The Arabs, have so many lands. Yet they keep waging war with Israel over a small piece of land. That’s not unique to Arabs.

Criminals in US kill far more people than terrorists, yet US would want to spend far more money killing terrorists rather than killing criminals. Israel do not even have death penalty but is pretty liberal when bombing Lebanon.

If the sole purpose of all those wars is to protect the innocents’ right, decision making theory should suggest that all those countries should spend more resources fighting evil inside first rather than evil outside. They should, for example, have more death penalty and less war. And all countries will be better off.

The fact that it’s not the case shows that there are other motives. One motive is preference to kill someone outside. More death penalty means antagonizing and killing fellow citizens.

The same with Arab. Killing terrorists means fighting their own kind. It makes more sense to channel all those extra sperms against richer neighbor with different ideology.

Channeling anger somewhere else is the way politicians get their pay check and when every other countries are like that too, it’s arguable that it’s also their people’s best interest to behave the same way.

The way we evolve is when we’re not at war we’re in a competition. Many do not like free fair competition. So somebody got to be the enemy. Good politicians are the one that can then channel that somewhere else.

Should we vanquish evil inside or evil outside? Which one is more profitable? It depends on our neighbor. Lebanon is a good sample. The country practice free market but got bombs anyway and has to deal with Palestine’s refugees’ problem. If prosperity is the aim, then it’s easy to see how Lebanon would improve their wealth by spending more on defense budget.

Morale: If everyone else is asshole, we should cherish evil inside against evil outside. If everyone else is nice, it’s more appropriate to vanquish evil inside.

Which is another important reason to aim to live among nice neighbor.

Here is another morale. If rather than judging we just try to understand, we can learn alot. After all those politicians are just like us, only way smarter and more rational. Whatever they do must have been a very effective to achieve their goal. It’s just that we think they’re an idiot because we misunderstood their goal.

So why they are so many ugly women that bitch about porn?

They’re not the potential “victim” of exploitation. No body want to exploit them. Ugly women are, for all practical purposes, males. If they work well, then great. But we don’t really look at ugly women as sex objects unless we’re really desperate do we?

Perhaps the issue is not exploitation. The real issue is competition. Those so called exploitations are mutually beneficial as anything consensual.

That’s why many pretty girls don’t mind. And that’s the problem. Males want only the pretty. Deep inside the ugly want to be “exploited” too.
But they’re not getting it and feel envy against pretty goddess that are exploited.

A man with hammer will want to leave in the world where everything is nail. People want the world that match their talent more. If a woman is pretty, they’re more likely to be liberal and support womens’ right to show of skin. I mean they’re pretty anyway. In those world, beauty matters.

If women are ugly, they support burgha.

Sneaky ha?

Why they need common enemies?

The way we evolve is when we’re not at war, we’re in a race. When we’re not at war, we’re in peace. But peace means competition. Each male wants as many females as possible. When one male get plenty the other don’t get any.

So, when one male is successful, the other will get in the way. Most societies in the world then have various laws prohibiting success. Women prefer the rich, and hence the communists prohibit wealth. The religious conservatives also prohibit various free sex. That’s because freedom means competition and some people are simply not sexually competitive.

Each human want to maximize their gene pool proportion in their favor. That aspect of life is always a zero sum game. Hence, peace is not a more pareto optimal solution than war.

Imagine a country with 2 citizens, Bob and John. Say Bob is superior to John. During war, Bob will have better tactics, better strategy, and kill John. During peace, Bob will have better businesses, better stock prediction, more money, and attract more females than John. So, either in peace or war, Bob will survive in the gene pool.

Hence, there isn’t really any preference between Bob and John to support peace. The outcome of peace and war is the same anyway, the superior win.

Things get a little bit more complicated, and realistic, when people are superior in different areas. For example, say John predicts stocks better, and Bob fights better. Obviously Bob prefers war and John prefers peace if both care only about their gene pool survival.

During peace, John will make more money and attract more women. During war, Bob will beat the shit out of John and mate with more women. Because peace requires both to agree while war requires only the initiative of one side, war is then a more natural outcome.

That is why we have so many wars over so many strange reasons. People have been fighting due to different religious doctrines, intolerance of consensual acts, or a small piece of resources, such as land.

I call it a small piece of resources because the market value of the land is often much less than the amount of military expenditure spent to acquire it that no business minded political leader would invest for war campaign over the land. The true purpose of war is then to snuff off male surplus on those countries.

Yet there is hope. That hope is the desire for higher standard of living. Love of money, is then the root of all peace.

For evolutionary purposes, war and peace make little different. Some people will survive better in the gene pool anyway whether they are at war or at peace. In fact, many people will survive better in the gene pool through war than through peace.

However, war and peace make one big different. Peace leads to higher standard of living for both sides.

Here, even though Bob fights better, Bob would realize that he’ll have higher standard of living if he choose peace with John. That means he’ll survive less in the gene pool, but the higher standard of living may make up for it more. So Bob then want peace too.

Polygamy allows those with under represented, hence rare and valuable, talent to survive better in the gene pool. Prostitution allow those who serve the market more to simply used the money they earn fairly to hire women to create more productive individuals.

Sex laws against consensual sex, like anti prostitution and anti polygamy is slow genocide against those who are able and willing to pay for reproduction. Those are the kind of people that won’t bother the rest of us with welfare.

Why do you think the Jews and Mormon are model minority? Where are the smart among everyone else? They’re gone, because smart monks can’t even get married.

When unproductive people want to breed 12 kids, it’s legal because it’s humans’ right. That right, of course, implies the right to force the rest of us to support their kids. Even the poor liberal often prefer to have higher standard of living than making more kids. That’s why they instinctively want drugs legalization, gay right, and “pro-choice.” We’re losing money without making them happy. It’s a highly inefficient appeasement.

Yet, when rich smart males want to beget as many kids as he can afford, then virtually all ways become immoral. The billionaires cannot just pay women for sex because of anti prostitution law. Anti polygamy laws means they cannot have more than one wife. Child support laws are set up proportional to a man’s wealth rather than the need of a child. If child support law is 20% of your income per kids, for example, then no matter how rich you are you can’t afford more than 5 kids.

All these are not very surprising, when we understand that deep inside, less capable individuals crave the extermination of those more capable than them. That’s why people like Hitler became so popular.

Contemporary definition of sin in any religion is no longer acts that hurt others. Nowadays, sins mean success. When men successfully, and honestly, make money and mate with many females, suddenly that’s sin. The same happen to men that show “unusual capability.”

That’s why the mob free Barabas and demand Jesus to be put to death. That’s why religious leaders preach forgiveness toward thieves, burglars, and murderers while demanding heavy punishment for men that successfully, honestly, and consensually make a lot of money and mate with many females.

Living as the best and brightest is best or bust. They often do things differently, which mean they can be very successful, or fail up miserably. Unless the successful among them do not make many kids, they won’t make enough kids to compensate for the failure among them. Soon, they’ll be gone. The horde of evil parasites will simply become more and more. With huge voting power, they’ll simply want more and more.

Let me try to paraphrase it.

Say you have a beautiful 14 years old daughter. Say someone break into your apartment. Rob you all your wealth. Rape your daughter. Flay her alive. Slowly killing her for 6 months.

Say a miracle happens. Say God himself interferes. Say Jesus come from heaven to earth, videotapes everything, and give the tape to Mossad.

Say an even bigger miracle happens. Say someone in Israel governments think that the case worth investigating.

Now the asshole is brought to jail. Will he get death penalty? Here’s a hint. No. Will Samir Kuntar get death penalty. No. In fact, his accomplice, Ahmed Abarrass, is freed. Yap. You read me. Freed. That guy murder 4 Israel civilians. He’s a free man, drinking beer and sleeping with women now among the crowds worshipping him as hero.

Sniff sniff. That’s pretty touchy. Israel governments must be a really benevolent government choosing not to harm even such a monster.

Ah… I am making this up. The first is just theory. The second is unsual circumstances.

So here is another example:

Kozo Okamoto was one of the members involved in the attack on the Israeli Lod airport, now Ben Gurion International Airport, in 1972. He was jailed in Israel following the Tel Aviv airport attack. In May 1985, Okamoto was freed in an exchange of prisoners between Israeli and Palestinian forces. Subsequently, he was imprisoned in Lebanon for three years for forging visas and passports. The Lebanese authorities granted Okamoto asylum in 1999 because he fought against Israel.

I know, prisoners exchange, have some uses. However, most Lebanese would be much more pleased if Israel chooses not to attack their country even if that means not freeing some murderers. No international condemnation would come from condemning a violent terrorist to death.

What sorts of governments, including Israel governments, kill then?

Take a look at this:

http://stopdestroyinglebanon.com/WarOnLebanon/nfblog/?page_id=3

Yet, those same politicians would come up with thousands of reasons why thousands of businessmen must die.

Lebanon economy is a free market economy. It’s a rare country that gets rich mainly from doing things right rather than from oil or war. It’s just like the Jews used to be in Europe. And that’s also why they are whacked.

We have the Nazi, the communists, etc. etc.

Virtually all governments kill way more successful peaceful businessmen than assholes.

That’s another sample how humans’ instinctive natures and emotions are geared to kill the peaceful and successful.

What do you think?

Jim
NB: I thought the Jews were different. I was wrong. Well, welcome to the club then. It’ll give a whole new meaning of being human isn’t it?

That image gets carried into the conflicts. In my images, the Arabs, the Palestinians, and the Jews enemies, must have been either religious bigots or demonic commies.

So when Israel bombs Lebanon, my first impression is that Lebanon must be some bad countries, something like North Korea or Taliban.

I was surprised when I checked wikipedia.

Lebanon is a pro market country.

They’re more like Swiss rather than North Korea. They’re even better than US. In fact, they’re so pro market that their percapita income rose 393% within 1990s.

In war with Israel, Lebanon lost billions of dollars while Israel only lost $20 million.

Quite obviously, Lebanon is not the kind of country that “Ask for it.” This seems to be a peaceful country with reasonable intensives to be peaceful. In those countries, Muslims, and Christians live side by side in harmony.

The country also accepts a lot of Palestinians refuges causing quite some problems. Did US accept Palestinians refuges? Did the Chinese accept Jewish refuges in Second World War?

And that forces me to rethink the whole issue.

Yes the Palestinians kidnap Israelites soldiers. But before that 8 Palestinians are death due to Israelites rockets.

There is no mechanism whatsoever to neither compensate those 8 Palestinians with money nor can the Palestinians sue Israel governments for the wrongful death to get justice. Without such court like figure, the only way to prevent a party from going all the way committing Nazi like genocide is to strike back.

So the whole retaliation and self defense doctrines can actually work on both sides. It’s hard to figure out which one really strikes first. If 2 societies live side by side, surely shits happen once in a while.

Unless we’re dealing with really big shits, I don’t see why standard libertarian policies of putting the guilty into a fair trial and fair punishment don’t work.

If the issue is bigger, we can set an international court where any country causing wrongful death will be fined to compensate the victim. At least that way the other side knows that without striking back, the party has intensive not to keep killing.

Pro Israelites group may argue that their act is self defense. It’s more of retaliation. Speaking of retaliation, I kind of believe in an eye for an eye doctrine, or more preferably, a million bucks for an eye.

Bombing Lebanon and causing billions of dollars of damage is a highly disproportional retaliation that damages so many other innocent third parties.

I am a pro market individual. I can no longer support any people that use that size of violent against so many innocent civilians and productive businessmen.

I’ll be glad to support a mechanism where the Jews can buy lands from the Palestinians at fair price. However, if they want to kill all Palestinians for some land by poking and provocation by some sort of “Final Solution”, they’ll have better chance finding allies with more similar preferences. Try the Nazi.

That’s what a Korean descent economic professor taught me in US. He talked about it passionately, and I listened to it with wide open eyes.

“Free market is meritocracy,” he said with a smile enthusiastically.

Did it? Yes, mostly. Not completely.

Think it this way, pure free market does not take care of everything. Security, is still, at least, till now, done by governments.

Free market simply change the way we acquire success and prestige. Before the greatest among us are those who can kill others.

Now, the greatest among us are those providing the best service to the most customers.

Free markets also properly align humans’ interests to productivity. However, it doesn’t do so fully.

Say a person cannot work, at least temporarily. He can only eat, sleep, and wait till he’s death. What’s the most productive thing that person can do

I’d say, he can support free market, and postpone making kids until he’s rich.

Is that what the most profitable thing to do for him? Of course not. Under pure free market, that person would be better of voting for free welfare, and free drug prescriptions, and so on.

In non democratic countries, those people would probably find places waging Jihad against porn, prostitution, greed, and all the stuff envy bigots hate.

There are many choices we can do. One very reasonable ways, within democratic system, is to simply buy their votes.

How much a vote worth A vote can worth differently to different people. The neediest are willing to sell their vote for the cheapest price. You see why we should “help” the needy

It’s simply more profitable to do so.

That’s why we should give the needy. So we can buy their votes and motivate them to postpone making kids till they’re rich. Do this and poverty will be history.

Women want mainly two things in life. First money. Second the best genes, measurable by wealth.

Now you know why males want money.

I support free market. Free market properly aligns humans’ interest to productivity. Free market maximizes productivity as a whole.

However, I am disappointed with the fact that many proponents of free market oppose free sex.

You know what? I’d rather tolerate some socialism in economy to buy votes from losers rather than tolerating opposition to free sex.

Why?

Because restrictions on free sex, currently, will cause more market distortion, inefficiency, and poverty way more than restrictions of free trades.

Men want mainly two things in life. First money. Second, as many females as possible.

However, those men want the two things differently. How much money a man is willing to lose, to get one additional women, for example?

Of course, it’s different.

A rich male is willing to lose millions of dollars for a big harem. A poor male would be happy to go to prostitute once a month if he can get say, $100,000 per year. A homosexual wouldn’t spend a cent for a woman.

Some women insist that they must get Brad Pitt. Some women love to be gang banged by hundreds of males.

Some women are moms. Others prefer to be sluts aiming for quantity like males. Somewhere between, we got whores.

The way we evolve is when we’re not at war, we’re in a race. The reason why so many support deviations from meritocracy is to get rid superior competitors.

Imagine if all women pick Brad Pitt and the rest of us to simply protect them.

Imagine if sexes are really free and ghetto studs just breed and breed and breed expecting the rest of us to pay all the bills?

Obviously most of the other males will simply not agree with it. Rather than defending those leeches from other countries, the other males would join the other countries to bring them down.

However, prohibiting everything else but life long monogamous marriage is like pure communism in sexuality.

We need to properly align our interests to some common goals, like prosperity and security. However, we’ll more efficiently motivate people to that common goal by addressing the want and need of different people.

Nothing does that better than the market and other market like mechanism.

What about paying soldiers hire to encourage protection. What about paying dividend to all citizens and taxing kids.

That way those who value opportunities to make kids more, like billionaires, can just pay but make more kids.

Those who value such opportunities lowly, like the welfare parasites, can postpone making kids, get more money, go to prostitutes, and still vote for free market to increase their dividends.

What about if we tax wealth and kids rather than income so not to discourage people from earning income?

At the end, no people will be so poor they barely live. Poverty will be gone. Still, people will have even more intensive to be rich.

References: 1

Think it this way. How much will it cost to rent a land for 1 year? Probably not much different than the interest rate for the value of the land, assuming the price of the land is constant. If not, it’ll be about the same with the difference between interest rate and the price increase of the land.

If it’s higher, people will borrow infinite money from banks, buy land, and rent it away. I know people do and make money doing it. However, let’s ignore this arbitrage for a while. Their profit really comes from taking calculated risk and work required to settle the deal. That’s why they can’t do that infinitely.

How much will it cost to rent a land for 2 years? Obviously more than it would cost to rent a land for 1 year. However, the present value of the second years rent is less than the first year rent. That’s because the money will grow in the bank first for 1 year and then used to pay the rent.

How much will it cost to rent a land for 1 billion years? You guess it. Buying a land is equivalent with renting it forever. However, most of the value is in the next 60 years.

Assuming the price different between interest rate and land price increase is 5%, rent cost of 60 years of land should worth 94.64% of the land price. If the rate difference is 10%, the 60 years rent cost should worth 99.67%.
You see why the British eventually return Hong Kong to Chinese? So they can get something as good as owning the land while letting the Chinese government, weak at that time, to safe face.

People kill each other because they think they can get the land permanently. However, they will not kill each other for a 60 years lease of the land. It’s kind of strange isn’t it? Could this be a solution for peace?

Imagine if UN or somebody told the Jews and Palestinians. Look, one of you will own the land for 60 years; the other will own it after ward. Both will jump wanting the second option, which worth only .33% of the economic value.

Things get better when we see that capitalists often earn way higher than interest rate.

Of course, that’s naïve. People can’t just make money and buy land. Once a country controls a land, they’ll make laws saying that foreigners cannot buy land.

The American take lands from the Indians through genocide and the rest of us should say that it’s American land. I wouldn’t argue that it’s wrong because at that time, that’s really how things work.

I wouldn’t say its right either because it really sets a bad precedent. It’ll tell the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, and every one else that if you want more land, the way to do it is to attack another country and kill of the native inhabitants. That’s the kind of precedent that can go against any of us, including American. We don’t want that kind of precedent do we?

When the Japanese buy the land from American or when some immigrants peacefully work for American, some Americans call that invasion. Now, that’s wrong. We can raise our middle fingers for all assholes that call peaceful trade an invasion. That’s really the source of our entire problem.

We live in such abundance world under free market. However, often wealth earned through merit and productivity, like Bill Gates’ wealth is called dirty. The earners are called greedy. And the wealth is often taxed. After that, those who earn it fairly are often massacred like capitalists in communist countries.

However, people often earn wealth, like land, by killing each other. The process is called holy war. The land is called holy land. All those are agreed by most people according to some holy bull shits.

No wonder we kill each other all the time.

If we show more respect to wealth earned productively, the Jews and Arabs can cooperate to earn more money. Those who really want the land can outbid the other. The “loser” can invest heavily in poor African countries that need more investors. In no time, they’ll own the whole Africa while helping many poor people.

What we need is a better game. A game where the greatest among us are those providing the best service to the most customers. What we need is a way to govern nations the way we govern our self. That game is called capitalism which we all should embrace.

But that’s not the game. Not yet. It’s getting there.

Hence, here they are, like all of us, busy killing each other for a tiny piece of land where we could have cooperate to conquer other planets, the whole universe, or, at least, eradicate poverty.

Say the market price for corn is $10 per unit.

That means we need more corn producers.

What about if the market price for corn is only $3?

That means we need subsidy. Or do we?

Perhaps those simply mean that we have too much corn.

Productivity as a whole will increase if less people produce corn.

And the beauty of it is that the market will take care of it.

Can we apply the same principles for corn to humans being?

We do!

In fact, just like the market sort of take care of it in corn; the market will sort of take care of it in humans’ reproduction.

Making a kid is like starting a business. Each kid is then a business. The worth of a business, and hence, the kid, is then the interest discounted present value of the expected difference between the kids’ productivity and their maintenance costs.

Say the present value of the cost of raising a brick layers is $500,000.00. Say the present value of expected productivity a brick layer will get is $200,000.00.

That means we need more subsidy. Or do we?

Perhaps those simply mean that we have too many blue collar workers.

Productivity as a whole will increase if we produce more movie star, entrepreneurs, and dentists than if we produce more blue collar workers.

And the beauty of it is the market will take care of it.

You see, women prefer the rich.

Those who are genetically predestined to pick occupation with high demand and low supply will get richer.

Their kind will attract more women and produce more kids. Voila… Without governments intervention in reproduction we already improve productivity as a whole.

What about if we do not pick our occupation based on our genetic material? What about if we pick our occupation based on free will?

No different. Males prefer as many pretty women as possible. When genetic quality doesn’t matter, the market mechanism will still motivate males to pick occupation yielding the most income.

We will increase the number of those in higher paid occupation, not by reproduction, but by motivation.

What about the losers?

What losers? There are no losers. Everyone is better off under free market.

Losing used to mean getting slaughtered for males and getting raped for females.

Nowadays, those things don’t happen anymore.

There are no losers. Just those who are less successful than other. But there is always disparity of success no matter what the system is.

All right, we can tax kids and pay dividend to all citizens to buy votes from the losers; I mean those who are not as successful as us yet.

Poor people prefer more cash than making more kids anyway. Meanwhile, they can always choose porn and prostitution till they’re rich enough to attract a wife.