The constitutions of most countries are terribly outdated. They often contain paragraphs that guarantee the people's right to follow a religion of choice. As if we still lived in the Middle Ages, when the data available to everyone suggested that there was truth in religion.

But now we know that there is no scientific data that suggests truth in any religion.

On the other hand, no constitution anywhere in the world that would mention that people have a right to sexual satisfaction, even though we have plenty of scientific support for the assumption that the pursuit and achievement of sexual satisfaction is the most important sense-providing aspect in a human life that is free of illusions about an afterlife (or a judgment day, or the karma-determined rebirth as a lower form of life).

As a biological necessity of humans, sexual satisfaction is not just on par with nutrition. In a world in which religions have been proven to be philosophical nonsense, there is simply nothing that matches the way, sexual desires and sexual satisfaction confer meaning to a person's existence.

A country's parliament and government can pass building codes and traffic laws. They can pass a labor code, trade regulations, and ethic guidelines for scientific research. They can take decisive measures to enact and guarantee peace, law, and order. All fine with me.

But when a country's parliament and government pass and implement legislation that obstructs people's right or access to sexual satisfaction, such legislation should land on the desks of constitutional courts.

For the lack of access to sexual satisfaction is not just a tragedy for an individual’s life but also a danger to society. A lack of sexual satisfaction, mostly on the part of men, not only converts into unfriendliness and aggression towards others in a person’s immediate surrounding. It also can extend into social trends, ranging from amok-running youths in schools to the adherence to extremist ideologies, such as militant Islam.

The German author Hans Magnus Enzensberger has provided insight into the underlying mechanisms in the following essay:

The radical loser

Feminazis consider any curtailing of male sexual expression a victory for women’s rights (their agenda is sexual deprivation for men, and the anti-sexual brainwashing of young females). But the society they envision (a society in which men are more and more desexualized) will likely not work, even not when 5 percent of all men a locked up in prisons as sexual offenders. Hans Magnus Enzensberger started his essay with the statement “It is difficult to talk about the loser, and it is stupid not to.”

A loser is not a man who is just poor. A loser is a man who cannot achieve self-esteem through sexual satisfaction. Poorer societies actually produce fewer “radical losers” because men who temporarily cannot achieve sexual satisfaction are convinced that by emphasizing character traits such as industry and interest in education, they will get out of their current non-satisfactory situations.

If we agree that it is the responsibility of governments to reduce aggression and violence in societies, then it is stupid, albeit difficult, not to address the topic of optimal sexual satisfaction for an optimal number of people in a country’s most fundamental document, the constitution.

Explanatory note, added October 2006: In this article, I argue that policies for wealth creation in Third World countries should focus on making these countries attractive options to live in, rather than just offering profit-taking opportunities. As a rule of thumb, countries are attractive to live in if they allow for optimal personal freedom in as safe an environment as possible. This excludes many Third World democracies for 2 reasons: 1. because Third World democracies provide almost always a less safe environment than do Third World countries ruled by strong governments. 2. because typically, in Third World democracies, populist politicians target successful minorities (who, because of having the economic means, enjoy a better life), making them the scapegoats for whatever ills a society suffers from.

By contrast, Third World countries ruled by an elitist political party, or even an authoritarian government, with either being dedicated to wealth creation, can provide a very attractive environment, both for local elites and foreign wealthy individuals, thus initiating a definite trend of attracting wealth.

Below the original article.

**

It is really funny how many politicians, especially in Third World countries, apparently believe that rich people in Western countries would be genuinely interested to create wealth, by means of foreign investments, in Third World countries in which they have no personal interest.

Most foreign investment in a country that is made by people who are not interested in settling permanently in that country is temporary and just geared towards profit-taking. It is not a form of long-term asset creation or even just long-term asset management. As practically all profits are repatriated (to be consumed somewhere else), such foreign investment does not create wealth in Third World countries. (And, as will be argued below, the little wealth that initially seems to be created in the Third World country anyway will be moved to developed countries when rich locals emigrate.)

Especially all foreign investment that finances the exploitation of natural resources in Third World countries is likely to be a net drain of a Third World country's wealth. Capital that is brought into a Third World country to exploit natural resources for export is not wealth. This capital just finances tools which, after a short while, are only of scrap value.

The only certain case of a transfer of wealth from one country to another country is the transfer of wealthy people. And that trend does not point in the direction of Third World countries, but the opposite way.

Wealthy locals in many Third World countries typically are busy transferring their own wealth to developed nations.

The super rich from the Third World bring the money they made from the West back to the West
http://money.guardian.co.uk/tax/story/0,,1755287,00.html

The rich getting even richer in the Third World
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1802373,00.html

Merill Lynch World Wealth Report, attesting that the World’s rich are ever more flexible in moving their money
http://www.ml.com/index.asp?id=7695_7696_8149_6261_14832_14938

Most children of really rich people in most Third World countries go to private schools in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US, or Switzerland.

Every international student contributes £16,000 on average to Scotland's economy
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/newsletter/issue_24/story4.shtml

Selling education to overseas students has become a major industry in New Zealand
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/cityscene/2003/November/ALessonForEducationSector.asp

Often enough, these children of Third World elites sooner or later become permanent residents, or citizens, in those rich countries. Any citizen of a Third World country who has amassed a fortune in the range of 0.5 to 2 million US dollars has an easy time applying for a residence permit in most developed nations.

Invest 1 million pounds in the UK, and become a UK permanent resident http://www.workpermit.com/uk/investor.htm

Invest 500,000 dollars in the US, and get a Green Card
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/residency/investment.htm

People with a net worth of 800,000 Canadian dollars can easily immigate to Canada
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/business/invest-1.html

Migrating to Australia, based on a net value of 500,000 Australian dollars
http://www.skillclear.co.uk/australia/australian-business-visa.asp

That they do so is the secret behind much of African, and Third World, poverty. And this won't change by allowing Third World countries better access to the markets in the developed countries. While such easier access may cause a larger number of traders in Third World countries to become rich, these traders will anyway bring their wealth back to the developed countries once they emigrate to one of them.

Thus the much touted policies of better market access for products of Third World countries will, at the end, create wealth in developed countries (the emigration destinations of rich locals from Third World countries), and not for the Third World countries themselves.

There is only one way to reverse this trend: Third World countries have to make themselves more attractive to wealthy people. And how can they do that? They can't compete with France on the quality of their food, and not with Switzerland on the beauty of their skiing resorts. The UK and Canada have the better educational systems, and the US still is trendy among rich Third World emigrants, though this is bound to change.

Traditionally, Third World countries could offer to their local elites that these elites were, to a certain degree, independent from the law. In many Third World countries, rich people could pretty much do what they wanted. Now, if I can have this, that's a real piece of quality of life. (As long as local elites enjoy privileges, they at least keep the wealth that is created by corrupt practices within the country.)

But more and more Third World countries are more and more limiting this independent-from-the-law aspect of quality of life of their local elites, often enough upon the request of the international competitors of these local elites. International competitors obviously are interested in having the privileges of local elites curtailed.

But that's not what these international competitors say. Instead, these international competitors claim that curtailing the privileges of local elites (eradicating corruption) will help the economic development of a country, thus creating wealth.

It won't. It will only make the local elites leave, and take their wealth to Europe or America. And international competitors won't genuinely transfer wealth if they don't become local residents. Typical showcases for such downward trends are the Philippines and Indonesia.

While the legal systems traditionally have been much less interventionist in Third World countries (as they just dealt with fewer aspects of life), many Third World countries are catching up, passing laws at record speed, and often enough laws that are stricter, and more repressive, than the laws of developed countries.

If the governments of Third World countries are concerned about the inward and outward transfer of wealth (which is more relevant than the question where the wealth is actually generated), then they will have to focus on the quality of life they can provide to their own wealthy citizens as well as potential wealthy foreign residents. And in the quality of life arena, they can compete with the likes of Switzerland, France, the UK, and, most of all, Canada only on grounds of allowing more personal freedom and sexual opportunities.

If Third World countries aren't attractive for the above two reasons, then, in today's increasingly globalized world, their own rich citizens will leave, and they will have a hard time attracting wealthy foreign residents.

It is no longer the case that the foreign politics of Western nations is geared towards acquiring colonies. Securing business opportunities, too, is no longer the driving force. The ultimate objective is the export of cultural standards. European countries pursue this aim less vigorously than the world's primary power, the US.

I certainly am no Islamist. But I grant Osama Bin Laden that in characterizing US foreign politic as Christian crusade, he has more deeply understood the motives behind the moves and decisions of the American government and its NGOs than many of the people in the US, or the West in general, whom the US foreign politics machinery presumes to represent.

It's all about bringing the US brand of salvation to the rest of the world, whether those others like it or not. The pretext may be US security, or the right to free trade. But the real score is the spread of US-style Christianity, US-style democracy, and US sexual morals.

No, US style democracy is not an absolute quality. The ultimate legitimization of a government is not that it has been chosen by a direct vote. The ultimate legitimization of a government is that it acts in the benefit of the people it governs.

In societies that encompass different ethnicities, a direct vote all too easily just functions as a vent for ethnic hatred. In societies in which a large number of people are religiously misguided, a direct vote tends to cement structures that keep people enslaved in ridiculous believes that deny them fulfillment in accordance with their biological design.

The idea may not be fashionable at the time of this writing, but in my opinion, a Leninist style of government must not be discarded as one of the options.

No, I do not advocate that a government, on a large scale, manages the economy of a country. It is not sensible that the means of production are primarily state-owned. My philosophy may draw on Marxism, and my political thought on Leninism, but I am definitely not a Communist.

But I don't just believe that a government shouldn't involve itself too much in the economy of a country. The government also should keep, as much as possible, out of the private lives of the citizens it rules. The primary function of a government should be conflict avoidance and conflict resolution. And where there is no conflict, the government should let people live their lives as they want, not as the government wants.

I am against big government, and against globalization. I want the world diverse, and people should have a choice between different places, where different life styles, different rules, and different laws apply.

The proliferation of extraterritorial law is a clear indication of cultural imperialism. It used to be that one just had to obey the law of the land. Now, that's no longer enough. If you are in a foreign land, you have to obey the law of the land, and also those laws of your homeland that were designed especially for those citizens that are in foreign lands.

It used to be that if the laws of your homeland were not to your liking, you could go to another land, with other laws, and live there without being in conflict with the law.

But now, if your government makes laws, they increasingly make them applicable to all of their citizens, whether they are in their country or abroad.

This is cultural imperialism in a blatant form, on one level with Islamic governments that rule it a capital offence when Muslims leave their faith.

All extraterritorial laws in all countries ought to be abolished. All laws in all countries ought to apply to those who live on the territory over which a government has jurisdiction. From a perspective of legal philosophy, laws that apply to persons who do not conform to the law when outside of the territory over which a government has jurisdiction, are an obscenity.