Free Market Forever

February 15, 2012

Rascism and Sexism is only Dangerous When Government Gets Involved

The most racist laws are minimum wage laws. It’s purpose is to make racism cheap for white bosses and keep black guys out of job. It discriminates against non racists white bosses.

The most sexist laws are anti prostitution laws. We don’t tell Beckham to learn sewing. We don’t tell Michael Jordan to learn sewing. So why do we insist girls making $5500 per hour sew?

Without racism and sexism, it’s so easy for government to be racists and sexists. Just look for jobs where women earn more money or jobs blacks usually do and ban them, often under pretexts of protecting the very victim of the banning.

However, if some 2.5 meter black guys earn millions in NBA. So what? If engineering schools are filled with Asians, there is nothing wrong with that as long as it’s private school. And all schools should be private anyway.

If jews are indeed more well connected and hence earn more money in businesses, we simply don’t hire them to cook sushi. And it’s very normal to look at your applicant’s race in hiring and figure, “c’mon.”

Obviously it’s our moral obligation to hire as many desperate people as possible that really need a job but it should be up to free market and not government. The bizs connection can be useful in the future as positive karma.

If some bosses are willing to pay extra for hot secretary that are willing to work naked, so what? All normal male bosses are like that actually. If it’s legal, you won’t need to worry about lack of jobs within 1-2 generations. Job creators tend to breed more job creators.

From business points of view, employee that’s not going to get pregnant is a plus. Going to get pregnant with my baby is a plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus plus. Going to get knocked up by some other guy’s cock and then expect me to keep paying for pregnancy leave is a min min min.

Am I sexist if I only want to mate with females? Yes and proud of it. I would consider gang bang though but only if the girl is really hot.

February 12, 2012

Freedom for Women in Afghanistan

I have another idea for oppressed girls from Afghanistan. All we need is a millionaire that want to sponsor that girl and gave her place and a normal job for a year. After 1 year, gave that women a choice. She can choose to

1. Go back to Afghan. We can apologize for wasting their time and replace their 1 year salary of $20.

2. Keep working on any normal job. If they pick this, there could be some “capacity problems” where socialist workers will start bitching about immigrant hot babes taking away all their jobs. Typical western anti immigrant rhetoric. Well, but I bet 99% of them would choose to:

3. Be a sugar baby/wife of some guy should any western males manage to woo them. I suggest becoming a sugar baby rather than becoming a wife because marriage is too infested with religions, state influence, and who knows what. But it’s up to them. We just need to make sure that she is not coerced, or look coerced in any way. We really do not need coercion when competing with poor unshaven cave dwelling wife beating nose cutting Taliban dudes. However, some feminazis may will argue that our offers are non consensual and an exploitation precisely because of that.

4. Taliban discriminates against exhibitionists. Some Afghan women may be a closeted exhibitionists. They could be our next porn star and their movie can be parachuted into Taliban territory with cheap portable movie player as weapon of moral destruction in psychological war. Of course, any Taliban troops that want to surrender and study C++ can join the production. There are better ways to get constant stream of virgins beside suicide bombing. Try making  money.

That’s it. It’ll hit Taliban right where it hurts. They treat women badly, now all their women are going somewhere else for greener pocket. Let’s see how Osama/Omar/whatever can still win elections among all red blooded gun totting male terrorists if this keeps happening.

More women coming to western civilization means less men have to be single. Also most richer males that are sugar dadies are job creators. Those afghan hot babes can help them breed more effectively creating more job creators and hence more jobs. This will at least outperform all those Obama’s stimulus because no tax payer money is spent.

All those terrorists can just go fuck themselves literally.

Eventually all oppressed people will simply go to countries where they are not oppressed like jobs moving to China.

Everybody will have strong incentive to be productive rather than grabbing political power. Economic competition will be far more important than military might. We will turn our swords into iPad and our spears into XBox or (put your favorite gadget here).

Which ever system produce the richest countries, doesn’t have to be secular or democratic, will be the system that are flocked by womyn. All hot babes will have a never ending supply of rich smart males to choose from when males, like workers and companies, compete globally.

Every kids will have rich smart non violent biological dad that can actually attract women without having to resort to force, trade restriction, or beating.

We will also be more able (though not having to) afford socialism knowing that even with their welfare checks all males will still have huge incentive to work hard and get rich.

I think it’ll be even better when we can simply commercialize and liberalize everything but this should be a start of that.

As libertarian, the only thing that may be unethical in this is if government try to tax it. But hei, even if you’re not a libertarian, none of this thing should be more evil than actually sending troops there killing muslims.

Incoming search terms:

  • truly hot babes

February 9, 2012

Why Religious Want You to Get Married?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — admin @ 11:09 am

Those who control marriage terms control who get the girls. Those who control who get the girls will control all males. Those who control all males will be very rich. Those people will have strong intensive to ensure you got married and hence stay in control.

Once too many people are having sex outside marriage, the power of leaders will dissipate and the world will be more free.

February 4, 2012

Honey I Got a Scientific Theory

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — admin @ 11:34 pm

Hot young big tities girls will produce better offspring and are tighter. Let’s experiment and split the nobel price for science and humanity!

February 1, 2012

Sex Outside Marriage is Legal

It must be, because our leaders want to do it and they don’t want to be criminals.

When it’s no longer legal, males will stop buying chocolate and flowers to women. Instead, they will be terrorists to please religious leaders that have more power in deciding who get the girls rather than the girls themselves.

Girls will be stoned to death, beaten up, or have her nose cut off for not obeying the whim of religious leaders.

And males will struggle for a never ending power to rule other men rather than inventing better ipad.

That’s how Afganistan has became.

And all these can be understood from simple homo economicus principles.

January 15, 2012

Learn! Don’t Blame

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 10:33 pm

If people are evil to you, then you’re not fair enough.

If people fool you, then you’re not smart enough.

If hot babes don’t want you, then you’re not rich enough.

So be fair. Be smart and be rich.

If you are fair, and people are still evil to you, well, they’re screwed.

If  you’re smart and people fool you, then they’re screwed.

If you’re rich and the girl still don’t like you, then send a message to her every year reminding her of how rich you are. Make her sorry. Find other girls of course, mean while. Who knows you ended up getting a few.

December 11, 2011

Wooing girls without paying is like

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 3:36 am

Trying to get big mac by wooing the cashier

January 3, 2011

Forsake All Others

Most Religious Bigots say that you have to forsake all others when you get married.

Obviously they do not want you to be best seller.

However, now they have someone with intensive to enforce their will. Your wife. Now, wify obviously has intensive to own all of you. Any resources or attention you give to others will be less for her.

Not a good bargain in my opinion. However, I have another similar suggestion.

Forsake all those who are not your target market.

So if all you want is hot smart pretty babes that may want to be your fuck toy consensually, forsake all others.

That is. Forsake the ugly, the fat, that dumb, the imbecile, the feminazis, and everything else.

You can’t please everyone. Face it.

Most capitalists say that their boss are their customers. Well, those who are your target market are at least your potential boss. Those who aren’t are not even going to be your target market.

Also how many girls you want in your life? There are 3 billions of those womyn in the world. You probably want like 5-6 right? Okay. Maybe 20. That’s less than .0001%.

You really do not need to care about too many of them. Perhaps make sure they don’t get rape to deprive the uncompetitive out of girls and set a good capitalistic precedence of consent. Perhaps encourage free trade. Also perhaps you care about other hot babes that live far away from you because who those hot babes end up with may affect the market value of hot babes near you. That’s it.

December 25, 2010

Why Loyalty and Love is Politically Correct

Even though it may not (in fact my understanding from evolutionary biology says it’s not) what most girls seek in mate.

Say Andrew and Bob like Cindy.

Andrew offer wealth.
Bob offer love and loyalty.

Notice that it’s expensive for the 2 to switch their offer.

Andrew is a rich stud that earns $1 million a month. Loving Cindy is arguably committing at least $500k a month. At least that’s what courts would say. Also Andrew is a stud with so many women around him. Offering loyalty means very high opportunity cost.

Bob is poor and ugly. Offering love is cheap for Bob. Bob can’t offer a lot of money obviously. Also loyalty is also cheaper for Bob.

Which one Cindy will choose. Well, who knows. I would say Andrew for sure if both offers are legal.

But here is the catch.

Government claim that prostitution is so bad and love and loyalty is so good that Andrew’s offer must be illegal.

If you are Bob, would you agree?

November 24, 2010

Status Quo Force Consent

« Reply #7 on: Today at 12:53:22 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove

Yea? Why tax it?

Why not free it all the way?

Ah… Because we are used to the status quo that marijuana is illegal. Then we thought, why not legalize and tax it. A moderate approach. Now this doesn’t look like government punishing marijuana smokers. This seems like government allowing marijuana.

Game theory says that the difference between threaten and promise is the status quo. Unfortunately, it’s also the difference between force and consent. The difference is, whose right and whose obligation people have to start with. Once we agree that government has right to run our life, then force does become consent and via versa.

The most obvious way to see this is to see how subsidy is effectively forcing people to accept the subsidy. Subsidy is equivalent with government taxing (fining) everyone that don’t grab the subsidy after giving some money to all equally. So public school is effectively forcing of people to go to public school.

Of course, if we believe that any kids have the right for some decent education, this is not something very strange. Kids right for education effectively means everyone’s else obligation to pay for those. The same way, individuals’ right for freedom, means effectively everybody’s obligation to defend those freedom.

Reasserting my money my right, would solve those dilemma that public schools are indeed force rather than consent.

The same way we are used to the status quo that man pay for women, irrelevant of whether the woman pick him as mate (as the case for welfare checks), irrelevant of whether it is his child (in the case of alimony).

(and hence non consensual and consensual) is just the status quo. If the status quo is men has to pay up anyway to girls. Then prostitution is indeed force because the man, which has no right for his own money, threaten to not pay girls that don’t fuck him. This is the argument that is used by anti prostitution bigot.

There’s some truth in it, I must admit. We simply need to differentiate what’s wrong, from what’s inherently vaque. Again reasserting that man has right for his money would solve the dilemma. The problem is you don’t have right for your own money right? You’re too weak.

Libertarian believes that the status quo is we are all in NAP(non aggression pact) and all of us has obligation to maintain that NAP.
Feminist believe that the status quo is all women are free to choose whoever man they want, and expect every other males to pay for the child regardless of it’s their children or not.
Anarchist (and satanists?) believe that we’re all in free for all status quo and if you want to be free, you either have to stand up for my self, or get people to stand up for you. No body is obligated to help you out of morality sake.

I used to be a libertarian, but I start thinking that the anarchist have some truth in it.

Your right is not always what legislators decide. Your right depends on how much power you have and can expand through politically correct means. For example, a gun hidden on your sleeves, means you have a right to walk on any shady town. No gun, well, proceed at your own risk. Money in off shore bank account, means right over that money.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

Loading...