On laws and the lowest common denominator.

It's a general rule that the more mainstream/popularised something is, the more dumbed-down it gets. Anything, you name it - art, music, culture, hell, even World of Warcraft. This is because it has to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and unfortunately, that isn't very high.

The laws of a society, at least those written down on paper, are meant to apply to everyone. Hence, they have to be dumbed-down so the common man can understand them, unfortunately.

Let's look back at, say, marriage and divorce as examined by Free Northerner a little while ago. The conclusion: the smarter your wife is, the more responsibly she's conducted herself in the past, the less likely she's going to upend a guy for cash and prizes. Quelle surprise. It's not that much of a surprise, too, that a disproportionate number of divorces occur amongst the lower and lower-middle classes, or their stock.

Think about it. At least 50% of the population is under 100 IQ. Maybe even more than that, if you filter by demographics. Another interesting point of note is that compared to the past, when there were more divorces amongst the upper middle-class and upper class, now they've gone down as divorces become popular with the masses.

Sure, there were some people who could handle no-fault divorce properly and responsibly. Those people are in the horrible minority. The aristocrats of yesteryear married for political gain, popped out a couple of kids, and may never have touched each other for the rest of their lives. They were fine with seeking sexual satisfaction elsewhere, so long as no bastard children were produced. They got around the laws of the day inventively, and yet the laws and social mores held to hold the masses in check to prevent them from running amok and tearing down society.

It's a similar case with what's happening with drugs today. People like Aurini and Dr. Illusion can use the occasional drug. They're not slaves to chemical desires. Problem is, so many of the underclass are such slaves, and the problems meth heads and crack whores generate are frustrating to deal with. Social pressure would be far more effective in dealing with such fellows, but laws are there, too. Thing is, however you feel about the "War on Drugs", it's created laws, and people like Dr. Illusion can get around those laws to get what he needs, like syringes full of shroom spores so he can grow his own shrooms as and when needed. He knows the feds know such things are being bought and sold over the internet, and yet they close an eye to it.

Next up, that bugbear: homosexuality. Again, the stats are in: homosexuals generally have wildly disproportionate rates of higher rates of infidelity, domestic violence, suicide, and STDs compared to the general population. Yelling "homophobiss" won't change the numbers or their implications, any more than yelling "sexiss" at no-fault divorce will.

Mr. Donovan has been with his partner for ten years in a monogamous, committed relationship, but also admits that the vast majority of of homosexuals are unwilling or uncapable of emulating him, especially after having bought into the leftist feel-good line and turned completely into faggots exhibiting all the destructive behaviours above. Nationalist Pony bemoans the gay dating scene; it's impossible for him to find anything more than what conventionally would be a pump and dump. It mirrors the heterosexual dating marketplace scene quite well, just amped up - there are a few who can cope with sexual license without sliding into wantonness, but the vast majority of both men and women emerge damaged goods.

Laws and mores against homosexuality may have chafed at those like Mr. Donovan or Nationalist Pony, but such people commonly got around said issues to get what they desired. And coming out of the closet seems to have worsened the situation instead of bettered it; Vox Day has a couple of stats on how homosexual suicides have actually increased since this societal shift.

So what's the bottom line illustrated by these three examples and many more unspoken? It's that idiots with short time-preferences, a need for immediate gratification, an unwillingness to acknowledge that they have agency in their lives or even cause and effect - these are ultimately the people laws and the majority of social mores have to cater for, so that society can actually run smoothly. They are stupid laws, because they have to be in order to cater to stupid people.

Yes, the natural aristocracy will find them stupid and restrictive; that's the point. But the natural aristocracy are by definition, smart. Those who are actually able to indulge in a form of risky behaviour or two without being a slave to it will find ways to get around the stupid laws, and their own sub-culture will usually close an eye to it, much like people closed an eye to absinthe-guzzling writers back in the day.