Free Market Forever

March 24, 2012

Why it’s Simple and Accurate to Just Presume that Everyone is a Psychopath?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 5:22 am
Free Market Invest in Girls Rich Smart Girls Beauties Beautiful Babes Beautiful Girls Girls in Stocks Bare Girls Forex Invest
Discover guaranteed proven new safe way you'll love and save money. Why rich smart attractive males avoid marriage? Why religions teach you to get married? Why feminazis prevent consenting females from accepting high paying jobs and escaping patriarchal oppression? Why force and deceit are often more politically correct than consent in getting a mate? What should you do to help your self?

I talked to a social liberal. She said she knows personally many politicians. Politicians are not psychopaths, she said. They honestly believe that drugs are bad for you. That’s why they prohibit it. They honestly believe that prostitutes are forced. So that’s why they’re against it.

Also they need votes and that’s what most voters honestly believe.

You know what. Maybe she’s right. Then again, maybe muslim religious leaders honestly believe they honestly save you from hell fire, when they beat ahmadiyah movements up for undermining their authority.

Then again, maybe ugly women honestly believe women are being oppressed when they prohibit prettier women from staring in porn.

Maybe single males actually believe that no women would want to share when they prohibit sex outside life long monogamous marriage. I know. That’s what I actually believed when I were single.

Maybe the thugs that stab you in the back and take your wallet honestly believe that they are performing appendix removal operation for you.

Who care what they believe? If you pay attention that they may be right, you will end up having to argue with millions of millions of total nonsense that somehow justify their acts to you.

Notice that all those strange beliefs follow the same pattern. It justifies acts that believe them. Those are acts that we usually called evil, like using force and fraud or limiting individuals’ freedom. There is a reason why people entertain such beliefs in the first place.

After all, how do they believe all those nonsense in the first place anyway? Simple. Those nonsense reduce the amount of hostility they will get for harming others.

Why shouldn’t they? If I beat people and I said I want money, I would have to face the cops. If I beat people and says it’s God’s will, and somehow the crowd buy it, I get less enemies. It’s toward my best interest to say it’s God’s will. In fact, it probably doesn’t hurt much to actually believe it’s indeed God’s will if that can help me convincing others more. Who knows, many people actually want to see somebody got beaten up. They just need a good fairy tales to justify it.

It’s their best interests to entertain it. It’s not to your best interest to entertain it.

Presuming they are psychopaths and not bother entertaining their nonsense allow you to see clearly what you should do. Do not let those people have power over you. Once people have power over you, it’s game over.

Like most psychopaths, politicians and society make laws criminalizing consensual behavior. It’s simple. They want to enslave you. They want to have something to justify their acts when they they feel like beating you up. That’s what psychopaths do. They blame the victim. And may be they’re right. If you’re a coward that reward their oppression with compliance and benefit nonsense with attention, why shouldn’t people pick on you?

Then again, who says we’re not psychopaths?

I don’t go around robbing people and raping women. Does that mean I am not a psychophath? Who knows? Even if I were, I still wouldn’t go around robbing people and raping chicks. It’s not toward my best interest to do so. I may go to jail and stuff. There are saver ways to get laid and rich.

Imagine if ALL of us believe that we won’t be punished at all for robbing people and raping chicks. How many do you think will do that?

Say 5% would do it.  A reasonable number. Imagine if 5% people actually do that and get away with it and every body knows they get away with it. How many would do that the next day? I’d say 100%. In fact, normal people would have gone extinct and everybody would have been a psychopath if “evil” people will just get away with things. The truth is, quite often, evil people does get away with things.

History shows again and again that majority of humans will kill, slaughter, rape, and who knows what when they know they’ll get away with it. Genocide is the norm. Schindler is the exception. Most people are NOT like Schindler. Most are like Genghish Khan. In fact, most people are descendants of people like Genghish Khan. That’s the kind of people that are successful in the gene pool

Yes, like most psychopaths, people would just come up with something to rationalize and justify their acts. Just look what our bible teach: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081109135717AAEZFlL. That’s David, a hero in the bible, killing 100 Philistines just to collect their foreskins. What’s the difference between what he does and what psychopaths would do? Somehow, we just believe David’s justification. And that’s a moral compass most people believe in. Why shouldn’t anyone be psychopaths then? I’d be surprised if anyone is not a psychopath with that kind of moral compass.

David’s dilemma is simple. Usually killing is politically incorrect. Yet his cost and reward function changes. If it’s the philistines, killing is actually rewarding. He can get the king’s daughter. So great. What would any Dave do? Who wouldn’t start collecting those foreskins? Hell, till now many still think it’s actually a good act. If societies approve you for killing people, if killing people is profitable, what would a psychopath and normal people both do? Kill. So what’s the difference?

What about tortures? How many monks love torturing and raping naked women under pretext of driving out demons in the middle ages? What do we call them? Psychopaths? I like to call them majority. In fact, not realizing this is a very psychopathic delusion.

You can’t say someone is honest just because he hasn’t had a chance to steal. Power corrupts, people say. Here is an easier way to see that. People are always corrupt. When they don’t have power, they’re not corrupt for the simple obvious reason they can’t. Once they have the powah, they behave as what they truly are.

You don’t just give your car keys to some strangers and expect that they’ll return the car and pays you rent.

There are 2 ways to analyze most similar situations.

  1. People are not normally psychopaths. However, when they see and know that violent pays so much, they become a psychopaths.
  2. People are inherently psychopaths. They’re just not convinced that robbing and rapping are profitable yet and don’t have the guts to do it yet. Once they know, they do what all psychophats would do.

The difference between 1 and 2 is subtle and may be even mere philosophical. Both will correctly predict what people would do. Both prescribe that we need tough sentences against robbery if we want to deter people from doing it.

To be frank, #2 is simpler, and correctly predict the same act anyway.

In fact, I do not really understand the difference between homo economicus and psychopaths. What’s the real difference anyway? Aren’t we all? Show me some area where large number of people do not act like they are psychopaths. Maybe I can understand it.

In fact, most humans do presume that others are psychopaths. Why do we sign contracts? Why do we have letter of credit? Why not just send the good first and hope that the other guy is not a psychopath and will honor the deal? Because we know that the other side may be a psychopath too and hence, it’s toward our best interest that it’s toward his interest to pay up. Otherwise he won’t pay.

Even if the other side is not a psychopath, we also know that when they see that frauding us is profitable, they too will turn psychopaths and follow the same path.

If even in businesses, where relationship itself is an important social capital, we presume people are psychopaths that we put so many system to ensure that their selfish interests are properly aligned with ours, how much more we should do that in politic?

Anakin Skywalker: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.
Supreme Chancellor: And the Jedi don’t?

What would happen if you trust politicians even more than you trust your business partners, namely something more than at all?

History shows again and again what will happen to your wife and kids. Just look:

Who did that? Businessmen? No. Guess again. Politicians supported by the majority of the population. How can people that count on contracts in businesses could suddenly say, that we can trust politicians to decide on what’s best for our children and family?

Simple. Those people, are psychopaths too, just like the majority of voters. They don’t care about fairness. They don’t care about productivity. They just want a reason to justify robbing from the diligent and controlling the productive. The way to do so is to give power to politicians.

Just like an interviewed psychopath once tell how much he loves his wife that he beat up to death, social democrats also entertain a ridiculous delusion. That delusion is that somehow we can trust politicians, and they, are not psychopaths.

Fortunately, politicians are psychopaths too, and we know what’s the cure. Just bribe them.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB people from
  • powered by phpBB people in the bible

March 22, 2012

Alternative to Homo Economicus 2

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 12:54 pm

Alternative to Homo Economicus

Homo Economicus has a few problems.

It’s too broad.

Homo economicus only make 1 scientific claim. That is, humans behavior maximize a certain expected value of a utility function. That’s it. That’s the only claim.

Homo economicus do not even tell what that utility function is. It can be anything. Every human has one such function that correctly predict his behavior. For those who are technical, it’s actually a set of functions all of which can be gotten from the other via any linear affine function with positive slope.

That function will correctly predict his action. Humans will choose outcome A instead of B, if and only if expected utility of A is higher than B. That utility function follows some 4 axioms where eventually it can be replaced by any linear affine functions and it’ll be perfectly equilvalent. That’s it. That’s the only thing homo economicus theory claims.

There is an additional info such as that utility function is defined as that person’s self-interest. What does human do? Maximize their self-interest (utility function). What is their self-interest? What they do. But that is just a circular definition with no scientific bite whatsoever.

Also it’s intuitively misleading. Yes humans are selfish within that narrow definition of self-interest. It’s just true by definition. However, many humans’ acts do not fit our intuitive definition of selfish.

Hoomins, for example, often perform saint like sacrifices like feeding their own kids. Some would also extend kindness to stray kittens next door. In homo economicus sense, that’s still self interest. In normal sense, it’s not.

Saying that humans are homo economicus is then like saying that humans are objects. That’s true. But, c’mon, we know about humans far more than that. Homo economicus is unnecessarily too “wide”.

Also, if the first think we know about humans are that they are object, the first think we will think is that humans are like boxes, or circles. That’s just false.

The same way, saying that humans are homo economicus will make us think that humans maximize their profit mainly within economy realm and magically stop when their profit maximization gets in the way of other’s right or the law or morality or  stuffs. That’s just not true.

It’s not true

Saying that humans rationally max out their profit is like saying that the sun circles the earth. The world behave as if it were true. The truth is, however, that sun don’t circle the earth. The truth about humans is that they are not rational. Most species also max out some utility function and yet none of them are rationals. Humans are not that far off from other species.

At least not literally. Most humans are not rational. That’s just fact. Milton Friedman said that all theories are actually false. However, those theories can accurately predict humans’ act nevertheless. Homo economicus is designed to be true in as if sense. Humans behave as if they are homo economicus. Humans behave as if they rationally want to maximize expected value of their utility function. They do not actually have that function and rationally compute the value for all possible outcome.

It’s not entirely effectively true

How do we know that humans have utility functions that are linear affine to one another? Perhaps, only some goal oriented people that actually write down that goal have those consistent utility functions that match all the assumptions. There are significant differences between homo economicus and real humans.

So here are some alternative that can put much narrower and clearer models without sacrificing accuracy.

Homo Psychopathus

Ann Rayn think that stealing is altruistic. No Ann. That’s not what altruistic normally mean. Stealing is selfish.

Humans maximize their interest as if they are psychopaths. In fact, this makes the most intuitive sense of homo economicus. Most people, have a hard time understanding homo economicus because they realized that most humans are not psychopaths. Even psychopaths would feed their kids and pet kittens.

A layer of not so simple philosophy is needed to explain homo economicus despite the non psychophatic behavior. We can simply call humans’ tendency to reciprocate as part of their utility function, and hence profit. We can also see that that reciprocating is actually beneficial and hence part of profit maximization strategy, even though indirectly. The latter is more correct while the former is closer to what actually happen.

When we think humans are objects, which is true, we tend to think that they are like boxes or balls, which is false.

The same way, when we think humans are homo economicus, we think of humans like to

  1. Max out his wealth
  2. Get happiness buy spending his wealth to buy goods and service

That’s simply false.

Wealth alone doesn’t explain why governments’ would prohibit safe drugs like ganja or consensual acts like prostitution or sex outside marriage. It doesn’t make sense. How much money they make by prohibiting consensual acts? Why would they do so? Well, they do.

Why do they do so? Because humans are psychopaths.

A better model is the following:

  1. Max out his powah
  2. Use that powah  to manipulate other humans to get what they want

This model will naturally explain why so many people and so many politicians want to prohibit ganja. It’s simple. Now they decide what you can consume. More powah to them. So why not? Homo psychophatus explain reality way more straight forwardly.

Does it pay to control ganja and sex? Yes. However, trying to find the connection will greatly underestimate their true motives. Humans will do it anyway even if they don’t get paid.

Gaining wealth and buying stuffs are just the most profitable ways to get things done for most humans, and that’s what they do. When other ways are more profitable, humans have little compunction from robbing other humans out of their freedom. Most humans are not libertarian after all.

Homo Pervertus

Being a psychopath is still too broad. We want to max out our power to get what we want. What do we want? To be pervert. All creatures are perverts. That’s how they reproduce. Humans are no exception.

Satoshi Kanazawa complained about how economists model humans.

As I argue elsewhere, microeconomics explains the behavior of the singular and unitary actor.  It’s not about men and women; in fact, there are no men and women in microeconomics.  There are only (singular and unitary) actors.  In the words of Levitt and Dubner themselves, “If, for instance, you added up all the women and men on the planet, you would find that, on average, the typical adult human being has one breast and one testicle—and yet how many people fit that description?”  Microeconomics is about how the actor with one breast and one testicle behaves.  Evolutionary psychology is about how women with two breasts are completely, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different from men with two testicles, because, in large part, women have breasts and men have testicles.  It’s the breasts and testicles that make them behave differently. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201102/superfreak-yes-onomics-no

One of the biggest fallacy on interpreting homo economicus is that we tend to think that because all humans are homo economicus and have utility functions, all of our utility functions are roughly equal. That’s simply false. Different humans have vastly different utility function. In a sense, all of us are perverts. However, as we shall see, men and women are perverts in different ways.

Why men pay women for sex? Because those men are pervert that want sex from women. Such pervert males can then knock up babes and pass on his genes to women. Males that are not perverts have gone extinct.

Why women paint their lips and wear high heels? So they can perversely attracting attentions of males that will offer her sperms and resources that’ll help her to reproduce. Women tend to want the best male. By definition, most men are not best. Yet she display her beauties to everyone and bitch about how most males perversely staring at her while drooling even though she need only to attract one or two man. Now that’s what I call, omega  pervert.

Why women show up in porn? Because they are perverts that want to attract as many men as possible so they can have higher pool of men to choose for. That’ll allow her to choose higher quality sperm to get her knocked up.

Why many women oppose porn? Because they are perverts that do not want other women to be more successful perverts.

When higher quality specimens perversely display her beauties, they set industry standard the rest must follow. That means lower quality women will not get laid or will not get paid a lot of “money or other consideration.” from getting laid. That means the lower quality women will fail to be successful perverts. So they can be successful perverts too, they prevent prettier women from perversely displaying their beauties.

List can go on and on. You got the point.

Some people would notice that I used the word pervert incorrectly. Some would point out that while offering “money or other consideration.” for sex with is perverted; offering marriage is holy.

Well, I am not a good philosopher. Why don’t you ask this in stack exchange philosophy how to split hair on that? I asked something similar and got kicked out.

But this hair splitting shows another important points of hoomins’ nature.

Homo Hypocrytus

Saying that humans are psychopaths are false. It’s only true if we judge humans mainly by their actions and choices rather than the bullshit they use to justify their acts. Ask any non libertarian why they prohibit porns. None of them would say that they prohibit porn because they’re psychopaths that want to control others’ life. Most of them would say that they honestly believe that porn is bad. In fact, most of them actually believe what they say.

Sure, we’re not psychopats the same way we’re not rational. We just behave as we do.

Still, many would deny even that. Many will curse, deny, or whatever. Many will not even try to falsify the claim. The more true the claim, quite often, the more politically correct it is.

After all, true psychopaths lie, even to themselves. They just don’t know it. Or perhaps, true psychopaths are simply those more enlightened that they know what everyone else really is.

I guess that explains why 15% of politicians are psychopaths within a more standard definition. They understand life most.

Homo Bigotus

Or alternatively, homo relativicus.

What makes human happy is quite often not how successful they are. All of us are already way more successful than our ancestors. Free market truly works. Yet there are still commies. What are those commies complain about? Do they complain about the poor not having food? Are there any capitalist countries whose poor are made worst off?

No. Commies complain about wealth disparity. What makes humans happy is not the wealth they achieve. What makes humans happy is their relative wealth toward others.

“Be grateful,” my grandma said, “There are a lot of starving kids.” I couldn’t have said that better.

Actual MRI scans actually show how humans’ pleasure functions are activated when they see suffering of those who got more than them. Tons of genocide follows one consistent pattern. The victims of those genocides are always the richest smartest minorities.

It’s natural. Because humans are perverts, what we want are mates, rather than another PC or cars. Successful people are tougher competitors.

Proper Homo Economicus

Yes humans also enjoy higher standard of living, longer life, yada yada yada, all those politically correct terms. I think it’s actually just 20%-30% of their utility function. Greed is good. It’s the only thing that kept us back from stone age.

Selfish Gene

Some guy, Richard Dawkins, says that it’s not individuals that are selfish. It’s their genes (and memes?). In other word, humans do not actually have utility function just like countries do not. Genes have utility function and a very well define one. Genes’ utility function is to max out the number of their copies. That’s it. Humans are mind controlled by those genes.

I still do not know whether we can incorporate this into homo economicus or not.

Parents, for example, are altruistic toward their genetic offspring. That’s because parents are mind controlled by genes that will more successfully reproduce if their children produce grand children.

A homo economicus model that look equivalent would be somewhere along incorporating the child’s well-being into the parent’s utility function.

Evolutionary Economy

This seems to make way more sense. If I do a business, and it works, I make it bigger. If I do a business, and it doesn’t work, I stop. Working businesses grow bigger. Failing businesses disappear. That’s closer to how I actually behave.

Rather than thinking that humans have utility function, thinking that they repeat what turns them off and avoid what turns them off make more sense and not even that complicated.

Homo Don’t-Write-Your-Goal-Don’t-Know-What-to-Do-Cus

Okay, most people don’t have a goal in mind. Me, for example. Besides wanting to get rich, I wonder why I bother spending time making this article up.

Maybe I am bored.

Well, writing this doesn’t seem to be consistent with any utility functions or any rational outcome I can think of. At most I’ll just piss off people and who knows what.

I read some Austrian books that somehow it is. After all, I did it and hence, it must be my preference. Maybe I like pissing people off. I am a human after all.

Homo Repeat-What-Works-Avoid-What-Doesn’tus

This seems to be the most accurate process on what hoomins actually do.That’s who I run my bizs. In fact, this works not just for hoomins but also for virtually all species.

Thinking that humans always max out profit means whenever profit can be mad, there would have been tons of people doing it. The essence of being entrepreneurs are then to understand that not all profit are taken yet. Most humans either do not know or are not determined to seize the profit and that’s the essence of all entrepreneur opportunities.

March 17, 2012

Biggest Difference Between Psychopath and Normal People

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , — admin @ 6:18 am

Is normal people justify his behavior to himself and others. Their acts don’t differ much. They both steal, kill, loot, rape, force, fraud, or who knows what if it serves their best interests. Psychopath just do it. Normal people bullshit first. Ah the victim is heretic. Ah, it’s God’s will I have the powah. Ah it’s for people’s best interests, etc. etc.

Real effects of atheism is removing hypocricy.

Presume that everyone is a psychopath and ignore anything they said. You’ll be surprised how less suprise you will be.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB faith and family
  • powered by phpBB how to help my family if husband addicted drugs
  • powered by phpBB legal dictionary the world covenit in a will

February 16, 2012

What People Think the Laws Prohibit, What the Laws Actually Said, and How it is Actually Enforced

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 6:49 am

When government prohibit consensual acts, quite often there is a huge gap between what most people think is being prohibited, what the law actually said, and how it is actually implemented.

Governments try to maintain lies that it try to prohibit something, and then prohibit totally different unrelated things.

If you have a girl friend. Say you give her a gift. Does that make her  prostitute? This is not a philosophical question. It’s a legal question actually. Most people would think not. However, if you read the law, she might. Both of you can get arrested.

What matter is what the judge and jury think. Most of the time, they are quite divided due to vagueness of the law and broadness of definition.

The root of the problem is allowing government to declare consensual crime illegal. What’s natural after that is that government will simply broaden the criminalization far beyond what most people think.

1. It’s far more broad than what most people think.

Anti prostitution is marketed to protect women from being forced by evil pimp to promiscuously have sex with really really ugly men with mental retardation problem and highly unusual violent fetish.

In fact, most people think that’s what prostitution is.

There is nothing in the law against prostitution that specify that prostitutes must be promiscuous, forced, or sleep with undesirable males. Quite the opposite, prostitution is often monogamous, consensual, with really really hot participants with plenty of other legal choices that simply choose better. There is nothing in anti prostitution laws that indicate that the johns must be unattractive.

Notice that marrying really really undesirable man is legal.

After all, marriage means government is the pimp. Government is simply the worst pimp. It’s so bad it has to keep so many things illegal just to stay competitive.

The law says prostitution is “a lewd act for money or other consideration,”  http://www.coyotela.org/getarrestedinfo.html.

What makes an act a prostitution is not the undesirability of the mate or the forced nature of the act or even the promiscuity of the women. It’s the incentive, which doesn’t even have to be financial.

By that definition of prostitution, virtually all women can be convicted. I give a girl a massage, that’s consideration. I give a girl attention, that’s consideration. I make a girl happy that’s consideration. In fact, I wonder where I can get the list of all the consideration that’s legal or illegal. Who knows what the lists are.

I can only wonder why marriage doesn’t count as consideration. Government pretty much control what kind of consideration is legal or not legal based on anything they wish. Now it’s your life. Why should their wish matter?

Notice the law need to be broad. If the law only prohibit accepting cash, the girl will take credit. If the law only prohibit accepting money, the girl will exchange that for food, lodging.

Now take a look at drug laws again. Most of us think that it’s there to get rid of dangerous addictive drug.

That’s not what the law said. There is nothing in the law saying that the drug must be dangerous or significantly addictive. And it’s not how it works in practice either. I was very surprised when I found this out.

(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” [23]

See? Watch the word “accepted safety”. That looks like it has something to do with dangerous. It’s so vague. Anyone that took any English language class will point out that it’s a passive sentence. Accepted by who? Passive sentences are inherently unclear. Many doctors know many ways to use marijuana safely. As long as you don’t drive, it’s save. No body died out of marijuana overdoses yet.

It has little to do with the drug being dangerous. It has a lot to do with preventing you from using the drug you want so you ended up using other drugs they want you to use instead.

It’s easy for government to argue that a drug has no legitimate accepted medical use. Government simply choose not to accept. Yes baby. Marijuana is NOT dangerous. Just look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

Now take a look at women trafficking. Most of us think of women trafficking as those women in chain sent against their will kicking and screaming. The truth is the opposite. Those women quite often have a nice job or marriage offers in their country. Quite often they simply want to go to richer countries so they can meet even richer males. It’s like you having $10k per month and want $1 million per month instead. Such women compete with ugly women in rich countries and that’s why it’s prohibited.

Anti women trafficking laws actually have clauses saying that they include consenting women as “trafficked” if it’s done for sex.

Imagine if you are a jew during holocaust. Wouldn’t you want to get out anywhere? What about countries that accept you says, well, we can’t just let you in and feed you for free. Ah you got capital, you got to invest here. Oh you’re smart, see you got to work here. What would the jew did? Hope in. Unfortunately, during holocaust, very few countries wanted to accept jews. And that’s how Hitler can easily slaughter millions of them. Then every body blamed Hitler even though all of them sort of did it too. You see why jews don’t trust non jews? We messed up.

Quite often women are indeed forced to be trafficked, but not by the traffickers. Women are oppressed by the Taliban in some country. Imagine if you’re that women. Wouldn’t you want to get out anywhere? What about countries that accept you says, well, we can’t just let you in and feed you for free. Ah you’re hot. Some of our males want sugar babies, see if we can work something out. What would the woman do? Hope in still. Unfortunately, during prosecution of hot women all over the world, very few countries want to accept hot babes. And that’s how fascists can easily oppress womyn.

2. It’s vague.

Because it’s so broad every body will break it. So they need an excuse why they shouldn’t punish the acts they favor.

As for what “other consideration” is… the courts in California said that if someone “mows your lawn” that can be “other consideration.” – http://www.coyotela.org/getarrestedinfo.html

So it’s not okay to mow lawn for your girlfriend. That will make her a prostitute and both of you can get arrested. It’s okay to offer her marriage? What about if you give her a massage? Should you consult lawyers first?

There is one way to see that the definition is vague. Look at what people think http://sugarbabydaily.com/2011/10/07/high-class-hooke/#more-91

Some people think sugar baby is a prostitution, some people think differently. The law is vague. In fact, Matt Ridley simply points the obvious. Marriage is a form of prostitution. The difference is that government is the pimp and anti prostitution law is simply not enforced against married couple magically.

Look at laws against women trafficking. It’s there to prevent “exploitation”. What is exploitation? Anything. Coca cola companies, exploit me to make money, for example in pretty much the same sense Pepsi does. Government, can simply declare that selling Coca Cola is an exploitation and don’t enforce the same principle against Pepsi. If it’s exploitation, so what?

What is exploitation? If I hire a secretary is that exploitation? Why it’s an exploitation if I hire her to work hard but not an exploitation if I hire her for sex? Exploitation is not an objective word.

If exploitation is defined as taking advantage of others, isn’t that what all we do? When I go to a shop buying a gum, am I not exploiting the shop owners for my own interest of getting the gum? Isn’t the shop exploiting me to get money? So what? Exploitation is simply the basis of all human interaction, whether consensual or not. It’s simply too broad and hence can be used to condemn anything.

Allowing government to prohibit “exploitation” is like giving them blank cheque. It’s so easy to argue that anything is exploitation. What isn’t?

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;

Check the law again. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum bla bla bla. Is there anything there that said what exploitation doesn’t include? How do you know, for example, that trafficking a woman for the purpose of getting her a better hair cut is not an exploitation? Why consensual commercial sex is an exploitation and often less consensual marriage is not? What’s the limit? Who knows.

Look at laws against drug. It’s there to prevent “abuse” of drugs. What is abuse of drugs? Anything. Any use can be argued as abuse.

3. It usually comes demonization of the consensual acts or people in negative light. Before nazi slaughtered the jews, they portrayed jews as backstabbing traitorous bastards. Most normal germans did not think they were being rascists. They thought they were getting rid traitors. The same way, most normal people actually believe that all prostitution are non consensual.

Most people do not know that some prostitutes are paid $5500 per hour. In fact, the biggest irony of anti prostitution law is that the very incentive used to define prostitution is the very proof that the acts are indeed consensual. What would you not consensually do for $5500 per hour? Srsly. Killing? Murdering? Robbing? Assassinating Presidents? Fighting Taliban?

What about fucking? You wouldn’t fuck for $5500? Who or what wouldn’t you fuck even if they pay $5500 per hour? Okay quite a lot. But many of those prostitute clients are quite often some handsome rich men. Nothing in the prostitution laws say that the client must be undesirable. Even if the client is Brad Pitt, or Tiger Wood, which would rather pay than get married, it’s still prostitution legally.

Yes there are women forced into prostitution. Just like there are men forced to be programmer, soldiers, etc. So what? Why not aim for those who coerced others?

4. They contain many redundant terms already prohibited by many other laws.

Women trafficking is defined

[...] the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;

Now watch the definition carefully. Using threat, use of force, forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, and deception is already illegal. Why is it prohibited again in this new law? Now look at what they wrote latter. “Giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve consent.” What is wrong with that?

The purpose of anti women trafficking law is not to prevent force or fraud. The purpose is to prevent consensual women that do want to move in.

5. They have motives that are too politically incorrect to be stated in front.

The motives are not too hard to figure out.

In case of anti prostitution laws. The motive is to prohibit all sex outside marriage. To be frank, quite often husbands can’t compete with johns, so they prohibit johns. It’s simple. I know extremely beautiful girls that just want a divorce and be mistress instead. They can’t.

Yes women can still have sex outside marriage for free. However, it’s tough. In a sense, offering her to have sex for free doesn’t really give her much choice. If she has kids who would pay for it? Who will pay for her food when she’s pregnant? Government? That’s fascism. Even if she wants you, she can’t choose you unless you pay.

But why would government want to prohibit all sex outside marriage? That’s obvious. They want to be the pimp of all hoes so they can sell those hoes to voters that can’t compete with rich smart johns.

Why feminazis hate women trafficking? Not because of all the fraud and force involved. They simply don’t want competitors. Many feminazis are ugly women. Monogamy protect them from extinction. If they have to compete with influx of hot cheaper babes, they’ll be out of the gene pool in one generation.

Why government prohibits some safe drugs? Many reason. To prevent you from having fun is one thing. Another is so that more dangerous drugs that are paid by lobbyists can sell. If you look at all celebrities that  use drugs, none of them die out of marijuana. All of them are death out of legal drugs that they have to use because the saver marijuana is illegal.

Wealth is a form of power and true wealth is simply power. When government have power to decide terms of your mating, and what kind of fun you can have, they can control you. That means you are their slave. Who wouldn’t want more slaves?

6. Conclusion

At the end whether prostitution should be legal or not, whether drug should be legal or not, and whether consensual women trafficking should be legal or not depends on one question. Do you want to be governed by free market or by government? It’s that simple.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB collection laws
  • powered by phpBB beauty companies
  • hot prostitutes with ugly guy

January 9, 2011

Should Truth Matter?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 1:15 am

I got a lot of bitch slap from Mensa community for saying that I want to hire programmers based on IQ.

The high IQ are great programmers. There is no doubt on that. They are lawzy strategists though.

It is toward anyone’s best interest to support the belief that everyone should want the stuff they peddle especially if you can’t change what’s you’re peddling.

Hence, there we go. The ugly says that love is blind. The poor says women want love. The shag less says that women want loyalty. And the low IQ says IQ doesn’t matter.

It make sense for a low IQ to support that belief. For the high IQ to support the same believe that works against them? That’s not a good strategy. That’s the main flaw of most high IQ people and libertarians. Objective.

In fact, anyone of us seeing above normal effort to show one way should quickly feel that the truth is the exact opposite.

Even if it weren’t true, faith moves mountain. Non zero sum games require communications and honest signals. Signals decide which Nash equilibrium that’s focal and that decides reality.

When people believe in something they count on it, they bet on it, they wish it to happen. When enough people wish something happen, it happens. Imagine if everyone believe that VHS is the better system compared to Beta? Irrelevant of what’s true, VHS will be the standard.

Not to mention that we have government with power to criminalize or drive underground any acts that enough people believe to be “bad” and hence pretty much forcing the “good” alternative. Obviously things that truly are good can’t possibly need that much force. For government to came down from heaven invoking some will we should know for sure, the truth is the opposite.

That means, on typical terms, prostitution must be way better than marriage, porn must be way better than burqha, wealth must be way better than love, promiscuity must be way more attractive to women than loyalty, and IQ is a much better predictor of programming skills than degree. .

How do I know? Because something must be so good for it to be illegal in most countries while the other must be so bad that it’s encouraged in most. Otherwise, the market would have taken care of it and government would not have bothered doing their magic.

All right, I admit. It’s not 180 degree. More like 135 degree. For lies to be credible there must be some truth in it. The Nazi can’t just kill all the Jews. Nazi must kill some mentally retarded people first to convince the world that they’re getting rid the inferiors before they kill the Jews. The same way government would prohibit some really bad things first, like Cocaine, to convince the mass that they really mean for your best interest when they prohibit the much safer ecstasy. Government would prohibits some slave prostitution first before prohibiting high class escorts and concubinage, for example.

When we decide what’s best for others, we have very little intensive to be correct. Those little intensive should be overwhelmed by huge intensive to support beliefs and hence, Nash equilibrium that are favorable to us.

Every normal IQ people instinctively follow their feeling on this. The high IQ do not.

High IQ are great programmers. Period. Anything else is a lie. To lie against the interest of ones’ own self is idiotic. Hence, high IQ people are often idiots and hence mess up their life.

November 16, 2010

What Would Ayn Rand Do?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 1:49 am

I still remember when I see an objectivist talk in campus. He said that we should take advantage of any unfair laws.

For example, while we disagree with perks for minority, then if government offer scholarship for minority we should take it. The same goes for unfair tax loopholes, subsidies, calling 911, etc.

Agreed Cheesy

Now, what about if government says that we can steal? Should we steal?

Of course….!

What about if stealing is illegal but penalty is so light that it’s effectively legal anyway. Many acts, like escort, are like that by the way.

Why not…?

What about if after taking into account all consideration, within the current system, what’s actually profitable for ME (I am selfish here), is to go screw everyone else be a dictator, kill millions, and enjoy public funds.

I guess, I should just learn not to judge people, starting from my self.  Grin

Even Ayn would do it if she has the same chance and the right skill. Or would she?

November 8, 2010

Two Ways to Explain How Capitalism Works

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 10:12 pm

One way is to see that humans’ maximize profit. Then, under capitalism, you can and only can, enrich your self through productive works. So productivity is maximized.

So for people to be productive, an option to be productive, hidden somewhere, only need to exist. That and we can all claim that everyone that isn’t productive vermin, etc.

Another theory is similar but more complex. It’s not enough that you do the most productive thing.

You do productive thing. Then you make money. Then everyone can see that you are enjoying your money and happier. This encourage others to be productive too. Then they too become productive too.

So it takes time, and process for “good” to grow. Not only it can works, we need to convince the world that it can really work. The second part is where the real miracle is.

Perhaps Jesus don’t really produce 5000 breads. But by sharing the little bread he has, he convince the crowd that we all live in an abundance. The crowd then pull out their own bread too and start sharing the otherwise going to rot bread and fish anyway. Turns out it’s enough.

The same way free market do not produce prosperity out of magic. Certain rich people make a lot of money and provide jobs. Then the crowd start becoming capitalists too. Turns out, our faith in prosperity trigger nash equilibrium that’s indeed physically possible. So we have more and more than enough.

Is it physically possible? Well if nobel prize winners in economics say so, and the math say so, and it’s been working everywhere else, and statisticians say so, I’d say capitalism is definitely worth a try. Give abundance a chance. Give globalization a chance. Give legalization (of drug, commercialized sex, and organ trade) a chance. That’s all. We know it works on all the other cases.

The key here is that productivity improves not due to any physical process, but due to the change of belief. We spend a lot of money for jail for only one reason, to make people believe that some crimes may not pay.

It’s not enough that something is profitable then everybody would be doing it.

It has to be profitable. Then the profitability need to be sufficiently advertised and verified in some expensive and hence credible settings. Then more people are doing it.

Which one is right? Is it enough that a good option exist, or the option need to be sufficiently understood, known, and popularly familiar?

Well simple. The second theory is falsifiable. If the second theory is true, then government can prevent something, not by making it illegal, but by simply preventing information about it to spread. Or government can simply arrange that certain things are not done openly. There you go, the acts will get reduced even though it’s not technically or effectively illegal. Often chilling effects are indeed, the intended effects.

Then government could argue, well people actually have a choice. They choose what we prescribe because it’s best.

“No body forces you to get married,” says many religious bigots.

To prohibit things, government do not need to make sure it’s not done. Government simply need to ensure that certain things are not done too openly.

Cohabitation agreement is better than marriage at least for many males. Beatty Chadwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick) , would agree. Why would a rich male risk all their wealth if they can get laid without doing so. And there are many women that prefer sharing rich smart males than being the only one for a poor one. I know many poor but pretty women that got knocked up by a male that leave nothing but debt. Yap she is married to that male.

About drug, there is something interesting.

Water is safe, legal, popular, but not psychotropic

Alcohol is legal, popular, psychotropic, but not safe

Salvia is safe, legal, psychotropic, but not popular yet

Ecstasy is safe, popular, psychotropic, and USED to be legal for 10 years, till it’s popular.

As Jesus said, the road to life is narrow while the road to hell is wide. That’s because the devil (anyone not libertarian) will close the road once they found out it’s too popular.

If government do not want you to have fun, they do not need to prohibit all drugs, just the popular ones.

Taliban does not force women to mate with their followers. They only prohibits women from becoming prostitute and working. The only alternative left is starving or marrying someone the Taliban approved. See why many young males are willing to die for Taliban? It’s win win win. The Taliban win in getting followers. The young males win because there is no way they can compete with Brad Pitt. The women? Well, it’s pretty easy to convince everyone that they’re protecting women.

The same way, if government wants to force you to get married and risk going to jail for 14 years and paying millions of dollars, it doesn’t need to prohibit all alternatives. The one that doesn’t work like free sex (altruism), or abstinence (not fun) can be practiced openly.

October 24, 2010

Making Things go Wrong

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 5:06 am

This case is slightly different. The laws are not related. However, selective enforcement of laws are made to encourage things to “go wrong” when certain acts are done.

After all, no body can, in a sense, prohibits anything. All we can do is to make things “go wrong” once in a while, when that thing is done.

For example.

1. Bob steal. Bob gets caught. Stealing is illegal. So things can go wrong if you steal. So there will be less thieves.

Notices that many thieves are of course not caught. However, the fact that things can go wrong for YOU when YOU steal discourage people from stealing.

If we think about it, that’s as far as we can go on prohibiting something. All we can do is making things go wrong when somebody do it. We can’t mind control everyone from stealing.

Now here are some more creative samples:

1. AIDS. Many religious group love AIDS. Because that discourages free sex. So many discourage safe sex education besides abstinance.
2. False rape accusation. That discourage free sex too. That is why DA, especially conservative DAs, do not pursue false rape accusations.
3. Charging the women I mentioned with murder. Well, she committed stripping doesn’t she?
4. Making money as in lobster cases. Which is fucked over by so many insane laws, lawsuits, etc. The truth is many people do not want you to be rich. They just want things to go wrong when you do.
5. Marriage. Alimony is one mechanism where things can go really wrong when rich smart males get laid. Subconsciously swing voters want to exterminate superior competitors and hence they want things to go really wrong for rich smart males. Exorbitant alimony is not a problem if you’re poor. Alimony is like a serum that only exterminate the rich, but not the poor.
6. Jail terms tend to hurt the rich more than the poor. That explains why rich people don’t rob banks, because their political cost is higher. Problem starts when jail terms are invoked on low damage crimes that should be punished with fine instead.

January 13, 2010

Who Are the Victim of Victimless Crime?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 12:57 pm

Is prostitution victimless? What about sex outside heavily regulated life long monogamous marriage governments prescribe? Despite various institutional advantage for married couple, 50% of kids born in US are born out of wedlock suggesting that sex outside marriage surely have its attraction over marriage.

But is it victimless?

Well, in a sense yes, in a sense no. Depends on how you define “victim”.

Say cheap product comes from China. The product is cheaper and is in better quality. Then many people buy the product. Is it victimless? No force involved. No fraud involved. It’s consensual. In fact, it’s more than consensual, it’s a good deal. Is it victimless? Well, does everyone support globalization and free trade?

No. There are disgruntled envy competitors that just do not want to see YOU enjoying better deals. If better deals are available from you then you don’t need to buy from them. Those bigots then demand heavy punishments against acts that do not involve fraud or force. Often things are prohibited not because it’s bad, but because it’s TOO GOOD.

So good, it drives out governments’ endorsed alternative of competition. If government do nothing, there will be little intensive for lobbyist to spend millions of dollars to buy law makers. If you’re a law maker, what would you do?

The same way with free sex, though I won’t elaborate. I mean if the cause why people hate free trade is because of competition, it’s a very natural guess to think that people hate free sex out of the same reason too.

However, to prohibit something you need a reason. You need to convince others that somehow the prohibited things are so bad. You need to convince others. Unfortunately, wrong things cannot be proofed, by definition of proof. So you need something that makes people believe anyway DESPITE lack of evidence.

That is called faith.

October 16, 2009

A few Ways to See Why Consenting Acts are Politically Incorrect

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — admin @ 12:56 pm

[quote author=CB750 link=topic=6050.msg30328#msg30328 date=1255532407]
[quote]My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.[/quote]

Ok so then why would people oppose homosexuality? What does a heterosexual lose if a tiny portion of people are gay? I doubt its the loss of potential mating partners. What would be the competition here? I might also oppose bestiality even though I’m not worried about the love of my dog being lost to another. BTW I’m not comparing homosexuality and bestiality.
[/quote]

What I mean by the reason, is the real reason. Deep inside, hardcoded by genes. Not rational reason the actors are aware and definitely not discussed reason. People want to prohibit porn because they feel they need to do so. They feel that way because their genes hard wire them to feel that way. That’s an essence of selfish gene theory by the way. The genes, rather than individuals, are selfish.

As why people hate gay, I do not quite understand too my self. To me for every gay people there is one less competitor. Rather than opposing homosexuality, we should encourage it the way we should encourage abortion.

But there is a pattern. If one men get many the rest don’t get any. If it were like that (it’s not, but say it were), then it’s zero sum game. It’s like penalty kick. There will be no peace or honesty. The more we kick to the right the more we pretend that we kick to the left.

Turns out it’s not zero sum game. Women, or at least the joy of their beauty, can be “mass produced” via porn or more efficiently used via “prostitution”. Some males are homosexual so they don’t mind some males get plenty. Poorer males, would rather have more money rather than making more kids. And many people don’t put high dollar value in their gene pool survival that they want to abort their babies. All those are peaceful solution we should encourage. Guess what, why is it all those “peaceful” solution is politically incorrect?

Why every social norms against consensual sex tend to promote gene pool survival of the weakest, ugliest, and least competitive? Because norms are made by those with power, guts, and insanity to screw others and that kind of people are usually those who have little productivity to offer.

You know, at first I didn’t understand too why any women would oppose consensual sex. I mean I thought if monogamy are meant to ration females in equal share for everyone, then I can understand why males oppose sex outside life long monogamous relationship. But why would any women do? I discussed this in a british forum and most opposition comes from women, not males.

Then I figured that out. Western men are rich. Women prefer the rich. Hence western men are competitive. Men, I hang around okay. I asked a native javanese girl to meet and she said that she only want to mate with white men. I did try to convince her that white men don’t necessarily have bigger cock, typically have lower IQ (I think I am wrong here), I were rich too, and Asian countries are getting prosper. Let’s just say it didn’t work ;D. Well, she’s not as pretty as my girl friend and I didn’t think it’s worth to pursue. But I do learn something.

Needless to say, in poor countries like mine, it’s the male that opposes free sex. Religious bigots that go from places to places wanting to guard morality are usually males, poor males. In poorer countries like Afghanistan, women can’t even work. The richer the country, the more liberal the men are. This you can verify.

Of course, being weaker, women don’t usually speak clearly on what they want. If women do speak, they usually just confirm whatever prevailing norm in that society so she can fit in. So everyone pretty much undermine women’s consent under the pretext of protecting women because ALL women want it anyway.

It seems to me what matter is not whether something benefits males or females but where you are in the gene pool relative to others. Those relatively competitive sexually will be liberal. Those who are competitive financially will be conservative. And those who are competitive at both will be libertarian. Those who are not competitive will be want bigger government. Like this: http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/RealityofHumanNature.gif

I mean it’s like arguments about socialized health care or income tax. People argue whether it’s good or bad, efficient, or not. That’s because they want as many votes as possible to their side. But let’s just face it. It’s not a cooperative game. If you’re healthy and rich you want privatization. If you’re poor and sick, you want socialization. The zero sum aspect is more influential than the cooperative one and understanding that will more accurately predict what people will vote.

Here is another way to see this.

The essence of libertarianism is self ownership, or so according to a libertarian website. Is it good? Well, how good your self is? If you’re pretty, rich, or smart, or capable, or whatever, then yea, self ownership is pretty cool. If you’re not, then no.

Another easier way to see this:

Rape is like income tax. They’re both a form of slavery, which is a form of robbery. Damage done is then proportional to how valuable things that are being robbed. Which one fear income tax more? The high income or the low income? Which one fear jail more? Programmers, brick layers, doctors, ceos, billionaires, or some starving hoodlum that’ll do anything for free food? I think this will correctly predict people’s voting behavior.

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

Just like a person will lay his life for 2 siblings, 4 cousins, or 8 nephews, the same way people would lie his life to exterminate those too antagonistic for their gene pool survival. Suicide bombers typically oppose free sex. At least, they’ll vote against it.

An ugly women are more likely to marry a poor male. So to her, rampant rape is probably a good thing at least for males that carry her genes. It’s the same reason why most liberals want more gun control. Their friends and families are burglars and will die if you own gun.

Imagine a world without capitalism, which is what the most of the world is before Adam Smith. Those are millions of years are when our genes are fine tuned through evolution. Those whose preference do not lead to gene pool survival, like celibacy, has been wiped out by mother nature through evolution. In those world, we live in a zero sum game.

What would you do in zero sum game? You gang with evil you know against evil you don’t. Our world is NOT zero sum game. But may not be as different as you may think.

Here is another way to think about.

1 out of 4 Asian males carry the same Y chromosome mutation with Gengish Khan. So what kind of humans are around nowadays? Just look at the kind of humans successfully reproduce in the past. Cruel, cunning, insane, greedy, promiscuous, vengeful, and mean. Now, another good question. What kind of human you want to be? The one that stays in the gene pool or the kind that will get driven out?

Powered by WordPress

Loading...