Why libertarianism is shit and Secular Koranism is the answer if you want good government and a rationally small state

Libertarians are basically men who want sexual liberation but with fewer laws and lower taxes, but this is impossible because sexual liberation turns men into the slaves of fornicating sluts whose demands will be unreasonable, irresponsible and excessive.

I am afraid men who want a smaller state rationally governed under principles that are recognisably in the national interest must opt for a theocracy and patriarchy which prioritises the preferences of married fathers.

Otherwise, we continue living in our matriarchy that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers with female voters voting for Keir Starmer to be Britain's next Prime Minister rather than Jacob Rees-Mogg who said on TV that he would still not have an abortion even if he were raped and knocked up.

How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties

“Women usually vote for the more handsome man.”

The Koran is silent on abortion and what is not forbidden is allowed.

A Koranic theocracy would give citizens of an Islamic State the right not to be taxed more than a flat rate income tax of 20% under verse 8:41, the right of men to be a degree over women if they protect and provide for them under 2:228 while guaranteeing freedom of belief with 2:256. Prostitution would be legal under 24:33 and no fault divorce implicitly abolished because marriage would be treated as a contract and divorce would be breach of the terms of this contract.

Under this system those convicted of having had extramarital sex beyond all reasonable doubt would be treated as sex offenders under 4:15, 4:16 and 24:2.

I know it sounds a bit restrictive, but that is the price men have to pay for living in a patriarchy and getting their country back.

You can't say fairer than that, can you?

What are MPs who vote for the amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 hoping to achieve?

Alana Saarinen is a thirteen year old girl who lives with her mum and dad in Michigan, USA. She loves playing golf and the piano, listening to music and hanging out with friends. In those respects, she's like many teenagers around the world. Except she's not, because every cell in Alana's body isn't like mine and yours; Alana is one of a handful of people in the world who have DNA from three people. The BBC's Science Correspondent Rebecca Morelle explores how more children like Alana could be born. This programme examines the safety and health implications of this new science. For some it is controversial. For those who have these specific genetic diseases, it is the way they could have their own healthy child. The UK is playing a pioneering role in developing the technique, called mitochondrial replacement, and Parliament has just voted to make the process legal. But despite that, there are a small number of children in the world, like Alana Saarinen, who have DNA from three people already. Although a small sample, they could answer some of the questions people have, such as will they be healthy, do they feel like they have three parents and would they like to trace the donor one day in the future?

Mother tells #r4today why she 'needs' MPs to vote for three-person babies technique: http://t.co/3ouG4lwJLQ
— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) February 3, 2015

IVF expert fears ‘carry-over’ risk in three-parent baby technique

God created "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Eve and Susan" #IVF
— Rees-Mogg (@JakeReesMogg) February 3, 2015

@mce_marie Taxpayer funding of women who cannot reproduce within wedlock and without medical assistance is dysgenic.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mikesey1 @BBCr4today All at the behest of women who are forever whining for more and more stuff from stupid men who keep giving it to them.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mrwarmandeasy Why don't we talk about the dysgenic demands of entitled women who cannot bear healthy offspring?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mikesey1 @BBCr4today There is bound to be something wrong with children born this way and the taxpayer is again expected to pick up the tab
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@_JoeWillis Whether God exists or not, these women are reproductively defective. Assisting them would only burden the taxpayer.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mrwarmandeasy I am being rational: I am saying reproductively defective women should not be given fertility assistance at state expense.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mikesey1 @BBCr4today The demented dysgenic demands of these entitled women remind me of the story of the Fisherman and His Wife.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mrwarmandeasy Assisting reproductively defective women from having defective offspring is not in the long term national interest.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@_JoeWillis No, I just don't see the point in giving into every single demented dysgenic demand made by over-entitled parasitical women.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

Will pussywhipped male MPs give into this demented dysgenic demand by reproductively defective women? http://t.co/cZ31WHyPGz @JakeReesMogg
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@PanaPhobe @BBCr4today Everything about feminism is dysgenic.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

It will be interesting to see the % of male and female MPs voting for the amendment to the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act today
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

Female MPs who vote for amendment to the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: the Fisherman's Wife. http://t.co/eQ3PqRiR0p
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

Male MPs who vote for amendment to the 2008 Human Fertilisation n Embryology Act: pussywhipped manginas desperate for dysgenic female votes.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

List to be compiled: MPs who will sell the future of their country down the river for a few miserable dysgenic parasitical female votes.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

How would @NIgel_Farage vote on the amendment to the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act today if he were an MP? @UKIP
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem Trenchantly expressed opinion, but I agree limited medical resources better expended on life-saving procedures not pandering to whims
— Paul Rogers (@paulrogers002) February 3, 2015

#mitochondrial debate: cui bono? Not the British taxpayer.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

#mitochondrial debate: who benefits? Parasitical and reproductively defective women, perhaps, and scientists on their hobby horses.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@eddwilson @DruDodd @mjs64 @CConcern If I had defective genes I would not want to have defective offspring. It is as simple as that.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@DruDodd @mjs64 @CConcern It is yet another demented demand from women, isn't it? And weak stupid men are too afraid to say no.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mjs64 @DruDodd @CConcern If a woman is reproductively defective, she shouldn't breed.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@DruDodd I don't have shit for brains and piss for guts saying yes to every bloody thing women who are reproductively deficient want.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mjs64 @DruDodd @CConcern What is so outdated about discouraging the reproductively defective from breeding genetically defective offspring?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mjs64 @DruDodd @CConcern Because it is obviously too expensive and complicated to fix and there are enough people around anyway.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@mjs64 @DruDodd @CConcern Because it is obviously too expensive and complicated to fix and there are enough people around anyway.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

Dysgenic #mitochondrial matriarchal amendment in favour of the reproductively defective carried by libtard MPs. Ayes 382 Noes 128.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem ahh, a neo-Luddite. Well, good luck with that.
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia I just don't agree with using science for dysgenic purposes.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem erm, we already live in an entirely dysgenic society. This nudges open a door which may lead to science eventually rectifying this...
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia I wish to challenge the feminist and matriarchal basis of our dysgenic policies, if you don't mind.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. In fact as long as you have the evidence to back what you say up I'll happily agree.
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia You don't think assisting reproductively reproductive women to breed is dysgenic? Why do you need evidence for this?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem if it removes the flaw, no I don't. I'd be more concerned about societal dysgenics. Have you seen Idiocracy? Extreme, but my point.
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia This procedure will create more trouble for the future. Strange how so many people refuse to see this. I have seen Idiocracy, yes.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem and your evidence for this assertion?
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia It is *obvious* that assisting those who are reproductively defective to breed is dysgenic, isn't it?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem so that would be no evidence at all then?
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia If you are insisting on empirical evidence, then no one has it. I am reasoning *deductively*, in case you hadn't noticed.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem no, you're actually projecting the same fears which people held at the time Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. I find that saddening.
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia Clearly, your world view is through rose tinted glasses.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem if only that were true, but thanks for the laugh.
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia I am sorry you cannot understand how deductive reasoning works.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem No you're not. You know full well that statement is false and if you don't you've learnt no sense of the person whom you're debating.
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia Why would you expect me to have a "sense" of you, whatever that means?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem that I do not understand the concept of deductive reason. Look, the debate is done and you seem now intent only on irrational attack
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@ntfem and that's fine but it's not my bag, so feel free to have the last word, and I bid you good evening.
— Quexlia (@Quexlia) February 3, 2015

@Quexlia What have I said that is irrational?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

Dysgenic #mitochondrial matriarchal amendment in favour of the reproductively defective carried by libtard MPs. Ayes 382 Noes 128.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 3, 2015

@ntfem you do realise the procedure is the exact opposite of 'dysgenic' don't you? You've used that word nonstop but dont know what it means
— Dru Dodd (@DruDodd) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd Any procedure or policy that causes the quality of the next generation to deteriorate would be dysgenic.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd Any procedure or policy that causes the quality of the next generation to deteriorate would be dysgenic.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@ntfem so how is eradicating a genetic condition from a population dysgenic exactly? You're out of your depth.
— Dru Dodd (@DruDodd) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd The point is that this procedure only gives the *theoretical* possibility of eradicating this condition, not a guarantee of that.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd If you were being reasonable you would have to acknowledge that having a theoretical possibility of X is not a guarantee of it.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd Because it is only a theoretical possibility, it means that all mothers who present themselves for this experiment are GUINEA PIGS.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@ntfem you've already abhorrently put on record your utter disdain for these mothers so why do you even care?
— Dru Dodd (@DruDodd) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd This procedure undoubtedly creates the possibility that more mitochondrially-diseased babies will be born compounding the problem.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@ntfem that is a complete fallacy. If the surrogate egg contains no mutated mtDNA then there is no chance of that happening.
— Dru Dodd (@DruDodd) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd I care that MPs should not be voting for laws that do not serve the long term national interest.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@ntfem I'd say ridding genetic diseases and helping the population is a long term interest. You have no kids clearly so stop worrying.
— Dru Dodd (@DruDodd) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd Haven't you noticed that there are already enough people around who can have healthy babies without complex medical procedures?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd There is no need to cure everyone of every ill, let natural selection take its course.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd You may be aware that the NHS is already being faced with a funding crisis, but perhaps you are not, or have not connected the two.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@DruDodd You are Red, and Reds are not very good at joining the dots and making connections between cause and effect or avoiding mistakes.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@davidaslindsay @DomHuntman This is all about chasing the dysgenic female vote. It is disgusting and degrading.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@ntfem @davidaslindsay @DomHuntman But men have families too.
— . (@Chris1ll) February 4, 2015

@Chris1ll @davidaslindsay @DomHuntman Why would a rational man want anything to do with a mitochondrially-diseased offspring or wife?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@ntfem @Chris1ll @davidaslindsay @DomHuntman ah the internet. I wonder if you could look me in the eye and tell me I'm diseased & stupid.
— Anna Ostrowska-Wilk (@wilkostroska) February 4, 2015

@wilkostroska @Chris1ll @davidaslindsay @DomHuntman If you were in the same room I would say allowing such a procedure would do no good.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015

@wilkostroska @Chris1ll @davidaslindsay @DomHuntman Allowing this procedure will just create more defective members of the next generation.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 4, 2015