Say I tell Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Michael Jordan. “Don’t rape women okay?” Then I tell them further, “If women prefer some other males, it’s women’s right.” I bet Brad Pitt will say something along, “Okay. Sure. Why not.”

Now tell that to some ugly fat poor dumb guy on the street. Or better yet, what about telling that to any normal mediocre men. Let’s just face it. Most males won’t get laid easily unless they prevent women from picking other males. Even if they can, the quality of women they get will be much reduced.

Let’s face it. Many males won’t get laid if prostitution is legal. Many males won’t get laid if sex outside marriage is legal. And if those males are truly fucked up like the Taliban, they won’t get laid if women can work because they are so messed up women would rather work and be single rather than picking them.

Well that’s their problem, say most libertarians. I agree. It should be their problem and we shouldn’t even think about it. It’s not how real life work. Interests of those who are not our target market influence us non consensually. It’s just a fact of life.

In politic, everyone is, in a sense our target market, depending on the size of gun they point on our head. We still need to persuade them not to pull the trigger. To persuade people to do something that’s not their best interest, either force, fraud, or appeasement is necessary.

Hence, persuading Afgan males to respect women’s individuals’ right is just not going to work without fraud or force. Libertarianism simply don’t serve the best interest of those with little or nothing to offer.

Those with something attractive to offer do not need to resort to force to get customers. It’s not to the best interest of the rest, quite often, to get along and embrace freedom.

“You can’t eat freedom,” says a pro socialist guy when I asked “What can we achieve outside of free market that we can’t achieve inside?” Of course I would argue why the hell that kind of people survive in the gene pool in the first place, but that’s another issue. My idea on that is something most libertarians don’t agree anyway.

I must admit he’s correct. Freedom works for those with lots of positive things to offer for others. It’s simply not to the best interest of many voters to simply pick freedom. To counter dictatorship of the democracy, we would need either a tyrant (force), a religion (fraud), or a little socialism (appeasement). Only religious countries can maintain high gini index.

Libertarian insist on not becoming politically powerful. So force is out. Also they do not like forcing religions. So fraud is out. Then they don’t want to appease the poor. Then they insist that the power that be shouldn’t tax or harm them. That’s what you wish. You and what army?

Try telling free market proponents that they shouldn’t use terror and Milton Friedman will say something along, “We never bother to did we?”

Now, try telling terrorists that they shouldn’t use terror. It wouldn’t work. Free market proponents do not need to use terrors. Free market is sexy. It brings wealth to countries embracing it. People want free market. Most Hong Kong people at least.

Now imagine if you want to turn a society into something more like the Taliban. Not even democracy is stupid enough to go there. Certain things won’t work without terror.

To make people do something that’s not their best interest, either appeasement, force, or fraud is necessary.

It’s not to the best interest of typical terrorists to avoid terror.

The same goes for hungry welfare recipients, and most shagless males. Either appeasement, force, or fraud is necessary. Appeasing everyone is expensive. Forcing everyone require mights, which means numbers. Fraud is trickier in our informational age.

At the end, it’s easiest to simply appease those cheapest to appease if we want to maximize libertarianism in any country. By appeasing those who are cheap to appease, we can avoid having to appease those who can’t be appeased.

Typical solution in western society is to appease the poor with socialism, trick the shag-less males with romance bullshit, and fight the terrorists. I think they’re on the right course. What else should they have done?

Now, western society, like any society, overspend money on socialism. That’s because most of those appeasement inefficiently go to hard liners that is expensive, or impossible to appease. Also the money go through politicians first that have intensive to make the problem bigger than smaller. That’s why people like Milton Friedman argues in favor of straight forward negative income tax.

Milton however, doesn’t address the most fundamental problem in democracy. It’s simply too profitable to breed in democratic countries because everyone else pays the bill. Straight forward negative income tax will encourage the least productive members of the society to breed like rabbit. Perhaps, combined with kids’ tax, like in China, things will work out.

Tags: Appeasement, Best Interest, Bill Gates, Brad Pitt, Democracy, Dictatorship, Donald Trump, Dumb Guy, Fact Of Life, Fraud, Freedom Works, Gene Pool, Gini Index, Hell, Libertarianism, Libertarians, Market Influence, Mediocre Men, Michael Jordan, Proponents, Prostitution, Rape Women, Respect Women, Sex Marriage, Taliban, Target Market, Terrorists, Tyrant, Welfare Recipients, Work Interests