Free Market Forever

February 24, 2012

Marginal Liberatarian Evolution!

The following are things that should be legalize because there isn’t any argument prohibiting it:

1. Polyandry. While there are plenty of arguments against polygamy, most of which only apply to males having many wives. The idea that no women are willing to share, for example, may be valid for females. There is no way it’s valid for males. Many males including me do not mind sharing one hot babe. In fact, I’d rather share a hot babe than be the only one for an ugly fat bitch. Another argument against polygamy is that women are forced into it. Well, who knows what women want. One thing for sure is I won’t feel being forced to share Miyabi. Finally polygamy is not inconsistent with democracy of one man one vote. That last one is the one that make some sense to me, but only if sex outside marriage is illegal. Still, there is no where in history where polyandry concentrate power in the hand of 1 women.

2. Legalized paid sex if it is to encourage women to divorce her existing husband. Think about it. The main argument against prostitution is that it is always forced. When there is no force involved, the argument goes that lack of choice count as force. For example, if the women would starve unless she becomes a prostitute, feminazis would count that as force. Well, if a woman already has a husband that’s a non issue then. She has a choice, namely staying married. She just choose better. Hence it’s definitely more consensual.

3. Legalized non promiscuous commercial sex. Many arguments against prostitution in general doesn’t fly when the prostitution comes in the form of sugar babies.  One of the main argument against prostitution is that promiscuity spread STD. Well it doesn’t work for sugar babies that are not promiscuous. In fact, the majority of STD spreads among teen more than prostitute. Another is that women are forced by pimps. Again, there is no pimp in sugar babies. Another argument is lack of choice that count as forced. Well, most sugar babies are hot enough to marry. Yet they just choose better.

4. Legalized safe drug. If it’s save, like marijuana and ecstasy, why prohibit it? Duh…

5. Legalized organ sales on organs that are regrow-able or allow people to voluntarily sell his organ when he died. When organ is regrowable, like blood or marrow, there is an abundance supply of organ. Buying the organ will not cause adverse effect. The same way, many dying people want to inherit more wealth to their offsprings. So why not let them sell their organ harvestable when they died?

In the future, more can be legalized. However, the 5 should be a start.

Incoming search terms:

  • feminazi asian women

January 7, 2010

Are the Rich Less Generous

The problem is not people are less generous. People are MORE generous now than they are thousands of years ago. In ancient time, the poor got only 2% of money in Muslim countries.

Now we pay 30% income tax most of which goes into wealth redistribution. What else, given that the market can provide far superior service more efficiently anyway. So we are 15 times more generous.

World GDP is 300 times it was 200 years ago. Human race is 300 times richer.

If we have the same number of fuck ups now than we have 200 years ago, non of those fuck ups will be “poor” by 1800 standard.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is the fuck ups, irresponsible, lazy, stupid, socialists bigots out breed the prudent, smart, diligent and hard working. The problem is we got smart people like HaRRo that are too willing to sacrifice himself in altar of socialism to fed the parasites. Sorry HaRRo. We got to repent.

Anyone opposing freedom want to enslave others. Yielding to their kind is like cutting our own hand throwing it to lions hoping the lions will become vegetarian. If anything, the lions will just breed and breed and kill us.

If you run the fastest you simply have to show that you too can hit the hardest.

I love poor people. Many of them work hard for me and we both make a lot of money. None of those that work hard for me work as hard as me though. But well, we’re getting somewhere.

It’s the mindset that’s wrong. We encourage the poor to breed by subsidizing those that make kids. When subsidy is given, supply and demand curve no longer meet creating surplus of humans, causing unemployment giving rise to more justification for bigger government in never ending vicious poverty cycle.

Just pay anyone that don’t have kids and legalize commercial sex so the best brightest richest (like our mods) can knock up all the hot babes. Then encourage porn so no ugly women get laid. Hell those ugly feminists can always enjoy their right becoming astronauts, programmers, scientists, or some grenade thrower in the front line anyway. I totally support affirmative action for all womyn that want to throw grenade in the front line, if they’re ugly.

Within 1 generation, all kids will have rich smart dad and hot sexy mom. No need to resort to violent to “exterminate” those we deem inferior.

But even those benign peaceful method is politically incorrect. We’re like gladiator being forced to kill each other by our leaders with their irrational faith based “morality”.

October 9, 2009

Promoting Consensual Commercial Sex

Quote from: Brad R on October 07, 2009, 04:05:01 AM
Ok, I’m willing to cut you a bit of slack on the “women trafficking” and the “Germans hate Jews” remark, as being difficulties with an unfamiliar language.  For future reference, when used as a verb (as you did), “traffic” refers to commercial dealings.  In other words, buying and selling.  Trafficking in human beings is, by libertarian standards, about as wrong as you can get.  A better choice of words would be “open borders” or “free immigration.”  If you’re referring to the people who arrange cross-border matches, “marriage broker” would be a better term.  (Though I should warn you that marriage brokers have acquired their own bad reputation.)

I see your concern. I think choices of words are quite difficult here.

About open border and free immigration as a word, it’s tricky. Women cannot just immigrate to richer countries for being sex worker and while I think they should be allowed to, I am not aiming to promote open border for now. It will happen. Don’t worry. With globalization, job move overseas and soon salary differences will get reduced, reducing political will to prevent immigration. However, I must reluctantly admit that voters in rich countries did something right in making their country rich. Simply forcing voters in those countries to unconditionally accept immigration would undermine intensive for people in poor countries to vote for free market too. So I think a moderate slower approach to get that done through globalization is better than campaigning against truly open border.

About “marriage broker”, well, I don’t promote marriage. To me, marriage implies governments approval while I believe that all consensual sex should be equally approved.

The majority of women “trafficking traveling for mate to richer countries” is of course, consensual. I know that through reasoning. When market value difference is too high, it doesn’t make sense to force people. Much easier to trade consensually. You can see the report on the web easily. Yes traffic refers to commercial dealings. All sex is a commercial dealing. Commercial usually means consensual. Saying consensual women trafficking is like saying I just buy a bread consensually. Of course I buy the bread consensually. That’s what I want to promote. Consensual commercialized everything including sex.

I think I am the one that should be more of understanding rather than talking in my own lingo. Yea, trafficking has commercial connotation. I like to think that everything is a commercial trade. Maybe because I am a businessman.

Quote
Regarding Nazi Germany and the Jews, yes, during that period, Jews were vilified, singled out for persecution, and eventually slaughtered in large numbers.  On the other hand, this indicates that before the rise of the Nazis, Germany had a large Jewish population…unlike some other countries which actively opposed their immigration.  This suggests that pre-Nazi Germany was quite a bit more cosmopolitan and civilized than you might suppose.

I have nothing against German. EVERY people that I know of hate some more financially successful minority groups. I used German as a sample but really, seen from here, I think many people that oppose individual freedom is about as evil as Nazi. In a sense that if they have the same power with Nazi, they would have done the same or even worst, as we can see Lenin, Mao, and young Turks did.

Also, during 1930, German lose a lot of money in war. Also they couldn’t regain their wealth through trade because of protectionism practiced by the other countries. Here they were a country in the middle of assholes that make money through war rather than through productivity, what would you do? The true evil is those opposing globalization. With globalization, intensive to wage war will be much less.

To me, saying that porn, prostitution, cohabitation, foreign bride, should be prosecuted make as much sense (or non sense) as saying that Jews should be prosecuted. The statements are based on prejudices rather than proper understanding. Also bigots would embrace the belief anyway for the same reason that will take too long to explain.

Now, I am going to speak “YOUR language” as I have observed.

Ever heard the idea that men can never understand women? There are many jokes about it, like how books about “understanding women” is empty, etc. I think it’s a running gags.

The truth is men can understand EVERY OBJECT, including, if not especially, women namely through reason.

The problem is proper understanding of humans’ sexual selection can lead to really really politically incorrect conclusion. If we understand that men prefer the pretty and women prefer the rich, for example, it would justify legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and consensual  (I can’t say trafficking, so ugh, traveling across country borders to find mate with help of people smugglers). All those are politically incorrect because it would drive many uncompetitive voters (poorer males, uglier females) out of the gene pool.

So males then pretend that they do not understand women so they can “protect” women against women’s own consent under the pretext that no women could possibly want that anyway. The truth is, the number of women that want to do consensual crimes, if it were legal, is TOO MANY, and that’s why it’s prohibited.

So, societies fed us with the wrong model to understand sex. Sex is then reduced to confusing “romance” that doesn’t make sense. If people want to be romantic, that’s fine. But we have strong imbalanced information. Cinderella’s stories are taught to children, perhaps as mandatory reading. Yet more straight forward porn where women are paid to get nekkid is declared “dangerous for minor” or even everyone.

Even on sanitized literature there are glimpse on humans’ sexual selection for those curious enough. Why do the pretty Cinderella and the rich prince happen to like each other anyway is not usually explained (hint: because the prince prefer the pretty and Cinderella prefer the rich). I once being reported to cops for being arrogant by an ex boy friend that bitch about how he truly loved the girl I walked with. Part of me was angry. He loved her, whatever that means, so what? But part of me see the confusion. Somehow many males think that women prefer males that love her, rather than a richer smarter males that do not even want to marry her. Many males of course have a really hard time to understand women as long as they use incorrect model.

So what’s the correct model? Simple. Go back to science. Evolutionary biology, game theory, and many other things tell us how to predict sexual selection on many creatures including human. Don’t trust me. Read “red queen”, “seflish gene”, “evolution of desire.” It’ll be too long to explain but here is what I think is the “basic” principle.

1. Peahen like peacock with longest tail. The peahen do not get any resources by mating with peacock with longest tail. However, those peahen would produce “sexier” sons and daughter with the same hardwired preference to longer tail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis
2. Humans do not grow elaborate tails. Human males, grow elaborate, guess what? Elaborate wealth. Just like I like pretty women even though I won’t get prettier by mating with them, women prefer the rich even if the rich pay her the same amount of money. In addition, richer males, are often willing to pay MORE, rather than LESS, money for pretty women.

Am I being too technical?

Quote
Regarding forum spamming and playing by “the other side’s” rules, I stand by my statements.

It doesn’t matter how true evolution theory and game theory is though on humans’ sexual selection. As I said, it’s politically incorrect. People would fight toes and nails, with religions.vague reasoning and censorship to prevent the idea from spreading. Beliefs tend to be self fulfilling when governments get involved. So, you still think we should leave black hat method out of the table despite what the other side will do? I’ll think about it. I am going white hat my self in my biz. Google search engine is too tough to trick nowadays. Maybe you’re right. But just to let you know what we’re up against.

Powered by WordPress

Loading...