Free Market Forever

April 17, 2012

Warriors Are Demeaning

What I think, genepool, is that people should make their own arrangements in their personal lives, and that it’s not any government official’s business how people choose to arrange their personal lives.

That’s what I wish too.

Quote

I also think that your “solutions” — treat all women like prostitutes, pay them to have your babies, and raise their children in hutches like rabbits — are three of the stupidest, most asinine ideas I’ve ever heard in my life.

That’s a misrepresentation of what I said.

By the way I agree with some of what you said. Not simply because something is legal means you should do it. In particular, I do not think prostitution, in a narrow sense, is a good idea even if it’s legal. Still if women choose to do so, it’s their right. I hate anti prostitution laws mainly for 3 reasons.

1. It’s not up to government to decide  what’s best.
2. It’s so comprehensive it can be used to nail virtually anything. It’s a very vague law. Define prostitution and explain to me why marriage isn’t. Compare your definition to legal definition and you see we have serious issues.
3. This is what most important. I do not believe that anti prostitution laws are there to protect women at all. I think it’s there to get rid superior competitors.

Someone ask what I would wish for my daughter. It’s a very good question. In general, it’s up to her (and may be her mom). Not me. However, I honestly think that being a sugar baby is better than being a wife. Women can get richer men and richer men can get beautiful women without pretty much mortgaging his testicles.

I would rather my daughter be a sugar baby of a rich smart handsome tall nobel laureate than a wife of a middle class. I don’t care if that nobel laureate already has 10 photo model sugar babies. I want my daughter to be able to aim for the best of the best of the best of the best.

I want my daughter to be rich too independently, say as programmer. But I don’t want her to be rich so she can afford a coach potato husband. That’s idiot. I want her to be rich so she can hang out with and aim for someone that’s even richer and yes pay her to support the kids, etc.

My wife would insist that my daughter should be in life long monogamous marriage. My wife is a christian. However, if I watch my families and all the failing marriage, I see that it’s nonsense. By aiming for exclusivity women often end up with a mediocre. Then what? Marriage doesn’t work anyway. Divorce happen, and when that happen, she’s already old. Better aim for the star instead rather than life long monogamous marriage.

I think the real reason why marriage terms are made that way is to kick the richest smartest most attractive males out of mating market. Monogamy scare off the attractive. Alimony scares of the rich. I do not think rich smart beautiful women need that kind of commitment.

If it turns out you’re correct GDP, if rich males make fewer kids because they’re happier that way, because they want to concentrate wealth, then that’s what the rich should do. Not making many kids.

The way I see it is, reproducing is simply way more expensive for the rich due to artificially inflated cost. That’s wrong. That should go. If after that the rich still make fewer or more kids, it’s up to free market.

It seems to me our differences lie on what we think is best for others and what others’ would do if people are more free. We agree that individuals, rather than community or government should decide that. However, I sort of doubt the latter too.

Another is the way our mind is hardwired. I do not see being a sex object as a demeaning job. Your mom won’t become a mom if she’s not a sex object. And yes, becoming a mom is one of the most exalted thing anyone can achieve. I see becoming grenade throwers as demeaning, dangerous, and difficult.

I see feminists do not really fight for equality between men and women. I see feminists fight for equality between ugly women and pretty women. I think the latter is superior than the former. In fact, I think pretty women are superior than men. In free market, they command higher salary.

When women become a sugar baby, I do not see this as demeaning. In fact, the women may not even need money at all. I want my daughter to be financially rich too rather than depend on a male for money. The fact is that many rich women want males that are even richer. To me men paying women is not a sign of disrespect.

It doesn’t make sense for me to think that getting paid implies forced or lack of choice. I can do SEO for free. I sure as hell prefer to get paid for it for even more money. What’s wrong with that?

Paying and financially supporting women is a sign of respect. They have to get pregnant. So it’s normal that men sweeten the deal. It shows, that the men are rich enough. It’s like you taking your girlfriend to expensive restaurants. Not that she can’t afford it. You need to show that you’re rich enough, and worthy enough for her attention.

To me, women not working as hard in science and engineering does not imply women are inferior. Women don’t do men’s job for the same reason CEO’s do not do janitors’ job. CEOs have better things to do.

I think the real reason why many opposes prostitution is not to help or protect women but to control them. They do not want women to be free to decide what they want to do with their bodies. I think the real reason why many opposes women trafficking is not to help the trafficked women. I think ugly women in rich countries simply want to get rid prettier competitors from poorer countries and that’s it.

I think the most politically incorrect thing most people cannot accept is that as sex object, we are not equal. There are beautiful women and there are ugly ones. There are richer males and there are poorer ones. You, and most whites, cannot see, that under free market, the one more attractive will simply be more successful in the gene pool.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB games pictures video
  • powered by phpBB the hottest body on the net
  • powered by phpBB hottest girls on the net
  • powered by phpBB ups jobs
  • powered by phpBB free background check in canada
  • powered by phpBB play scary games
  • powered by phpBB history of canadian politics
  • powered by phpBB money net
  • powered by phpBB show pics
  • powered by phpBB ohio criminal background check
  • powered by phpBB of money fast
  • can a sugar baby be ugly
  • powered by phpBB free movie
  • powered by phpBB activity ideas
  • is being a sugar baby hard?
  • youtubefackinggirls

April 16, 2012

Four Questions Feminists Should Ask

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 8:54 pm

1. Can CEO mop floors?

2. Do CEOs mop floors?

3. Why not?

4. Can women learn engineering? (I know you can honeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyy)

April 2, 2012

An Article I Totally Agree With

http://www.misanthropytoday.com/why-most-feminists-are-ugly/

This is like 40% of my message. Just like poor men don’t want women to pick men most capable to pay, ugly women don’t want women to be sex object.

Duh….

Am I the only one seeing the obvious? There is no exploitation, force, or anything “wrong” in prostitution, sex workers, polygamy, sugar babies, and consensual sex between bosses and secretaries. I know some would bitch about it.

It’s all effectively like you prefer cheese than chocolate and has to convince chocolate factory that cheese is better. The issue is not whether you’re right or not. You’re right. If you prefer cheese, then cheese is better. The issue is chocolate factory wouldn’t agree no matter what.

The same way there are many hot women that live happily with richer men. The issue is not that they’re not happy. The issue is ugly women and poorer males will say it’s wrong no matter what.

March 15, 2012

Can Economy Theory Explains Elimination of Poverty

I am always suspicious that there is a strong connection between economy and politic.

Before slaves are the only way to get things done better. So incentive to support slavery is high.

Then industrialization run high and low paid workers can get paid higher. More and more capitalists find it easier to just pay workers than enslave them. Obviously those workers want it too. Unfortunately, those workers can’t just move out. So there are bigger forces that want them to eliminate slavery. Either through democracy or through civil wars, those 2 forces fight and slavery is gone.

Slavery is not really gone. Slavery in a sense of menial workers forced to pick cottons are gone. But lifetime alimony is also slavery. Income tax is also slavery.

But perhaps history can repeat again.

Before, women are so valuable that men can only get them by trapping them into marriage system. In fact, in ancient societies, men pretty much rape women and all societies care is whether the man is responsible enough to marry her afterward.

This obviously hurt the interests of women and men with better offers. So rape and marry culture, which is pretty much slavery, is getting more politically incorrect and now it’s gone.

Nowadays, relationship between women and men with better offers are often criminalized. In western civilization monogamy norms ensure that the poorest dumbest males can get laid to. In muslim countries prohibition of all sex outside marriage ensures that women and men are trapped into marriage.

Many women prefer to be sugar babies of richer males than marrying a poorer males the way voters’ wish. However, the deal is borderline illegal.

Look at:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100410060955AAmW2n4

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080711095317AAGNPkp

While no body get arrested yet for being a sugar baby, perception that it’s illegal alone already turn of many people.

There are so many prohibition against various sex outside marriage that most people are pretty much forced to get married to stay in the gene pool.

Then disparity of wealth happen. There are plenty of men that are willing to pay women to be their mistress far bigger than a husband can do. Many beautiful (who care about the ugly) women obviously want them too.

So there are bigger and bigger incentive to decriminalize relationship between one rich males to many young beautiful girls outside governments’ control. Emerging Sugar babies relationship in US is a sample of those tolerance.

Feminists insist that marriage terms are extremely dangerous for rich males that fewer and fewer people want to get married.

So slowly, marriage trap is deteriorating and most people simply don’t get married. So marriage, like slavery is gone.

The same way with income tax and big government. In ancient time, the only way to get rich is to tax the people. Now we can get rich consensually too by hiring people rather than taxing people. We can think of capitalists bosses are competing with political bosses. Many capitalists can pay workers more than welfare checks. Obviously workers like that too. But welfare trap prevent those workers from working.

Obviously those capitalists bosses want workers to join their side. So as we get more and more prosper there are bigger and bigger demands for more freedom.

At the end, the world is getting more and more free as the results.

Something along that.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB ancient cultures
  • powered by phpBB physics for kids
  • nakedgroupgirl
  • powered by phpBB ancient cultures wikipedia
  • powered by phpBB different branches of physics
  • powered by phpBB how s moderate drug use
  • ancient time fucking of women by man
  • money harem
  • human to make baby in ancient time
  • Hot naked babes from islamic countries
  • powered by phpBB cultures in usa

February 14, 2012

Why Talibans Will go Extinct if Feminists are Not Helping Them

Say you are a regular customer of Talibcomp, the only computer suppliers in your country. Say you used to pay $100k for a punch card computer.

The rest of the world have move on to faster computers that can do far more for far less.

Femintard, a consumer advocacy advocate, says that your supplier should change their culture. Punch card computers are outdated and is way below industry standard.

However, quite frustratingly and unsurprisingly, Talibcomp does not have the incentive or the mean to change. Their technology is simply too low. They believe that their computer manufacturing technology is sacred as given to them by their great inventor thousands of years ago. Most importantly why should they improve what they offer if you keep buying from them anyway?

But why would you keep buying from Talibcomp? Why not just import computers from others? Well the thing is Talibcomb prohibit all other computer stores from coming. Talibcomp even go so far prohibiting all alternative to their computer, like Sempoa, paper, pencils. Quite often, mere living under Talibcomp’s sphere of influence means you can ended up being forced to buy punch card computers under pain of death.

Well that’s fine. Why not just go to other countries and buy computers there?

Here’s the thing.

Other countries are governed by another computer regulator called Femintard. Femintard argues that because the deal you got is so bad, it’s not really a choice. Hence, ALL alternative choices are not really consensual irrelevant of whether the consumer consent or not.

Anyone helping consenting consumers to buy better computers in better countries are guilty of consumer trafficking. Consent is not a defense against consumer trafficking charge because customers don’t really consent due to the badness of their original deal.

Also because other suppliers supply your computer out of selfish interest rather than altruistically trying to help you, unlike what Femintard claims, they are exploiting you. Other computer suppliers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Gateway, are then jailed for trying to exploit customers like you.

All their distributors are also jailed for assisting exploitation through pimping consumers to suppliers that consumers do prefer.

What about if you go out to another country first, hang out for a year, and see if other computers are indeed better. Then there should be no doubt that you consensually pick better computers or not. Should you prefer Talibcomp computers instead, you can always go back to Talibland and be customer of Talibcomp again.

The thing is Talibcomp have harsh terms against those that go outside for better computers and then coming back. They pretty much have harsh terms against anything actually and their customer service always get mad for who knows what.

Simply put, Talibcomp will kill such customers. Hence, once you go out and buy better computers, you can’t really go back.

So Femintard argues that precisely because Talibcomp is such an asshole, your choice of other computers is not consensual. Hence, the whole business of helping customers to go outside Talibcomp sphere of influence and buy better computers is not consensual and should be prohibited as any customer trafficking should be.

And that’s how you keep ended up buying expensive punch card computers even though all other consumers are already getting far better deals light years ahead.  And that’s also why some people keep producing punch card computers.

Now, replace Talibcomp with Taliban and Femintard with anti consensual women trafficking feminists. See if the analogy make sense.

November 27, 2011

I got two jobs, please help me select which one I should choose?

  1. The first one is from Britney Spears. She offered me a job for having sex with her regularly.
  2. The second one is from US government. They want me to fight some Taliban in the Afghanistan or something.

The pay is about the same.

Which one you will choose?

Which one most males would choose?

Which one would most females on equivalent situation will choose?

So why do feminists want women to be able to pick the 2nd option but not the first again?

Now let’s use feminazis logic:

Receiving cash for sex is prostitution. Prostitution is so degrading, inhuman, and can’t possibly be consensual. No women can truly consent to prostitution. Because men and women are the same, no men could possibly want it.

The latter seems better. It’s every feminists wet dream jobs. Feminists have been fighting so hard to be able to get the second job, it must be very good. It brings honors, respects, equality, yada yada yada… Not to mention the glorious possibility of honorably being tortured to death for ones’ country.

What do you think?

If I just follow my feeling, I’ll pick the #1. But all (feminist) logic says #2 is better.

Should you ever listen to feminist advice?

November 4, 2011

Why males aren’t offended by sex for pay offers?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 4:28 am

Man don’t mind if attractive females think they are sex objects?

Feminists often argue that females are just like males. Yet feminazis do not complain that women aren’t offended too?

March 8, 2011

Eliminate All Bad Ideologies

I got an idea how to effectively force prosperity all over the world. Women’s choice women’s best interest. Let the women choose. Can’t be bad for them? So just allow consensual international sex workers market. Let the market decide whether hot women prefer clit cutting Talibans or paying Capitalists. When this work, whichever ideology produce the most money will pretty much obliterate all other system. What would the majority of males in any country would do when their hot babes move to richer countries? The problem is western countries are ruled by feminists that obviously don’t want cheaper competitors, hence the real reason behind anti women trafficking laws. Embrace free comercialized sex as much as we embrace free market, and poof. Anything women do not like will be gone because males will have to compete for women and countries will have to compete for productive workers.

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 6, 2009

Some Confusion

http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/traffickingdebate.html

What I mean by trafficking is consensual trafficking. But as you see from the debate above, some feminists insist that trafficking are made illegal despite consent.

My understanding is that ugly feminists simply do not want to compete with cheaper (and often prettier) women from poorer countries. Moreover, poor males do not want their prettiest girls move to richer countries. It’s like smuggling or immigration or globalization in general. Those who don’t sale don’t want to compete overseas.

It seems that trafficking means non consensual for many (while the consensual one is probably called immigration).

Also what I mean by marriage is state approved sexual relationship. The pattern I see in most countries is if the state approve, it’s called marriage, and if the state doesn’t it’s called “sin”. In muslim countries, for example, polygamy and contract marriage counts as marriage and their states approve that.

I believe no consensual sex should be “approved” more than the other. It’s shouldn’t be up to the state. It should be up to individuals. So if prostitution is taxed, so should marriage. If one is illegal so should the other and via versa. That’s what I mean by destroying marriage. Of course, a better phrase would be as Wendy said it, “Get government out of marriage.” No government in the world, west or east, is in this state as far as I know.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

Loading...