Free Market Forever

April 8, 2012

Does Countries Has Utilities Function?

Homoeconomicus said that humans have utility function. What about countries?

In other word is there a utility function whose maximization correctly predict countries’ behavior?

would a country’s best interest (utility function) would be whatever correctly predict the country’s action?

What does “American’s utility” function mean if there are 200 million different americans that want different things? The interest of their swing voters?

If countries have no utility function, how do we analyze and predict countries’ behavior?

This paper seems to talk about a country’s utility function: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1884588?uid=3738224&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698830804037

However, countries often behave that defy “it’s interest”. For example, how do we explain why so many countries complain about other countries selling stuff cheaper to them?

Also, countries, unlike most humans, do wage war and kill each other. Hence, just maxing out their GDP will not be the utility function.

Note: If countries have utilities function, we run into some issues. Some countries, like Turkey or Nazi Germany prosecuted their richest minority (armenians, jews). Does that mean genocide serve the country’s best interest?

If utility function is defined as what ever correctly predict an object’s behavior, then the answer is yes. Moreover, if utility function is defined as the objects’ best interest, then yes it’s to the best interest of most countries to prosecute their richest smartest minority.

This lead to a really bizarre and politically incorrect conclusion that holocaust actually serve Germans’ best interest at that time because that’s exactly what they did.

Another way to reach the same conclusion is to observe that the countries’ interests are pretty much its ruling class interests. The interest of the ruling classes are often served by scapegoating more successful minorities.

Another sample. So many countries complain about other countries dumping goods to them. Dumping goods hurt the interest of democratic countries’ ruling class because swing voters need job. So, even though the country economy is actually benefited by other countries dumping good, the whole country as a whole will behave differently.

The same way many countries have tough immigration laws to protect jobs for its’ swing voters.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB religion and society
  • powered by phpBB people in poverty
  • powered by phpBB top 10 countries best quality of human life
  • powered by phpBB marketing strategy
  • powered by phpBB secretary of state
  • powered by phpBB famous people would look fat
  • powered by phpBB the secretary
  • powered by phpBB to make money selling
  • powered by phpBB delaware secretary of state
  • powered by phpBB income tax preparation software
  • powered by phpBB what dose

March 27, 2012

Psychopaths and Effective Psychopaths

Clayton -  apparently he’s not actually arguing that most people are psychopaths, but rather that the results of their actions are akin to those of psychopaths.

That is correct. I mean David for example, killed 100 palestines to collect the foreskins. War and corruption can be thought of as psychopathy too. Yet 99% of politicians would do it if they can get away with it. Genocide, war, socialism, big government, are a reflection of voters’ effective psychopathy. In fact, a person doesn’t have to be a psychopath to act as a psychopath. If responsible productive acts like making honest money are punished and unproductivity is rewarded, humans are “forced” to be psycophats.

Say you want to be a responsible husband. Get rich first then get laid. Chance is you pay huge income tax. After that you have to keep paying lifetime alimony and child support to kids that’s not even yours. The amount is set proportional to man’s wealth. If you just breed and knock up babes like irresponsible studs, you get rewarded and government would pay for those. What men would not be a psychopath in their sexual life? Losers… In fact, I think being a psychopath is a normal, natural, or even moral answer to injustice. Of course, once the world is just, it’s to your best interest to be productive.

However, the idea that humans are indeed actually psychopaths may  not be too wrong either.

As someone point out, all those paths are always minority. But they’re not minority because people are not like them. They are minority because social illness is unnaturally defined so that the majority is not categorized as ill.

Delusion for example, should include religions. However, delusional is defined in a way that popular religions don’t count.

The same way most humans share the same traits with most psychopaths. Most humans are selfish. Most humans will choose an act that profit him $100 even if that means many others lose $1000000. Most humans will just justify that immoral acts rather than stop doing it if incentive is high enough. Most strangers would renege on their contracts if they will get away with it. But the definition of psychopaths are carefully defined not to include most people even though most people would do the same thing a psychopath would do under most circumstances.

Look at definition of exploitation for example. It can naturally mean all non consensual interaction or it can naturally mean all taking advantage of other people, consensual or not. Feminazis carefully define exploitation to mean women having sex to paying males, irrelevant of consent or not. This very unnatural definition makes arguments very difficult.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB what is greater than god more evil than
  • powered by phpBB political books
  • alimony money slave
  • powered by phpBB ball honeys
  • powered by phpBB cnn money
  • powered by phpBB feminist art movement
  • powered by phpBB free government grant

March 15, 2012

Having Many Kids is Child Abuse?

GDP this single thread opens my eyes on what others think. I probably just concentrate on this thread only. Finally I understand you. Finally I understand why every body got mad at me.

In fact, to my surprise, if there is ANYTHING all these white guys can agree is that the rich shouldn’t breed. To my surprise, the only people that can understand my point of view is the group that I want to get rid the most: muslim fundamentalists.

I know you said the SAME thing several time. I didn’t thought you were serious because you know how ridiculous this is? Do you know that you could be the only person in the world that think having more than 2.1 kids is child abuse? Brat…… Is this a standard libertarian position that it’s immoral to have many kids?

Does GDP, like feminazis, christian priests, nazis, and every body else just pull this out of their ass to justify genocide against the rich?

I guess this is something unique in western civilization isn’t it. Only those so thoroughly indoctrinated by feminazis/cristianity/socialism would think it’s immoral to have more than 2.1, 5, or even 10 kids.

I don’t know where to start where I differ. We do differ a lot.

First I want to get this out of my chess. If you kids can’t do programming, that’s also child abuse. If your kids don’t get all As in schools for math and programming, that’s child abuse. If your kids don’t win tons international competitions, that’s child abuse. In fact, if government say that you are a bad parent because your kids get an AB and that should be illegal, I can understand that, as long as it’s implemented consistently.

But to call someone a child abusers simply he has many kids, it just beyond me. There are kids starving on the street. There are kids that don’t even know who daddy is. AND ALL THAT IS LEGAL.

Yet when a rich smart male want to make many kids, the feminazis will say it’s objectification of women. The christians will say that bible says that all marriage must be within monogamous life long marriage (not in the bible, though I bet they pull that out). The social democrat would say that the rich should pay more for someone else’ kids. If it’s not my cock, and it’s not my sperm, why should it be my money? Conversely, if it’s my money, why shouldn’t it be my genetic copies? Why should it be other males’ blood line?

Is it legal for McDonald to sell tons of high quality product? Of course. Is it legal for some shady restaurant to sell a rotten product? Of course it isn’t. The fact that you mass produce something doesn’t mean it’s low quality. To the opposite, the fact that you can mass produce something that customer wants show that the stuff you produce is actually of high quality.

Do you know that what you’re suggesting is close to genocide? Eugenics often say that some people shouldn’t make any kids. You said that they shouldn’t make more than 2.1. That’s not too far.

And yes eugenics actually kill the superior. Just look at holocaust and armenian genocide.

Say I have 2 kids? You think all of them will get married and produce 2 kids? This expectation that everybody should and would make 2 kids is just the source of all suffering we have now.

And whose idea is it anyway that we should only make as many kids to replace our genes? Should businesses make as much profit just to cover their expense? What’s the limit?

And you’re bringing your own kind to doom. You make KKK looks like a necessary balancing factor. Birth rate is declining in western civilization. Government actually giving cash so the poor breed more kids, which is kind of idiotic. Now who will inherit all those invention and wealth creation white people achieve? The asians?

Forget it, we’re so westernized, we too stop making babies. Only Lee Kwan Yew, president of Singapore got the ball to say that we need to encourage fornication among the rich so they make babies. It’s too politically incorrect no body says that out of fear that we’re not following this great western civilization.

While I admire many aspects of western civilizations, I must say, YOU ARE DEATH WRONG in this. You’re bringing your own doom.

But no. The most fuck up countries actually have high population growth and the best governed countries have the least. The most fuck up people actually have tons of kids but that’s okay because they’re the bad guys. We the good guys have to go extinct. No wonder poverty never ends.

That’s not ideal. That’s not even not ideal. That’s idiotic. Why agree to pick a yoke no one else is picking, and no one else is capable of picking?

Imagine if Donald Trump make 1000 kids and welfare mom makes 1. The next generation, we have 1000 billionaires supporting that 1 kid of welfare mom. We wouldn’t argue so much about welfare is good or bad. It’s not going to be worth arguing anymore.

Another thing that I said in other threat is that you are so crazy you judge people based on absolute rather than relative standard. People poorer, dumber, and less productive than you produce 20 children and get away with it. So why shouldn’t you?

Killing is wrong because we all will be better of if we stop killing each other. But if people kill and get away with it, killing is not wrong, till society learn that they should punish murderers.

The same for making kids. It’s not wrong to leave on welfare from cradle to grave. Just like it’s not wrong to buy tons of gold if an idiot is selling it for $1/kg. What’s wrong is society that’s so insane that it actually encourage the behavior by price pegging and other mechanisms.

Fair is you play by the same rule like everybody else. Moral is if you play slightly better. If you play too much in favor of others against your own self interests, you just shooting your own shoes and will fail to make anyone else better off. What’s the point of being moral then if it has no profit for your self, your family, your allies, and everyone else?

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB abuse

March 6, 2012

Do I consider murdering wrong?

No I couldn’t. But then again, I don’t need religion to figure that out too my self.

If I murder I go to jail or gas chamber. If society don’t put me to jail, that society will be so full of murderers all of us are worst of. So we evolve a morality condemning murderers. I don’t refrain murdering people because it’s wrong. I don’t murder people because it’s illegal.

Make that legal, and see your children die in pool of blood. That’s true humanity. War, genocide, xenophobia, apatism, robbery, and oppression is not abnormal. It happens everywhere because that’s what most humans would do if he had a chance. Religion is just one of many pretexts.

The key here is not to ever give them chance. But then again, if things are unchangeable, might as well take all the chances my self as plan B. In fact, I wonder why the plan B shouldn’t be plan A in the first place? Planning to only work within capitalism framework is like trying to hold your breath until the sun rise. Don’t.

That’s what humans would do. Religion is just a mask preventing us to see the obvious. But then again, so is humanism, feminism, socialism, and everything not capitalistic.

It’s because humans are selfish, greedy, and cruel toward others we need capitalism. Everything else will lead to even bigger bloodshed.

Incoming search terms:

  • freemarketforever test iphone

February 24, 2012

Is there any formal school of ethics that justify cruel treatment of people?

I must be missing something. Through all ages, most philosophy, especially those that answer ethics, allow and encourage cruel acts against other human being. It’s the norm. It’s not the exception.

We like to believe that it’s only done on exceptional cases. Still, those exception is more of a norm than exception.

In fact, libertarianism is the only school of ethics that do not justify cruelty, at least not consensually, nor encourage cruelty to others. Exceptions are arguable like in cases of shooting burglars slowly to death. But the burglars ask for it so it’s like consensual right? Okay just kidding but you got the point.

It’s as if the very reason why philosophy and religion is made is to justify cruel acts.

Normally we retaliate against cruel acts. But then, ah, through some long twisted philosophy of ethics, we start thinking oh it’s justified, it’s okay.

We see people getting tortured to death. Well according to legalism, a school of ethic, it’s the law of the land. So it’s okay. That sort of thing.

And that’s I think the real origin of ethic. Some tyrants sponsoring thought that justify his cruelty so he can stay in powah.

In fact, one central theme of taoism is that even robbers cause limited damage. But evil in the name of truth (=awesome ethic) has no limit.

Perhaps the issue is whether the school of ethic is formal. Perhaps formal means major. Well these look formal enough to me:

Legalism obviously.

If it’s the law, it’s okay.

It justify killing, strangling, crucifying, castrating, slaughtering to 9th degree of family. What doesn’t it justify?

Religion is another.

Religions should count as a school of ethic too, if not the main ones.

It justify war, genocide, slavery, just read book of exodus in bible. Just look how Taliban works.

Why? Well, God says so. Hmmmm. mmmmkay

Militarism is another.

It justify shooting other people. Yes those are technically enemy. But then again most guys in Hiroshima weren’t soldiers. So are most women raped by rusian army. So were jews that died during holocaust.

C’mon guys. They just want to kill. Then they come up with some philosophy why it’s cool to kill.

Now let’s count some indirect circumstances.

We need food. Say you prohibit someone from getting food in any practical way. You effectively force him to starve right?

Imagine if you said okay you can get food but you can’t pay for it. Well that’s still as good as forcing him to starve because unless you are very charming then you most likely can’t get food without paying.

So if we can include any philosophy that may not justify cruelty but justify acts that obviously lead to cruel outcome and use felonious murder legal doctrine logic we should include:

Trade restriction-ism

It’s a school of ethic. It basically says that some consensual trade is not ethical and hence must be prohibited. What’s the result?

I think all evil in the world stem largely due to trade restrictions. Without trade restrictions we can be rich by helping others. Trade restrictions give more happiness to those who are in power than those who are productive. Basically profit in trade restriction-ism goes to those who have the power to restrict trade.

So people try to be in power more and act cruelly to others so they are feared.

World wars would not have happened if globalization was already the norm. Politicians cannot seize people money if the market regulate everything. Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson would have been alive if ganja is legal.

Everything we hear are just bullshit after bullshit to make us believe the fairy tales that some consensual trade is evil.

That’s the heart of evil.

The most notorious trade restrictionism is

Socialism

It’s a school of ethic. It says that wealth is not ethical

One notorious trade restriction-ism is socialism. It justify government intervention in economy that obviously lead to really really messed up famine and poverty. During chinese “great leap” or whatever, chinese eat their own kids because they are starving. Such is the evil of government’s intervention in economy.

The worst of the worst of trade restriction-ism is

The #1 super cruel philosophy in the world is, drum roll (looks like it’s going to be my last answers before I am kicked out from this site)

feminazism

It’s a major school of ethic. It says that some/all commercialized consensual acts for sex is not ethical.

It restrict trade and commercialization of the most important aspect of our life, sex.

Most males want to get laid. Imagine if you said you can’t have sex. Then you cruelly forced him into a shageless life. Imagine if you said you can’t have sex unless you pay for it? Well unless you’re Brad Pitt, it’s hard to charm women without “consideration”.. Yes you can offer marriage (I wonder why) but marriage sucks because it’s infested by non market force such as governments’ trade restriction.

Feminazism hurt the interest of hot babes even more than males.

Think about it. So many women are stoned, killed, and beaten up in Afghanistan. Obviously many of those women prefer to move out to other countries where women are treated better.

Feminists prohibit anyone from helping those women out. Yes, they said that you are prohibited from helping women move out only if the woman is going to have sex for money.

That’s still the same thing. What can that girl offer beside sex to persuade others to provide costly help for her? Even western girls often have sex with photographer for stardorm. It’s what girls do.

So many kids are born out of poverty because their dad are poor. Yet feminazis successfully make sugar babies illegal. So many hot babes cannot get paid by richer males. Those women ended up marrying. Marriage must be monogamous. In other word, every male will tend to get one under marriage system no matter how poor or violent he is.

Result is obvious. Women ended up with violent assholes that beat her up.

The only thing good about feminazism is that they demand women to fight on front line. Sure. We should encourage those dikes to do so.

What About Organ Selling is Inherently Wrong?

Morality evolve out of subjective preferences of those who are in power.

Western people have a far stronger sense of “equality” of outcome as their ideal than other people. To western people, any means that allow some productive guys to live longer, acquire more mates, or survive better in the gene pool will always be “wrong”.

If the rich can just buy organ, then they can get higher priority for treatment and live longer. This is “wrong” in western countries.

Prohibition of organ donor is just one among many similar strings of rules.

If health care is totally regulated through free market mechanism, the rich can live longer than the less productive people. Tada… It’s wrong. Now whether they can get medical treatment is decided by “death panel” http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory241.html

If sugar babies are legal, the rich that can attract and pay more women can get more women than the poor. Tada… It’s wrong.

When education is totally privatized, smarter kids and kids with richer parents will get better education. Tada… It’s wrong.

If prostitution is legal, hot babes can earn large amount of money http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmXLonSBMNvhOli00jFF0fK65pSw Tada… It’s wrong again.

I recognize some pattern here. Every time some one with better talent can get something other people cannot, there will be tons of people that say it’s wrong. If the number is large enough, suddenly it becomes wrong.

Effectively while you can be rich in western civilization through productivity, which is the great part of this civilization, the only thing you can buy with your money are doodads that won’t improve your gene pool survival.

Effectively it’s genocide against the most productive individuals and in western civilization, that’s moral. That’s ethical. Just 60 years ago they slaughtered their best and brightest in German and Turkey, when everything else fail.

Actually the same happen in other civilizations too. I guess it’s just human basic instinct to get rid superior competitors out of the gene pool.

Yes you can make way more money than your comrades, but money is the only thing you can have more.

Allowing organ donor will allow dying persons to inherit more wealth to his offspring. Most organs are regenerate-able. Kidneys for example can be taken up to 75% and will grow back. So is bone marrow. This will greatly eliminate poverty. That would undermine governments’ excuse to get bigger, and hence will be considered wrong too.

Having an organ market will establish some market price. That way every soldiers that are killed in battle can have their organ harvested and the money can go to their families.

It’s not wrong in ethical sense. It’s wrong in a sense that it’s politically incorrect. Government want to regulate trade and by selling your organ you sort of undermine their effective “ownership” of your body.

Another issue is most things that give government power over what you control is considered ethical by government. It’s like robbers thinking that you giving him wallet is a good thing. Why wouldn’t he?

So smoking save dope is “wrong” while government having power to decide what you can smoke is considered “good”

enter image description here

The same way marriage where government control everything is considered good while prostitution where you decide for your self the term is considered bad.

Here, organ transplant is the same thing. If someone want to sell organ and deal with you straight, it’s wrong. If government then regulate it by preventing the organ donor from getting top bucks and giving the organ to the most worthless death row inmates, it’s “good”.

The whole thing is just statist mentality.

In a sense, ownership is not as important controlship and controlship is effective ownership.

By preventing you to sell your organ, government effectively says that they “own” your body and you have to bribe officials first before they allow it. By selling your organ you effectively rob government out their ownership.

It’s the same with prohibition of sex outside marriage. Government is effectively saying that they are the only pimp and you got to appease them first before you can have sex by bribing or picking only singles or those favored by government.

When you do consensual acts with high value without governments’ approval, governments official lose their potential bribe that they could have had.

This may sound strange. But just look at income tax. People actually think that if you don’t pay tax you rob government, even though it’s your own money. It’s like that.

Some safeguard need to be there to ensure that people don’t just sell their organ based on some hidden clause written in small letters when they sign up to some internet free cookies offer. However, there is nothing unethical or wrong in selling organ in most cases that I know of.

Incoming search terms:

  • germany hot babes
  • nakedgroupgirls

February 15, 2012

Feminists Need to Distance Themselves from Fascism if They Do Not Want to Be Called Feminazis

There are two type of people in the world. The good moderate guys want small government and mind their own business. Their conviction is for themselves and they gently don’t impose that on others. They are called libertarians or moderates.

The bad extremist guys want bigger government to actively rule in their favor and get berserk when government doesn’t.

Nazi is an ancient political party that embrace bigger government control rather than letting free market take care of everything. To be frank, it’s hard to blame them because that’s what most people at that time embrace, till now.

Obama, for example, is a health-care-nazi. FDA is a food-nazi. DEA is drug-nazi. IRS is tax-nazi. You got the point.

All fascism lead to genocides. SRSLY. Large number of productively contributing people have died or fail to reproduce more successfully due to fascism. Quite often it’s so white washed under so many politically correct terms but it’s essentially the same. Fascists government always kill and oppress large number of it’s population, especially those most productive and contributing.

Those who oppose individual freedom simply want to enslave us. Those who oppose commercialization want things to be resolved through political means. Political means mean killing, lying, cheating, murdering, bullshitting, war and genocide eventually. Political means mean people choose for someone else. Obviously they will choose that others sacrifice themselves for them, through so many excuses, quite often, the victims’ own good.

We have fascism across all political spectrum. There are moderate libertarian muslims and there are extremist islamofascists. There are moderate libertarian socialists, there are extremist fascist socialists. The same way, there are moderate libertarian feminists, there are extreme feminazis.

Socialists are the most dangerous one. I’ve never heard of a truly libertarian socialists. I suppose they just privately agree to co own stuff and share earning. Only works in family, close friends, and close families though. Most socialists I know want money from the states for fascist projects like fascist un-privatized schools, fascist non private buildings and fascist public roads enslaving the rest to work for them.

We would love to work with the moderate among them. Quite unfortunately for those people, a few bad apple, well more like majority of them actually, embrace fascism. They want bigger government to actively rule in their favor while jailing dissidents that do not share their often deluded ideals.

While not all feminists are feminazis, there are unfortunately too many feminists  that demand bigger government control on humans’ consensual affairs.

Feminazis, namely feminists that demand bigger government, often demand welfare. Women voters tend to want more welfare program than male voters.

Most male voters have enough common sense that when one male is forced to support his competitors’ kids, then it’ll be the end of civilization as we know it.

Once those earning money productively have to support others’ kids, every male will just concentrate on maximizing the number of offspring he had knowing that everyone else will foot the bill anyway. Economy crisis is just the beginning of far bigger problem to countries that fail to fully embrace capitalism.

Unsurprisingly, the most productive males are the one that are prevented from getting the free lunch. You can only get welfare check if you are poor and your dad is poor. The most productive males are also the one prevented from getting mates under consensual terms. Being sugar daddies can land productive males in jail, last time I heard.

They also want government to actively encourage employers to discriminate against males by demanding pregnancy paid leave. Many of them demand various prohibition of consensual acts between consenting adults.

Many of those feminists are women that choose liberal art major and latter bitch about not enough women picking math and programming major and then blame patriarchy, etc. Who the hell have to change people from their own choice anyway? Government? Well, that’s fascism.

Most heinously they condemn many oppressed fellow women by criminalizing so many consensual alternatives those women could have chosen.

So it’s normal then that many people equate feminists with feminazis, something that’s not really true. I do hope the terms change. But it’s not up to me. It’s up to those feminists.

November 18, 2011

Does God love jews more than other people?

Do you love your wife or hordes of new girlfriends?

Your wife has a special covenant with you. However, girlfriends serve you well anyway with less string attached.

Also, nowadays, who care about complicated convenants. Everyone sort of just do it.

I think it looks pretty obvious to everyone else that Israel’s God must have been having other relationships.

I mean, where was God during Titus’s siege, islamic invasions, inquisitions, genocides, recessions, and Hezbollah rocket rains?

Well looks like God is busy wooing others.

Many (2 billions) said He even had a Son outside wedlock. He ended up rising another horde (1.5 billions) to fight of the rumor.

I understand that Israel still think that she is special and all. I’ve seen it all the time. Well, He got to start somewhere. I bet He’s been planning all these from the beginning though.

Every time God seems to be away Israel keeps blaming herself that may be she didn’t ‘t serve God right, or this or that. God may have encouraged that kind of thinking obviously.

However, maybe she should stop and think for a while. Maybe it’s not really her. It’s just Him.

God will be God after all.

Next time God is back really late, I can assure you He’s not coming back from hard work, war, or anything life threatening. He will  simply have a lot of explaining to do.

That’s all I am sayin. And ugh, just in case, bring a lawyer.

Incoming search terms:

  • does god love jews more than others?

September 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

Is the snake really evil?

To be frank, I don’t believe the bible fully either and see that huge part of it are most likely written by guys with the same mentality with early church fathers. People hungry for power and need justification for genocide. The idea that the serpent is guilty for enlightening humans simply mirrors how porn are bad for opening human eyes.

Obviously if we know the truth, the truth will set us free. It’ll open our eyes and we will become like politicians, know how right and wrong is truly shaped. Then we’ll have power. Hence, our rulers will do our best to keep us ignorant, and anything that can enlighten us will become an original sin. The story can be interpreted in so many different ways where the snake are actually the good guy. Anyone promoting freedom of speech, freedom of information, are like that snake, and obviously religious leaders hate them alot.

Just check this out http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110603220513AAtKSza

Incoming search terms:

  • the snake set us free
Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

Loading...