on the legal system. The same decision that may be a non-issue in one jurisdiction will result in a lengthy prison sentence in another jurisdiction. That is why jurisdiction shopping is such an important tool.
All morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. In Islamic law, you never take care of a former partner. Furthermore, after the age of reason, custody of children reverts to the father of the children.
"Morally speaking" is always according to a particular moral theory. What a particular parliament has invented, does not bind anyone in terms of morality, and it certainly does not apply outside national borders.
There simply is no established moral theory in the West. That is the number one reason why Islam is now gradually but surely taking over Europe.
What you advocate, on the other hand, creates a perverse incentive structure that will rather sooner than later destroy western society. It is exactly the most vulnerable people who will suffer the most from such societal collapse.
Self-discipline ... I don't even wanna ask.
Generalising from @Benkei's earlier point: If social collapse happens, it will be due to laws not adequately protecting the economically weak but allowing for their exploitation by the rich. At a macro scale, this can relate to tax policy, or at a more micro scale, family law, where partners who sacrifice more in a relationship are never compensated or if parents are not legally obliged to financially support their children.
So, the situation is the opposite to how you present it. You appear to be financially self-sufficient but seem to feel that, to maintain social stability, people like you are the ones who should be protected more than the vulnerable, such as children who aren't being supported by their fathers, or mothers who can't afford child care so they can go out and work. You are not presenting any kind of a moral theory but a purely self-interested strategy.
Quoting Tarskian
What exactly are you afraid you will be imprisoned for? I've lived in Western countries and not only never heard of anyone going to prison for a dating misunderstanding, I've never heard anyone even talk about anyone they know having that issue. Maybe you should look at the statistics. Or just consider using common sense. Your "fears" seem overblown.
Quoting Tarskian
Is all of this just a roundabout way of saying Islamic countries are better than Western countries?
If you need your spouse to provide for you, it is your job to make sure that he voluntarily wants to keep doing that.
You cannot outsource this to other men to somehow force him. That will only lead to conflict and even war, which the men on your side will simply lose.
In fact, the men on your side generally do not even want to fight anymore. You live in a society that the men generally no longer want to defend. Why would they? What's in it for them?
Quoting Baden
Muslim men are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. Western men are not.
(My bolding). Back to sexism again.
Quoting Tarskian
(My bolding) But according to your own story, you advocate running away rather than risking anything. That's the whole point of this thread as you've described things.
It's starting to unravel into incoherency and self-contradiction anyhow.
Not everybody can leave, even though many more still could. I can indeed achieve what I want without risking a fight. So, why would I?
In western Europe, however, at a societal level things are increasingly coming to a head. As Elon Musk has said, civil war is inevitable. War is always fought by men. We also know that men who do not believe in what they are fighting for, cannot possibly win the war.
I have lived through a divorce in the UK. It consisted of signing some papers and if I remember perhaps swearing an affidavit or something. There was no court appearance, and in general, the legal aspect was the least harrowing part of the separation.
Start with bullshit, and conclude with self-justification. This thread should have been put out our collective misery already.
Historically the dumbest comment so far. Back when women were still chattel in Europe, they had family law giving rights to women to the estate. Maybe actually study this stuff instead of pretending you're a wannabe Andrew Tate.
Edit: it's even on wiki for God's sake.
The result is a dehumanized view of the other, entirely black & white "All women are X, all men are Y", etc.
I've noticed online media feeds forwarding this type of mental poison without any apparent reason.
The real question here is: where is all the fear porn coming from? Who is creating it and to what end?
The problem with this point of view is that it assumes to know the type of legal action which will be applied, before hand. This implies that the person doing jurisdiction shopping intends wrongdoing from the beginning. However, you present the issue as if it is honest mistakes that would be made, which would bring about unwanted legal action, and these would be completely accidental.
The two are inconsistent. If a person going about one's life in a normal way, brings about unwanted legal action against oneself, due to honest mistake, and completely accidental circumstances, then that person would have no way to know in advance what sort of jurisdiction to shop for, being completely unaware of what sort of misadventure one might wander into. If the person is doing jurisdiction shopping, then they know what type of so-called "mistakes" they will be engaging in, and they plan to find somewhere that they can get away with these mistakes without legal ramifications.
Since you seem to be very focused on jurisdiction shopping, instead of focusing on limiting risk through understanding, care, and temperance, as the appropriate means for avoiding unwanted legal action, it appears like you are actively promoting intentional wrongdoing.
Take the example of asking someone out. If it is not well received, it amounts to sexual harassment.
However, you won't know how the person who is being asked feels about the situation until you actually try, which in turn, could degenerate into a legal quagmire. That is why you should generally not do that. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and better safe than sorry.
Furthermore, the same problem occurs every time you try to escalate. The dating protocol requires you to try without asking first, which would be awkward. However, if it is not well received, it is legally a problem.
That is one of the many reasons why I do not date.
There are more traditional alternatives to dating which are very common outside the West and that do not have this problem. In my opinion, it is the practice of dating itself that is questionable.
I avoid the trouble above with the 4 no's policy. I strictly keep my private life outside the West.
Considering the extreme statistical unlikelihood that asking someone out or having sex will land a well-meaning commonsensical person in trouble, this is a bit like telling people to emigrate to a country with no roads so they won't get knocked down. Better advice would be "look left and right before you step on the tarmac". I mean, consider the likely hundreds of millions of people having sex just today in Western countries, how many of them do you think are going to end up in prison?
I had thought you were using hyperbole as a rhetorical device to criticize PC in Western countries or some such, which could be a starting point for a sensible critique, but taking this literally it just fails at the first hurdle for anyone with even minimum social skills and understanding of the opposite sex.
If enough of people like you follow this advise the world will be a much better place for the rest of us.
This kind of trouble is not uncommon especially when there is money to be made from causing it:
The dating protocol is legally questionable by design. It effectively requires you to take this kind of risk.
Some football players are less lucky:
The outcome of the court case is a question of sheer luck:
Why do famous and otherwise handsome and attractive football players get accused of rape so often?
Not because these women were uninterested or unwilling to have sex with them, but obviously, because of the massive potential payoff.
Quoting AmadeusD
Different people come to exactly the same conclusion for otherwise entirely different reasons. That outcome is called an "attractor":
When every syllogistic chain of arguments leads to the same conclusion, then this conclusion is simply inevitable.
Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised that the South Korean feminist 4B movement comes to this conclusion.
Women may have completely different reasons altogether to adopt the "4 no's" policy but they will also adopt it, regardless, because this conclusion is a natural attractor.
No marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex either.
The West is terminally doomed.
So you're now confusing sociology, ideology, philosophy and mathematics. Gotcha.
Quoting Tarskian
You've not presented a single one to base this on. And, doubtless, your Ps will be entirely false, so what's your point? Syllogisms don't come from Mathematical concepts.
Quoting Tarskian
You might be surprised to learn that it is hatred of men, destablising social structures, and avoiding populating the country are their reasons. These are terminal reasons (not to mention they are empirically utterly bereft of evidence for either their reasons, or their purported solution). These are reasons for ending the species, not for changing any kind of dynamic. If their ideology was taken up en masse, we are then in a situation where there are no babies. So, you're an anti-natalists? Very unislamic of you.
So, while you may not be surprised, it violates all the points you're making. If you're not surprised, I'd hazard a guess that once again your ideology is clouding your (obviously functional) reasoning and assessment mechanisms.
Quoting Tarskian
"the West" is a delusion you are glomming on to to, again, support an unsupportable point.
If you hate the West, live elsewhere are shut the fuck up.
Aristotelian logic was first subsumed in mathematical logic and nowadays is only studied for historical purposes:
Mathematical logic is in turn currently being subsumed by computability:
We have come a far way since the millennia-old original publications on the matter. You seem to be stuck in pre-19th century history.
Oh brother. You don't understand the majority of what you've posted. I remember that zone well.
Concerning computability and logic, what is it that I do not understand about my own source code?
I solved it with a script.
As Linus Torvalds famously quipped, Talk is cheap. Show me the source code.
By the way, where is your source code?
Quoting Tarskian
Quoting Tarskian
@Lionino I apologise, mildly but I thought you should have to read this page.
So, you cannot handle things alone? Asking for help now? Ha ha ah!
Quoting Tarskian
But, to retort your nonsense: Nope. We would just both find you equally as risible. Sometimes, that's entertaining to enjoin someone to. The irony of you positing this, when you require a Cosmic dictator to accept the facts of life - is almost beyond humour.
Level with me mate - are you 19, having trouble getting laid?
I confess to being just an utmost humble servant of our Almighty Master, Lord of both worlds, and Creator of this universe. You, on the other hand, seem to be in rebellion to our beloved Lord. Good luck to you because you will probably need it!
All rise for the Flying Spaghetti Monster/
Please don't bring religion into threads that are not directly about religion. No one needs to be lectured about your religious beliefs. Future comments along these lines will be deleted, both in the lounge and elsewhere.
The rest of you, calm down, please.
He wants to bang a herd??????? :gasp: